User talk:Magus732

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Magus732, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RAF squadrons[edit]

Hi Magus732 thanks for your hard work on these units. Please would you :

  • write at least four sentences for each squadron; two sentence stubs are not very useful.
  • Note where you got the information from; which book, which publisher, date, author.

If it's too much of a stub these articles may be deleted. Several two-sentence RAF articles have been deleted previously because they are 'not notable,' usually due to lack of sources. The rule you need to be aware of is WP:Notability. Kind regards and happy new year, Buckshot06(prof) 12:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of No. 109 Squadron RAF[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article No. 109 Squadron RAF, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not enough evidence of notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Buckshot06(prof) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

109 Squadron and others[edit]

Brilliant. Good start Magus. Please, for the sake of the wikipedians who will eventually have to clean up after you, add the same reference to all your other squadron articles. Secondly, there's enormous amounts of information about RAF squadrons out on the 'Net, and much from good sources. Please slow down and get a little bit of that - the RAF History site's a good place to start. If you cannot find it yourself give me a shout - I'm happy to help. Buckshot06(prof) 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lab and workspace: 166 Squadron[edit]

More Severe Warning[edit]

Magus, I appreciate your good intentions, but your creation of one-sentence stubs is creating a lot of work for other people, notably user:MilborneOne, who have to expand the stubs you create. PLEASE STOP CREATING ONE-LINERS and fill out the articles you've already created!! Otherwise, I am an administrator, and I do have the ability to start the process of getting these stubs deleted. Please acknowledge this message. Buckshot06(prof) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. If you want my assistance, or possibly more usefully, user:MilborneOne's assistance, please don't hesitate to sing out. We are 99.5% of the time a pretty helpful bunch of people. Oh, and by the way, are you sure that RAF Disforth is not actually RAF Dishforth? Buckshot06(prof) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No. 223 Squadron RAF[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of No. 223 Squadron RAF, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/h223.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: No. 226 Squadron RAF[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as No. 226 Squadron RAF, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/h226.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:No. 226 Squadron RAF and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:No. 226 Squadron RAF with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:No. 226 Squadron RAF.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:No. 226 Squadron RAF saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Buckshot06(prof) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to No. 226 Squadron RAF. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A follow up: I've stubbed the article No. 223 Squadron RAF by removing content copied from [1]. Please be aware that you can be blocked for repeatedly adding copyrighted content. Much of the content I removed was interesting, and probably should be covered by some original, uncopyrighted prose. Best wishes, – Toon(talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RAF Squadrons[edit]

I appreciate your intentions are well founded but as Buckshot06 has already pointed out your creation of stub articles (one liners) on squadrons are causing a lot of work. I have had to fill them out with details to stop them being deleted. As the messages above indicated instead of producing one liners you are now appear to be copying information directly from the RAF website, which is not allowed. Over the years we have slowly been adding squadron articles, we are not in a hurry, sources have to be checked and we have real jobs and life to lead. So please slow down, you can allways create draft articles in a sandbox (for example create your own at User:Magus732/Sandbox by clicking on the link). Or just ask us questions, you can do that on this page, and somebody will help. We would rather help you become a good editor then chase after you clearing up. But on a serious note you need to learn how we do things here or you will get blocked from editing. We would rather help then loose people with enthusiasm. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

While I can appreciate your desire to help out, most of your edits to ship articles have been detrimental in removing linking templates, convert templates, and other formatting desired by the Manual of Style. Since these edits were detrimental, most of them have been reverted. Please do not continue this pattern of editing on ship articles or you could be blocked for disruption. -MBK004 07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking heed of this. Edits such as these: [2] [3] are excellent to standardize all of our articles. Just remember to not remove existing linking and convert templates if they exist in the articles. If the style of link isn't correct, {{USS}} has a couple of different variables to show the correct linking variant. -MBK004 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You need to stop editing the ship articles again. You are removing the summary in the lead section of the articles. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the articles. Instead you are removing significant portions of them, which is forcing me to revert all of your edits once again. Please stop "improving" these articles since your edits are doing more harm than good. -MBK004 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to put it this way, you need to ask the community at WT:SHIPS for approval of your edits. I have seen other editors revert your edits as well. I am hesitant to do so, but continuing to make these edits without discussing them will lead me to impose a topic-ban on you which would be enforced by blocks. -MBK004 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Just checked my email's spam folder, right where yours showed up (will have to tweak those parameters again). I should note that while I do have email enabled, I prefer to keep conversation on-wiki and use the email for only private matters that deal with things in the course of my duties as an administrator. As for your questions, I've got two pages for you to read: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines is the thing you should take the most time reading and looking at the linked policies as well. Also, since you've primarily edited USN ships, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions may be of interest. Since the majority of our articles of ships in the USN are from the public-domain source DANFS, we have a special page with guidance on how to convert those entries to encyclopedic articles. When you're done with these, let me know. -MBK004 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For normal text the spacebar is fine, but for the situations you mentioned with the measurements and dates the nbsp is correct per the MOS. The best way to see what is the accepted ways is to open the edit tab on a Featured Article or Good Article and just look at the syntax and wikimarkup without editing anything. Two suggestions: USS Iowa (BB-61) (a newly-promoted FA), and USS Texas (BB-35) (a GA that I'm currently working on). Also, use : when replying like I do so it's easier to follow conversations just like the box at the top of my talk page states. -MBK004 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you give me a diff of that so I can advise? Also, we don't shoot people, we prefer to use a trout (hint, click on that link). -MBK004 04:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, different writing styles from different authors (that article was written by many editors). In this situation you should adhere to the standard that is prevalent throughout the article. In that instance I have fixed it since it is not the standard throughout the article. Also, that isn't the main body, that is the lead and the body of the article is broken into the sections below the lead. -MBK004 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

Hello, thanks for your message. The thing is, IPs can only be blocked if they act persistenly. If they act randomly then they may receive a warning but don't get blocked. Anyway, I'll watch the IP you were referring to. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes undiscussed[edit]

Don't make undiscussed changes to featured articles such as Iowa class battleship without discussing them. You've been reverted twice. Stop or be blocked for edit warring. -MBK004 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist![edit]

Pratt & Whitney engines[edit]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines on the issue of variant list order. You are invited to make your case there. This task force is a small subset of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, and was formed recently to help standardize aircraft engine coverage. If the consesus formed there is not to your liking, you are welcome to request wider input on the main Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation pages. I thank you for bringing up the issue; I've been meaning to raise it with you, but other matters kept intervening. It's really not that big an issue, and we certainly don't need to continue to revert each other to infinity. We just need to use a standard format as much as possible, which ever formant we eventually choose. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes[edit]

