User talk:Sturmvogel 66

2016 GA Cup-Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Scoring

Very close. I was waiting for you to claim the "15 articles destubbed on any listed building or populated settlement - 50 points" section of the bonuses. You'll have to work it out what you're claiming on that and list all of your destubs in the other claims section of the main entries page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

On this I'm of the opinion that you should both be crowned the winner as it's been extraordinarily close and you and Cwmhiraeth have both performed astoundingly well, but only one person can win the main £100 prize!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the April 2016 Military History Article Writing Contest with an incredible 240 points from 26 articles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Contest winner

		The Wales Barnstar of National Merit
		Congratulations for winning the April 2016 Awaken the Dragon contest along with Cwmhiraeth!! You (and Wales) should be very proud of the quality and quantity of work that you contributed to Wikipedia this month. Amazing effort, it really makes a different to the encyclopedia, and it's paid off for you! Thankyou!:-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on the win Sturmvogel, you can proudly display these on your user page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was fun. And many thanks to you for running for contest!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66 congratulations on winning in the Awaken the Dragon contest! Could you please email me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk from the email in which you want your prize to be sent to?. Thank you. Karla Marte(WMUK) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Caps misunderstanding

Hello.

Wherever did you get that idea from that numerals don't count as first word, and that the second word thus should be capitalized? Please show me the applicable guideline or style guide.

And why don't you apply it consistently throughout the article, for instanc, on the complement, "1660 officers and crewmen", which, according to you should be "1660 Officers and crewmen"?

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, because I've gotten about 60-odd FAs passed using that exact formulation. If this is a problem then you need to start participating at WP:FAC. I don't think the issue is actually addressed anywhere in the MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so it's time we find out. I've started a talk page discussion, and a discussion at WP:DRN (because I suspect there will be few other people at the talkpage).

HandsomeFella (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And how do you explain the "1660 officers and crewmen"? HandsomeFella (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't because I didn't pay that much attention to it. I've self-reverted as I've looked at it some more and it does look better uncapitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That was an ... awfully quick turn to DRN. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Royal Sovereign (1891) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

HMS Ramillies (1892)

Hi, I notice that you've been working on some for the Royal-Sovereign class battleships as well. Ramillies is up for GAR and it's about to pass, but the reviewer has queried the following phrase: "She had been constructed at such a slight tilt that it took nearly an hour and a half to travel down the slips and into the water". I can see why someone who is not versed in ship design would not get this, but I am not sure how to make it more clear to the average reader. Do you have any advice? Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

I think that Burt shouldn't have used the word tilt; it makes me think of something tilted from side to side. What I think is that he meant that the slipway had so little elevation that gravity wasn't much help in launching her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much clearer way of saying it! Thank you, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Re: Your message on HMS Lancaster

Thanks for your suggestion.

== HMS Lancaster == Here's a GA-rated article on one of Lancaster's sister ships that you can use as a model to incorporate all of the voyage material you added: HMS Essex (1901).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain: I prepared the list on the whereabouts of the HMS Lancaster, to help me in my research of the History of Veracruz in 1914. I was more interested in dates and places than in events not related to my area of study. I simply thought I'd share it with Wikipedia, in the format that better suited my purposes.

As to the HMS Essex, finding her logbook in the Internet was something quite extraordinary for me. I vividly remember that Sunday morning, finding it after a Google Search, e-mailing one of the curators of the collection with a critical question (Re 21 Apr 1914, what does "US Pct B/S" mean?), getting her reply an hour or so afterwards (mind you: Sunday morning in Mexico City, mid afternoon in London), and corroborating my claim (based, of course, on US sources) that there had been no terrestrial attack on the Naval Academy that day - a key concept contrary to the official Mexican History of the es:Occupación estadounidense de Veracruz de 1914. HMS Essex and HMS Berwick, by their presence in Veracruz on those fateful days, were front-line witnesses to the events. What a delight to be doing research in times of Internet and Wikipedia! I gave a talk on this subject, at a Symposium presided by the Mexican Navy, in Veracruz, June 2014.

I've just noticed that it was I who edited the logbook reference into the HMS Essex (1901) article , on 2 Apr 2014 -- just after some of your edits!

I will be getting back to you, on other items.

