User talk:Trekphiler/Archive 6

Sadowski has been warned
It took me a while because I have got more important things to do (like writing an important Uni essay) than chase you and Sadowski around over your childish behaviour; again I could not care less who started what and who said what - take a break from one another before you get completely twisted up over what is, essentially, a relatively unimportant issue. I don't want to see you get blocked or (worse) booted, but it will happen if you can't calm down. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆ MTalk''  09:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Help on Canadian comics?
I've put Canadian comics up for peer review and have been working on cleaning it up based on the feedback I've been getting. Since you've made some edits to the article, would you be interested in helping out?  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 02:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Merge discussion for Miss America protest
An article that you have been involved in editing, Miss America protest, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: The train don't stop here anymore
I posted a response to your question regarding "Transylvania Terror Train" in the List of train songs. Thanks. It got me thinking...and it isn't even noon yet (EST). Allreet (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My final answer...Cheers Allreet (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Duesenberg
Hi, I know your edit to Duesenberg was good faith, but I saw the edit and looked it up online, and the info is true, that's why I put the cn tag on it. I did give a coi warning to the editor, who claims to be the CEO of the new company. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to take it out again, go ahead, and I won't reverse you. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ben Templesmith, again
I apologize for asking, but can you offer your opinion on the latest round of the Ben Templesmith Photo Saga? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tweak of the week
LOL, good catch! --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

delta-v
It's fairly problematic to consider delta-v as a velocity change. It's only very, very loosely speaking a velocity change.GliderMaven (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) For example if an ion drive is spiraling outwards from Earth or something, then the ion drive is expending delta-v, but the vehicle (it turns out) is actually slowing down because it's moving up the gravity well, and the orbital period is longer and the orbital speed is lower, the further out you go.GliderMaven (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) And even in the Apollo program, when they fired their retrorockets, the vehicle actually sped up.GliderMaven (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) And it's actually worse than that because the amount of velocity change you get depends on when you spend the delta-v; if you apply it close in to an astronomical body, then you end up with a very big velocity change for that delta-v, but a lot less if you expend it high up (Oberth effect).GliderMaven (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) So it's doubtless not a good idea to describe it that way, and it's not referenced anyway.GliderMaven (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You just left a thing on my talk page implying that you think that leads don't have to be referenced. If you think about it, that makes no sense, and WP:LEAD specifically says that they should be reliably sourced.GliderMaven (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese submarines
Thanks for the additions here I found a really interesting book on the subject (Carl Boyd, Akihito Yoshida, The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II) which, amongst other things, has all of them listed. So I was going to work my way through it; I thought a sortable table would be useful. Trouble is, there are a lot of conflicting accounts; even comparing it with the date of loss in Conway throws up some anomalies. Still,it's a start. BTW You mentioned this, a while ago: “I came across a pair of Mk 14 circulars sinking boats in Blair; could I find it again?”. I don’t know if you did find them in the end, or if you still need them, but I came across this, on the U-869 page: “''At least two other U-boats are known to have been lost to their own torpedoes: GERMAN SUBMARINE U-377 in 1944 and GERMAN SUBMARINE U-972 in late 1943. ….this attack also dreaded (sic) the US submarine force twice, as seen with USS Tang (SS-306) and USS Tullibee (SS-284).” Another notorious example is HMS Trinidad'', while with Convoy PQ 13 in the Arctic, hit by one of her own torpedoes (though that was due to the cold conditions) And I'm still working my way through Holwitz! Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks again! Just to check; you put RO-116 as sunk by aircraft and RO-117 sunk by USS England, the source being Fitzsimons: can you check that? Boyd & Yoshida have it the other way round, as does the table on the class page. Otherwise, it's coming along nicely. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ford Model A - Fiscal HP of UK Variant
Hi. I am at a loss to understand why you reversed my change to the note about the fiscal HP of the Model A - one of my sources "The Automobile A-Z of Cars of the 20's" edited by the well respected Nick Baldwin clearly states, and I quote: "The 14.9hp AF (smaller bore, same stroke) was a special variant for Britain to save on horsepower tax and outsold the 3.3 version). Incidentally, the cubic capacity of the smaller engine is quoted as 2043cc not the 2033cc mentioned in the article. Other sources confirming the 14.9 fiscal horsepower rating of the smaller engined AF model are: "The Vintage Motor Car Pocketbook" by Cecil Clutton, Paul Bird and Anthony Harding, "The Complete Encyclopaedia of the Automobile" by G.N.Georgeano and "The Complete Catalogue of British Cars 1895-1975" by David Culshaw and David Horrobin. If you are looking for more contemporary confirmation then I suggest pages 285 to 288 of "The Motoring Encyclopaedia" published circa 1935. Regards Martin Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.221.103 (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (February)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