You have been making quite a few undiscussed major changes to the structure of articles including high-class articles like USS Texas (BB-35). You really need to make a proposal on WT:SHIPS because this is just getting ridiculous. Every time I leave you alone, and I take a look later on I see MOS violations or something else. Please stop these unilateral changes and gain community approval. -MBK004 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying for each and every article, I'm saying that you need to discuss the types of changes you are making. We work on a consensus method and the way that works is via an article structure, which you are modifying. Plus, you are introducing errors that do violate the Manual of Style. These types of edits put the higher-class article's status in jeopardy because of the MOS errors. Plus they have been through a community review which did not see fit to request those changes. While your suggestions are welcome, making large-scale changes across an entire type of article without some discussion is not helpful or how we do things. -MBK004 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is pretty much common-sense in how to work with people. Since we use collaborative editing, think of it this way, someone brand new comes in and decides that the entire article is wrong or something needs major changes. They go ahead and do so but when they are questioned about it, they keep on making those type of edits. That is against consensus because the consensus was that the established version was adequate which means that a discussion should have occurred. Like you have mentioned, it is difficult to realize when to gain a consensus, but the general rule of thumb when there is a single or group of dedicated editors (like this situation because I am not the only person concerned, just the only one making an attempt to communicate) who actively edit and maintain the articles. Like I have said above, making changes without discussing them over many pages over many days is not how things are done. If it were one or two articles that would be different, but the sheer numbers make a discussion mandatory. Also, in response to your first message, as tempting as it is to just ask you to stop editing ship articles, I do recognize that you do want to help, and asking you to cease editing these pages is not the correct thing to do. -MBK004 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent question would be better answered it it were asked here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The reason being that I can only state what is written in the MOS. -MBK004 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits to aircraft articles[edit]

I have noticed that as part of your recent series of edits to aircraft articles, you have been systematically removing non-breaking spaces and also removing comments from templates such as infoboxes and specification templates. Please stop doing this - non-breaking spaces are a requirement of MOS - see(Wikipedia:MOS#Non-breaking_spaces, while the hidden comments in templates are helpful to show people how the template works, and what info should be added where. Nigel Ish (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Again - will you please stop removing non-breaking spaces - it is contrary to MOS!Nigel Ish (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

I think the comment on my talk page was in reference to USS Texas. You recently removed "non-breaking space" formatting templates and added non-standard time formats on that article, please see WP:MOS. Postoak (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history Coordinator Elections[edit]

As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 14:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-breaking Spaces[edit]

I notice that you are still removing non-breaking spaces in aircraft articles - they were put there for a reason. Would be interested to know why you are doing it despite others also mentioning it on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but the problem is nothing to do with spaces it is the removal of non-breaking spaces   that is causing concern. Please have a read of Wikipedia:MOS#Non-breaking_spaces to understand what I and others are trying to stop you removing. In summary = A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that could be awkward at the beginning of a new line. Other editors are reverting your edits even though some of it has value to restore the non-breaking spaces. So I would appreciate that you understand the issues before editing any more articles. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You say the problem is that we dont have an issue - if that is true then why all the talk page messages asking you stop removing non-breaking spaces. I think you will need to explain what you mean by I'll take up my grievence with someone who can do something about it, aside from quoting me the rule. Please answer here saves splitting the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is that I have an issue with the way rules state things should be done; for example, all those special coded spaces we're supposed to put between a unit of measurement and the value, nobody seems to have noticed that all they do is add unnecessarily to the coding of the page... that '​s what I mean... no one can give me a straight answer as to why things have to be so much more complicated than is really appropriate... as to your first question, people are anal about rules because they're rules... has anyone ever, even once, wondered why someone thought doing it this way is better? But, you know what, I'll just solve everybody's problem; I won't make edits anymore... I'll go somewhere to get information, and never bother anyone again... that'll make everyone happy... Magus732 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The code is needed as the non breaking spaces keep the two parts together so when they end up at the end of the line you dont end up with the first bit on a different line - for example 5 miles could end up with 5 on one line and miles on another which is not common practice in the publishing world. Every user has a different screen size setting so you never known if the words are at the end of a line or not. The non-breaking space just keeps them together it says dont start a new line in the middle please. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I was right... I should leave... what do you mean, keep them on the same line!? I have seen countless publications, both in print and online, that contradict that statement! I'm staring at a web site right now that says otherwise! Magus732 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK you asked for an explanation I cant help it if you dont accept it. You can always have a read of Wikipedia:Line_break_handling#.26nbsp.3B which has some more explanation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
So what I have to say doesn't matter if it doesn't match the rulebook... great... by the way, I didn't ask for an "explanation"; I asked for a logical reason, which is not what you gave me... Magus732 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what sort of logical reason you are looking we add the non-breaking space to stop the page looking bad (as is standard practice in the print industry and official websites). You are welcome to try and change the rules or guidelines you need to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd errors to watch for[edit]

See Talk:Heinkel He 111#He 111Z, and feel free to ask me for more clarification. This one is not your fault, as the mistake should have been caught long before this. But we have to watch for things like this, especially in articles on German and other European products. - BillCJ (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

[4] :-) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"General cleanup" edits[edit]

I appreciate that you've been spending a lot of time today working on ship articles, but included among your changes are some that break wikilinks, introduce non-standard abbreviations or conversions, or are at odds with Manual of Style recommendations, such as those regarding hyphenating compound adjectives and using dashes properly. You are making good improvements to prose (especially catching the terrible Navy habit of presenting dates without prepositions, like "departing 22 June"), but I am afraid that the introduction of errors like I've described above may result in your edits being reverted. Can we discuss this, please? Watchlisting; please reply here. Maralia (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "breaking wikilinks?" Magus732 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (Sorry... didn't read the last part about replying here..)

See for example [5]. The first change turned "45,000 tons" into "45,000 tons ( tonnes)". The second change, in the armament section of the infobox, turned a link to 16-50 Mark 7 into a link to 16"/50 caliber Mark 7. There are other mistakes as well, such as using unspaced endashes in date ranges comprised of multiple words; changing conversions to mm to conversions to cm; and using hyphens instead of dashes. Maralia (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I see your point... I really need to review that MOS manual, huh? Well, I'll get right to work fixing those errors... Magus732 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

<==Two more issues: Conversion of units from metric to United States customary units and back.

  • Issue 1: if the Americans use a metric notation from the start, such as in the 20 mm caliber weapons, then no conversion to inches is necessary. The Wikipedia MOS:CONVERSIONS#Unit_conversions section says nothing about this case, so we must use common sense.
  • Issue 2: You can't ascribe greater precision to a conversion number that is a rough figure. A 500 lb bomb is not a 227 kg bomb, it's a 230 kg, or maybe 225 kg bomb. The 227 kg figure is far more precise than the 500 lb figure. Historically, those bombs varied widely in weight. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in at the conversation about this issue: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_aviation_task_force#What_is_.79_inches.3F. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Another conversation you might want to look at is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_aviation_task_force#How_many_kilograms_is_a_1.2C000_lb_bomb.3F. We're talking about putting 450 kg in for 1,000 lb bombs, not 454 or 453 kg. Another discovery is that a capital 'L' is required for abbreviating liters or litres, for clarity, because the lower-case 'l' looks too much like a numeral '1'. This is in MOS:NUMBERS. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work on the Ar 234[edit]

Kudos! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers[edit]

Wikipedia:NUMBERS#Numbers_as_figures_or_words:

  • As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. However there are frequent exceptions to these rules.

It looks nicer to use words for simple numbers like ten. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how the only other problems are the ages, for which it makes sense at certain points, there isn't that much to change. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edit didn't change that specific item, though, which is why I did. It's the same thing, as noted by the page. Not everything needs to be discussed, especially since I'm fine with either. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Not according to the edit history I'm seeing. Maybe some wires got crossed somewhere. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

USS Randolph[edit]

Very informative message. I couldn't find a link for a "Toconderoga" class carrier. Based on your spelling, it appears that you're the one who needs a history lesson. But for starters, I'd recommend that you take a look at this: Essex_class#The_.22long-hull.22_Essexes. Then take a look at Wp: Civil.