Thanks again for your message. I'll keep it in mind.Wkboonec (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll look forward to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TFA 31 May

I would like to run Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier on 31 May, but as you had one of your battleship articles running earlier in the month at short notice, you may feel that another is an imposition. It won't be scheduled before next Friday, so give it a bit of thought & let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Shokaku class ran last week, but I have no problem if you want to schedule another one of my articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, of course it did ... I'm losing my marbles. Forget this, I'll try not to trouble you for a while and enquire about medication. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just make sure to get the good stuff!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Backlog Drive

Greetings. I was wondering if you could start a new backlog reduction drive. My proposal can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Lists of Wars Backlog.--Catlemur (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Devonport Dockyard on West Country Challenge list

Hi You added Devonport Dockyard to the core list for the WWest Country Challenge. It s a dab page - did you mean HMNB Devonport (which is already on) or Devonport Naval Base? Could I also ask a favour - when you add entries can you also add them to the relevant county pages please (as it is doing my head in trying to keep them in sync).— Rod ^talk 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll fix it pronto. And I'll add the new entries to the various county pages as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Devonshire

Hello, According to the article on the Duke of Devonshire there is only a slight connection between the the dukes and the county of Devon so this seemed too little to make a Core article. If you decide otherwise I won't object to it being added again.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, the connection between the title and their nominal geographic location seems pretty thin in general once the Stuarts start ennobling people right and left, but it's not anything I feel strongly about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Sulina?

I'm not finding any sources online for it? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to do more research to definitively state whether or not any "battle" actually happened. If it did it was probably just a short bombardment as Midilli only had 105s until early '17 when she swapped them out for 150s. Not quite ready to send it to AfD, though, as I'd really like to get this guy tapping into Romanian-language stuff if we could. OTOH, he's argumentative and a Romanian nationalist enough that it may not be worth the effort to bring him up to speed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not just that haha, I'm reminded of a quote about Gamergate that seems to apply here (parahprased): "the worst they do is force you to waste your time." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Oak (1892)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Royal Oak (1892) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Article on HMS Essex - the "Transcript" has links to the original logbook

You may have overlooked: the "Transcript" is much more than that, it is actually the original logbook.

For instance, for "21 April 1914" (crucial for the understanding of the US Occupation of Veracruz), in the line just above the heading, the transcript shows the link: http://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-41085/ADM%2053-41085-060_0.jpg

I suggest the reference "Transcript" be changed to something more meaninful like "Logbook (original and transcipt)" or "Logbook (with transcript)" or simply "Logbook".

Having the "Royal Navy Log Books of the World War 1 Era" online has been quite extraordinary for rewriting the history of Veracruz in 1914.

Saludos cordiales, Wkboonec (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Archived

Hey man, I archived the first 500 or so sections of your talk page because it was slowing my entire computer down. I hope that's alright! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I had to laugh! But you might consider updating your machine if you can. I've got a couple of old 2GB RAM sticks of that I can let you have for cheap if you're using an elderly desktop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your computer is, but mine's actually pretty new—although it could be the browser, I suppose. In any case, editing all of that was a pain and slow. :-p Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see how that shouldn't have been a problem. Huh, all I ever did was go to the end and edit the individual section. Easy peasy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)

The article HMS Royal Sovereign (1891) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (1891) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Revenge (1892)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Revenge (1892) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hey Sturmvogel, so I'm working on end-of-round stuff for the GA Cup, and it has been brought to my attention that three of the articles you submitted were passed to GA, right under the deadline, on the 29th. Technically, they qualify for Round 3, but it's your responsibility to mark them as passed on your submissions page. If I were to count them, it wouldn't change the results, anyway, and since they passed during Round 3, they wouldn't be eligible to count in the finals. You'd still move onto the finals even if I didn't count them, although it's possible that you'd move forward as a pool winner and not as a wildcard. All that to say that since you didn't mark them as passed before the end of the round, I'm unable to count them towards your final Round 3 score. But you moved forward anyway, so congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, honestly I forgot about the deadline. I was sort of thinking that it was the end of the month. So do they count for this next round?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. No, the judges have decided to not count these reviews. No worries, though, you moved on to the finals, and you're posed well to victory. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Oak (1892)

The article HMS Royal Oak (1892) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Royal Oak (1892) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article review

