User talk:Parsecboy: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.

	This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.
	If my main talk is protected due to vandalism, please leave comments here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46

Your reason for reverting my edit, "(no reason to remove the definite article, and HFDF is a proper noun)", goes against the consistency of the article for "High-frequency direction finding" and the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which dictates:

"Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or it is part of the title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien)."

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_direction_finding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles

MeanMotherJr (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of the MOS (i.e., MOS:SECTIONS) states that "The provisions in § Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well", italics mine. There are relatively few hard and fast rules on Wikipedia, and certainly very few when it comes to formatting content.

As for the title of the article, it's wrong - the term is a proper noun, and therefore should be capitalized. See for instance here, here, and here for starters. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Nebraska (BB-14) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Virginia (BB-13) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Ohio (BB-12) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Ohio (BB-12) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Ohio (BB-12) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Ohio (BB-12) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Ohio (BB-12) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Virginia (BB-13) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Virginia (BB-13) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Nebraska (BB-14) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Nebraska (BB-14) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it up for me, Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Virginia (BB-13) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Virginia (BB-13) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For completing 17 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, I've recently decided to cut back on specific dates at TFA except in cases where the reader is supposed to infer some meaning from the date. So, for tomorrow's TFA, I'm going with "she was laid down and launched in 1905 and completed the next year". Is that a problem? - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that's perfectly fine - no need to have anything specific about the construction details unless it's an anniversary of a launch or something. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Teil zwei, even mentioned it on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Missouri (BB-11) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Maine (BB-10) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Missouri (BB-11) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Missouri (BB-11) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maine-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Wisconsin (BB-9) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Maine-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maine-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Missouri (BB-11) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Missouri (BB-11) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his great efforts in the June 2015 Military History monthly article-writing contest, placing first with 109 points from 18 articles. Well done! Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian! Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Wisconsin (BB-9) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Wisconsin (BB-9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Maine (BB-10) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Maine (BB-10) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Maine (BB-10) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Maine (BB-10) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/T48 Gun Motor Carriage.
Message added 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Illinois-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Illinois-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Illinois-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Parsecboy,