British Tank Figures.
Hello,Trekkers. I don't understand your comment on and removal of British tank production. There are figures for France, Germany, U.S.A. (none), Italy, and Russia. It seems to me that anyone entering this topic would wonder about how many vehicles were produced, and by whom, during its early history. I have not reverted your edit, because I am learning that that is how one is lured into an edit war, so I am putting the matter up for discussion. I do try not to editorialise. I don't delete things unless they are wrong (in which case I offer references) or unless I replace them with something better. It is my suggestion that the sentence should be reinstated. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm not looking for an edit war, either. I didn't see the other numbers. If you've got them, or they're on the page, I'd suggest putting them all together. Subhead as "production"?"
 * Some people do, though. Personality disorder. A table sounds like a lot of work. Maybe for dedicated WWI articles, but in a wider context such as this, can't we just return to the status quo ante? Of course, if you feel like doing a table . . . Hengistmate (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of anything more ambitious, I'm going to reinstate the British figure. Since the figures for the other combatants are there, it looks odd without GB. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Japanese submarines, again
Hi there I’ve just made some changes to the Japanese RO- sub list; I’ve put the Boyd,Yoshida refs in: I've also trimmed the Fitzsimons refs down to a group ref, as they are all the same page; it seems neater. If you are OK with that we could do the I- boats the same way. I’ve also changed the date of the Batfish kills from 1942 to 1945; that’s what B&Y say, and it seems more likely. I’m assuming it’s a slip of the keyboard, but if Fitzsimons does give the earlier date we’ll need to put it in as a discrepancy. And I’ve scrubbed the K5, K6 links; the Kaichu article doesn’t agree with Conway or BY about the Type number, so that needs resolving there (I’ve left a note there about it). Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I got your note, but I’m not sure what you mean.
 * What I had in mind for the Fitzsimons refs was to group them by page ie the cites to the I-15 bit in Vol 13(p1402) would go together, the I-16’s (p1404) then the I-21’s (p1407), etc. Where it leads to a note rather than a cite for the information, we make it a footnote, with the cite included. The Blair refs are generally on separate pages, so they’d all be separate; the Conway refs (which I need to put in yet) would group as they’re all together on a few class list pages.
 * And I see I confused you with the reference sections; that’s me trying to do two different articles in the same sandbox at the same time, which ( with hindsight) wasn’t the best of ideas. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I think I've twigged; does Fitzsimons treat them as classes, and have separate articles for each (the B type = I-15 class, C type = I-16, etc)? In that case, yes, the group cite would be to an article, rather than a page. I'm not familiar with Fitzsimons at all, so I don't know the layout. Boyd&Yoshida have all the losses in an Appendix, so grouping them by page (there's about 16 per page, on average) is what I'd intended there. Does that make sense? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS:I’ve also split the I-boat table up temporarily; it was getting too confusing to work on as it was. It can go back together when it's done. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (forgot to log in! )
 * So where the ref says “I-16 vol 13 p1404” (cited for I-16, 18, 20, 22 and 24) is that one article covering those four five boats? Or separate articles for each boat? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So we could use the I-16 ref for the five boats in that class, couldn't we? (Conway calls it the C1 type, but it amounts to the same thing) And the I-15 ref for the 20-odd boats in the B1 group, and so on? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I think we are agreed; I’ll do the I-300’s to show what I mean; let me know what you think. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I’m going to be away for a week (in case you post to me and I don’t answer!) but I’ll try and pick this up again next Sunday. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS: I changed the refs for I-366 to 373 to a group (Fitzsimons I361); the refs on I-361 to 365 were to Fitzsimons I351, but I changed those as well (here). I'm trusting that's correct; Conway lists them all as D1 type, which (I'm guessing) is the same as Fitzsimons I-361 class. Anyway, time to wrap it up...Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SBSP
Hi, sorry for the capitals and the weak orthograph and spelling, i should use a corrector, i am getting so passionate sometimes that i overemphasize information over presentation.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Japanese submarines, yet again
Hello (back again!) Just to catch up (and to reply to your last post); I don't think we are in disagreement on the 300's, are we? Fitzsimons I-351 class is Conways SH type, AFAIK (they were tankers, and there was just the two of them (351 and 352)). So we should have his I-351 article as ref for them. His I-361 class (Conways D1 type, transports) covers boats 361 to 372, so that article should be the ref for all of them. There isn't an article cited for 373 and 374; Conway has them as D2 type, so maybe Fitzsimons has them as a separate article. I've also put the KRS's in the I-100 section; I think it's less confusing that way. Anyway, keep smiling, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh bien: I've done the I-100's; see what you think...Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done the I-15 and -16 Fitzsimon refs in the 1 to 58 list; the others are OK as they are, I think. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 11:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