Hi Sturmvogel66, You may recall that some time ago you carried out a good article review for me. That article, HMS Emerald (1795), is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1 and I wondered if you might make some comments and even lend your support if you thought it met the criteria? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Anglesey/Gwynedd Challenge

Planning on runnng this without prizes on June 13-20. If you're interested in contributing put your name down at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bonville-Courtenay feud/GA1

Stormbird, are you too caught up for this? If so, would you rather I renominate? Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, the review of which you commented on. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Anglesey-Gwynedd Challenge

Just a reminder that this is now open!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings

As you can see, precisely 1 week. May we please talk now? 79.113.130.4 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but be advised that I'm in a conference for the next few days and can't really respond until things are over for the day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I only wish to ask you, to try and enable me to edit. I have unique things to do, that nobody ever done before, nor do they plan on doing. Time has passed since I got banned, and I have changed. I refined my editing skills, and now I too will only edit and create based on sources, even Romanian sources at times. There are many things about my country that have been left to oblivion, and all I want is to be allowed to bring them to surface, for they do not deserve to be left to oblivion. Romanian battles, Romanian technological achievements, all need to be spread about, and as I am at the source, I think I can say that I can do it the best. We are humans, we come and go, but the Wiki will likely be here for the coming generations. I do not want those future generations not to know about Romania's great history, often overlooked for reasons I genuinely cannot comprehend. Take this for instance: After the secret was revealed in 1914 that Romania was part of the Triple Alliance, people continued to call it the Triple Alliance, despite being revealed to have a 4th member, as if we did not even exist. And that genuinely hurts me. Or sometimes ignoring Romanian military contribution and overlapping us with other powers, even though their troops had little bearing on our actions. Like calling the Allied forces on Romanian land in WW1 Russo-Romanian, as if the Russians were the majority when they were only 50,000 out of 700,000, the rest, the overwhelming majority being Romanians. Or calling "Germans" the mostly Romanian force that besieged Odessa, as you yourself saw. Or "forgetting" to mention us at the invasion of Crimea, way too often stating that "The Germans occupied Crimea", again, as if we would not even exist. This is abusive and dismissive, towards us as a nation, and especially to those who gave their lives for Romania, as Romanians, only to be ignored or labelled as something else. I want to correct this grave set of injustices towards us, and to spread about what we have good. Please, allow me to do that. Help me even, if you'd please. I know my mistakes and I regret my ways, all I ask is 1 more chance to genuinely contribute with good faith, reliable sources, and unaddressed information. I am also aware of my uncivil anger-induced behavior, but I will gladly control it if that would mean being able to edit in peace, and not having to fear that it would be undone in hours. Just please. Help me. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do understand where you're coming from, but a non-trivial portion of what you're doing smacks of Romanian nationalism. We all have biases, of course, and we need you to recognize yours and try to account for it.

The way to do what you want is to make changes verified with reliable sources at every turn, and taking care to make sure that those reliable sources are accurately reflected in your edits. If, for example, it's a battle between Russo-Romanian and German forces, the way forward isn't to change "Russo-Romanian"—the use of "Russo" first there does not connotate that the Russians had more troops. What you could do is document troop strengths in the infobox, with reliable sources. The article itself shouldn't literally say "this was a Romanian-led battle"—just write it like a normal battle article (here's an example) and people can judge for themselves. Each case differs, but generally speaking if it's not normally included in a Wikipedia article (eg the refit of that Romanian cruiser, which at best deserves one sentence in the text in my opinion), you shouldn't be adding it.