But by all means, I would advise you to report me to an administrator for vandalism. I recommend an administrator in WP: Ships. Orpy15 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "Long hull" is a misnomer. They were really "long bow" ships. I'm going to make some changes, with citations. If you still think it's "vandalism" after that, by all means report me. Orpy15 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It says that. That's part of what needs to be addressed. It also says "The U.S. Navy never held any institutional difference between the long-hull and short-hull Essex ships, and postwar refits and upgrades were applied to both groups equally." Orpy15 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know my position, it's that these articles should say that long hull ships were sometimes referred to as Ticonderoga class ships. Which is true. As a kind of shorthand identifier, it's true. To say that "authorities considered them to be a separate class" is incorrect. Even the Navy didn't think that.
But sure, let's put it on a talk page. I'm certainly amenable to that. Orpy15 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would think Talk:Essex class aircraft carrier or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Orpy15 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's that major, but that's fine. Orpy15 (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Take a look. I didn't state your position because I didn't want to try to speak for you. Orpy15 (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Torpedos - Battleship Texas[edit]

Hello:

I was reading the history section of the BB35 article and read the changes you made.

Concerning your change as to the torpedo tubes being a Mark 15, BB35 tubes were Mark I Mod I as of March 1914 and were the same until removed during the 1925 - 1926 period in Norflok Navy Yard, for modernization.

The torpedos were Mark III - as of March 1914 Mark IX - as of January 1915 Mark IX-1 - as of January 1925

The source for my information is the BB35 armament page from the ship's "Log Book" IronShip (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Service history for battleships[edit]

Hi, I'm certainly willing to discuss this with you. Sorry for probably coming across as crass earlier. Why do you think a "Service history" header should be in the articles? —Ed (TalkContribs) 03:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, you know what, forget it... if you aren't going to take me seriously, why should I bother contributing? I mean, the least people can do is give me a forum before you start discussing me in secret like I'm some kind of terrible vandal bent on destroying the website... if that's how it's going to be, no thank you... I'll edit elsewhere on Wikipedia... Magus732 (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My apoligies if you thought I wasn't taking you seriously; I assure you, I am. As far as I know, no one has discussed you 'in secret'; Tom gave you a link above...
I hope we can get past this and discuss your edits to the BB articles. The only two things I didn't like were the removal of the nbsp's between the ×'s and the "Service history" header. I don't think that having nbsp's in there hurts an article, but if you want to discuss it I will. I would really like to talk about the header though... —Ed (TalkContribs) 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I can't "get past" being dismissed as a disruptive lunatic... maybe I'm wrong about the articles, but isn't it in the best interest of everyone to ask more than just two or three people about something before you decide it's wrong? That's what I mean by "in secret"... Magus732 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) - wait, what? I know that I have not 'dismissed [you] as a disruptive lunatic'! I have my opinion on the header, sure, but the reason I posted here was so you could list any reasons why you believe it should be included—to see if I was wrong. Please do not think that I am attempting to insult you in any way, and I apoligize if I have inadvertantly. —Ed (TalkContribs) 04:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody discussed you behind your back, and nobody was colluding in secret. You were invited to the discussion which you tacitly acknowledged. The idea of that discussion was not to lay blame on anyone, it was to discuss whether it was appropriate. The opinion of the editors who wrote there was that it was not appropriate. It would be very constructive if you could offer your opinion there why you think the articles should include service history sub-sections. I don't think anyone had the intention of offending you, merely I wanted to understand your reasoning. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative editing[edit]

It's unfortunate that you've got into a few editing disputes since joining Wikipedia. You seem keen and willing to contribute, but your enthusiasm for improving our articles has apparently got you carried away and brought you into unnecessary conflict with some of our policies and community standards. We encourage all editors to be bold in their editing, and you've certainly done that! However, the flip-side is that all editors are expected to work together in a collaborative way, which often means that the diplomatic thing to do is to propose edits on article talk-pages (or, for major changes that will affect many articles, at the relevant WikiProject talk-page) so they can be discussed and you can get a feel for how things will go down. As you've found out, not doing so can provoke a frustrated reaction among editors who have spent many hours working on those articles, and the end result is that you become labelled as disruptive and someone like me steps in and blocks your account. At that stage, with mounting frustration and loss of goodwill on both sides, it's often a self-reinforcing cycle that ends up with an indefinite block, so I'm posting here in the hope that we can head things off before it gets to that point. Every editor - including you - should be able to enjoy their time here, and you'll find editing a lot more satisfying if you slow down and communicate with other editors. Accusing them of conspiring against you, as you've done in the above thread, is very unhelpful (and against Wikipedia policy). If you'd stopped making the changes that were causing the problem as soon as you'd noticed that they were being reverted, and asked the other editors why, they wouldn't have felt the need to bring them up at a public noticeboard (as they are perfectly entitled to do). You might find this advice useful in future. I really hope this helps, and you could do a lot worse than to listen to the editors who've posted above - they are some of our most experienced and well-regarded, and like myself they will be happy to help you out as long as you play your part. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to U.S. destroyer articles[edit]

Can you please provide a specific link for a discussion of "approved changes" at WT:SHIPS as referred to in edit summaries for this edit, this edit, and this edit? I see no relevant discussion there. Nor do I see anything that "approves" unilateral changes of style when both alternatives are acceptable to the Manual of Style (MoS). Nor either do I see any endorsement of changes that are specifically counter to the MoS, like 24-hour times without a colon (MOS:NUM#Time of day), or improper dash usage (MOS:DASH). And I would find it highly doubtful that any such discussion (if it exists) encourages the removal of in-text notes which aid in the articles' verifiability (one of Wikipedia's official policies). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I'm still not seeing anything about destroyers or some of the types of changes you made. For example, the consensus practice in ship infoboxes is to abbreviate the units, but in the body text, either full units or abbreviations are acceptable in the eyes of the MoS, as long as the article is internally consistent. A change from one style to the other without discussion is akin to changing the flavor/flavour of English just because it's not how you spell it. My reason for not abbreviating units in the body text is that quite simply, is the abbreviation of in (with no period, per the MoS) can be ambiguous to a reader because it is also a common preposition.
Also, regarding knots: kn is not a universally accepted or used abbreviation for the nautical-mile-per-hour unit. Given this, I find it better to spell out an unambiguous unit—as I had done in the infoboxes in the articles referenced above—rather than hope that someone figures out a somewhat obscure abbreviation. (Think of someone's 12-year-old granddaughter trying to learn about the ship her grandpa was on in the war. Would a typical 12-year-old know what "kn" is for a ship's speed? Maybe, maybe not, but she'd have a better chance of knowing or finding out what a knot is.)
Similarly, U.S. (with full stops) is an accepted form in American English, even when other abbreviations, initialisms, acronyms, etc., do not use them. This is supported in the Chicago Manual of Style (section 15.34, p. 568, 15th edition), the style of which I follow when writing and/or editing WP articles.
Another thing is that many featured articles, some of which I wrote and/or shepherded through the FAC process, use a common and accepted reference style with second-level headings of "Notes", "References", and "Bibliography", all with equal weight. Your demotion of the "Bibliography" section header is encroaching on a change of reference style, which is frowned upon.
I find it really disheartening that I carefully restored these article to their established style (since there was no specific discussion of such changes beforehand)—while preserving your content edits—only to have you perform a blind revert. One of the articles, USS Benham (DD-49), was undergoing a GA review at the time, and such edits only serve to disrupt that process. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Displacement[edit]

