User talk:Xyl 54/Archive June 2010-May 2012

Otto Pollmann
I am reluctant to say that this source is in any way reliable unless it matches what I read someplace else. In case of Pollmann, I can not verify some of the claims. I only own two books on Pollmann that give a little insight. Clemens Range's book on the Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine claims that he sank 14 subs so does Fritjof Schaulen. Both books have a very very brief abstract on his career only. But they don't contradict the content webpage. By the way, what makes you assume that only the sinking of HMS Tigris can be substantiated. The reference to U-boat net does not state so. Or where do I have to look? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair statement. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 10 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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen
Hi. Just so you know, you can only use the Dutch spelling Spitsbergen in English. The German spelling, Spitzbergen, should only be used when writing in German. Seeing as how the Dutch discovered the island/archipelago, it would seem right only to use the Dutch spelling in this case. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * British authors have been mistakenly using the German spelling since the late 17th century, when F. Martens' book on Spitsbergen was translated from German into English. The mistake has been repeated, particularly by British authors, to the present day. See Conway's comment on the Spitsbergen page. Jonas Poole (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see talk:Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18 and WP:ANI. I propose to file a RFC on the issue of the spelling as this is something that affects more than one article and is deserving of a wider response. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've put a comment here.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC))


 * I made a typo in the edit summary. This looks like another Gdansk/Danzig type argument. Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah! My observation still stands, though... Xyl 54 (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS the Gdansk/Danzig thing may be a fair analogy; less people involved maybe...Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've filed RFCs on the spelling issue, and the statement on the Spitsbergen article that the z spelling is incorrect. I've listed the spelling issue RFC at WP:CENT in order to get as wide an audience as possible at the RFC. Each RFC has a link to the other. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * RFCs often go quiet. We just need to allow the 30 days to run and then try and gauge what the consensus is. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 30 days? I thought a week was a long time...OK, I'll wait a bit.Xyl 54 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

user page signature
I am hitting the four ~ signature button, and it puts down my user name. (E.g., - - ~ ~ ~ ~). But I'm guessing my signature on my preference page should have more info, correct? I simply have "S. Rich" without other info. If so, please give me an example and I shall comply. Thank you for your suggestion and comments. --S. Rich 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolf pack Weddigen
Hi, I thought I'd point out that removing the maintenance templates from this article in favour of the "new page" template is unlikely to be beneficial to others who want to help improve the page; the maintenance templates make it clear what can be done to improve the page. If you intend to do a lot of expanding at the moment, you might consider using the in use or under construction templates instead. Just a suggestion; keep up the good work.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I got as far as the blatant incivil comments and stopped reading. I made a polite suggestion, and my tags within 15 minutes of the page's creation, were to tidy the page and add templates for improvement, which is beneficial to all new pages. I don't appreciate a rude response to a civil suggestion; I'm not going to argue the point, frankly the page doesn't interest me anyway.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I do not appreciate having my work trashed by uncivil editing, so I suppose we are quits. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Crab Wars/NLL
I’ve left a proposal for change at Crab Wars, should you wish to comment. Also, this, at NLL, is less than constructive; it is not a contest, WP is not a democracy, and we should be working towards consensus when we can. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh Darn -- I added "LOL" which, I'm sure you know, = lots of laughs. It was you who said "so far, only you think" and I pointed out that others are weighing in on the discussion.  (Whether or not they were clear in making their point.)  Also, you said I was trying to "foist" my views.  As I pointed out, not hardly.  I am looking for that consensus as well, and bold discussion is part of the process. While I initiated the proposal, YOUR comments have been most constructive and I thank you for them!--S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide your input on Articles for deletion/Korean maritime border incidents. regards Mztourist (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen
(message returned to sender) Xyl 54 (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

MV Manx Viking
FYI - I've moved Nindawayma to MV Manx Viking cheers Olddemdike (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

ORP Orzeł
Thanks, however IMHO the date od the publication (1964) explains everything: there was not ISBN in the 60s :) belissarius (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair point; it's probably just belts and braces on my part. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