The bottom line is Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Your edits need to reflect that. Also like Sturm has said, it would be a lot easier if you'd register an account, if only so we could ping you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But Mister Ed, I do have an account. I was banned due to my fury issues and careless editing, but I changed and still changing. I said some bad and hateful things, I admit, but right now, all I wish is to contribute with new things. I already got the srouces for what I want to do. Took me hours to find them. All I ask is 1 more chance. Under supervision, don't really care, just 1 more chance to properly contribute. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm more tired than I expected, so I don't think that I'll be able to put together a request to lift your banning until Friday my time, so please be patient until then. Remember, though, it's not guaranteed that they will agree to do so, in which case you'll have to wait out the full six months.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 No problem, I will wait until Friday. Tell them that here the summer holiday just started. For the next 2 months, I will be able to do ample and meaningful and novel contributions, but the coming school year will be the toughest. I will hardly be able to have time to edit. Plus that, this autumn there will be 100 years since Romania entered WW1. To mark the event, I wish to make articles about Romanian battles and weapons of that time. It is important, because a centennial is only once. Please, just tell them what I just said, and how much I can offer Wikipedia in this period. Tell them that I am willing to accept strict and constant supervision. Please, just let me back for 2 months. Afterwards, you can ban me for an entire year if you want. But this year is crucial, this is the time to make the things that truly matter to my country. In the end, please, do your best. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There's an admin here at the conference who specializes in unblocking people and I've discussed your case with her. She's willing to look at your case, but emphasized that you will be on a very short leash until you demonstrate that you fully understand WP:NPOV and WP:V, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sturmvogel 66 I am willing to accept. I do not mind talking to you about the things I do, on the contrary. My immediate intentions are to correct and improve some sources on some articles and also add some more information on them, well-sourced, ofcourse. Then, I intend to greatly improve the Category:Naval battles involving Romania. It is really depressing and off-putting to see only one article there. I gathered good sources for at handful of Romanian naval battles, even a Romanian source. I wish to create articles about our naval actions that would make that category much more comprehensive. I also aim to correct pronunciation errors on Romanian names. These are my goals, for the time being. That to be full honest. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that ‎82.79.47.192 has started to edit many articles that you're interested in and I'm fairly certain that you and he are the same. I guess that you couldn't restrain yourself, so I will not be not advocating for you after all unless that IP turns out not to have any connection with your previous IP edits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not. Please, excuse my friend, I told him about my situation, showed him the sources I intend to use, and he took it upon himself to do the edits for me. I just talked to him, told him that I am currently discussing being unblocked and asked him to stop because he is doing me more wrong than good...I am sorry myself, but we all need people to confess to about what's going on in our lives. I am also sorry that my IP is changed, I wanted to keep it as it was to keep good faith, but there was a blackout yesterday, and when the power came back on my IP changed too. Please, advocate for me. Do you think I like, to live and hide here like a rat, when all I want to do is good? Trust me, I do not. You know I can offer interesting new things to the Wiki. Please, let me do so. I talked to him and there should be no longer problems at those articles, and I will keep waiting for news from you, about my blocking. I need your help. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish I had a friend who was equally fluent in English and interested enough in the same sorts of things as I am to help me edit. Not to mention with a large amount of time available. While your offenses are not particularly related to WP:ARBEE, you need to read the policy and agree to follow it as a Romanian partisan, particularly its civility points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I will read, carefully. You just please keep supporting my return. I have so, so much to do...To put it brief: I want to take already existing articles in the Romanian Wiki, and make English versions of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand and would like your assistance in improving Romanian-related article with Romanian-language sources, but you're making things more difficult for yourself with continuing to evade your blocks. Major point in your favor is that even those edits are generally constructive and not malicious. But it's going to take me and several admins the weekend to decide what to do about you, so remain calm and stop editing. I don't care if you enlist any "friends" or not, just stop. And remember that we probably cannot dedicate as much time as you can to Wiki, so resign yourself to the fact that we will almost always be slow in approving your edits. Evading the terms of your unblocking, if granted, will result in being reblocked for a year, and all the articles that you want to edit will be blocked to IP editors and monitored carefully by me and others. So control your frustration and you can achieve your goals, if you can't, you won't get any of it done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am making those edits as a "business card", to show how many sources I can find on a topic, and how dedicated I am to make any edit be meaningful, sourced and helpful. But very well, this reply to you will be my last edit until I get news from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've