Hello Magnus. I have come across a few of your edits to displacement figures for ships. By convention (and the Washington Naval Treaty), displacement is measured in long tons, not short tons. On a more general note, you may find this discussion of interest. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I have placed a notice on the ship project discussion page. I'm not sure of the scope of this, but it looks like you made many edits to ship infoboxes which convert short tons to metric tonnes, when the conversion should actually be long tons to metric tonnes or short tons, or both. It would be helpful if you could review your edits and correct these. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you are editing again. Can you go through your edits of last month and remove the incorrect conversions? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS General Craufurd (1915)[edit]

The reference is listed... next time, please ask before deleting that much data, so as to eliminate these mishaps... Magus732 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about this: dunno what I was thinking (or not thinking) about... Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent changes to Franklin's lost expedition[edit]

Hi Magus732. Quite a few of the changes you recently made to Franklin's lost expedition have changed things that were correct into things that are incorrect. One set of examples involves your deletion of nbsp codes carefully inserted to keep digits and units from being separated on computer screens by line-break. Please see WP:NBSP for details. Another set involves your replacement of en dashes in page ranges with hyphens in the "Timeline" section. Please see MOS:ENDASH. Another set involves changing the "eleven" to "11" in "which at one point in 1850 involved eleven British and two American ships" and similar changes in sentences that have a mixture of numbers bigger than 9 and less than 10. Please see WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words, which notes this exception to the usual rule: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty‑two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. Also, sentences in Wikipedia articles don't start with digits; thus "Sixteenth- and 17th-century voyagers" is correct and should not be changed. Would you mind restoring all of these to their earlier state? Finetooth (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to USS Texas (BB-35)[edit]

I do not understand why you are changing the edits. You claim that you are within the manual of style on the spelling out of numbers and capitalization -sincerely believe that you are wrong.

  • Numbers spelled out as words:

From the Manual of Style: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty‑four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. However there are frequent exceptions to these rules." And then I refer you to bullet points number three and number seven which state respectively "Adjacent quantities that are not comparable should usually be in different formats: thirty‑six 6.4‑inch rifled guns is more readable than 36 6.4‑inch rifled guns" and "Simple fractions are normally spelled out; use the fraction form if they occur in a percentage or with an abbreviated unit (⅛ mm or an eighth of a millimeter) or if they are mixed with whole numbers. Decimal fractions are not spelled out." The edits that you have made in regards to numbers are in direct conflict with this, aside from maybe a handful.

  • Capitalization:

Out of curiosity, since I am fairly new, why do you insist on capitalizing those particular links? Is there something special in those particular links that normal grammar rules do not apply to? I just checked the wiki guideline on linking and here is what I found:

"Case sensitivity. Links are not sensitive to initial capitalization, so there is no need to use piping where the only difference between the text and the target is the case of the initial letter (Wikipedia article titles almost always begin with a capital, whereas the linked words in context often do not). However, links are case-sensitive for all but the initial character."

Which implies to me that there is absolutely no need to capitalize them and keep reverting edits. If I am wrong please share with me why I am so I can correct myself.

I am not trying to be difficult, just curious and trying to improve myself if I am wrong.BB35 Restorer (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is just confusing when you are following the MoS to the letter and someone strongly believes your edits are incorrect. Thanks for the response!BB35 Restorer (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Same here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BB35 Restorer (talkcontribs) 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
See the edit summary of this edit by an administrator that both of you are familiar with: [6] -MBK004 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the policy that was being followed there was WP:OVERLINK since President is a common term and those intrigued could click on the name to get to the bio and from there it would be plainly obvious. -MBK004 03:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit[edit]

Thank you for your support on the article. What do you think it will take to get Gary to understand the flaws in his logic? Thanks again.CraigMonroe (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried the fish to a cheek. It didn't help. Lol. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me for linking to professional wrestling at the start of Benoit's article. That's why I'm a WikiGnome. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More on Franklin's lost expedition[edit]

Thanks for responding to my earlier note and making alterations. I have a couple of other issues I'd like to raise. After User:Clevelander96 and I cleaned up what had been a pretty big mess of an article and improved it until it passed the Good Article (GA) tests, another editor added the "Timeline" list. It has two problems: (1) it completely lacks sources and (2) it's a list, whereas the Manual of Style in WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests using straight prose instead of a list whenever possible and reasonable. The lack of sourcing is the more serious of the two problems because the information in the list is unverifiable and violates WP:V, one of Wikipedia's prime directives. I've been meaning to do something about the "Timeline", but I've been busy. Your more recent "List of 19th-century searches" has the same problems as "Timeline". I could easily convert it to straight prose, but I can't easily provide sources. The John Brown citation might cover part of the list, but since it was published in 1860, it can't cover the whole list. I'd be happy to convert the list to prose if you don't mind. Can you provide the missing sources? You must have found the data somewhere because it's not common knowledge. If these two lists are never properly sourced, someone will eventually and quite rightly delete them. I haven't done that because I prefer seeking consensus to anything heavy-handed. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. By the way, links to disambiguation pages are something to watch out for. For example, your link to HMS Plover goes to a list of 11 different ships with the same name. A reader who clicked on the link would have to study the list for quite a while to guess that the correct ship must have been the survey cutter bought in 1842 and sold in 1854. Clicking on William Hulme Hooper in the ship list confirms this, but a roundabout connection like this won't be of much use to most readers. Finetooth (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's slow work down here in the trenches. I don't keep score, but the two of us who did the most work on the lost expedition spent many many hours on it, and much of that was research time. A lot of good stuff is not online, and that means either going to the library or buying books as well as doing Google searches and poking around in the online journals. You might tackle the survey cutter as a separate project and see what you can come up with. I see that the author of the William Hulme Hooper article has sourced it to Hooper's book, Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski. That bit of info would give you a leg up on a Plover article, and once you get started you're almost certain to find other reliable sources. Hooper must have been approaching from the west; he overwintered in Siberia. Sounds fascinating to me, as do ever so many other things. Best wishes. Finetooth (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gun calibres and the convert template[edit]

Please do not use the convert template with gun calibres - it often gives the wrong answers. This is because the measurement given in the name of the gun is often not the exact calibre. In the case of some of the guns on HMS Ocean (1898), some of the weapons were 12pdr and 3pdr and what is required is a calibre in millimetres, not a weight in kilogrammes. Actually you cannot even assume that a gun called a 125mm gun has a calibre of 125mm - the Russian 125mm smoothbore gun has the same calibre as the Russian 122mm rifled gun - they called it 125mm to avoid the ammunition being confused.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Unit_conversions[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you because you are an enthusiastic contributor to ordnance-related articles. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the {{convert}} template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding {{convert}} everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centre stick vs side-stick[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centre stick vs side-stick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre stick vs side-stick. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Texas (1892)[edit]

