User talk:Trekphiler/Archive 3

WPF1 Newsletter (November)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SM U-19 guns
Hi, I see you added the armament details. Were the guns indeed 86 mm ? I've never heard of this calibre in German service, but the photos appear to match an "8.8 cm" L/45 gun mentioned in http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_88mm-45_skc13.htm regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wingman? Gregario...

 * Sorry I dont understand what you say about P-39 wingman....

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Can you explain this please? --John (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misreading Hitler, but the delay in releasing forces suggests ambivalence about dropping Sealinon entire; changing it to suggest there was less (or no) ambivalence, which the previous, IMO, does, is a mistake.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I already got that from your edit summary. What I don't really see is how this is conveyed by the form of words you prefer. Maybe this needs to go to article talk. --John (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reading "however...not until" as suggesting delay which the plain on [date] doesn't. Disagree? TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagree. Rather than use this elaborate form of words which most people will not understand, why not just state that there was a delay? Should be easy to find a ref for that too. --John (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm less concerned about the fact of the delay (not in doubt) than the reason, & finding a source expressly saying it was because Hitler still hoped to carry off an invasion may take some doing. Neither am I so fanatic about it I have any intention of making an extensive search for said source. ;D If any of the standard sources make a passing ref to Hitler wanting to maintain, which IIRC a couple do, a reword & ref will do it; otherwise, a more explicit passage, like, "Forces were retained until [date], after the beginning of Barbarossa" (which gets the point across, IMO, without being too explicit about why, absent a source), does it. K?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like that would be fine. Better to state it than to imply it, in my opinion. --John (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sipowiczed
Hi Trekphiler. I guess I was thinking of the Cosworth DFV, which the Cosworth article indicates was built on "a custom Cosworth cylinder block and crankcase" (in contrast to the earlier FVA, which indeed was based on a Ford block). It's also my understanding that the subsequent "Ford" and "Cosworth" F1 engines were designed and built completely by Cosworth (although I'm less confident about that). P.S. I'm interested in your use of the term "Sipowiczed" - I'm familiar with the character (although I never watched the show), but I've never heard anyone use his name as a verb before. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sydney-Kormoran battle
Thank you for your comments and edits to Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran (or whatever the title may be when you look at the article next). I have responded to your comments played around with your changes... feel free to wander by and see if they still meet your intentions. -- saberwyn 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: In the crosshairs
A crashed enemy aircraft is first of all a good source of intelligence - which is why the Brits routinely posted a sentry to guard it until an intelligence officer had had a chance to go over it. Nonetheless, many items of equipment were "souvenired" anyway. While there might not have been a systematic effort to link crashes with victory claims it certainly happened - in Reach for the Sky there is mention of Bader reporting shooting at a German reconnaisance aircraft that he believed had got away - and being credited with the kill when its wreck was discovered. The German (and especially the Nazi) mindset WAS a little different - not only did propaganda come before intelligence but they seem to have been convinced by their own propaganda very often. (Adolf Galland is good on this subject.) tracking references can be a pain - will do so when I have a moment!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Message on Talkpage
You say my edit to the Future of F1 section was unconstructive, I corrected a title so that it worked, what was unconstructive about that edit. Please check your facts before responding like that. After you reverted my edit someone else came along and removed the typo again, you going to revert that one too? --81.151.235.127 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That history shows you introducing a needless letter, I removed it and then you reverted it back, if you didn't notice the next edit was someone removing the same letter again. I'm afraid to say its seems like it a mistake on your part. --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, sorry if I seemed a bit hostile my day/week hasn't been that great either. Anyways see you around Wikipedia ;) --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was quite ;P, and funny story I do have an account Mollsmolyneux, just it doesn't stay signed in like it used to so when I make edits I forget to sign in, very annoying. --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the corrections to my edits on the USS Monitor article. It was something of an eye-opener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollingsworth (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arvia'juaq and Qikiqtaarjuk National Historic Site
Can you take a look and see if I have made it a bit more understandable. Because Qikiqtaarjuk just means "little island" it was a bit difficult to research. There is a second Qikiqtaarjuk, featured in Atanarjuat and associated with Inuit legends, which was also a separate island but now forms part of Igloolik Island. The join between Igloolik Island and Qikiqtaarjuk was caused by post-glacial rebound (isostatic rebound), see here, and I suspect that the same has happened here but can't confirm that. If it's still not clear please let me know what needs to be done. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How the historic site became a peninsula is the one thing I can't source. I can source that it was an island and that the name means "little island" but nothing gives the reason. By the way Qikiqtaarjuk is not a place on the peninsula but the name for the entire peninsula. How about if it says; "Qikiqtaarjuk (ᕿᑭᖅᑖᕐᔪᒃ), Inuktituk for little island, like Arvia'juaq, contains many Paallirmiut artifacts and both are considered ritual, spiritual, and sacred sites and is associated with the Inuit hero figure, Kiviuq."