requested that you be unblocked, but I don't know exactly what else either of us might have to do to make that happen. I've requested that you be given the ability to only edit talk pages, so that you and I can discuss your proposed edits in detail for NPOV and any other issues before I make the changes that we've agreed upon. I'm not sure that that's technically possible, but if it isn't, then I want your agreement that you will make no other edits to article pages than those that I approve. If I find out that you've been doing so either under your own user name or an IP address, I'll ask that your block be reinstated and every article that you care about will be protected against edits by IPs. Please don't fuck this up, I believe that you have a real contribution to make, but remember that I have a life of my own to live and other interests, so that I'm not always going to be able to respond to your proposed edits very quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching this conversation. I think we may have interacted in the past 82. You need a mentor. I would be willing to act as such. I would seriously ask you to register on the site, as it would greatly increase your credibility. I can put it no other way. Apologies for butting in Sturm. Cheers both. Irondome (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Happy to have another set of eyes to help. He does have an account as Romanian-and-proud (talk · contribs), but he's been indef blocked for evading the first block. So we'll see what happens.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I corrected a little grammar mistake on Amiral Murgescu, an out of place word. Hope you're okay with that. Also, I am going to soon make an article draft, and show it to you for approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I don't want you doing anything until we get you unblocked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I shall keep waiting then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I uhh...I'm sorry. It's not that I could not wait, it's just that the time has come for this. This is the very first battle between Romanian and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front of WW2. I had to do it now, not only because it's the anniversary of it, but because it's the 75th anniversary of it. I am sorry, and please forgive me, but as a Romanian, I felt I had the moral obligation to do this, on the 75th anniversary of our entrance in WW2. Draft:Battle of the Chilia Branch 82.79.46.80 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You're making it harder for me to justify unblocking you, although I appreciate the fact that you're telling me about these. Please just stop, regardless of any anniversaries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, okay, but 75 years...are only once. And it's not even a real article, just a draft. I don't think it displeases anyone that much. But as there are no more events to mark for a while, I'll stop. Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I talk to you about an encyclopedic subject? Not with the purpose of editing, just talk with someone who can actually understand me. I really need to get it off my chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely hate seeing Japan quoted as being more important than Romania in WW1. People might argue "But Japan was a Great Power", yeah look, I don't care what Japan WAS, I care what Japan DID! Do you know what did Japan do? Mobilized in total 800,000 troops, and fought only one battle. You know what did Romania do? Mobilized in total over 1,200,000 troops, and fought almost 20 battles! There is absolutely no reason, to put Japan above Romania when talking about WW1 combatants! Even more, people SO enjoy to maliciously overlook this, but Romania actually was a main belligerent! In the treaty that bound us to join the war, it was specified that we would have equal status with the main Allies! It was all official, signed and approved by all! Equal status with the main belligerents, equals main belligerent! The fact that after the war they changed their minds does not change with anything the fact that, all the time Romania fought in the war, it did so with the official status of main belligerent. In consequence, there is absolutely no reason to have Japan above Romania in the hierarchy of WW1 Allies. Again, it doesn't matter what the status of Japan was, that was a war, not a parade of statuses! Base all your rankings on REAL military merits, because a contribution of 1,200,000 troops, and the loss of half of them, IS NOT SOMETHING TO BRUSH ASIDE!! This is the main source of my wrath: The Wiki pretends to be a fair and neutral place, yet allows and even defends such blatant acts of unjustfulness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Why does this matter to you so much? We both know that Romanian participated in the war and suffered heavily for it and we should fix anything in Wiki that says differently, provided it can be properly sourced, but I honestly don't take this sort of thing as an insult as you do. And that's the kind of attitude that's going to get you into trouble here. You need to be objective about Romania's part in the wars and the activities of her military and naval units. You've put far too much weight on incidental Romanian participation in major events like the Potemkin Mutiny in the past and that needs to stop. Show me the terms of the treaty in which Romania joined the war and we can see if anything in the main WWI article needs to be changed to better reflect Romanian participation, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But I AM objective. Romania's contribution is greater than Japan in any single possible way, yet Japan is still put above Romania! I feel insulted because they do it "just because". They shove Romania away to make room for Japan, "just because", with no real reason whatsoever! Article VI of the Treaty of Bucharest (1916): Romania has EQUAL status with it's allies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.80 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you consider whatever list that you're up in arms against might be ordered chronologically, rather than by size of troop contribution?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we're upset about the infobox on the World War I article.