Biographies of living persons
Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fireball
re: diff. Oops .. missed that in the lead. browser width was such that last word wrapped to 2nd sentence. Anyway - interested in working on the article? 2eschew surplusage (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Er. I think you just replied to 2eschew surplusage on my Talk by mistake :) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. Too many tabs open at once... :( 03:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Trekphiler. I'm digging up some refs and posting to my sandbox talk page. May be a few days before I start making changes, but I think this will be my first "concentrated effort" as far as an article improvement goes. I'll try to get it up to GA (or close), and if anyone wants to put it up for that then I'll do what I can to fix or improve. When I think it's good to go, I'll also mention it at the NASCAR project. ttyl. 2eschew surplusage (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Motorcycle land-speed record
The Vesco homepage says about the event: “At Speed Week 1969 Don Vesco posted the fastest one-way motorcycle time at 227 mph in his twin 350 cc R3 Yamaha streamliner. The 18 ft. liner was fashioned out of a wing tank. Handling problems plagued Don and crew but they were encouraged with the speed and power the Yamahas produced. Team Vesco returned to the salt the following year with a redisgned, repainted streamliner. Don set a one-way speed of 240.244 mph on gasoline, only to have the rear tire blow out on the return run. Two weeks later, Don became the fastest man on two wheels by establishing the record at 251.924 mph” You may be sure that this two-stroke engine has not been turbocharged. 84.167.186.226 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
I came across an article the other day, (Resident spy), that is in need of serious repair (or deletion). I found that you added a notice to it citing it was of interest to other wiki-projects. If you don't mind, I was wondering if you would take a look at it again and see if what, if anything, should/could be done with it. It's poorly written and has no sources at all. It was flagged five years ago, yet it still remains as is. Thanks. I will look for your respons here -  thewolfchild  07:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say sourcing is the main problem. It shouldn't be too hard to find; Barron's book on the KGB would be a good start, or even a basic book on espionage & the history of KGB or GRU. The formatting & writing do need some work. I'd hesitate to delete; merge to Espionage, or to KGB & GRU, instead, at worst; it's mostly accurate & uncontroversial AFAICT. TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your photo of a 1953 Oldsmobile
In the Oldsmobile 88 article there is a photo of a red Oldsmobile 88 convertible. On the New contributors' help page someone reported it was in fact a 1956 Oldsmobile, not a 1953. I would tend to agree as there is a photo of a 1953 Oldsmobile in the Oldsmobile article.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 02:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Edits June 8th, 2012. Tank: Conception.
Good day, Trekphiler. We should, perhaps, talk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tank#Edits_June_8th.2C_2012._Conception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