 * Thanks. Can you give the article a quick look and see how it is. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes you've helped greatly. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Re
Werdnabot was disabled; see User talk:Werdnabot. Try User:MiszaBot III instead. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read here. :) And it's Christmas for me; Merry Christmas to you as well! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed your archiving. Now stop complaining, Grinch. :P — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

sm u-6 to sm u-112: editing style
hi Trekphiler, greetings! I saw your actions on SM U-108, deleting the Room 40 sources. I agree, I think this corresponds to the original idea of a "dynamic" editing project. Once the content of the original sources of Room 40 have been transmitted into a more normal "narrative" history telling with footnotes, they become - formally - superfluous.

2 logical consequences I see from this (pls compare SM U-108 with SM U-92):
 * 1) I didnt delete the Room 40 citations on U-92 for some simple reasons:
 * 1a) Even after the Room 40 contents have already been transferred into a more sequential (one after the other) narrative history -
 * 1b) I have added some nice details from "Handelskrieg"
 * So, if I do not want to add 10 footnotes for each half-sentence taken from Room 40, and another 10 footnotes for each detail taken from "Handelskrieg", I left the transcribed text from Room 40 without too much notes, and made footnotes only to the additional info from "Handelskrieg". So, visibly, it should be clear to the reader that the Room 40 stuff in the cite box right is the basis of the article, and every additional info from elsewhere is footnoted. Not really "scientifically pure", but practical and defendable. Even in science you have some "freedom of style", its more like a twinkle: as long as you feed hungry readers with interesting stuff, as more you have the right to decorate the dinner like you want ;-)) If you prefer with your readers a more protestant cool, Lutherian style, its ok also. I think we can agree here: its about different edition styles, not another war of religions :-)))
 * 1c) I always wanted to show 2 things with the Room 40 sources: The details of German Sub-war in WWI as a template for them for WWII, and the "cleverness"/enlightenment of Room 40 as direct predecessor of Bletchley Park and Ultra in WWII (another template!). Therefore I shy away to simply delete stuff from Room 40, even if it should become superfluous for simple editing reasons like discussed above. But I have to confess: for a "poor" sub like U-108 I think its ok. But I think for U-9, U-20, U-21, and the U-3x and U-6x boats etc, the most famous, which really were active for 3 or 4 years, which really wrote (Naval) history, we should let survive some more "baroque" or "rokokko" colours form the sources here for the readers. Would you delete some nice original ULTRA-messages on an article about any famous WWII sub/ship/action/object ?  What do you think ? I would be interested in getting in some more discussion with people from Ship project about ideas like this.
 * 2) I see now, that my original Newbie idea to create some 80 or 350 stubs with Room 40 info, was a little bit too pre-mature and hasty for the "objectively existing Wiki reality" (means: for the sh... existing in this our world - old joke from the the East German Socialist Republik, "DDR", 1949-1989). I think, its better to concentrate on the edition of a douzend of selected subs first, in exchange with other contributors, and than add, little by little, boat after boat. I will add all details I posess (Room 40, Handelskrieg, etc.) to every German WWI sub, where other contributors start from now on, as much as my time will allow.