If you notice you have been reverted, do not just go back and make your changes again and for good measure attack the reverter in your edit summaries. By now you should be aware of WP:BRD and using the discussion and user talk pages when something is contested. If I notice this behavior continuing from you, I will not hesitate in blocking you. -MBK004 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not really matter if the change helps or not, you should not just go back and make it again after being reverted until bringing it up with the person who reverted either on their talk page or the article's talk page. This is not a hard concept to grasp and should be a common courtesy as a part of a collegial editing environment. Doing what you did usually only leads to an edit war, which we should all agree is not what we want. Discuss first. -MBK004 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You are correct that Sturmvogel 66 was not ideal in how he approached this, but you are not without fault. As I've tried to enstill above, discuss your edits when they are called into doubt as they were here. If you discuss it with the editor you may understand his motives and/or realize that you may be in the wrong. -MBK004 00:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with your revert[edit]

Re this revert: The page was fine as it was... - what's the advantage with the "original" version? My revision effectively removed the pipe-effect altogether - why not de-obfuscate the target if it is so simple and easy to do so? 92.2.114.202 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In the paragraph I changed, the ship is refered to by her Chilean name... she had her name changed after she was sold to the Royal Navy... there's no reason Eagle can't be left unlinked, since it links to the same article as Almirante Cochrane... Magus732 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - though it doesn't answer either of my questions? 92.2.114.202 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It's fine the way it is because it doesn't matter which name Eagle is linked under, since it goes to the same place whether you place the link on her Chilean or British name... Magus732 (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
So you do agree that there's no advantage with the original version? And no disadvantage to making the target clearer? 92.2.114.202 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I disagree because the first of the two names should be linked, not the second... Magus732 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree if it were not for the fact that it's less clear. 92.2.114.202 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is it unclear? The ships link to the same place, the prefix "HMS" comes before Eagle to show her name change... what's not there that should be? Magus732 (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
HMS Eagle is obviously clearer that Almirante Cochrane. 92.1.89.174 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
And guess what - that's exactly how it was (ie HMS Eagle as opposed to Almirante Cochrane) from December 2005 up until you changed it a week ago! 92.1.89.174 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

U-boats[edit]

Hi, just a note to let you know that there is a template for use when wanting to wikilink to U-boat articles. {{GS}} needs less writing that the {{ship}} template, which I note you are familiar with. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -MBK004 05:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of observations[edit]

Hi Magus. I just have a couple of observations/tips following your edits at HMS Oxley and a couple of other articles.

  1. Per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref tags and punctuation, references are normally placed after punctuation, not before.
  2. The "date" parameter in cleanup templates is used to indicate how long the article has been affected by the templated issue, so should not be updated.

-- saberwyn 00:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing[edit]

hi, I noticed that you have edited the Fiat 500 page in April 2010, and moved all citations before punctuation marks, you may want to read this WP:CITE. --Typ932 T·C 10:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Battle of Slater's Knoll[edit]

Hello Magus, this is just a quick note regarding your edits on the Battle of Slater's Knoll. I know that you are just trying to help out, however, a number of the edits introduced issues that are contrary to the Manual of Style. These are mainly to do with changes to the dashes. For instance WP:DASH requires emdashes to be unspaced, not spaced. Also sometimes endashes should be spaced and other times they shouldn't. Finally the use of a slash for "night of 4/5 April" for instance is correct and shouldn't be changed to a hyphen per Wikipedia:MOS#Dates. The article has been through a fairly thorough A class review recently which dealt with these, so I have had to go back and fix them. Please take these points into consideration. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Stripping whitespace[edit]

Stripping whitespace (spaces, not blank lines) from template parameters (especially cites) and around headings has no effect on the presented article, but it does make editing the wikisource for it a lot less clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan[edit]

I reverted you again because there was no additional comments from the discussion from a week ago about why the whole article needed to have its dates changed. The article has already went through an A-class review with the military history project along and no guidelines for the project state that the date need to be changed. If you believe it should be changed, continue to discuss the rationale on the talk page to prevent the back-and-forth reverts. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits[edit]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with edits like this? Removing spaces between wikicode or infobox parameters has no bearing at all on the rendered page. Some editors prefer having that space to make the text in the edit window easier to read. I'm not aware of a consensus on whether or not that's desirable, however, removing it is a waste of your time and, more importantly, a waste of other editors' time who have these articles watchlisted and have to look over the diff and then find that you didn't in fact do anything at all. There are a multitude of maintenance things that could be done on Wikipedia. is full of things in need of attention, so if you really need something to do there are plenty of options. There's a big backlog of unassessed Automobile articles that I try to cut through when I have time, if you'd like to learn about what the article ratings mean and start doing that yourself, it would be much appreciated. I'm not trying to get on your case, but what you're doing doesn't help anyone or anything. --Sable232 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's a drop in the bucket at best and even on a dial-up connection it's not going to really help the page load any faster. And like I said, some of that spacing is desirable for readability purposes, so I'd strongly suggest you find something more constructive to do. --Sable232 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. STOP. NOW. Quit messing around with the conversion templates, specifically, removing the rounding figure. It is there for a reason. Secondly, do not replace prose with a dash, or change "from 1976 to 1977" to "in 1976-77," or replace every instance of a name like American Motors with it's acronym. Prose is good. The edits you are making would never, ever, fly in an FA or even a GA review.

Your misguided mission to remove as many bytes as you possibly can from Wikipedia articles is causing damage to them. If I see you continuing with these edits I will report you to AN/I, and you will be risking a block for your behavior. --Sable232 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "threat," it's a warning.
Engine displacements in liters are almost never stated to more than one decimal point. That is the norm across virtually all automotive publications. No automobile's dimensions are ever stated to a tenth of a millimeter, they do not measure to that level of precision.
Just because someone told you do do things a certain way for articles on a certain subject doesn't mean that applies everywhere. If there's an overwhelming status quo on articles in another field, it's probably that way for a good reason and you should probably consider that before you start changing things. --Sable232 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
So, in other words, you'd rather assume that thousands of articles are "wrong" rather than accept that not everybody does things the same way as whatever WikiProject you were working with before? Wow.
Well, take a look at WP:AUN, where liters are, in fact, shown to one decimal point. Every time. There is no specific guideline for rounding per se because, until now, nobody has had the gall to question the usage of accepted practices in automotive writing.
I still don't know if your motivation for this was because you thought the rounding figure in the conversion templates was "extra" coding you can't handle seeing, or if you actually thought you needed to make the conversions round differently for something. If it's the latter, I admit the tone of my warning was excessive. Based on the rest of the edits it looked like it was a matter of removing things that you thought were unneeded characters and not checking to see what the actual result was. --Sable232 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Volkswagen Type 3[edit]

Hi - while the original Karmann Ghia was, of course, based on the chassis of the Type 1 (Beetle), it was specifically designated the Type 14, and is commonly referred to as such [7][8][9]. Likewise, Der Große Karmann was based on the Type 3 chassis, but was designated Type 34. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Actions of 5/6 May 1945[edit]

A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Maginot Line[edit]

I have reverted your edits to Maginot Line. Amongst other things, you changed several words or phrases from British English to American English, even though the article is flagged as WP:BrE, you left a mangled {{convert}} template, and you made many other changes throughout the article which made it too difficult to check individual changes.