I'm a bit late on this, but I have nominated the Battle of Malvern Hill article for FA again see here) I thought you might like to know. It has been through six or seven copyedits (but who is counting) and passed an A-Class review. A review by you and some comments would be awesome and greatly appreciated. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to take a look at it in the next day or two. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Alabama (BB-8) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Majestic-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wyoming-class battleship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Illinois (BB-7) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Mars (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Hannibal (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wyoming-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wyoming-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Illinois (BB-7) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Illinois (BB-7) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Parsecboy. I'm just posting to let you know that List of coastal defense ships of Germany – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 24. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article USS Alabama (BB-8) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Alabama (BB-8) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Hunt for Tirpitz." :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw your post on FB ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article HMS Mars (1896) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Mars (1896) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite busy as of now, so you many just fail the GA and I might work on it later. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough - thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article HMS Hannibal (1896) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Hannibal (1896) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Caesar (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article HMS Caesar (1896) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Caesar (1896) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Illustrious (1896) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article HMS Illustrious (1896) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Illustrious (1896) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article HMS Illustrious (1896) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Illustrious (1896) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have considerable respect for your contributions in general, I am not going to report you for edit warring even though you've possibly violated 3RR on this article. I'm also not going to give you one of those warning-template things since that can be taken as an insult by an experience editor such as yourself. However, I will point out that an administrator should know better, and I will ask you to stop the edit war. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PB, I wonder if you could take a look at this which has sneaked in a cite error in the footnotes. Regards. CV9933 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about that - it's fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For outstanding wikification of the italian cruiser, I hereby award you, the Original Barnstar, for making the Naval Community of Wikipedia proud! Luis Santos24 (Have a good day!) 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The article HMS Caesar (1896) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Caesar (1896) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi, it is rather irritating that you delete the hull numbers on articles of USN ships that have names that have been used only once. The hull number is an integral part of a ship's name. And, if you go on and delete it from any smaller ship (destroyers, etc.), I think this is not useful at all, since the hull number gives everyone an explanation on what type of ship it is. Could you explain your reasoning, please. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, and most importantly, hull numbers are not part of any ship's name. Many vessels have had their numbers changed throughout their careers. Secondly, the hull numbers are only useful for a small slice of our readers - namely, experts who are already familiar with the ships in question. Thirdly, Wikipedia naming conventions specify that we do not disambiguate article titles when there are no ambiguous topics. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobatfor: - I assume you haven't seen my reply? Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now planning to delete the hull numbers from hundreds of USN ships? Cobatfor (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only those that have unambiguous names, as I come to them. You might be interested in knowing about this recent discussion, which basically supported what I've been doing, and actually suggests that we ought to get rid of hull numbers altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, using the launch dates would be better than nothing at all, in my opinion. I admit, that the USN-hull numbers are not consistent in itself, like DDG-1000 or SSN-21. Also, a designation for airplanes like F/A-18 should not exist (according to the US-system it should be the FA-18, funny it is that the EA-18 is not the E/A-18). Maybe, you could at least add the launching date, so everything has not to be changed again, afterwards. Or, you might not have time to change it, anyway... :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the project coordinators, congratulations on placing second in the July 2015 MilHist article-writing contest, with 63 points from 11 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nate
It seems our old pal User:Jonas Poole is playing silly buggers again (viz. this, and many others) Could you do me a favour and enable my account for rollback rights, so I can fix it? Thanks in advance, either way...Xyl 54 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - I probably should have put the vacation template on my talk page ;) Anyway, I see that you've reverted his edits, but I went ahead and gave you rollback so it'll be easier the next time he returns. Parsecboy (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that; I've still got a few more to check so it'll be handy. Hope you enjoyed the holiday, and that it was refreshing! Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we had a great time! The next time our friend shows up, let me know and I'll block the account. I have one or two of the articles he edits watchlisted, but I don't always catch the edits. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next incarnation: User:PlayfulPorpoise (contribs [[1]]). I think I got all the reverts. -- Elmidae (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, blocked and tagged. Parsecboy (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up this latest mess so quickly! I had thought he might have the sense to keep his head down for a few days, but no... I suppose I should continue my rampage for a bit longer! Thanks again, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just happened to be on when he went on his spree. And you'd think he'd have at least that much sense, but it seems his ego is more important. Good luck with the cleanup! Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maximilian von Spee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Majestic-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Majestic-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inscription on the Mainz memorial says 168 "Kameraden" lost their lives in the sinking. Puzzling. Sca (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd - one would think that the number of survivors rescued would be easy to count. I'll have to look around, but I did notice that the 89 fatalities figure was there before I rewrote the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I mean 163. I don't know if the fact it's a Nazi-era monument (1939) would have any bearing on the discrepancy. Sca (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the case - if they wanted to exaggerate the death toll to increase anti-British sentiment, I suppose. Osborne's The Battle of Heligoland Bight also has the 89 deaths figure, as does the Der Spiegel article you added. I'll check Hildebrand et. al. later, but I'd think if they had given a different number, I'd have included the discrepancy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Parsecboy, just letting you know that there is a woman's liberationist using the handle User:Pam-javelin, who is altering any article on warships to gender neutral. This user has repeatedly removed "Her/She" from the article HMS Rodney (29) and seems determined to push her sexist agenda on the traditional use of Her/She in Warship articles. I have warned her to refrain from vandalising this and all other such articles or I will report her to an Admin, which I am doing now. Thanks.The Dart (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to annoy you again, but "she's back" edit waring at HMS Rodney. Can you please block her?The Dart (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the situation - if she reverts again I'll take care of it. But you might check your last edit on the article, it looks like you accidentally reverted yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think I did revert myself as it was reverted by an unlogged user and I have been logged in for over 2 hours. But?The Dart (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, but your edit took the she/her out. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand how that happened. I reverted a revert from 220.253.115.75 which has disappeared from the history, it says 2 intermediate edits from 2 users. Also there was a comment from her added to the edit which only appears in my own talk page, but not hers or anywhere else? Was there an edit conflict? Have I been hacked?The Dart (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's odd - I've had similar things happen in the past, where it looked like I was reverting something but the edit went through wrong. Sometimes the servers do strange things. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nate, I traced the IP address of 220.253.115.75 and Google earthed it. It's in the same city as me and uses the same provider as me (iinet.com.au). I even found the street address, its about 10 Km's from me. All the best, Bill.The Dart (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty strange coincidence. Let me know if she starts back up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Maximilian von Spee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maximilian von Spee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on if I need to finish the reviews for this round of the GA Cup, I may hold off on reviewing them until the end of the month. Also can you take a look at HMS Zealous (1919)? She's the only cancelled V and W-class destroyer that's got an article and I'm not even sure if she was laid down or not. I'm inclined to nuke the article from orbit, but I'll leave that for you to decide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for taking them on. And as for Zealous, she wasn't laid down as far as I can tell, so I've redirected the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Re Umberto you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Sicilia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Sardegna you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was a checkuser actually run on this account? I don't see any evidence of it in the checkuser logs.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just an obvious duck. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please use {{sockpuppt|x|proven}}; the tag you used is only to be used when there is checkuser confirmation, as stated in the text of the tag as well as at Template:Sockpuppet.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I probably just copied the tag from an older account that had been checked. And thanks for taking care of the last sock. Parsecboy (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're creating several accounts in quick succession, so if you see them pop up again let me know and I'll run a quick sleeper check. Cheers,--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's been at it on and off for several years now. Thanks, will do. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