1973
Please consider Talk:Korean NLL Conflict#Introductory sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation Rentier
Hello Xyl 54, I think the "Renntier" is a misspelling. The correct spelling in the German language is "Rentier". There is no other example that during WWII a misspelling for a codename was used, not even for reasons to be ironic. Renntier would would actually incorporate part of "rennen" (to run) and thus would make some sense. To be abolutely sure it should be checked agianst original papers relating to that operation, however. Sorry for having destroyed that link. Herbertkarl (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Penguin returns
It's conceivable I'm misunderstanding Kormoran's mission, true. I maintain if she's masquerading, she won't be masquerading as a German ship, which is nonsensical to me.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

5/6 May 45
(moved comments to article talk page. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918)
Hello again I don't know if you remember this; there was a bit of a row over these pages last year. I'm bringing it up because there are a pile of redirects with various spellings, and they've just caused some confusion again. The one in the section heading is the one that preserves the discussion; is there any chance the others (or some of the others) can be deleted? We have First Battle of the Atlantic, Battle of the Atlantic (1914-1918), Battle of the Atlantic 1914-1918, Battle of the atlantic 1914-1918, and Battle of the Atlantic (World War I). They all redirect to the wrong article now (an understandable mistake); I'm asking about the deletion before I start changing them back. What do you think? And if yes, how is it done? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do remember it all yes, still on my watchlist. I deleted a few talkpage redirects and changed the redirect of Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918) to Atlantic U-boat Campaign (World War I). It doesn't matter that it now redirects to a different page than the original merge as long as the talkpage tag still shows where the content has gone and the R from merge stays on the page to make sure it isn't deleted.
 * There are a few redirects aren't there, but they are all "useful" in my opinion and serve as legitimate redirects and so shouldn't be deleted. The process for deletion is at Redirects for discussion but looking at WP:RFD it doesn't meet the criteria. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

5/6 May, again
You completely missed the point didn't you? Why are we going to have three articles (Operation Teardrop, Battle of Point Judith and your stub) about the same events, that is the nonsense I was referring to. Also your stub did in fact focus primarily on the point judith action, you wrote a paragraph or two about it and only a sentence or two about the final sinking so I don't know what you were thinking when you claimed that the article wasn't primarily about the Point Judith engagement. '''What about the pictures of the battle you removed, those are gone for absolutely no reason. You also removed the Battle of th"e Atlantic template. If you can give me one good reason why we should not follow wiki standards by having three articles basically about the same events than I will happily stop trying to edit your stub, you won't find one though, at least not one I would accept. My next goal is to try and merge your stub with the Battle of Point Judith article or delete it entirely, it's unnecessary and does not follow wiki standards in terms of how the page is titled and the fact that there is now multiple articles about the same things. Again, what is wrong with having two seperate articles about the two seperate actions? The Op Teardrop page already exists and covers the final sinking and you yourself created the new Battle of Point Judith article. Why do we need a page that basically combines the info of two other pages? The answer is that we don't''', it's just unnecessary and I don't know of any better way to put it. On a personal note, show some manners the next time you write to me.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "So you have unilaterally decided to change the aim of this article, and intend to edit war to get your own way.

It is just your opinion the name is inappropriate; it matched the content, which is what it should do."

My response: You are the one that started this so called war by reverting my edits to the page, I was just trying to make it better and prevent it from being deleted by adding pictures, giving it a proper title and by adding a campaignbox. It's named inappropriately and that is not just my opinion, it's that of the administrators who decided that the title of an article should give some sort of hint as to what the content is about. We both can agree that the phrase "Action of 5/6 May 1945" does not follow that standard. There was most likely dozens of other "actions" that occurred on those two dates, we are talking about the largest war in history. Also, there are several wiki users that have proposed to rename every page titled "action of...." because it doesn't follow wiki's standards so with that said it's obviously not just my opinion. You are the one being selfish (hate to call you names but you started it) by reverting everybody elses edits which does nothing but keep it from being expanded. You unitaterally decided that no one else can edit the page so it is to remain a stub without relevant pictures and templates, for what reason exactly.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:HMS Hardy (R08)
Haha.. yeah, I patrol new pages sometimes. Just fixing some minor stuff I happen to notice. I tried to fix this one, but I didnt known how to obviously. Anyway: keep up the good work with your articles..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian content ...
Hi there. I have been working on a couple of Canadian BoA pages and came across your BoA timeline. I dove in and added quite a few Canadian references - I hope you are OK with that - the page is clearly still a work in progress. What is your plan for it eventually? I ask because I have not been adding my sources, but if you eventually see that happening then maybe I should be? Friendofleonard (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the advice. I really did think you owned the Timeline. Does it have an owner - is there anyone who seems to be maintaining it? Now I am not really sure what to do next. I am pretty new to all this. Should I keep on going building up the timeline with research I am doing and see where it goes, or invest my energy elsewhere? I am pretty discouraged by the general BoA page and do not feel that is worth investing in much - in my view it needs a pretty fundamental rethink to introduce a balanced storyline of the Battle that is not totally captured by the discussion of technology. BTW, Canadians tend to think that that the BoA is one of our defining national moments (even if Canada's role is seen as contributory by others) - not quite up there with Vimy ridge but close to the Dieppe raid or the Liberation of Holland. Friendofleonard (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good advice throughout - thanks again. Yes I think my next venture is to start a stub on every Canadian ship that was sunk in the BoA, there are several that are missing - I have a complete list - and that would at least get that part of the story built up. I am also chipping away at the general RCN page. We will get there. Or maybe not - it is all about the journey not the destination right? Friendofleonard (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