I wish you a merry Julfest! --Hans Joachim Koerver 23:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

An apology and Happy 2010
Hi Trek, apologies for my harsh words in BofB talk - I've written further there. In the meantime have a happy and successful New Year. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature
THis part of your signature, any time you're ready, Uhura, is way too small. COuld you change it? -- Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Squid
Hello, you reverted my removal of "potential" in the Squid article. I have undone your reversion.

As far as my sense of English goes, in the phrase "suitable for a potential fleet action" "potential" is superfluous. Something is either suitable for a fleet action or not. The likelihood of a fleet action has no bearing on the suitability; even if it never happened, it would still be suitable or not.

Would you mind discussing before reverting again? Pietrow ☏ 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mk14 Torpedo
Well, Trek. It certainly appears that you've come to a standstill regarding all this "derelection of duty" nonsense on the referenced page. I intend to edit the offending verbiage. Change it back if you must, but be advised that, in an edit war, you'll come in last. Best Regards, Dukeford (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you reversed my edits. Did you bother to read the guidance provided by ALR on the discussion page? Dukeford (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess what, it certainly appears as though you have broken WP:3RR, you should be thanking me I have not blocked you but just fully protected the article in question. Take this dispute to the talk page. -MBK004 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We probably should have discussed this in more detail before entering into an edit war, Trek. I have no problem with pointing the finger at BuOrd, but the dereliction of duty thing goes too far. Regards, Dukeford (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's see if we can't reach a reasonable middle ground on this. Dukeford (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We could find a way to address the BuOrd issues, and perhaps the Pacific senior sub command situation, too. But we cannot make it appear that we are passing judgement on either party. Yes, the problems existed, but in the naval climate of that time they were hardly surprising. There were numerous other incidents of poor ship handling, mismanagement of task forces, supply problems, etc. Those commanders (from admirals on down) who failed were not derelict in their duty, or even negligent. They just didn't measure up. Dukeford (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Watashimo
Just trying to answer to that new FA criterion for alt text Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1! Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  07:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Cash
I have to ask you. If you don't know anything about punk (and you're association of of The Kinks and Pink Floyd with punk shows that you really don't), why did you weigh in? Was it just to give a misleading and irrelevant link to a Buffy the Vampire character you like? --Leodmacleod (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No qualifications needed. That's not what I said.  I'm just asking, if you have nothing to say and don't know what you're talking about, why say anything?  I don't need or want an answer.  Just think about it. --Leodmacleod (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what. Sorry. Forget I said anything. --Leodmacleod (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)
-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Links to articles in scientific journals
are not to be removed even if they are behind a paywall (like in this edit). Such references are solid reliable sources which would be perfectly valid without a web link, and the link merely provides access to the article abstract (and sometimes content). Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Off course, we are trying to have accessible sources, but in science, quality of the sources is usually more important. Unfortunately, we can't susbtitute, say, papers published in the top (paywalled) journals by those from open-access ones. Google books are often an alternative. Materialscientist (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Allied submarines in the Pacific War
Hi, I've just reverted your changes to this article as they'd messed up the article's formating - the section headers and table weren't displaying properly. Also, could you please provide citations to support the claim that the Allies kept this campaign quiet for political reasons? Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

James Cook
thanks for wrongly accusing me of vandalism, got my saturday morning off to a good start then.. 124.171.139.121 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, I just realised you had accused that IP in 2008 :D funny that I'd get around to be assigned that IP now in 2010.. well, I'm laughing at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.139.121 (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Flag of Saskatchewan.svg|150px]] WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter February 2010 Hearth-shape-drawing-1 nevit 090.svg
Last edition · Next edition

Hello and welcome back to the WikiProject Saskatchewan newsletter! I, User:Presidentman, am the new editor. You may see some changes due to the fact it's my first newsletter. I'm just going easy on myself, but it will get more complex as time goes on.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I don't honestly know if Ill ever be able to get it to FA but I think I can clean it up and get it to GA or A at least. --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