But yes, there might be a reason why Japan is listed before Romania. Might have something to do with the fact that Japan entered WWI essentially at the beginning of the war and Romania sat on the sidelines until 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's say it's so about the countries themselves, but I still see no reason to have Japan's leader above Romania's, Serbia's or Russia's. Get to the bottom, Emperor, that's where you belong. 82.79.46.80 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

But I am not a threat for anything if unblocked...That's why I tell you all this, so I could take it off my chest and not affect my editing. 82.79.46.80 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. So why did you start editing again? I don't know what the delay is, but you are not helping your cause by continuing to evade the block.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fully honest, I fear that I am waiting in vain. That I will be denied anyway and thus my time only be lost. If this will be the case, please, let me edit in peace. I vow, that you will never find real reasons of complaint for my edits, I make sure that all I do is sourced. I just fear I am loosing time in vain... 79.119.91.223 (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The more you do this, the more that you make it more likely that your block will be upheld.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, why am I going trough this again? Because I had a fit over half a year ago? True, I was warned about being blocked, but I never imagined it would be for SIX MONTHS!! You people are cruel! Excuse me, did I spread ISIS propaganda or stuff like that? Did I prove myself a danger with my edits? Yeah, I made mistakes, I am sorry, doesn't worth wasting a half a year from my life! And on my FIRST block?! Don't I have the "Yeah, you've been blocked, but since it's the first you're only getting 1 month." I would be okay with that, but NO, I get an indefinite block that I can only appeal after 6 months! Like I am the public enemy number 1 or something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.91.223 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

While you're not malicious, you have frequently violated WP:NPOV and that's a serious problem that I was trying to set up mentorship to help you learn better. And you're also using the same sockpuppet tactics used by people who are malicious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there is a need for that. I try to use books in English as my primary source, taking quite a while to find what I need, but I often succeed. Hmm...can I give you what to wirte, and the adjacent source, and you make the edit? Would you be alright with that? 79.119.91.223 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd strongly prefer that we discuss any edits that you propose under your own username, so that you can learn to see what is not NPOV and learn about reliable sourcing, so you can eventually be trusted to make your own edits without supervision.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I can make the effort to wait about most things, but there is one I just CANNOT! Please, do that edit for me! It is very important, and as a matter of fact, a question of principle. Just 1 edit to do for me. Please. 79.119.91.223 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Two more major issues are discrimination and racism. I'm serious. For instance, the Wiki staff had the time to make an article about every single shitty German submarine, no matter the size, no matter the state of completion, could even be just a design, still got it's own article! But Romania built two full-size, modern submarines in WW2, and nobody says anything! Really! Even the 2 articles about them that only recently appeared, did so only with my prompting! I ask you, is a paper submarine, a mere design, a drawing, better than 2 modern full-size submarines with action and history? What was the fault of Rechinul and Marsuinul, to be ignored like that? That they were not German? This is pure, blatant discrimination endorsed by the Wiki staff! Neutral huh? Yeah, sure. Another thing that's wrong is the over-association when talking about us. People in general when talking about us tend to ignore us proper, and instead focus on our relationship with others, like we're an identity-less vessel, like we have nothing of our own, like we don't exist! If you want to talk about us, then talk about US!! I also don't like when people brush off our achievements and put emphasis on our failures. Like the Romania during World War I article did not long ago. The article praised the Germans for leading the conquest of most of Romania, instead of praising the Romanians, for taking on ALL of the Central Powers and still surviving! They act like the 1916 campaign was all, often completely ignoring our great victories in 1917, and then after we signed the peace treaty, many put us under German control on maps, despite the fact that the peace treaty officially recognized Romania's independence, not imposing any official form of vassalage towards Germany! Not to mention how they call us shit because we re-entered the war just 1 day before it was over, as if we were supposed to know it was going to be over the very next day! We didn't! And don't even get me started on our 23 August 1944 "betrayal"! "Boo! Traitors! You switched sides!" and shit like that. Look, we merely exited the Axis on 23 August 1944, and offered the Germans a peaceful retreat. On the following 2 nights, they bombed us and tried to seize our capital, effectively declaring war to us! Are we really at fault for declaring war on them on 25 August, after they made it clear that that's what they wanted? The point is they should stop with the "They changed sides and declared war on their allies!" and be more like: "They dumped their allies and let them retreat, but declared them war after their offer was refused and they were attacked." And don't take me with "But that's what the source says", ignore it and search another one, more "neutral"! You know, there is this expression: "If you don't got something nice to say, then don't say anything at all!" In short, people go out of their way to brush us aside and make sure we're ignored, and when they do have to bring us up they try to talk shit about us as much as possible. And I am so angry and frustrated because I am the only one who seems to refuse to accept it, all of you just don't give a damn about the blatant racism that is right in front of your eyes!