NCIS characters
So, tell me why they should be capitalized in the table but not in the descriptions below. They are not proper nouns. Proper nouns are names. These are occupations (as it says), and they're not capitalized unless they're titles (before the name). --Musdan77 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Musdan77 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a Beer!
RE: What brought me to this page? I had been editing on Wiki for about three years now and realized that I did not have anything on my profile page. I then decided to randomly look at other editors pages and see what they had done. To my surprise, the differences between them are as varied as the people themselves, and I spent a few hours just reading user pages. Your page that I simply stumbled onto by accident really stood out and it was very interesting to read. I only recently discovered the "wiki love" thing too - I was wondering where all the awards, barnstars and stuff was coming from. I thought they were only from the "powers that be" ;-) I have only been an infrequent contributer in the past, but it is interesting to see what the real wiki junkies are doing. I signed up for a few projects and plan on getting more involved in the future. I will have to message you if I need any advise on them.--Traveler7 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

USS Tang (SS-306)
I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but there's no such thing as "attributed plagiarism". If it's attributed, it isn't plagiarised. You might want to read over WP:Plagiarism; specifically, the first sentence ("plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit") and the section on public-domain sources ("material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia" and "the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim"). This is standard practice. There are over 9,000 articles lifted straight from DANFS. Do you propose to tag all of those as well? DoctorKubla (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you want to change the plagiarism guidelines. Good luck with that. As it stands, though, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of plagiarism, and tagging it as such is unnecessary and misleading. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent undos
Hello. Firstly, I would like to constructively criticize you for not notifying me of your undos. As part of my beliefs on courtesy, if I undo another's edit, I will always leave a notification. Your first revert I do not disagree with, since I can see that an editor may have reason to disagree with that statement. Perhaps we should discuss this? Secondly, you stated “ this kind of literal-mindedness is absurd ”. That sounds like an opinion to me. See I just don't like it. My statements were completely accurate, and I saw nothing but benefit to include them in the article. I would appreciate your response. Please leave a talkback notification on my talk page after you reply. Thanks in advance. 69.155.143.207 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:0RR at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
As you were a recent participant in an edit war at the above-named article I am taking the opportunity to warn you formally that the article is now under a no-reverts rule. This means that from now on anyone making a revert will be blocked instantly without further warning, except in cases of really obvious vandalism. Instead of reverting, you should consider trying for compromise either by drafting a good-faith compromise in the article, or discussing towards one in talk. Edit-warring deters other editors and poisons the atmosphere that we need to edit constructively. Please do not do it.--John (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)

 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Otis
hello, could you clarify on the nomination page why you removed the inflation templates? Regards.-- GoP T C N 09:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Daimler motor
Hi, what makes you think sourcing should not be hard? I can tell you I have found it impossible and I am sure that is the way the parties concerned wish it to be. Nevertheless the strong suspicion that it is correct makes it an extremely pointed note to leave there. Why remove it? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tata for now
 * I don't mean you need to source the fact of the intent. I mean, find an actual source saying there's a suspicion that was the plan. Otherwise, it's pure speculation. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would expect this (source you suggest be searched for) to be in a financial newspaper of the day where a columnist was mulling over the final deal that the public was able to see. Things like subscriptions mean I've no access to those newspapers of any standing that might have been interested enough in the arrangement. Eddaido (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Redding and inflation
hello, I posted your answer on the nomination page, but the reviewer is not completely satisfied. If possible, could you respond at the page? Regards.-- GoP T C N 15:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Public roads used for racing
I don't understand your change. To put it another way, Valencia and Monaco are raced on public roads that are closed off for the occasion, as opposed to most race tracks that are race tracks all the time. Spa used to be (and remained until recently) on public roads but those roads are now used only as a race track. Maybe the idea that the roads are public when they are not being used for racing is not clear enough? Britmax (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying analysis of the anon edits to the MIS article
I want to thank you for taking the time to investigate the anon editor claims at Military Intelligence Service (United States), and for pointing out in agonizing detail the abject weaknesses in that editor's arguments and sources. It's clear that he's intransigent in his views, as well as being rather incoherent. A block would be ideal, but as he rotates through different IPs it may be necessary to set up an indefinite page protection if he continues to edit war following the page protection expiration (as I expect). But since you've laid out the case against his edits so clearly, it should be much easier to make the case for renewed page protection. Thanks for your help! &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese). KarlB (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Used people
Thanks! I copied the basic design from someone else (can't remember who it was, it was several years ago now), so my advice would be to copy the code from my user page, paste it onto your own page, and then play around with colours, images, fonts etc. until it's to your taste. The navbar system works by linking to pages which you will need to create in your own user subspace.-- Midgrid  (talk)  11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've just checked how my userpage works for the first time in several years...you will need to create your own version of User:Midgrid/Navbar in your user subspace, and then transclude it onto your main userpage.-- Midgrid  (talk)  12:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created User:Trekphiler/Navbar for you. If you follow the link, you can fiddle around with the code on that page to change colour, font size, font style, border thickness, adding more subpages etc. It shows up on your userpage as .--  Midgrid  (talk)  12:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, you can rename the subpages - I just used example names.-- Midgrid  (talk)  12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how to describe making the changes (as I worked it out for myself the first time around through much trial-and-error :P ), but this is how I changed the links and reduced their number (N.B. the "About me" page does not exist; you will need to create one or link it to somewhere else). I also took the liberty of changing the colours of the navbar to match those in your signature by doing this; feel free to revert this if you don't like it. Hope this helps!-- Midgrid  (talk)  14:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User pages
These (User/Trekphiler/Photos--Stop and User/Trekphiler/My New Pages) seem to be showing up in the main space. Were User:Trekphiler/Photos--Stop and User:Trekphiler/My New Pages meant instead? Benea (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (July)