If you think the article should be in American English, please add to the recent discussion on the article's talk page, and if you do insist on making the changes, remember that Americans usually spell "defences" as "defenses". Please remember to click the "Show preview" button before saving a page. It also helps if you leave an edit summary. Tim PF (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese air attacks on the Mariana Islands[edit]

Hi Magus, I've just undone your changes to this article. The American-style dates (in which the number for the date preceeded the month (eg, March 8) and use of Japanese names for Japanese aircraft rather than the Allied reporting names were requested in the article's A class review, and non-breaking spaces are needed in dates for MOS compliance in highly-rated articles such as this. I hope that this is OK - I'd be happy to discuss it on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop changing date formats!![edit]

It looks as if a substantial number of your recent edits have been primarily about changing the formats of date from "Month Date, Year" to "Date Month Year". Please note that mass changing of dates in this manner is not allowed. it is considered disruptive, and has in the past led to editors being blocked from editing.

Please note the following except from WP:DATE:

Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee decided that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason; for example, with respect to the British date format as opposed to the American format, it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject. In February 2006, the Committee ruled, "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike." They also ruled that, "Users who focus in a disruptive way on an issue or subject may be banned from editing with respect to that issue or subject."

I believe it would be responsible of you to self-revert the changes you have made which have not already been reverted by other editors, rather than making other clean up after your efforts. I hope that you will decide to do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that, as long as that page works the way it is, it doesn't have to comform to the layout normally applied to a page of that type? So, most war-related pages follow the military date/24-hour time format, but not all of them? Do you know how unprofessional that makes Wikipedia look? Maybe you don't care about that kind of consistency, but I can '​t be the only one who thinks it's stupid to make exceptions like that... Magus732 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
And before you say anything, my preferred style, as the rulebook so blandly calls it, is for all the pages of a certain type to match stylistically... Magus732 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The ruling from ArbCom is that these dates should not be changed unless there is a compelling reason, You have no compelling reason to do so except for your own preferences and prejdices, so you should discontinue your actions. If you have a beef with that, I suggest you contact ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, until this is settled, I'm not going to change anymore dates; that well, if I'm found by ArbCom to be wrong, I wouldn't have made anything worse... Magus732 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. - I note that an editor has already asked you before to leave edit summaries. Please get into the habit of leaving edit summaries each time, it soon becomes second nature. You can set your preferences to prompt you if you are attempting to save an edit without a summary by going to My preferences > Editing and then ticking the box marked "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Your co-operation in this matter would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Despite my explanation above, you are still failing to use edit summaries. Other editors have been blocked for this in the past. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and leaving edit summaries is part of this. Please start using edit summaries or you editing privileges may be revoked per WP:DE. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that you are now using edit summaries, with a few omissions but that is to be expected at first as you are not used to providing these. It soon becomes second-nature to do so. I'd recommend changing your preferences as detailed above if you've not already done so, but thanks for your co-operation in this matter. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing spaces from templates[edit]

I have bad eyes. The spaces are useful for breaking up log strings of text and lines, something the the size of the font alone does not affect. Please show some consderation for others, and stop removing the spaces. Please remember that computers exist to help people, not the other way around. Thanks for you your cooperation. - BilCat (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Focke-Wulf Fw 200. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

War of 1812[edit]

I had to revert the edit mangled the formatting. Please be careful this seems to be a common complaint with you here.Tirronan (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Non breaking spaces in dates[edit]

Hi, Magnus. A couple of your edits have come up on my watch list. Good work with spotting the error in the Battle of Hongorai River article. Regarding the changes you've made to the dates in the Battle of Slater's Knoll and Battle of Hongorai River articles, please note that spaced endashes with non breaking spaces are actually required in the dates. The relevant policy link is WP:DATESNO where it states: "However, between two months and days, use a spaced en dash, such as June 3 – August 18 or June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940. The space before an en dash should preferably be a non-breaking space ( )". I've restored them in both of these cases. This only a minor point, though. Thanks for taking the time to improve the encyclopedia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is another example of it. Please also note that placing the name of the month before the date is a valid way of expressing dates (it seems to be the more common approach in the US, albeit not by much), so it would be best if you didn't swap the date before the name of the month without discussion. Thanks for all the other changes though! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "Month Date, Year" is the standard way of expressing dates in the US. Other methods are used only in specialized situations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Except that since these are military pages, using the military date/time formats are appropriate... Magus732 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Point well taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
In all the articles on US-related military topics I've put up for A class and FA reviews, the reviewers have requested Month Date, Year type dates as a condition of passing the article. I don't think that military articles are treated any differently to other articles in this regards (and rightly so IMO: we need to write for a general audience). Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Except that many of them—all should, IMO—have that "use dmy" template added to them, so their "requests" don't particularly matter, do they? Magus732 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing sacrosanct about that template: an editor added it at some point, and if consensus says it's inappropriate it can be removed. Editing Wikipedia isn't as much about robotically following a strict set of predetermined rules as it is about doing the best things possible for the article and the project as a whole. Usually that will mean doing what experience has shown to be the best practice, but sometimes it means using one's intelligence and judgement to do something better -- as long as one is willing to explain one's reasons cogently, and bow to consensus if other editors aren't convinced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I note that in all of your latest edits you provided the exact same edit summary "Adding punctuation, italics, links, etc. where appropriate...", but the actual edits when examined are all quite different. In some you made extensive copyedits and content changes, and in others you, again, changed date formats, something controversial but not mentioned in the edit summary.

It is not acceptable to mislead other editors as to the content of your edits by using inaccurate edit summaries. Please see WP:ES for our policies in this matter. In the future, please do not use a generic and potentially inaccurate edit summary, provide a short description of the actual editing done. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

You changed the date formats on an article and your changes were reverted. Please become familiar with WP:BRD as to how to deal with disputes. What you should have done was begin a discussion on the talk page. Its Bold Revert Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert Again.--JOJ Hutton 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Tiger[edit]

As you well know, your preferred formatting is not one that I'm willing to tolerate. I like commas and prefer to spell units out, you prefer m-dashes and abbreviate wherever possible and convert at every opportunity, etc. Please do not waste your time doing this on articles that I maintain, I will revert them. That said, please feel free to fix broken links and otherwise improve the article without messing the style used. Think of it as a Brit English vs. American English kind of thing and limit yourself to more substantial contributions of more general use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Default sort[edit]

Any reason why you are changing the default sorts on aircraft articles. Most of them were correct before you changed them, the default sort should be the same as the article name, only the aircraft company categories need a modifier. Any chance of reverting them all back, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you take Curtiss XP-31 as an example before the recent change the company category was [[Category:Curtiss aircraft|P-31]] which listed the article under P in Curtiss aircraft category and C in the other categories. By adding the default sort they all now all appear under P, wrongly in my view. As far as I am aware this method of adding a category sort has been standard on aircraft articles for a very long time (see Avro Lancaster) for another example. Also described at WP:SORTKEY MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but they shouldn't be listed by company name, they should be listed by designation... many of them already are, which is why I've left them alone... Magus732 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Listed by designation, new to me? have you a guideline or discussion reference for that? MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't need one; just look at the categories themselves... many of the aircraft articles are listed according to the military designation system; it was that way before I even signed up with Wikipedia... all I'm trying to do is see that they all match that sorting method... if that's not the correct way to sort them, then some people made some big mistakes, because a lot of these pages are already like that, even ones I've never even looked at before... and as for your Lancaster example, think about this; how would you place that article under the Avro category? Alphabetically, right? So, why should any of the other pages be any different? Magus732 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Cat sort your input is welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion request[edit]