On your first point, you don't seem to understand that the content on Wikipedia appears when people come along and contribute it. Several years ago, my interest in Latin American naval history—a very underserved area—was kindled by Le Deluge saying "[...] perhaps do something about the List of battleships where there's lots of battleships which don't even have an article at all! OK some of them do but are red-linked there, but even so, it's a classic bit of WP:BIAS. You want MILHIST to be a "quality" encyclopedia - where's the article on the [Brazilian battleship] Minas Gerais then?" Without that, Latin American naval content would quite possibly be in the same boat (pun intended) as Romania. In short, people on Wikipedia write about what they are interested in. It's a hobby, not a job. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ed Yet another strong reason to unblock me. It seems I am the only one interested enough to do such things. It took a second to be blocked, why does it takes months to be unblocked?..Just because people make mistakes doesn't mean they become useless for good! It might sound arrogant on my part, but I do believe I deserve a second chance. I will share my opinions before any major edits, and I will use good sources I spend hours to find. Please, just let me back... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.91.223 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor? I need you to upload some picture files... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.46.173 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, you can ignore me and all right, but I have something that really, really bothers me. I went on this category on Wikipedia Commons, that had all the picture files for warships of the Romanian Navy available, but no picture, of a WW2 or WW1 era warship, built or assembled in Romania! And yes mind you, there are plenty of them! We built 2 submarines and 1 minelayer, started to build and launched 4 minesweepers, assembled 4 river monitors, and completed 6 motor torpedo boats from Dutch-built hulls (we outfitted, engined and armed them). So there are 17 warships in total! Seventeen! And what bothers me even more right, is that you guys here, on the Wiki, had time to upload photos of all Polish-built warships of that period! Which are really 6 puny minesweepers and 2 even more puny river monitors, that are even lighter than some tanks and in total less than half of the warships we took part in building, or built fully! Like, look, Amiral Murgescu was the Romanian warship with the most kills, the first large warship fully built in Romania, and she saved the ass of highly decorated a German general when Crimea was evacuated in 1944! Yet you "serious" and "neutral" people, couldn't be bothered to upload a picture of her, thinking that dealing with a handful of puny Polish minesweepers, that were lost in the first days of the war, is somehow much more important! And don't even get me started on the submarines! According to you guys, two modern full-size submarines, the only ones built in a whole quarter of Europe at that time, are completely brushable aside! "Romanian submarines? Pffft, please! I got this little German barge to make a file for!" This is the main reason I was so obsessed with Elisabeta, picture-wise, she is the closest we could get! We fitted her with her main guns, at least it's something! all that bother could be avoided, if you could have bothered to post at least 2-3 pictures! Tell me, do I really ask too much? Is it really a super-human effort for you, to post 1 minelayer and 2 submarines, or maybe even a river monitor? 4 photos man! And all of you guys who are watching! I don't think I ask you to push a mountain, when I request a few minutes of your time to post 4 photos, for some really deserving, and wrongfully disregarded warships! 79.113.133.11 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Because we need snacks after this week, and because American stroopwafels are boring. ;-) Katietalk 20:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Snicker. I like mine with cream cheese and strawberry syrup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Peter Hore, "Battleships"

Hi! I've translated Erzherzog Karl-class battleship article to polish and during GA Review (on our Wiki it's more like GA Voting) someone mentioned, that Erzherzog Karl had been ceded to France, but it had ran aground during voyage to Britian, and it didn't make sense. This information refers to Hore's "Battleships". I would do it myself, but closest library that has this book is about 1000 kilometeres from my home and I am afraid, that if i buy this book, it won't be delivered to me before the end of voting or my trip on holidays. So I would like to ask if You could tell me what really Hore wrote about this event. Maybe it wasn't cruise to Britian but actually to France? I would be very grateful if You would answer me. You can leave message to me here or on my en.Wikipedia user talk page. Thank You! Mati7 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have that book to verify the citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania-class battleship