I'm bring this up to speed and am hoping that HRS has some details about how much of the Barbara AA refit had been completed when she came out of refit in November '44. While it's entirely possible that I've missed things in Whitley, I've only found her end-of-war outfit, which is cool, but I'm hoping for more. Koop & Schmolke say that she received her 37mm guns on 20 December and then received additional guns in February '45, which raises the question of what she did get during the refit. Seems like just 20mm guns, but whether they were twins, singles or Flakvierling(s)? Anything in HRS on the matter?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look in the morning - have a meeting after work that's going to chew up any extra time I'd normally have. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it's going to be particularly helpful - they give the same 20 December date for the 37mm guns, but don't mention anything in the narrative about specific changes during the refit. In the table, it simply says "From 1944...up to 8 Flak-2cm". Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot; guess I'll just have to live without it. Thanks for checking, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WAR (file format) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the WAR (file format) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yavuz in Malta 1936.jpg
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sms goeben beached.jpg

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the September 2015 Milhist article writing contest with 33 points from five articles. Congratulations! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker! Parsecboy (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit for an creditable 11 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian ironclad Palestro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragusa (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) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stutz (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Stutz (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you noticed, but I've finished reviewing your three GANs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw them - I was just a little preoccupied with finishing the rest of the ironclads - will get to them today. Parsecboy (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:German battlecruiser SMS Seydlitz in port, prior to World War I (retouched).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Italian ironclad Re Umberto you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian ironclad Re Umberto for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Italian ironclad Sicilia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian ironclad Sicilia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Italian ironclad Sardegna you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Italian ironclad Sardegna for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for your understanding Parsecboy. I was self reverting when you very efficiently reverted. Call it pride ;) but I thought I would put my own screw up on the record. The 4th Cruiser squadron would be a good little starting stub. I will get on to that. Good outcome for the pedia! Hope all's well with you. Regards Simon Irondome (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. If you have any inclination to take the article to GA, I've been (slowly) working on these related GTs, mostly with Sturmvogel. You'd be welcome aboard :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Re Umberto-class ironclad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Ruggiero di Lauria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've popped a review here. Look forward to your comments. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Francesco Morosini you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Andrea Doria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have done work on this page. My edits were well thought out in an attempt to make the page better. I appreciate your concern for the article but I do not fell that all of my edits were in error. I went back and editted out some of the things I added to the info box, although I feel that they should be there. The reason I changed it to 6 boilers is because of the 4 pages I found two of them had the number of boilers listed and they both said 6. I have changed it back to 8. I also feel that the info box should have as much info as possible because some people might not take the time to read through an article to find certain information. Please feel free to discuss with me if there are changes you still don't agree with, I'm not doing this to give disinformation. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote the article. Here are the problems. First, infoboxes should be very brief summaries of the article. Things like the ship sponsor or the ICS code should generally not be present. This is not the first time someone has told you this. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships has 8 boilers - moreover, 6 boilers on 4 shafts doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Piping "German" to Nazi Germany or "Japan" to Empire of Japan are low value links - they don't add much of anything to readers' comprehension. And lastly, swapping out piped links for the {{ship}} template isn't particularly necessary, as it's simply visible on our end, not the readers'. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're wrong on how people read the infoboxes as I've received several complaints that ship infoboxes are, in general, too long and visually dominate the article. So I've been paring down the info that I put into infoboxes to shorten them as much as possible. Forex, is the model name or caliber length of weapon really necessary if the weapon is linked? For the average reader, I believe not; they're certainly less important than the bore diameter which most people generally understand.

