User talk:Parsecboy

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

Invincible class battlecruisers

I'm pretty well done with this article; if you look it over and fill out the Jutland section whenever you get a chance, I'd be grateful. I do need a source on the electrical generating capacity of these ships; the one I have isn't reliable. If you don't have anything that covers it I'll just delete it entirely. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this sometime soon, but it probably won't be before Monday, unfortunately. I'm hammered in real life between as full a load as OSU will let me take, starting an Honors Thesis, and applying to graduate school :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of real life...how's marriage treating you? :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Four Award?

I think you might be eligible for WP:FOUR with Amagi class battlecruiser ... something to investigate and self-nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of ya :) It just took me long enough to dig through my edits at T:TDYK to find the diff of the nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We ask that nominators review other nominees to help keep the queue down. If you have time come by and review a nomination or two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 218.102.169.224

Could you take a look at the edits of 218.102.169.224 (talk · contribs)? Some appear to be sneaky vandalism [1], others censor information [2], and others are helpful [3]. I am totally confused here. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Screws versus Propellers

Hello, the correct term for a propeller is "Propeller" the term "Screw" is for a type or design of the forementioned item.

Wikipedia is a source of information for anyone to study and using a term like "screw" in the article will not explain clearly to them what it is actually discribing.

I would welcome a reply on this subject.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SMS Moltke (1910)

FYI, I am about to start an image restoration of the Moltke after a chat with the ed17. This is the image I'll be restoring. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found another LOC image for you: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hec.00964 :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SMS Moltke.JPG

File:SMS Moltke.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SMS Moltke.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SMS Moltke.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My condolences

on having the FAC for Derfflinger archived purely for a lack of reviews [4] [5] -MBK₀₀₄ 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just put in its third support earlier today; the page doesn't show it as being closed yet - is the process too far gone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; Jackyd and I were in the process of discussing things. I didn't expect the review to be closed for lack of reviews. Maybe I'll ask Karanacs about it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't, I will ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it was too late... :( [6] -MBK₀₀₄ 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then again, perhaps not...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

<=Congratulations! The article is FA. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you guys for your help :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Amagi class battlecruiser.

Well done, and congratulations on your latest FA. Bencherlite^Talk 08:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on Derfflinger!

This seemed to go on forever. Nice article! Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also congratulations from me. Although it's much too late, I too would have added my support if the FAC was still open. A very nice piece of work. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude

Hiya there Parsec. Would you still have access to Garzke and Dulin's Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992? I need to verify a couple of pages that I apparently once saw on Google Books, but it won't allow me to see them again. USS Hawaii (CB-3) is the article. Also, would you check a couple dates for me with it? G&D in U.S. Battleships in World War II give differing dates than the official Nacy sources, including a 11 March 1945 launching date (rather than 3 November 1945), a suspension of construction date of 16 April 1947 (rather than 17 February 1947), and a reclassifying from CBC-1 to CB-3 on 9 September 1954 (rather than 9 October 1954). —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I never had that book, and it's not showing me the relevant pages in Google Books either. Sorry I can't be of more help Ed :( Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought you did? (or was that the 1976 version...ie do I need to go alter some citations now. ;-) Thanks anyway :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was using Google Books, my friend :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Classical history task force

Hey! I've just joined the military history project and I'm planning on joining the classical history task force (where I see you are one the people in charge). I'm a new wikipedian, and I hope that working on this interesting area of study will be a way to improve my article-writing skills. How does the task force function? How do we organize construction and updating of pages within our 'scope'? Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I plan to get started soon :)

--Reubzz (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, wouldn't this be an interesting oportunity for you to get involved considering that many of your ships articles are part of WWI task force? We are starting the contest this evening (after a 20-hours postponement due to a lack of participants) and your participation would be much appreciated! Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I'm pretty busy with school stuff right now, and I don't think I'd have much time to devote to it. :( Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Signups are open until 1 December if you eventually change your mind! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I probably will. I'll be about done with everything school-related by then. Great. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