 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Idea
Lion Man wasn't really a superheo &mdash; he was essentially a black Tarzan. I have an idea, though: Why don't we add All-Negro Comics as "First comic-book created by African-American writers and artists"? What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the whole idea of starting a discussion is to, well, discuss rather an edit-war. That's the Wikipedia guideline: edit, and if it's reverted, discuss &mdash; not un-revert.
 * I'm familiar with Lion Man. If you look at the history of All-Negro Comics, you'll see I created and wrote the bulk of it. So I'm with you, completely, on his historical importance. But the vast majority of sources give the Falcon as the first Af-Am superhero, and if you look at the Lion Man page at All-Negro Comics, you can see for yourself he's a Tarzan type.
 * Also, a press release is not a journalistic source. If it's a press release from GM about GM's fall line of cars, that's one thing. But an auction-house press release that's not about the auction house itself is a different thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, of course. Given the wealth of reliable sources for the Falcon, though, I hope there's discussion on the article talk page before any summary removal. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lion eyes! I just now got that pun! I trust, then, you know the old song by The Eagles?  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

rvv
Trekphiler -- IMHO I don't think the Husband E. Kimmel edits were vandalism. --S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Automotive industry in New Zealand
Hi Trekphiler - noticed your edit out of the race car manufacturers in Automotive industry in New Zealand. The reason behind them being in the article is because they are a part of the New Zealand's automotive industry (all be it a small part), they make multiple cars for sale to drivers and teams, and are not one team cars. Happy to put the concept up for debate at the automobiles project if you think some concensus is needed. NealeFamily (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, and I agree there are some issues to consider. I'll list it on theWikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles page for discussion. NealeFamily (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I think I bet you to the edit - feel free to change mine if you like :)NealeFamily (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

NCIS
If it's important enough to mention, why is it hidden? Davejohnsan (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Train Songs
Hi, Trekphiler: I remmed out Alabama Bound and I'm Alabama Bound because they had a circular cross-reference, meaning one referred you to the other and back again. I've been working with this list for more than a year and never noticed the mistake, so I thought it might something someone put in as a joke. I'm now sourcing the song and its artists, so I'll let this stand as you've changed it until tomorrow (Aug.19). Thanks. Allreet (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A circular reference is perfectly useless, much like the piece of paper that has "See Other Side" written on both sides. Usually, secondary versions should refer the reader to the primary version for documentation, such as composer, artists, and citations. No big deal, though, and I'll edit the entry in keeping with existing conventions. Allreet (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Attributed plagiarism
You may recall we had an argument recently about your tagging USS Tang (SS-306) as plagiarism. We didn't really get anywhere, and then I went away for a bit and forgot about it, but I've just come across the article again and it still really bugs me. If you still maintain that there's such a thing as "attributed plagiarism", I thought it might help to request a third opinion. What do you think? (You can answer here, I'll put this page on my watchlist.) DoctorKubla (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your definition of plagiarism, but Wikipedia policy clearly states that copying from public domain works, with attribution, is fine. If you want to open up a debate about changing that policy, go ahead, but I'm really only concerned about this specific issue. I'll try WP:3O, see if we can find a way to settle this. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, I've replied to the 3O request at Talk:USS Tang (SS-306); if we could centralize discussion there, that'd be awesome. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Snorkel scoop?
What is an Aston Martin snorkel scoop? AFAIK there were three variations on this theme, an early low scoop followed by the 1973 tall scoop followed by the 1978 Oscar India near-flat bonnet. I am not sure what the snorkel scoop version is that you refer to, but the picture illustrates the tallest scoop made for the AM V8 (to my knowledge, at least). If you would prefer a better wording, I am all ears.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  06:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