John Dillinger
Regarding this edit summary, please do not drop unfounded accusations of vandalism. Had you bothered to look more closely, you would have noted that the edit I undid removed a valid source in order to replace it with a new one and it also added unsourced content to the article. I'm not entirely sure if your "vandalism" comment was a tilt toward an AN/I report I filed yesterday about another editor's use of that accusation, but if it was, it was uncalled for. If it wasn't, then returning valid sourcing that was removed without explanation is a completely valid revert, especially when the cite that was added to replace an already existing one did not support the content it was placed after. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see the DOI change, I was referring to the inclusion of the black shoe polish comment, which wasn't sourced. The full source that was added is to a book that is 413 pages long and it gives the page number in the source as 416, so I don't know where that came from, but I don't go around doing vandalism, I spend the majority of my Wikipedia time cleaning up after vandals. Sorry it appeared that way to you and I should have left an edit summary, and I'm sorry about the comment regarding AN/I, but I've gotten some heat since yesterday for reporting an editor who kept reverting the removal of content that most feel is improper by calling it vandalism, over and over and over again. Thanks for replying. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Long story short, a new editor added content to Mel Gibson that said he cursed an interviewer for asking questions about his "addiction to alcohol." The actual source said he called the guy an asshole in a barely heard mutter when the interviewer asked him about his public perception. To me that was a WP:BLP violation and totally misrepresented the situation. I reverted it and over the course of 9 days and 4 reverts, the editor called it vandalism each time he returned his addition. Just plain shivery and I reported it. People have been giving me flack for it ever since. Thanks for being understanding and happy editing! I'm changing FBI to DOI in the Dillinger article even as we speak. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. Well, fwiw, people can be real dicks even when they aren't new. Sometimes, those are worse. Hang in there!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II
How can Offensive (military) overstate the case? This operation was not just one raid but took part between 13 February and 15 February 1945. It is a correct term and adds to the grammatical structure of the sentence. Could we discus this and see either to re-implement the word or compose an alternative? --BSTemple (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my Talk Page to keep the discussion in one place. Thank you.--BSTemple (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging
A couple things:

First, WikiProjectBanners is only to be used if there's six or more tags. Use WikiProjectBannerShell if there's three to five, and use nothing if there's only two.

Secondly, even if you're the article creator you can still tag it as a stub if the article is marked as a stub. I've been trying to cut down the backlog of unassessed articles but it's not helping when there's new unassessed articles coming in that could've easily been taken care of.

Thanks. --Sable232 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Frontenac (automobile)
I undid your recent changes on Frontenac (automobile). Please see my comments on the talk page and let me know there if you have any additional thoughts on this. Thanks, HornColumbia (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: The Rockford Files
You want to explain that? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean the "Maverick" ref? Simple. Rockford was essentially Maverick, updated, not (AFAIK) with any relationship to "Marlowe" at all.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  11:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about editing the Maverick series, but the edit that you did, by reverting mine, in The Rockford Files.  Marlowe came before Rockford, how can something that comes before be a "Spinoff"?  "Spinoffs" come after a show, not before.  (you can reply here to keep it in one place).  Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither was I. The edit says "Marlowe" "is an acknowledged inspiration for the "Rockford" series". Everything I've heard, & what the page in fact says, is "Maverick" inspired it, not "Marlowe".  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I read a tidbit years ago, probably in the Sunday newspaper magazine Parade, that Huggins (or Cannell?), after seeing Garner in Marlowe (and maybe Paul Newman in Harper), took that idea and combined it with what they had had in Maverick. The film was just part of the kernel.  I don't know who added it to the article, but we need a reference. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: What do you think about Matt Dillon for Jim Rockford?

How about this one:
 * Phillips, Gene D. (2003). - Creatures of Darkness: Raymond Chandler, Detective Fiction, and Film Noir. - Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. - p.135. - ISBN 978-0813190426.