U-238
Well, 5-4 is hardly consensus. I'm not sure that WP:DRV is the correct venue, but you could ask on the talk page wheter or not that is the correct venue to contest a RM discussion. The other place to ask would be [WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-reverted. Sorry. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Corvette
There are still comments being made, so a discussion is still occurring. If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page belongs at the main name. Oh, and this is not just counting the opinions one way or the other. The decision is based on the strength of the arguments. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This whole Corvette fiasco reminds me of a (true) story. A couple of years ago a bicyclist was riding in traffic which was stopped, perhaps for a red light.  He rode between the lines of traffic, which is not prohibited for motorcyclists or bicyclists where this took place (California), and noticed a motorcycle policeman stopped in traffic as he passed, though he thought little of it at the time.  A short while later the policeman caught up with him and pulled him over.  I'm not sure what exactly transpired between them, but it's pretty clear the bicyclist wasn't happy, and might have been disrespectful.  As a result the cop gave the bicyclist a traffic citation for not riding near the curb. The bicyclist chose to fight the ticket, and was confident he would win.  After all, he was cited with violating CVC 21202, which clearly applies only to bicyclists operating "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time".  In fact, in court, the cop conceded that the bicyclist was not moving slower than others, but, in fact faster, and yet still maintained 21202 required him to ride at the curb.  The bicyclist pointed out the obvious error in the cop's reasoning, and was shocked when the judge inquired as to the speed limit on the road (how was that relevant?), but was floored when the judge ruled against him.  It's one thing for an angry cop to misread and/or misapply the law, but for a judge to make an error in plain reading like this?  Someone who went to law school?  He appealed, of course. The interesting thing is that when the city attorney reviewed the case in preparation for the appeal, he immediately threw it out, writing that the judge clearly made an error.  The bicyclist was right, the law clearly only applies when the cyclist is moving slower than other traffic, and he obviously was not, since he was passing all the other traffic. What this shows is the capacity of many, even judges, to "read" a law (if they really read it at all), and still comprehend what they think it should say according to their bias, rather that what it actually says, no matter how clearly it says it.  I suggest that's what's happening with many people who are reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with respect to how it "should" apply to Corvette.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Zitronella revert
Hi. Why did you revert my edit? Is the island's name not spelled Spitsbergen? It is not in the title of a book or paper, and we are on the English wikipedia. Shouldn't we use the island's correct spelling? OldBabyBlue (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First Battle of Sirte: banner removed
Hi Xyl 54, the real issue is the lack of inline citations, and inline citations is what the "Conclusions" section badly needs. However, I will remove immediatly the OR banner per WP:GOODFAITH; your word is enough for me. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! (reply is here). Xyl 54 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, although I have no direct access to Groves, I guess his analysis is pretty unbiased and balanced. I came to the conclusion that we can live with it, so I put the references banner on hold. Regarding the order of battle, IMHO it should focus only on the ships from both sides involved in convoy operations on 17 December.--Darius (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Convoy OB 318
Hi, I was thinking of nominating this for WP:DYK, but it needs better referencing before it can be considered. Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a start. A minimum of 1 ref per paragraph should be the aim. When writing articles, it easiest to add in the refs as you go. Have a look at MV Empire Dawn to see the standard that should be aimed for. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