USS Tang
Care to comment at Talk:USS Tang (SS-306), on the changes I've made? Do you think we can remove the plagiarism tag now? DoctorKubla (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Daimler Motor Co
Pleased to see some activity on that article. Your additions have some (minor) inaccuracies and duplications. Can we discuss them here? About what you describe as "trivial cruft". You may not have noticed that Ian Fleming sold his Daimler because his wife told him he looked like an old queen when he drove it. I suppose it may have driven him to improve his prowess but it actually reflects on how formerly loyal customers now viewed the brand. The mention of the (famous in Australia) prime minister (who was a famous devotee of Empire and Royalty) as being a big Daimler may well have been a deliberately manufactured "misprint" by an Australian printer enjoying London. Brand image again. But then you will know and understand these things? Eddaido (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (copied from here)
 * If you've got concerns, I'm happy to discuss it. I took out all of it since it strikes me as trivial. I've seen no discussion of brand image on any other page. (I allow I haven't read every single page. :) ) Aside passing mentions of the likes of Rolls or Benz being prestige marques, the issue never came up, & I'm not sure it should. If you think it should, that's something for the whole Project, not just us. Anything else, msg me back. (I've got too many pages watchlisted now... : TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You sound very relaxed today. I'll wait till you've finished your work on it. There was a similar but very small set of probs on SCH Davis. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (copied from here)
 * Daimler I'm long done with, & Davis too. What, exactly, is troubling you? I got the sense there were some conflicts in sources on Davis, & IDK enough about him to say. (I also noticed I'd mucked up the page style, so if you want to fix it, don't let me stop you.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the effect in Davis was to give totally wrong information. You've put much more in the same way and of the same kind in Daimler Motor Co. I also wonder if it is appropriate to add bulky detail as you have to (apparently considered by many) an already over-long article. Maybe it could be moved when the matching articles on the cars are written - I think it is quite interesting, I just have doubts as to the bulking up of the article. What do you think? Will leave you to have first go at making those very necessary corrections. Eddaido (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (August)
EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Delahaye 135
Good to see some new effort on this article. Regarding the higher outputs stated in your source, perhaps there is some conflation with the outputs of the more powerful 135MS? It got pretty confusing with these old French cars, and I have the feeling that many of these horses may have been ponies rather than the full 735 Watts.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  00:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Military of Côte d'Ivoire
I don't understand your edit summary. The official name is always less important than the common name. The title can stay at Military of Côte d'Ivoire if that is the common name of course but it is necessary to use the common name for the country in running text. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:F1 Newsletter (September 2012)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to dialogue
In reference to THIS, please discuss HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Goodness gracious...
You bring tears to my eyes for deleting most parts of my contribution on hillclimbing. It costed hard work (12 edits) for a newcomer like me (up till 2 a.m.) to add the correct citations to this article! Goodness gracious... Aliwal2012 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing is British English
Hi! I see that you've reverted my spelling correction, arguing for British English spelling. The thing is, licensing is British English spelling, at least according to the OED, which doesn't have a "licencing" entry. Licence with a c is for the noun (and is the only difference between real English and American English); the s indicates the verb. Licensing derives from to license and thus uses the verb spelling with an s. Thus we see TV licensing (tvlicensing.co.uk) and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I didn't want to risk an edit war by just undoing your reversion without making you aware of the reason in a more complete way than an edit summary allows. Hope this clears thing up. Marc (<-- all too aware of c spellings) 86.144.138.222 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Jc37 made a Marvel reference = automatic thought of you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