Also, I think that there may have been something about it in: TV Detectives by Richard Meyers (1981), but I'll have to find the book again. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of a connection, so I'll happily accept a sourced mention. I wouldn't overstate it, tho; the parallel to "Maverick" is as strong, & that comes right from the creators, not from somebody else's interpretation. And honestly, I have a real problem imagining anybody but Garner in the role, beyond asking why bother remaking...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I love Garner, but since they are bound and determined to remake it (NBC is grasping for anything to make money), we have to think about it. David Chase should do it justice (I hope).  I thought of Jason Lee when I heard they were looking for a new Jim Rockford.  But Dillon is about the exact same age as Garner was in 1973 (45), where as Lee is just 39.  I am sure they wanted that extra age to give the appearance of more experience.  We shall see.


 * Have you seen Republic of Doyle? I have not (live in the U.S. Southwest), but read where The Rockford Files was the main influence for the series.


 * > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My thought, on some reflection, was Pierce Brosnan. A bit older, but has the suave & the sense of humor for it. I'd be curious to see Dean Cain try it, actually; he did a really good mildly humorous Supes.


 * Haven't seen "Doyle", tho the ads look interesting; I never seem to catch when it's on... You've given me one more reason to look. ;D  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Drag racing
I see from the motorsport terminology article that you understand drag racing classes much better than I do. Would you please review the Eddie Hill article to make sure that the classes names make sense? I am pretty sure that they make sense since I had a drag racing friend review the article and he had his friend Eddie Hill review the article too. I even spoke with Eddie on the phone - there were only a few minor interpretation issues. I recognized the voice from watching him being interviewed on TV - it was the real dude! Thank you!  Royal broil  04:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks on Blue Thunder
Thanks a lot for help with this, Trekphiler. I copied the new parts from your sandobox to mine. I combined the repeated content and cleaned it up some. Today I moved it to Blue Thunder (helicopter). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mk 8 Landing Craft Tank

 * I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings.  My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively.  I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about.   I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval.  Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it.  My public e-mail address is Med.croft@virgin.net.Medcroft (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects and Talk:Midget car racing
Since the article is located in WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing, it's automatically part of WikiProject Motorsport since WP:AOWR is a child of WP:MOTOR. And since WP:MOTOR is a child of WP:Automobiles, the article is a member of that group. So you wouldn't add it to either WikiProject.  Royal broil  02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton (SSRN-586)
Trekphiler, given your recent interest and contributions, I leave this article in your capable hands. BTW - I was one who did the JANAC article. Marcd30319 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar
Cool hidden page! Thanks! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ford Model T
Welcome! What is, the one of edition? Triva ? - he is Ref.--Mateusz War. (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

130H
I think all the information should be in the main article, and I have copied the content in the main article before redirecting, contrary to what you write. We have a nice full size article and all you have now is a set of six-lines stubs. Besides, these articles are merely copies of a book and borderline copyvio. I thought it made more sense to group all this family of cars in a single article - like they have on the German wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest a merge of the three articles. Hektor (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (February)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Flag of Saskatchewan.svg|150px]] WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter March 2010 [[Image:Irish clover.jpg|150px]]
Last issue · Next issue

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 09:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re. Formula One
Hi, regarding this reversion you performed on Formula One, the FIA entries list at confirms that there are 12 teams and 24 drivers competing this season, since USF1 withdrew. Cheers, X X X antiuser eh? 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Karl Dönitz
Hi, regarding the edit to the Karl Dönitz, I thought mentioning the fact that Himmler was expelled from the Nazi Party was relevant. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you who Dönitz was, so I think mentioning that the heir apparent (Himmler) was expelled from the Party would sort of explain why this relatively unknown man was picked as a successor, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

too bold
Please don't be too bold. A lot of work went into this Chevrolet Vega article. It's neutality has already been addressed with a full Criticisms section. I don't think a Chevy promo piece would have that. I won't delete anything you add. Don't delete my work. The ads add to the article and show Chevrolet's advertising (an important aspect of the car's poularity) The lead of the section explains the ads were used to promote awards won by the car(Vegavairbob (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC))
 * The DeLorean quotes are there to show a contrast of when he worked for GM promoting the car to Motor Trend versus nine years later in his book discussing GM's mis-management. Without the quotes this "striking difference" as mentioned in the article isn't apparent. I removed some of them in the beginning.(Vegavairbob (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC))
 * It looks like you 2 were able to hash out things while I was out on a road trip today. I looked over the quotes and don't have a problem with either way.  Royal broil  03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