New userbox
Any use for this image? No obligation: It won't be wasted as I might add it, or one of the images I pinched it from, as the lede image to the article. Whatever you do, don't change the map: that's a nice feature. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've just tightened the crop, to remove the white space you mentioned, and it's buggered up your #3 test run. Re-sized alternative in my sandbox here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fixed. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Slapstick‎
Hi do you have a reference for Abdiels casualties. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Found one Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Panorama
(Comment on edits at Spanish Armada left by Mcapdevila (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)); duplicated from talk page. Deleted here, reply is there. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC))


 * New edit with the asked references--Mcapdevila (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Spitzbeetham
Thanks for your comments. As often happens, I had little idea it was so controversial. But, as I said to P...boy, I understand his reasons, as I do yours. Ericoides (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Northern Light
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Operation Northern Light a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Operation Nordlicht. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Pacific route (Lend-Lease)
Hi, I dropped by this article to stub-sort it, and worried about its title: I didn't move it because I wasn't sure about the caps and because you've got an "under construction" tag. Over to you. Pam D  23:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You use capital R in lead sentence, lower case in title (and a mix elsewhere in the article text). Could you establish one style of capitalisation and be consistent.
 * It does not need disambiguation, as WP has no other article called "Pacific R/route".


 * And also... the second ref (a) doesn't work and (b) has an odd-looking "retrieved" date. Pam  D  23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ON Convoys and "dramatic flair"
Only just now saw you undid my edit to Convoy ONS 5. I looked through the other ON convoy pages. I like the setup of, for example, ON 67's page, where it has the convoy, then each U-boat, but I suppose with 58 U-boats that might be cumbersome :D I think the best thing would be to change it to "Convoy" and "Wolfpacks (or U-boats, or whatever)" - something like that. We could also move the Ships Involved section from the bottom up there, keep the link to the order of battle, then keep the brief description of the setup it has now. We could do the same to ONS 18/ON 202, too. That would be a better setup, I think :D --CumbiaDude (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better, now they read like an encyclopedia! :D --CumbiaDude (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Convoy PQ 18, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 4th (Central Ontario) Battalion, CEF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Battles of Ypres


 * Light Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Battles of the Somme


 * The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Battles of Ypres

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's OK, full stop. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Sorry about the revert on the MILHIST talk page. Clumsiness on the iPhone. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! No worries! (them buggerin' little keys are no good for big fingers, are they?) Xyl 54 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Submarine warfare
I merged the two pages because they were both stubs and types of submarine warfare. Why have the types of warfare on different pages; when the article for them is so short and can be easily merged into the main article? The information could also be noticed more because its on all on one page. Gamewizard71 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (reply was here). Xyl 54 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Decisive
I fear that a technical term found in professional literature like Clausewitz and used as such by scholars, is being used to mean 'big', rather like the way that people use 'major' to mean big (without wincing). I think that it's because English isn't taught as a language in English-speaking countries any more. Apropos Gazala I see it as a mirror of Crusader and we don't call that decisive. Strategically Gazala took place in the least important part of Britain's Middle-Eastern empire; after late 1941 the most important bits had been consolidated, hence the invasion of Europe (the Greece fiasco) being favoured over the Western Desert. I'll watch this page so if you reply here I'll see it.Keith-264 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather 'Major' was left to describe a military rank. What's wrong with 'big'? I think that the term 'decisive' is probably obsolete in wars of exhaustion (by definition indecisive) but in a narrower sense, a campaign deciding event perhaps it's still useful. Trouble with that is that I'd end up calling the battles of Smolensk in 1941 as decisive and Moscow and Stalingrad as 'ordinary' ones.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. sub
No thanx needed. Appreciated nonetheless. :)  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ♠Again, no thanx needed. :D
 * ♠Thx for the tip on the German fish. (IDK.) The more I hear, the more I think the wartime rumors were right, somebody stole the design from somebody 8o...& both got the worst of it. ;p It isn't any help, I'm afraid; I know there were a lot of Mk14 circulars, so it'd take a careful reading of Blair again to find the deadly ones. (Tang wasn't a Mk14 anyhow... : No, I didn't find it; I've read Blair too many times to want to again for awhile, & IDK if I could read carefully enough to find a particular fact any more anyhow. :(
 * ♠I'd be leery of relying on Japanese sources, myself; the records were pretty chaotic by war's end, & there was a lot destroyed. (If JANAC is any hint...yikes. 8o )  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thx for the catch on RO-117. (:p) (These kinds of tables always seem to bite me. :. Also, health warning: Fitzsimons I've occasionally caught in factual errors or contradictions of other sources, tho generally good. (His consultant editors were Antony Preston, Ian Hogg, & Bill Gunston.)  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 23:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm counting myself junior partner, here, so any maintenance matters are your call. :) As for contradiction, if B&Y are solid in agreement on the other dates, I'd rely on them over Fitzsimons. That said, my reliance on Blair is maybe over-blown a trifle...so IDK how you resolve the Scamp claims...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to be fussy, now. I take the view all articles should be cited separately, even in a single volume, hence individual entries in the sources section. I can see how having just the one Fitzsimons volume makes sense, tho. D'you disagree?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I was clear. I've been citing by article, because they're separate entries, in the fashion of Britannica. They're pretty short in these cases, not much more than a couple of column-inches, a table, & a specs summary, but they are individual. If each article was grouped, you'd be fine; if all the Fitzsimons were under one volume IMO, not.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They're class articles, so each one covers all the members of the class.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you correctly & you want to group by article title, you're fine. (My last look suggested grouped by p#, not so much.) Also, there was nothing on the fates of the Ha boats, & #built seems better for the actual class pages, so feel free to delete.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I wouldn't put the I-351s & I-361s together. Fitzsimons says they are slightly different.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:45 & 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're far apart. (Oh, wait, there's geography... ;p ) I don't have it in front of me (& I'm too lazy to go look just now ;p ), but I think we're agreed. If not, when I do go back & look, I'll let you know.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. :) When you feel ambitious, have a look at the I-15 & I-16 Fitz refs; the individual ones could be consolidated under one each. (I'm not going to try it, 'cause I just suck at doing it... :( And I'm feeling lazy now. ;p )  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

