User talk:MBK004

edit count | edit summary usage

User Page	Talk Page	About Me	Userboxes	Battleships	Sandbox	Userspace	Contributions

Leave a message, sign your posts, get a reply. New topics go at the bottom! Image by Mailer Diablo.
Please feel free to leave a message (or email), but if you post here you I ask that you observe the following requests: Place new messages at the bottom of the page, not at the top. This preserves the chronological order for the page. Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header== and Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Please indent your posts with : if replying to an existing topic (or :: if replying to a reply). Do not post in the archive(s). I will not answer any post placed on a page that is mothballed. (Archive = One month old)	Archives Archive 1 (July 2007-January 2008) Archive 2 (January 2008-April 2008) Archive 3 (April 2008-)

USS Texas (BB-35) copyedit

I gave a pretty thorough copyediting pass to USS Texas (BB-35). I have some thoughts, observations, and questions.

• Note #13 "BATTLESHIP TEXAS (BB-35)" is a dead link. From the web address, I would surmise that it might not have been considered an RS for eventual FA consideration, but it is the cite for several items in the D-Day sections. #26 "The Sand Pebbles" link might be rejected as a non-RS, also.
• In note #12, the phrase "German Luftwaffe" is redundant (arguably, at least).
• In the last paragraph of the "World War I" section, is the 40-mile figure nautical miles, as one would expect? The hard-coded conversion previously in the text treated it as statute miles, so I left it as that.
• In the "Rehearsal" section and the "D-Day" sections there are two somewhat overlapping lists of ships. I wasn't clear if they were two distinct units with overlapping and/or changing membership (heat-of-battle type shifts) or descriptions of the same unit from, perhaps, two different sources.
• Also, in the 2nd paragraph of the "D-Day" section, it seems like a similar situation about targets on Omaha beach. Like maybe the same actions are described, again, perhaps, from two different sources.
• doncram (talk · contribs), at my invitation, added the National Historic Landmark (NHL) information to the article. The NHL infobox he added is somewhat compatible with the ship infobox, so depending on how you want to go with it, it could be incorporated into the ship box, as well.
• For A-class and FAC, the lead section for the article should probably be expanded to four paragraphs. I might structure it as follows: the first paragraph could be fleshed out with some info on builder (who, where, when); a second paragraph to summarize up through WWI; a third for Interwar and WWII; and then keep the current final paragraph as the fourth and final paragraph of a new lead.
• I linked to a couple of men mentioned in the article, each of whom later had a USN ship named for them (Grant and McDonnell), even though both are redlinked now.
• I'm not sure of the significance of the "by hull number" in the last sentence. Is Texas merely the lowest numbered battleship that was made a museum ship, or was she the first (and coincidentally the lowest numbered) made a museum ship. If the former, I honestly don't think thats all that significant; if it's the latter—as seems to be currently indicated in the lead—it need to be reworded for clarity.
• Unless you have deep-seated reasons for retaining the current reference setup at the end of the article, it would certainly make for a cleaner notes section if the full details of books were listed in a "Reference" section with a citation of something along the lines of "Smith, p. 25." in a "Notes" section. (See USS Siboney (ID-2999), for example, of one way of doing that.)

Any questions – or complaints ;) – just let me know... — Bellhalla (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'll leave it to you to strike – or not ;) – from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics — Bellhalla (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that I can help you with some of these issues. I'll be back on in a few hours, right now I need a nap (18-hour days are exhausting :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I located the missing cite #13, it can still be accessed through the internet archive. Here is the working link, you can check the info out if you want or simply readd it to the article. The rest I will look more conclusively into tomorrow, time permitting. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the archive link to the ref, and after poking around the archived site, it would qualify as an RS (for me, at least). — Bellhalla (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be done with school by then, and hopefully will be back in full force (assuming I don't die first). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having officially nominated the Montana class for GA status I have finished my current project, so I am starting on this checklist next. I added a copy to my sandbox a couple of days ago, and will be crossing off items there as they are dealt with. Thought you might like to know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, A-class will follow for the Montana's just as soon as GA-class is cleared. Also, above copy of the list in my sandbox has more items crossed off at the moment; you may want to check to see if you concur with the items I've crossed off and update the list accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

She will. We can use the Montana FAC as a starting point to anticipate what sort of problems we are going to get and address them before they evolve into problems at FAC. Have faith in the battleship and the work we have both done, each of us has a reputation for getting the job done, and we can play to that strength at FAC when this article goes up. Trust me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When you get a moment, could you take a look at this link and tell me what you opinions on the matter are? I, like you, would like to see this go FA before the end of the year, so I have been working on the points for a few days now, but could use a second opinion on what still needs done. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point we may be at a point where we could feesably nominate Texas for A-class and see if the community thinks the ship is there yet. This would also be a good way to get info on any last second changes that need to be implemented proir to an FAC. If she clears ACR with no compliants than all that will remain is bellahalla's suggestions for improvement, and we pretty much have those checked off. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to think that the D-Day section may benifit from the inclusion of a map to better ID points like "Point-D" and areas like "Point du Hoc". What do think? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I found two that could serve the article well: this one and this one. We also have Image:Omaha 1944 Initial assault.jpg on site, although I have to say I like the other two better. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Both come from the servers at Westpoint, thus they are PD. I found the link over at the logistics department. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