GAR of Habsburg class battleship

Hi mate. I have just completed a GA review of Habsburg class battleship, but am placing it on hold pending a few, rather minor, issues outlined on the talk page. As I said, they are only minor, so it should not take too much to fix. :) I have also come here to try and convince you to join the World War I Contest, but I see that Eurocopter has beaten me to it! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Abraham. I fixed everything you pointed out (except for the lack of info on WWI, there just wasn't much going on there). Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think there would be much more information available, but thought I should check anyway. Everything looks good, so I have just gone and passed the article. Well done! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamidiye

Things are messed up and I hope you can help. I created the article "Hamidiye", after removing a pointer that erronously poined at "Hamidieh (wrong spelling) Soldier". I did not realize you had already created "Hamidiye (cruiser)". I noticed that, I guess becasue of conflict, the article did not show. I was going ask four your help to re-name it from "Hamidiye" to "Hamidiye(cruiser)", and now the whole article is gone. Someone has tried to help and created now blank "Hamidiye(war ship)" and replaced the pointer to the "Hamidiyeh Soldier". Meanwhile my original article under Hamidiye is now nowhere to be seen. I do not feel like wrting the whole thing over again. Help please! --Murat (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was able to locate the original text with some help. My question is, what should be the proper article title: "Ottoman Cruiser Hamidiye", or "Hamidiye (cruiser)", or "Hamidiye (warship)"? Of course, there is also "TCG Hamidiye". There is also a conflict now since in this article Hamidiye points to "Ottoman Cruiser Hamidiye" and there is also a disambiguation page for Hamidiye that points at "Hamidiye (warship)". Both blank now. Any suggestions? Thanks.--Murat (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hudavendigar. I moved the article to Ottoman cruiser Hamidiye and created redirects at TCG Hamidiye and Turkish cruiser Hamidiye. At some point, I'll try to add a bit to the article (I have Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 and 1906-1921). Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now I can embalish it too. There are many good pictures and details of her exploits in Meditreanean to Red Sea.--Murat (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully featured topic?

:O ! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Took me long enough for just 4 articles, didn't it? :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Geez Ed, you just noticed this now (I've got all the MILHIST topics watchlisted) [7]? Lutzow was promoted on 26 November. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed on 28 November. :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this popped up on my watchlist as if it was a brand new entry...-MBK₀₀₄ 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You have mail —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. That one will be useful for SMS Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia, which appears to be in pretty rough shape (i.e., it appears to have been translated via Babelfish or something). Overhauling that article might be my next project :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. From that article, Kaiserin did a lot without actually doing anything. :) A lot of participation with "international fleets" etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: why the "SMS" and German name if it was an Austro-Hungarian ship? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

'Cause the Austrians speak German, and they're the one with the navy :p Parsecboy (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, didn't know they spoke German. :P But why the SMS then? Wouldn't they want their ships to honor their own ruler? I'm confused here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, SMS just means "Seiner Majestät Schiff", which is "His Majesty's Ship." Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Salamis assessment

Hi, Parsecboy:

I have just complied with your request for a B-class assessment for Greek battleship Salamis. Generally, I thought it met the B criteria pretty well. If you check my changes, you will find that I added the "abbr=on" switch to the {{convert}} template in places where it was left out; I did this for the sake of internal consistency only, and if you had some reason to leave it out in places, feel free to revert.

My remaining complaints are two: First (and of lesser importance, to my mind) is the inconsistent ordering of SI and customary US units; sometimes you will have dimensions expressed in meters followed by the conversion to inches, and sometimes the other way around. That is not a deal-breaker, but I would prefer to have it all one way or the other. The other complaint concerns a pair of numbers: in the section on the ship's armament, you write about the range "12,000 yd (13,120 m)." At least one of these numbers has to be incorrect. I have no way of knowing how to correct it or them, so I have to leave it to you. Make this change, and you have my permission to sign off the last B-criterion (I think it's B-4) in my name, without waiting for me to get around to it.