USS Rockford (PF-48)
I believe Rockford was one of one hundred US-built welded versions of the River class frigate. Twenty-one of these ships became Royal Navy Colony class frigates. Four of the class were canceled, and the remaining 75 ships were designated Tacoma class frigates of the United States Navy. Some these ships were apparently assembled with a lower level of quality control than most naval vessels; and issues like mis-aligned propulsion machinery prevented some of them from ever attaining operational reliability for anything more arduous than coastal weather and rescue patrols. The US Navy gave a low priority to trade convoy escort, and turned many of these ships over to United States Coast Guard crews who had more experience with reciprocating engines. Although coast guardsmen traditionally refer to their ships as cutters, I believe this class remained navy property for the duration of hostilities until a few were briefly designated Coast Guard cutters in 1946. Rockford, however, was apparently one of 28 of this class turned over to the Soviet Union in 1945 to encourage Soviet participation in the invasion of Japan. After being returned by the Soviet Union in 1949, Rockford served in the South Korean Navy during the Korean War.Thewellman (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries -- it's good to hear from you and fun to look through the references on a ship with an interesting history. The US Navy (Navy Department) took control of the Coast Guard (at that time a part of the Treasury Department -- to protect tariff revenues by deterring smuggling) from the declaration of war until 1946.  Coast Guard officers, like naval reserve officers, were assigned command of ships the Navy felt were not "career enhancing" billets for navy officers (basically trade convoy escort and amphibious warfare ships) while regular navy officers were assigned the traditional warship billets (battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and aircraft carriers).  The navy did not mix personnel for the most part, so a ship commanded by a coast guard officer typically had an all coast guard crew, and ships commanded by navy officers had all navy crew.  The destroyer escorts were mostly manned by US Navy, but about 30 (if memory serves) were manned by US Coast Guard.


 * I really enjoy reading the work you have done on second world war trade convoys, and hope we can continue to collaborate on this subject.Thewellman (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It states, allow me to quote "It is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit." I don't think it is a must criteria. I agree that it may help others but I chose not to use it unless I am forced into it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And as my grandmother used to say: If I ask you a yes/no question I want a yes or no for an answer. If I want you to hold a speech I would have asked you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying anyway. Maybe I will change my habit MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited USS Gherardi (DD-637), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S-boat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Romper
I've left a reply to my query on 'rompers' on the U-137 talk page. Thanks again. RASAM (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved protected German Army (1935–1945)
Per your request which I think was proper, I have move protected this article for 30 days pending resolution of related RMs. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)