Here's the text from Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship characteristics: "Remember that the infobox, like a lead section, is meant to be a summary of the information that is provided in the article itself. To this end, avoid excessive detail or accuracy in the infobox; if required, elaborate in the article body." Your habit of cramming as much info into the infobox as possible flagrantly violates this guideline. For ships that received a major reconstruction like HMS Renown, I use a second, dated, infobox that usually only lists the parameters have changed from when it was built. All of the other changes like the constantly evolving light AA armament are covered in the main body in more detail than the infobox can provide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, why are these items in the infoboxes if they aren't to be used. Second, I told you I was wrong about the boilers. And third, you're looking at these articles as if they are only being read by "experts". If someone reads it and they see that we were fighting Germany, France, Italy and Japan they are going to be confused. Having links to who the countries were at the time of the war helps them understand the article better. And I'm sorry Sturmvogel 66, I know I didn't agree with you on Milwaukee, and I understand you guys feel some ownership with these articles, but that doens't mean that other peoples ideas should be totally discounted. I look at infoboxes as a quick reference to the ship in question. If I want to know what a ships dimmensions or armament were I'm going to look at the infobox way before reading through the entire article. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ship career"This ship infobox supports a very large number of fields, including some specialty fields that will rarely be used. Some fields simply don't make sense in some cases. Some different sets of code have been prepared using only the most common fields. Select the most appropriate set below and copy and paste the entire code to the top of a ship article, then fill in as many fields as possible. Empty fields should generally be kept so that a future editor can fill them in unless they make no sense for the ship in question." Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship characteristics: "However, the information and details should not be "dumbed down" too much and obvious details should be avoided." I'm not trying to fight, I just think you guys aren't looking at these articles from a Novice point of view.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ownership of content Just a reminder. Both of you are in violation of this.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you think you're making articles more relevant to non-experts when you're trying to insert far too much specialist information into infoboxes. Does a general reader have any idea what the significance of the ship sponsor is? Or what those little colorful squares mean? Cluttering the infobox with generally useless information obscures the main points readers should be able to draw from it.

Here's the issue with linking Nazi Germany or Empire of Japan - readers will either know it or they won't. In the case of the latter, knowing what regime ruled the country in question will add zero useful information to this article. What difference does it make to a sentence about a cruiser sinking an aircraft carrier what the government in Tokyo was? Moreover, the Manual of Style generally prohibits linking these kinds of terms, unless there is some special relevance. Parsecboy (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To your previous discussion about Wichita, I just wanted your opinion on the use of the ship template. I go around swapping out the piped links to a) prevent people from inserting seven hundred ident numbers into the articles, b) if the format ever changes about how ship links should be presented, I thought it would be easier to just change a template than go through every piped wikilink in every article.