Hello, can you please discuss your changes on Battle of Slater's Knoll, Battle of Ratsua and Battle of the Hongorai River? I have reverted your changes as I don't agree with them and feel that we should discuss these changes to determine how best to proceed. Can you please provide policy reasons why you feel they are necessary before changing them back? For instance, your removal of the non breaking space in the date in the infobox seems incorrect per WP:DATESNO, and your use of emdashes seems excessive and counter to the advice in WP:EMDASH where it says specificaly to "use emdashes sparingly". Additionally, your addition of level three headings in the Notes section is unnecessary. The style currently being used is one that is frequently accepted at Military History project A-class review, and unless there is a policy that says it is not allowed there doesn't seem to be any reason to change it either, particulary when the advice in the A-class criteria implies that efforts should be made to reduce the sizes of tables of contents (A3: "...substantial but not overwhelming table of contents"). When you get a chance can you please review my comments and respond. If I am wrong, I am prepared to accept that, but I think it counter productive for us to keep changing minor things in this way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox error[edit]

re: USS Alaska (CB-1) Your recent edit broke the proper syntax for the infobox, so I replaced it with that from the preceding version. As you made a number of changes you may want to restore to your recent version and correct the problem, checking with the preview display.

- Leonard G. (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Error introduced due to convert template typo in article RBMK[edit]

You may wish to see Talk:RBMK#Erroneous containment system values. -- 203.82.93.98 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

V boat fixes[edit]

You did a good job fixing up a lot of minor issues at the V boat article. I just have a small comment to make. Some of your fixes broke conversion templates and one of them caused an entire sentence to end up in italics when just the name of the ship should have been. Minor issues for sure, and I've cleaned up what I've found, but I just wanted to leave you a suggestion to try to proofread your changes better before adding them. Thanks for the doing the little things that keep articles in good shape. Those that do rarely get any recognition. Sperril (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Magus732 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Alpha units[edit]

I've always followed the "rule" of alpha as if the written (ordinal?) is being used, so 5th before 3d. That will depend on the list, tho: if the numbers are being used... If they're mixed, I'm as much at a loss as you. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak to "rightness" of "3d" v "3rd". (I vagurely recall seeing it sometimes, but wouldn't swear to it.) That's more a personal thing, not one I'd use in mainspace (absent forgetting... :( ). Neither do I claim to be the last (or even 3d from last ;p ) word on the subject. :D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If it offends your esthetics, go ahead. :) I've complained over offended esthetics. ;p This isn't one that bugs me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good reason. :) (Just saying, it wasn't a bad reason before.) It may be it needs raising, IDK. This one's really your call. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the correctness of 2d & 3d vs 2nd & 3rd, according to the Gregg Reference Manual this usage has been an acceptable since the early 90's and it is optional on a case by case basis. One warning is provided that in the situation where the abbreviation "2d" or "3d" is used to represent the term "2 dimension" or "3 dimension" respectively that its usage to indicate the ordinal position of second or third be avoided. Personally, I'm not a big fan and will use these solely when character space is at a premium. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of France[edit]

I’ve just had to correct some of the edits you made here when you “cleaned it up” (as if it was in some way dirty, before); I’m letting you know because it isn’t the first time you’ve been told about this, but seem determined to carry on anyway. Milhist articles do not always need conversion templates, particularly when they are wrong; and if you are going to edit ship articles at all you might profitably check the difference between gross register tonnage, which is a measure of volume, and long, short and metric tons, which are weight/mass. Merchant ships use GRT, warships use tons displacement, and they do not correlate. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So-called cleanups[edit]

I reverted you at here, and if I have time I might do elsewhere, because I consider many of your cleanups detrimental.

Start with the removal of blank lines after headings, and before and after images. This makes no difference to the article appearance, but makes the source text more "scrunched", and harder to navigate by eye. And it makes the diff not align, so it's very hard to see what you changed. Don't do that.

Then there was lot of upcasing of piped links. Again, no effect on the article, just a lot of one-character changes, creating huge diffs to review. Don't do that.

And sometimes delinking is OK, but be sensitive to the context. In the mouse article, you went the other way, and added links, like ball right next to a link to five-pin bowling. Don't do that. You also don't need to link the degree sign like you did.

You took a source line break out of a ref. Again, not useful. Don't do that.

And what you're doing with dashes seems quite mysterious. You replaced some of the spaced en dashes by em dashes, and some by spaced hyphen, and you left some. None of these were wrong or in need of your changes. Don't do that.

And there were way too many changes to review. If you're going to make mass changes, they should be changes that are well motivated and not controversial. Please stop.

Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


And I reverted you at StrongARM because I didn't have the patience to sort out the errors from the cleanups. You inserted a hyphen into a number range that used "to", for example; an en dash would work, but why mess with it?

And you converted a bunch of en dashes in page ranges to hyphens. Don't do that. See MOS:DASH.

And you squeezed all the line breaks out of a sensibly formatted ref, converted it back to an impenetrable wall of text. Don't do that.

In Intel 4004 you've converted normal ASCII apostrophe to an odd "prime" symbol or something. Don't do that.

And you replace comma-offset material with em-dash offsets, which is usually stylistically too grating. Don't do that without a good reason; this is not a cleanup.

Your frequent replacement of words with numbers as here, and your frequent rearrangement of date formats, seem to be largely inappropriate.

If you're going to be doing "cleanups", you need to sync up with WP:MOS. Please study it.

I think I'll just roll back all your top edits, pending your review of these comments. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


I forgot to notify you earlier, but I mentioned you and this problem at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_rollback_abuse_by_User:Dicklyon. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The editor seems to be concentrating on MOS cleanups, performed without semi-automation, and this ought to be generally welcomed. I would, however, point out that there is a strong consensus that one ought not to be making changes where there is no effect on the rendered page. Certainly, cases such as the spaces mentioned above, and capitalisation of piped elements of a links are totally inconsequential, and ought not to be made. Into the category of inconsequential edits I would include the insertion of '&nbsp;', which although is recommended in the MOS, is largely ignored. Dave mentioned IAR, but that only applies where there is a manifest benefit to the project, which does not seem to be the case in some of the edits cited. I would note that the edit in Egypt–Libya Campaign may have been correctly reformatted with dmy dates, as the subject is a US military operation, and as such we would generally apply WP:TIES. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Oh. I agree that there is wheat among the chaff; but it's too hard to sort out. On the Egypt–Libya Campaign edit, I was specifically complaining about changing twenty-three to 23, which seemed unwarranted; I would have ordinarily let that slide, but it was the example most handy; elsewhere it was changing ten to 10 and such; but also some that went in the other direction, and seemed no more well motivated. I didn't specifically analyze the date changes, just noticed a lot of them, with no comments about why. And is there some reason that article needed eight em dashes? And many other articles similary? These are certainly not "cleanups", and seem not to have been influenced by knowledge of WP style. The frequent substitution of a funky "prime" symbol (not a curly quote) for apostrophes is particularly weird and annoying. But squeezing out blank lines and the formatting of cite templates is what really ticked me off, as it just makes everything harder. Only 10% of this mess has been rolled back, so there's lots for anyone that wants to help clean up. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
And I don't understand your point on the dates. We yanks would usually put the day after the month, but he flipped that. Not that I care, really. Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
And as you can see, numerous editors have been complaining about this behavior for years. It used to be that he replaced non-breaking spaces by regular spaces; now he's gone hard over the other way. Among the many unneeded changes are a few that are downright harmful. Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

This might be of interest to you. Happy editing! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Help in maintaining NPOV on historical Pacific War aviator[edit]

Hi Magus732. Because you listed "World War II, primarily American and Japanese navies and aircraft" as areas of interest on the WikiProject Military history page, I thought you might be able to lend some help.