your editing style
...it's not horrible. I've seen plenty worse. but you edit as if the article is going to be read by an expert in the field. plenty of surveys have shown that the average WP reader is a 17 year old high school boy. they never heard of the fire balloons. they don't know that the western powers have not always enjoyed a massive technological superiority. this is important for their development. FOR THE CHILDERN -WikiSkeptic (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (October)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

prototype of Ford flathead V8
Hi, I am a wikipedia newbie, however, I have made some careful contributions. I thought you should know that I have reverted your change to the design but not production of the Ford flathead motor. I am personally knowledgeable about events of Henry Moore American inventor. 184.100.112.250 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

the flathead V8
Based upon your last comment, where you reverted my edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moore_(inventor) 184.100.112.250 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ramped Cargo Lighter
Dear Trekphiler, I hope you can help me please. I have created the wikipage for the Ramped Cargo Lighter, a Canadian manufactured landing craft of WW2. I have managed to find an illustration of the RCL, but unfortunately, I fear it will not pass wikimuster as far as copyright. Can you offer me any advice in this regard? I suspect the illustration might be admissible, but I am not citing it correctly (perhaps). Many thanks for any help. Best regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Otis Redding
Hello, this article is currently on FAC. The usage of "lean" was questioned. Could you clarify what it exactly means? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Six years later...
I just saw your question at Talk:Striga_(plant). In case you are still interested, it is Desmodium that kills striga. See push-pull technology for more details. SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Otis Redding
Hello, do you want to be co-nom at Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive4? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)
EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

P-51 intro box photo
Discussed on the talk page. Cheers ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''  04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Test_and_Reserve_Drivers
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Triumph TR7 Sprint
An article that you have been involved in editing, Triumph TR7 Sprint, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Hugh Le Caine
Port Arthur is, indeed, in Northwestern Ontario. This is a fairly common mistake (and I have gotten into arguments with people about it, both here and in real life). Southwestern Ontario is the area around Windsor and London. Northern Ontario is everything north of North Bay. The line separating Northwestern and Northeastern Ontario vaguely follows the east shore of Lake Superior, then heads due north by Wawa. The sparsely populated northern half of Northern Ontario is called "the far north".  vıd ıoman  01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense if you understand the history of Ontario. Everyone lived south of North Bay since the 1700s, they've only been living up here since the late 1800s. Relative to 95% of Ontarians, this region is "up north". Some people in Toronto even consider places like Barrie and Ottawa to be in Northern Ontario. vıd ıoman  01:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Handloading
Noticed you deleted my addition of shotshell reloading process descriptions in the Handloading article, under a guise of "Not DIY". Don't understand why you believe this was a Do It Yourself instruction set you deleted, as there were clearly not enough steps in the discussion to enable someone actually to reload even a single shotgun shell. Although you may not be aware, there is an industry standard of 5 stations used with shotshell presses, with the station functions standardized, unlike with metallic cartridge presses that have but one "station" that require swapping out dies to do batch operations on metallic cartridges one function at a time. Also, I believe there was clearly a shortfall of discussions on shotshell handloading in the article as it stood, hence the need to broaden the content to include shotshell handloading, too, as I had added. As you can tell from my "handle", Miguel Escopeta, I have a strong interest in shotguns! Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Gus Grissom's status
Thanks for your edit. I've never been happy with "killed during training" but couldn't quite think how to word it. We both appreciate they were doing more than "training" like the others killed before flight; they were intensely preparing to go. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Cross
Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2008. I've just removed it, as it's improved significantly in that time. If you disagree, please re-add the tag or consider taking it to AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Idiotic"
"It's pretty idiotic to include links only accessible to people with an L.A. library card." How would you suggest this information be presented? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Formula One in 1973
Lotus actually changed its name to John Player Special at this time, so there is good reason to display it thus. --Falcadore (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yamamoto
I would greatly appreciate your commenting on what I wrote under your earlier comments on the Yamamoto talk page under the Decision heading.TL36 (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Opinion Sought
Hi - You and I have edited many of the same pages, and so I ask for your opinion. Yesterday's featured article on Thomas Kinkaid gives Kinkaid the credit for the victory at Surigao Strait, as the commander. My thought is that, of course, the credit goes to Oldendorf, and Kinkaid was one level removed. I made a small edit that got reverted by Hawkeye7, an esteemed author. If you have an interest, would you add to the discussion on my talk page? Thank you. JMOprof (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ...best JMOprof (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