That being said, if it's preferable that it shouldn't be done, I'll stop. However, if it's ok, I'll keep continuing. Llammakey (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that for readers, it's essentially value neutral - that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it's not something I'm going to worry about when reverting his other, more problematic changes. I'd say go ahead and keep doing them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Parsec. I didn`t want to be out there making edits that was annoying other editors. Llammakey (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, Brian just scheduled this one, I'll get to work on it tonight. Let me know if you want anything changed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Battlecruiser says that two Mackensens rather than 3 were launched (and cites Roberts). I'll remove that part from the blurb until I get better information. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct, in a way - Prinz Eitel Friedrich was launched after the war so the slipway could be cleared for other projects. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not comfortable with that level of detail in a TFA ... the readership is broader than the readership for articles. I'll think of something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here ... at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav submarine Nebojša/archive1, were PM's comments from Oct 17 satisfactory? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder - I had lost track of it. I'll take a look. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your Mackensen-class battlecruiser, overhauled and launched today!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This explains why "Dan van der Vat" should be referenced as "Vat, Dan van der". Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the article doesn't use Harvard style. The CMoS doesn't give a hard and fast rule either way. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ruggiero di Lauria-class ironclad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check diff because there is a problem at Re Umberto-class ironclad#General characteristics and machinery (see "convert: unknown unit"). The implication of the edit seems to be that there was some confusion about whether values were metric tons (MT) or long tons (LT). The problem is that "{{convert|13673|MT|sp=us}}" was changed to "{{convert|13058|13673|MT|LT|sp=us}}". I would fix it by removing "|13673" but I can't work out where 13058 came from, so it would be better for you to look at it, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was missing the |to parameter. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

181.64.192.245 has been reverting my changes cleaning up the Huascar (ship) article and has broken the 3RR rule. Can you check it out whenever you get a chance?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for 31 hours and protected the page for a week. Huascar is probably a focal point of nationalist POV—be careful! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too. It's definitely a focus for nationalists, which is why I haven't tried to bring it in line with all of the other ironclad articles. Yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the October 2015 Milhist article writing contest with 65 points from 10 articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your nom for Re d'Italia. Citation for Ironclads at War is messed up; I think that you mixed it up with some other book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'd guess it got spliced in a copy-paste somewhere. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Italia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italia-class ironclad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ErrantX -- ErrantX (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're cracking through these Italian ironclads; will try to do some more tomorrow. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yeah, I've been working on them for the past couple of months now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and I got them to make a battleship logo for it alongside several others. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty neat - what are we going to do with it? Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. Probably not much, but it's possible. I'm also going to post this at OMT/Milhist so everyone else can see it (and a link to where Wikimedia Switzerland is taking requests). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Maybe no requests. Looks like their graphic person left at the end of November. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if this fell off your watchlist. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've just been slammed lately - was trying to finish it up all week but had little to no time. I actually had the editing window open since Monday, trying to chip away at issues as I had the time to do them. Everything should be addressed now though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just checking. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hroðulf/WABCO, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hroðulf/WABCO and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Hroðulf/WABCO during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regina Maria Pia-class ironclad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Regina Maria Pia-class ironclad you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Regina Maria Pia-class ironclad for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French battleship Lorraine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article French battleship Lorraine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:French battleship Lorraine for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French battleship Provence you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the November 2015 Milhist article writing contest with 76 points from 12 articles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Principe Amedeo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bzuk, I hope you have a happy holidays too! Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Italian ironclad Principe Amedeo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Italian ironclad Principe Amedeo for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds for your work on HMS Marlborough (1912), SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901), and Majestic-class battleship, all of which were promoted to Milhist A-class between July and December 2015. Well done! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Formidabile you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Italian ironclad Formidabile you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Italian ironclad Formidabile for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on this one. The article used as a citation for that section is satire or a hoax. My bad. Krj373 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - at least that site had the decency to be clear that it's a hoax ;) Parsecboy (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Regina Maria Pia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the December 2015 Military History Article Writing Contest with 68 points from 10 articles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military History Writers' Contest Cup
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the inaugural Military History Writers' Contest Cup, for consistent performance during the 2015 Military History Article Writing Contest, accumulating a total of 592 points from 101 articles throughout the year. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]