215 and Vega weight
That was their biggest mistake, selling the 215. That 215 aluminum engine weighes only 40 pounds more than the Vega engine....would've been perfect for the Vega, had steel sleeves, and wouldn't have affected the handling (as was the case of the cast iron V8s in the Monza) The idea though was to market the Vega as an economy car so I don't think they would have used it anyway regardless. But GM sold it years before in '65 after phasing it out of the Buick/Olds compact line in 1963. The 215 makes for the best Vega swap I think, (bolts in with existing drivetrain & driveshaft) but it wasn't popular. Recently I saw one for sale on ebay!! A company in Georgia, D&D Fabrications still sells a swap kit and has hundreds of 215 engines (in a wrecking yard)...MT did a test in '75 on their swap titled the $800. V8 Vega.(Vegavairbob (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC))
 * The target weight announced in 1968 was 2000 pounds, the weight of most ecomomy cars at the time. The press thought GM was going to offer a smaller car like the (later) Chevette. The Vega was larger and heavier than most small cars of the time. It was heavier than orginally planned but the prototypes had weak suspension attachment points and the wagon body was less rigid so the ribs were designed into the roof. Buckling under its own weight means the car was buckling or distorting from its own weight....not strong enough to support its own weight. The body and chassis was reinforced for production....Delorean as an engineer thought a better engineered car wouldn't need this "re-engineering" (which adds even more weight) and believed it should've been initially designed strong enough for production to begin with...Actually, as mentioned in the article prototypes were usually designed weak and beefed up later, not the other way around,,,but because of his book its now publically known,,,he used the Vega as an example but most new designs were designed the same way according to GM engineers. Understand though that the Vega wasn't his design; it was Coles design and it was pushed on DeLorean's Chevy staff which made it hard for him to motivate his engineers to "finish" the car for production. GM executives couldn't finish the job of course, they could only present an untested prototype. Chevy had to finish their work. Delorean even said in the book engineers only praise their own designs so his comments are certainly someonewat biased anyway. DeLorean was responsible for turning the Vega into the Monza which weighed another 300 pounds and 700 pounds more with the V8 option, and he praises that car in his book...see where its going?(Vegavairbob (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Kay Pettigrew
Have you seen (or heard of) Kay Pettigrew..she's from Toronto. She plays lots of live gigs in Canada. Great singer/songwriter,guitar player. Go to you tube. she's got a few videos on there, there is also aa free MP3 you can download. She made one 8 song CD last year. another coming soon. The MP3 is great. She is going to be BIG. She has some voice...very talented. (Vegavairbob (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Oops
I didn't know you would put the barnstar on my talkpage. I just copied the code and put it on my awards page. I think I deserve a whack. Sorry. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oleg Penkovsky
I took the vandalism out of the Oleg Penkovsky page by removing a “Hi” that someone had put it. I think you need to check this out before giving me a telling off.

Opps... sorry getting too old for this.Deben Dave (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Deben Dave (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DUKW
Please do not remove the union jack from the DUKW article. Whether you like it or not, the British were involved in the design of the DUKW. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, We did take a part in designing it, regardless if you and your chums 'agree' on it - those are the facts. Is this one of those 'all american' patriot things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question
For this. I actually thought I'd removed that case of overlinking, even when I previewed the page before saving. :\ Thanks for that.