I'm looking for some third parties to review a problem editor who (in my opinion) continues to violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia on the page of a Pacific War aviator, Mitsuo Fuchida. After exhausting myself trying to maintain viable content in the "Controversy" section, I'm asking for a page ban for this user. If you have time and motivation, I'd really appreciate your consideration to review this issue. The Noticeboard Request is to be found here: [10] I hate to take anyone's time, but this problem is why many won't trust Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration.--TMartinBennett (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


Reference style[edit]

Just to note I have mentioned some of your edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#References style, you may or may not wish to comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you didnt appreciate my amused comment, but you have to appreciate that seeing my watchlist fill out with contradicting edits did amuse me as I could see you following each other around the list of aircraft possibly without coming to an end. I didnt have a view if anybody was right or wrong but wanted to raise to see if we did have a consensus on the issue and at lease stop one of you wasting editing time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Best use of your time?[edit]

I applaud your energy in making the numerous changes to the Akagi article, but I would have to question whether that is really the best use of your time and energy since the vast majority of them were invisible to the reader. I would think that a more productive use of your time could easily be found on Wiki; things that readers would immediately see like fixing categories or italicizing ship names in article titles. I am surprised that an editor of your experience has not observed that the convert template automatically defaults to conversions in miles and kilometers for nautical miles like so: 700 nautical miles (1,300 km; 810 mi). Thus forcing the conversion as you did on Akagi is really a waste of your precious time. And why would you abbreviate knots in the template, saving all of three letters, but requiring seven keystrokes to specify?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've changed some of your recent edits to Hiryu, mostly those relating to numbers. You don't seem to be aware of the second bullet point from MOS:NUMERAL which means that if I use the numeral for the quantity of aircraft once in a paragraph, I have to use it for all of the numbers of aircraft in that paragraph. This has been hard for me to get used to, so I'm sure that I've messed it in places, but it is an exception to the normal rule about spelling out numbers below 10.
Another issue is that I've reverted your fondness for ship prefixes whenever it's clear that, or actually specified that, the ships in question were British. Forex, I used the prefix for the Australian destroyer Vampire because I didn't say that she was Australian and a reader couldn't be expected to know that. Conversely, it's rather pointless to use HMS for Dorsetshire and Cornwall when I said that they were British heavy cruisers.
I continue to be bemused by your insistence in abbreviating distances and other measurement, but I've only changed a few of them back. Namely, feet and meters since I see very little point in abbreviating such short words. Nautical miles? OK, that I can see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Terror (I03), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monitor (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) 09:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well...[edit]

Well, I added USS Iowa (BB-4) to ther list of featured article hopefuls. I hope I didn't screw it up too badly. Magus732 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Iowa (BB-4), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeboard (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) 09:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Taranto may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Two Italian aircraft were destroyed by the bombing, and two unexploded bombs hit the cruiser {{Ship|Italian cruiser Trento|''Trento'']] and the destroyer ''Libeccio''. Near misses damaged the destroyer ''Pessagno''.<ref name="santoni">

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Goodenough Island may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • slick, but no survivors. On 22 August, ''Isokaze'' returned again, this time with the destroyer {{Ship|Japanese destroyer|Mochizuki||''Mochizuki'']], and together they found 10 survivors in a launch. The two destroyers then searched the coast

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frigate may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:IRINSJamaran.jpg|thumb|right|280px|The frigate {{Ship|[[Iranian frigate Jamaran|IRIN ''Jamaran'']] of the [[Islamic Republic of Iran Navy]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Curtiss SB2C Helldiver may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • failed to catch the wire on landing and hit the first barrier, nose-diving into the deck ({{USS|Hornet|CV-12|USS ''Hornet'']], 3 July 1944).]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Douglas F5D Skylancer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • = 2010 | url = http://ontarioairfaire.org/Merle_s_Warbirds.php | accessdate = September 13, 2010}}</ref>
  • like capacity, leave it blank. For additional lines, end your alt units with a right parenthesis ")" and start a new, fully-formatted line beginning with an asterisk "*" -->

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Gela (1943)[edit]

Thank you for your attention to subject article. I believe the note relating to Italian Stukas should be removed, however. The listed reference specifically identifies the aircraft, and I have seen other references indicating the Regia Aeronautica apparently operated a few of the Ju-87s, presumably because they did not have any comparable aircraft produced by Italian manufacturers.Thewellman (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Union blockade may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • D. Vance'', captured by the Union Navy and recommissioned as<br/>{{USS|Advance|1862|2}}]]</center>]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''Shōhō''{{'}}s [[combat air patrol]] (CAP) consisted of two A5Ms and one A6M Zero. The Dauntlesses] began their attack at 11:10 as the three Japanese fighters attacked them in their dive. None of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of the Falkland Islands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • outrun their opponents and significantly outgun them. An obsolete [[pre-dreadnough] battleship]]—{{HMS|Canopus|1897|6}}—had also been grounded at Stanley to give a stable gunnery platform and to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of the Falkland Islands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of their chances. Following von Spee's success at Coronel off the coast of [[Valparaíso, Chile]], [where his [[German East Asia Squadron]] sank the cruisers {{HMS|Good Hope|1901|6}} ([[Christopher

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spring Offensive may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of relief in place was poorly organized by the [[First Army (United Kingdom)|British First Army]]'s]] command, and the [[1st Division (Portugal)|Portuguese 1st Division]] had been withdrawn to the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Italian invasion of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in the north and only a relatively small force was maintained on the border with Italy. The [[History of the Armée de l'Air (1909–1942)|''Armée de l'Air'' (French Air Force) was relocating to [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Shoho edits[edit]

I strongly suggest that you read Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide on how to fill out the infobox. Notably, boilers are moved to ship power and knots is not abbreviated (why would you want to? it takes more typing to code the abbreviation than it does to spell it out). And I gather that you haven't noticed that long tons cannot be abbreviated in the conversion template, so you're wasting your time trying to do so.

You made some good changes, fully compliant with the MOS, in the service section, and I left those alone. But I really wish that you'd stop indulging your fetish to abbreviate all measurements as I don't share your conviction that doing so is necessary. Please respect the style that you find GA or better-class articles as somebody's already made the stylistic choices for. Now, if you want to take an article to GA-class or better, you can ask that others not override your stylistic choices for all sorts of stuff from cite formats to your bibliography format. But until then, please just don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Autoedit frenzy[edit]

Greetings Magus, User:Keith-264/common.js Are you familiar with auto edit? Your edit to Cambrai is reverting its effect and removing spaces which should be there. Keith-264 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Which nowraps are "uneeded"?Keith-264 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Line-break handling The point of nowrapping numbers is preventative re: future edits.Keith-264 (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Revolt of the Admirals may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • that he and Denfeld disagreed widely on strategic policy and unification. Matthews then had[Vice admirals [[William H. P. Blandy]] and [[Gerald F. Bogan]] reassigned to Rear admiral postings,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)