I've got a couple of books that make mention of the unique construction of the Albany and Topeka, but I'm not home right now. I'll look them up later today. I was a bit surprised that no one had caught and added this information by now. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin nom

Well, that explains why preferences is so far off from wannabe kate, and sorry about forgetting Illinois as being yours to begin with. I'll make a point to wait until you post the co-nom before filling in the blanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll handle the rest from here (except, or course, for the voting :) Thanks for the co nom. <deep breath, cracking knuckles>Lets do this thing!</deep breath, cracking knuckles> TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in!!! Alright!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Solar Infobox

Hi, I was wondering if you would mind explaining to me what the template newinfobox|type=ship means on Talk:USS Solar (DE-221)? I'm guessing of the 3 meanings you're referring to the infobox as incorrect. If so, what would be the correct one? Thanks.--Flash176 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Flash176 (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Italicize ship names

How did MOS arrive at that? I can't recall doing so while I was in the Navy. Durova^Charge! 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		MBK004, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I took a look at your messages at the rfa talk page, and it is my opinion they weren't really of concern. Part of the slow rfa closure is that the Deskana, who usually closes the successful rfas, is out with a health problem (or problems, as the case may be). I suspect that was a big contributing factor here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

APOLOGIZE FOR OVER ZEALOUSNESS ON FLYING FISH

I apologize for my error. I am a former crewmember from the Flying Fish (93-96) and in my eagerness to "Show off my Boat" I used our Welcome Aboard Pamphlets that I have kept over the years. In addition, I used our last Plan of the Day that contained some of the information. All of these I can provide for you.

Again, I was a little eager and did not fully understand all of this. The NUBE that I am, I was misinformed by a college of mine. Problem corrected.

Please let me know if you would like a copy of said above material for verification. The information that I gave out was correct and I would like to see it reinstated. Please reconsider putting it back online. She was a good boat with a proud history.

I would also like to post the former Commanding Officers as well but again, all I have is my pamphlets that have them listed.

Thank you and have a great day.

V/R MECHCOMMANDER2008

Mechcommander2008 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pennant names

have replied on naming page, but wiki article names are as a matter of policy not chosen because they are technically correct, but because they will be most easily identifiable to a reader ignorant about the subject. The pennant number conveys no usefull information. Sandpiper (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Come now, thats just making it difficult to read the vote section on one edit page. Sandpiper (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. I take it back. I see hows its been sectioned. Sandpiper (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see many. But I am not responsible for whatever way your archives may work. tail wagging dog? Sandpiper (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have put the sectioning back again: editing the whole block in one was unmanageable. As the page still had comments from two years ago, I would not have thought that sudden archiving is likely to be a problem? Sandpiper (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

USS INGRAHAM (FFG-61)

I would like to know how you would like me to refrence the ship nickname of "battle wagon" when it is used on the ship. Would you like me to cite everyday conversations I have on board? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigglepuppy2012 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

deleted response to comments on wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Ships

Please be aware that deleting comments made by other users is frowned upon on wikipedia.

In this particular case, the discussion was started by user Brad, who made a personal comment about me. Now, I dont mind this, I was more curious than offended, but the comment clearly ridicules the debate which I started on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)‎. You claimed that my post which you deleted was a 'POV inserted into a neutral notice'. It may have been a POV, about the desireability of starting any major change sooner rather than later, but this was in response to another comment suggesting that the proposed change would produce lots of work, and thus the implicit POV that it was undesireable. It was no more than a response in kind to the previous posting. If you are going to start censoring postings, then I would suggest you do so impartially. You did not censor the response in a way which restored the original section to a short notice, but merely removed one comment. Rather than restoring impartiality, this might be seen as biasing the tone of the debate.

Far better that you do not delete anyones comments. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm not sure what deleting others posts comes under, try Wikipedia:Etiquette. Sandpiper (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I've rolled it all back to the original notification. I was rather impressed by the way he makes a claim for his right to say what he pleases and quietly edits out your comment that happened to be critical of him. Benea (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that constiitutes another personal attack. tut tut. I felt it would be less embarassing for the both of you that the comments be deleted. If you wish, we can put the whole lot back. Sandpiper (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented, but now I'm not sure I understand your previous line. was that comment addressed to me, sandpiper, or MBK? ah, the difficulties of multiple conversations. Sandpiper (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for American Palestine Line

I posted a note on WT:SHIPS about the A-class review for American Palestine Line. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it if you could review the article and offer your opinions. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

MBK,

My reliable source is my father, William Byrne. He grew up in Texas and he raced Lance Armstrong several times when Armstrong was just a teenage boy. He even has a picture of himself pulling ahead of Lance for just one or two seconds, but my dad pretty much lost every time.- BeeBopDroid (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the heads-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.64.91 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham, Alabama

FYI, Hoar Construction is an actual company in Birmingham, and has been since the 1940s.[1] This edit by Trotterl (talk · contribs) wasn't vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hoar Construction, per your suggestion. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that MBK004 has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Talk:Iowa class battleship/FAQ, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines

You're not providing any reference to any other airline articles that have such a link and treating other Wikipedia users unfairly with regard to it. Reference another airline article that has it as well as cite the Wikipedia rule you claim to defend. You know that there are 4 levels of warnings also and you did abide by that with QualityControl3533. If you continue like this I will report you as well. QualityControl (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)