Also, I noticed from your contributions that you do quite a bit of vandal-reverting. Would you be interested in having rollback rights being granted to your account? It would make vandal-reverting a little easier for you. Acalamari 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I can't disagree with you there: it's best to listen to Dirty Harry. :D Keep up the good work! Acalamari 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Adams-Farwell
I deleted the redlink Bailey from the page Adams-Farwell not because it was a redlink, but because I couldn't find any relation between Adams-Farwell and Bailey. Did I miss something? Are these companies related?HornColumbia (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Had to get it off my chest
I know it's silly to respond to a remark nearly 2 years old, however I must say in regards to your "small and late" comment, that I would add "...and decisive" to the end of it. Cheers! Jersey John (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Brown Dwarfs
Definitely. wp:overlink174.3.98.20 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the links are already in the article. Also, I linked some words so that I shortened ==see also==.174.3.98.20 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dresden bombing
Hey, I saw that you undid my changes in the article. I changed that because the way it is said in the article implies that "today's historians" are right while the commission is not. But actually the commission is made out of 13 historians as well, and one of (Götz Bergander) them even reverted his estimation on which the numbers of the so-called "today's historians" rely. Sorry for the mistake with the word "historician", I am not a native speaker, but you should rather correct a mistake like that than undo it. --118.143.20.190 (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Rockford Files
In your opinion it was not very notable but in my opinion it is. It's still a reference to the Rockford Files in popular culture please do not remove again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.25.85 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  12:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious edit?
Were you aware of this edit to one of your user pages? Found it while checking the IP for link-spamming. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"The" Hindenburg
Hi Trekphiler -- per WikiProject Ships/Guidelines, "the" is unnecessary in ship names, but is not incorrect either. This article has consistently used "the" for many years now. Although this issue is outside the scope of the policy on regional variations in English usage, the same basic principle applies: leave it as you found it unless it's actually wrong. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rlandmann, the way it was before was without "the," so I've re-added it. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of the uses of the name Hindenburg in the article already included (and have for a long time) the article "the" before the name (i.e., "the Hindenburg). What I did was conform the few instances where the article was missing by adding "the" in front of the name so that the usage is consistent throughout. Centpacrr (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed; and trawling back through the article history, you'll see that the dominant (almost exclusive) form for many years has been "the" in this article. For what it's worth, I have absolutely zero preference one way or the other, but the article should be internally consistent, and the version that we've inherited uses "the". --Rlandmann (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill France
Just thought you should now that I wiki'd 100 purportedly white male sports figures and icons including Dale Earnhardt Sr., Jeff Gordon, Jeff Burton, Jimmie Johnson, and Dick Trickle. Not one of their pages feels the need to mention that they are white. Stop being a bozo.Tslims99 (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, – xeno talk  15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Flag of Saskatchewan.svg|150px]] WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter June 2010 [[Image:Sun icon.png|100px]]
Last edition · Next edition

Hello, and welcome back to the WikiProject Saskatchewan newsletter. Sorry about the last two months, I have just been very busy with exams and the end of my studies. Now that summer is here, hopefully I'll do better.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry
oh that was an accident, but why did you revert everything I said, and btw shouldn't you Assume_good_faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you shot up a Ford lately?
You would truly want to stick with "in the chin"? I would have thought being more specific as to the location of the guns was a little more encyclopaedic; "in the chin" makes me visualise the Mustang scratching under there occasionally to decide whether it needs a shave (besides which the Mustang has no real chin cf. [say] the Typhoon). Not to mention the fact that the weapons needed interruptor gear, which is otherwise nowhere to be seen in the article. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Flag of Saskatchewan.svg|150px]] WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter July 2010 [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|border|link=|200px]]
Last edition · Next edition

Hello, and welcome to the WikiProject Saskatchewan newsletter. Happy Canada Day to all!

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 11:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (July)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  21:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Flag of Saskatchewan.svg|150px]] WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter August 2010 [[Image:LiliumPhiladelphicumVarAndinumDarmCrook7.jpg|150px]]
Last edition · Next edition

Hello, and welcome to the WikiProject Saskatchewan newsletter. Happy Saskatchewan Day to all!