Cheers, PKKloeppel (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkkphysicist. I fixed the conversion problem (I had copied it directly from the source). As for the metric/imperial, I started writing in metric, because that's what I usually do (since the ship articles I write are normally German, and they used metric), but everything I saw in regards to this ship (with the exception of the smaller guns) was in imperial units, so I switched. I was planning on fixing the metric ones, but hadn't gotten to it yet. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Scharnhorst GA Review

Hey Parsec. I'm looking over the Scharnhorst article for its GA review. It looks great - detailed, NPOV, all that jazz. My only point of query is whether the chase between the Scharnorst and the British ships leading upto Falklands Island is detailed enough. I read Keegan's Intelligence in War recently, and he devotes an entire chapter to the Scharnhorst and how Von Spee ran the British in circles until they could track him down. As Keegan isn't in the biography, I was wondering if you'd read it? If not, I think looking the chapter in it over might be a good idea - Keegan goes into some detail. Of course, I've not written any ship articles before, and I've no idea whether those kinds of details should go in the ship article, the article on Von Spee, or even the battle's article. Let me know what you think of these slightly rambling ideas. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Skinny. I actually have Keegan's book, somewhere around here. I was thinking that level of detail would be better for a "chase" article like Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau - something like Pursuit of the German East Asia Squadron. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. that makes more sense. Do you think the article would benefit from anything from Keegan being added? I'm not entirely sure, so I'll pop the ball in your court, as it were. Skinny87 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but maybe a line or two about how the British couldn't figure out where Spee had gone might be useful. I won't be able to get to that until tomorrow probably. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, there's no deadline or anything :) Skinny87 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Greek battleship Salamis

On December 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Greek battleship Salamis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Scharnhorst

On December 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Scharnhorst, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 03:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you, and I have a OMT comment for you there. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomcha

Hello Parsecboy. User:Tomcha is back editing disruptively again. I decided to go through and start referencing the Ford/Mazda link on some of the articles where Tomcha sprayed a bunch of fact tags, and he's been reverting my edits (calling them "vandalism") and placing his usual atrocious grammar on various pages, while at the same time adding other references that have no relevance to the statements he puts them on. Mazda B platform and Mazda D platform are the two he's been messing with at the moment, but I've edited a couple others recently and they're sure to get hit as well. I understand if you'd rather not get involved with this user again, but I don't like to deal with petulant fanboys alone. --Sable232 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I reverted Tomcha's removal of content on both those articles when I added the references, for what it's worth. Also take a look at his talk page history, he's giving people who try to deal with him the usual treatment and seems to be engaging in more tendentious editing elsewhere. --Sable232 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC video spoof

This video on YouTube is hilarious. It is already being discussed at the appropriate place: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Video_spoof. Just be sure you have the captions turned-on. -MBK₀₀₄ 11:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2009 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:)

[8] I'm disappointed. :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess we're not all perfect, are we? :P Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.
Message added 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You should be aware that a major change to the ship article guidelines has been proposed that would apply to all ship articles on wikipedia. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Almost two years ago, you participated in the deletion discussion of the Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance page here. I've finally gotten around to fixing it to something worth while, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it here before I upload it to the main space. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's ready yet. A good chunk of the controversy and support sections is filled with vague and speculative language (i.e., "Also the government also has a history in some peoples' eyes of covering up UFO's" and "Since it has been shown that memories can change over many years, there is the possibility that Clarence was correct in his account, even if it was a bit off"). The article also lacks citations. If those two issues can be tightened up, then the article will probably be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help there. Should I seek out someone else to re-write some of my style, since I have an obvious bias? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Parsecboy's Day!

User:Parsecboy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Parsecboy's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Parsecboy! Peace, Rlevse 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! I was wondering when you would join the club. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is for you...

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on SMS Nassau, Florida class battleship and List of battlecruisers of Germany; promoted to A-Class between October 2009 and January 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. -MBK004 08:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)