re Dix - CHECKUSER also needed
Saw your reply; he just came at me on one of the noticeboards, BLP I think, with charged accusations while continuing to claim neutrality; I'm pretty sure it's one of the IP addresses that came before he showed up a few days ago.......CHECKUSER admin needed to have a look behind the veil.....and as I've commented, to see if it's from a known government or party or p.r. company office......I updated on WP:3RR noticeboard about his attack on me, as he's gone and reverted again.......and in an edit comment claimed that my deletion of the attack material was "pro-NDP".Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick spelling lesson
I noticed your edit to the 2004 Belgian Grand Prix. I appreciate your edits fully, but you need to know something. I write all articles in British English (because I generally only edit UK English articles). The noun, as in "free practice", has two Cs in it. The verb, as in "I practised", has an S in it. Hope you understand now. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Stupid white space
The white spaces you are currently running around deleting are there for a reason - they allow the infoboxes to be connected to the corresponding text, instead of the text bunching up to the left with a long column of infoboxes to the right. Your edits to Ford Prefect, for instance, made for an enormous whitespace to the bottom let of the page, with generational infoboxes that no longer corresponded to the sections. Please reconsider,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

NCIS
I can't believe I found another person who wants to give DiNozzo a smack. Cheers to you!! i would give you a barnstar but there are no barnstars for NCIS... :P So, I'll give you a Burt as a give. Enjoy it and be good to it.  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was joking about the barnstar for giving a samck to DiNozzo. But I think there has to be a barnstar for contributing to Articles related To NCIS.

Thanks for the cookies they were delicious :P  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=554210172 your edit] to Engine swap may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Eagles
Hello Trek You reverted an edit I made on this page. I’ve left a note here about it; which is correct, do you know? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Nazi" broad brush
Thanks for your "As for "Nazi"..." comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Those who insist on labeling everything German from that era as "Nazi" are practicing the same principle used by the Nazis themselves, who in propaganda sought to blame "the Jews" for "everything." What idiocy! Sca (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken Johnson
Hello, I saw where you relinked Ken Johnson in The California Kid article. There does not appear to be an article about that Ken Johnson in Wikipedia and a link to the Ken Johnson disambiguation page does nothing to help the reader, so I'm wondering why you did that. Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This might interest you
There are a fair bit of firearm articles that need clean-up, mostly due to the edits from a group of editors, who might just be one person, per Sockpuppet investigations/Uayoa. I've done some clean-up after them but it's a lot of work because it's far easier to add poorly researched material, but takes a lot more work to verify properly. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Handloading
Noticed you deleted my addition of shotshell reloading process descriptions in the Handloading article, under a guise of "Not DIY". Don't understand why you believe this was a Do It Yourself instruction set you deleted, as there were clearly not enough steps in the discussion to enable someone actually to reload even a single shotgun shell. Although you may not be aware, there is an industry standard of 5 stations used with shotshell presses, with the station functions standardized, unlike with metallic cartridge presses that have but one "station" that require swapping out dies to do batch operations on metallic cartridges one function at a time. Also, I believe there was clearly a shortfall of discussions on shotshell handloading in the article as it stood, hence the need to broaden the content to include shotshell handloading, too, as I had added. As you can tell from my "handle", Miguel Escopeta, I have a strong interest in shotguns! Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion Sought
Hi - You and I have edited many of the same pages, and so I ask for your opinion. Yesterday's featured article on Thomas Kinkaid gives Kinkaid the credit for the victory at Surigao Strait, as the commander. My thought is that, of course, the credit goes to Oldendorf, and Kinkaid was one level removed. I made a small edit that got reverted by Hawkeye7, an esteemed author. If you have an interest, would you add to the discussion on my talk page? Thank you. JMOprof (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ...best JMOprof (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)