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad warning
I fail to see how this in any way meets the definition of WP:Vandalism. With this seemingly bogus warning you seem to be WP:Biteing newcomers. I think an apology is in order to that IP. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is putting in junk, which fits my definition of vandalism. Was it severe? No. Should it be condoned? No. Should warning over it earn an apology? Not a chance.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) The preceeding post was originally placed on user talk:Toddst1. It was moved here to keep the conversation together
 * It appears that there the problems are much broader than what I pointed out and Irie mentioned below. this clearly does not fit the definition of WP:Vandalism and your response here was bitey, incorrect and disruptive. Further, this edit summary and this one both are uncivil. On a broader scale, you seem to be on a revert spree. It's ok to revert obvious errors, but not because you don't like it without discussing it - especially in cases like this where you say the edit is debatable and you ignore your responsibility to debate or discuss it. If this disruptive, bitey or uncivil behavior continues, you may be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "It appears that there the problems are much broader"? This I should instead have left stand? My impression has been it is incumbent on the adder to defend it. You appear to want me to defend deletion. Since when is the burden on me? Moreover, I wasn't aware a single questionable reversion qualified as a "spree". And this was obvious. Or do you mean to say it wasn't? Or only I should avoid saying it was obvious? As for the IP address cats, I had no idea it was intended only for multiple problems & no way of knowing. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me? Or is that request "uncivil", too? Since you appear to demand I adhere to an unreasonable standard of which I am unaware, & clearly, from your attitude, unable to meet, it appears your threat of blocking is the only solution. So be it. Stick it in your ear.   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:20 & 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop adding talkpages to Category:IP addresses used for vandalism. This is for addresses used repeatedly for vandalism; adding it to the talkpages of IPs who've made one edit with which you disagreed (as you've done here, here, here…) is not what it's for, and is disruptive in itself. – iride scent  20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 84 hours for continued issues with incivility. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Polyglycoplex
I have nominated Polyglycoplex, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Polyglycoplex. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariette Delangle
Hi Trekphiler. GEL Motorsport indicates that Mariette Delangle drove a Bugatti in the 1931 Grand Prix de la Marne, Grand Prix de Dieppe, Circuit du Dauphiné, Grand Prix du Comminges, Gran Premio di Monza and Grand Prix de la Baule. It doesn't list her for the 1931 Italian Grand Prix. I generally find this site to be complete and accurate. You may also care to inquire at WT:MOTOR. Hope this helps. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

List of motorsports people by nickname ‎
Just to write to you as you chose to add customizers to that list when it is for those who had a significantly notable career in motorsport, what I want to point out is since when Von Dutch, Big Daddy Roth and Posie ever became involved in motorsport or have a notable career in building, designing or driving a racecar, therefore this is why I removed customizers from that list unless they have notable involment in motorsport as this is what this list is for.

Ant as in Anthony Davidson, I would rather exclude that as there is plenty of people named Anthony nicknamed Ant for example Ant & Dec, also as suggested on its mother list which you were involved in the discussion to agree removing them. As mentioned, if I allowed Ant, then we will be cluttered with lists of people nicked Bill, Al, Bob or whatever. Donnie Park (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you have read my reply as I had thought a separate list will do better but I hope this will solve your problem now your previously removed entries now have a home to go to, feel free to add any more if you got any, make sure these are the ones with its own articles, also with a reliable third party sources in it, I just want to keep things tight. Donnie Park (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Trekphiler/Trekphiler
I have nominated User:Trekphiler/Trekphiler for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trekphiler/Trekphiler. If you concur that the page should be deleted, feel free to tag it for deletion with db-userreq. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[[Image:Flag of Saskatchewan.svg|150px]] WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter September 2010 Labor-Pearce-Highsmith-detail-1.jpeg
Last edition · Next edition

Hello, and welcome to the WikiProject Saskatchewan newsletter. Happy Labour Day to all!

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 06:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (August)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

United States Congress
Just pointing out that the entire criticism section of this article was erased. I don't participate much in Wikipedia anymore but I wanted to call your attention to it. There wasn't much of a rationale given for erasure except to point to discussion on the President of the United States talk page (where they're battling about deleting the criticism section for the US president.) I think any article on the US Congress that doesn't have criticism in it (since large swaths of the US public don't like or respect the Congress and don't even know the names of their congresspersons) is highly POV. Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)
-- Midgrid  (talk)  14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Black Pit
I am not sure that "The Black Pit" is properly categorized as a "Royal Air Force command", as you have it on your development page with Category:Royal Air Force commands. --Bejnar (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)