Just curious on Pennsylvania-class battleship as to why you moved the Portal:Battleships link to "External links"? It isn't outside of Wikipedia. Just want to make sure I'm putting things in the right places. I was copying what I'd seen on another page. Should I not have added it yet? Is it only added to pages that are up to par, so to say. On the New York-class battleship page its in the "See also" section. I'd rather get it right the first time than have you have to follow me and correct me. No disrespect indended, I value your opinion. Thanks. Pennsy22 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The see also section in the NY-class BB article looks horrible to my eyes because it's unbalanced with all that white space to the left of the portal and commons links. If you merge it into the external links then things look more balanced with the text of the links on the left and the portal and commons boxes on the right. That's my preferred solution and I've used it on many FA-quality articles. As you might expect, everybody has their own opinions on that sort of thing and the WP:MOS doesn't lay out a strict format. Forex, the Iowa-class battleship article has a portal bar above all the notes and other stuff in a see-also section. Logical, but I don't like how it looks and would prefer it to be down at the bottom above the navbox. But I'm know that that's just my opinion and it lacks the visual awfulness of the unbalanced see-also section in the NY-class BB article, so I'm not gonna try to impose my opinion on the article.

Thanks for asking me about this, I know that we've butted heads before over what level of detail is appropriate for the infoboxes and I don't think that either one of us was really happy with the results. While there isn't a prescribed way to do ship articles, I would suggest that you broaden your horizons a bit and look at the FA-class BB articles that aren't US-related, if you haven't done so already, and take note of how they're formatted and written. I always find it useful to see a variety of different approaches so you have a better idea of what other people have done successfully and how you might adopt certain things and reject others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise, that makes sense, I agree with your idea that it would look better above the navbox. I will be moving it on the NY-class. I've been adding refits in seperate Ship Info boxes like I think you suggested, I think it looks a lot less cluttered than when there are a bunch of date references to changes in armament. I hope you think it looks better. Now on to my next problem. I see you reverted all my changes to the reference section on the Penn-class BB's. I must say I was unaware of the rule that you quoted as to why, but I'm just wondering, it says to avoid making changes and in my defense I'd like to know if you think I hurt the article by making these changes or if you did it just because the rule suggestes that these changes not be made. The reason I did it is because when you click on a footnote number it takes you to a reference that then you have to xref on your own by looking at the books in the reference section. With the changes I made you can click on the name in the hover box and it takes you straight to the reference. I hope I'm making sense. It was my hope to make the article easier to see what book, articles, papers the cite is refering to. Thank you. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that multiple infoboxes look much less cluttered than one jammed full of dates and information. I'd suggest that you limit them to just two per article and limit the second one to only the things that changed to reduce duplication, as I've gotten some complaints that ship infoboxes dominate their articles. Remember that it's supposed to be a summary of the ship's basic information, not a detail reference on its own.

I wouldn't expect that you'd know about the rule since you don't nominate your articles for WP:GA or better, where the rules are enforced. But it was introduced to avoid edit wars as people often have strong preferences as to which formats they prefer. While I acknowledge that the sfn format has makes some things easier for the reader, I personally hate it as it's more trouble to type out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much for your help. I've been trying to come up with a style that looks pleasing but still conveys as much information as possible, I totally agree that maybe I was getting carried away with info. I've tried to dial it back. I agree that for some ships I've found that the info box is longer that the main article, on more than a few I've deleteted all my changes because of this.

You are correct about the rules, I've really just been looking at what I think are nicely laid out pages and then change others to match. I'll lay off GA's and FA's until I've learned more and look at stubs and such. Thank you for all of your help and taking your time to educate me. Pennsy22 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

While FAC can be a bear until you get used to every little quirk of the MOS, I'd encourage you to consider your stuff for GA. The articles only have be generally complete and mostly compliant with the MOS, so it's much easier standard to satisfy. Take a look at some of the ship GA nominations at WP:GAN, watchlist them, and see how the reviewer handles them. Then compare those articles to your own stuff and make the appropriate changes. That's kinda how I learned to write quality wiki articles myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [5]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [6]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Revenge (1892)

The article HMS Revenge (1892) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Revenge (1892) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

HMS Revenge (1892) has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Sturmvogel 66. HMS Revenge (1892), an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia mini summer program

Greetings Sturmvogel 66:

It appears you have participated in an editathon in the past. We are doing a mini research study involving past editathon participants to transform and improve Wikipedia. If this sounds like something quick you would want to do this summer, please sign up to our mini summer research program.

You can read more about our project here.

Together we can revolutionize Wikipedia!

Thanks & Cheers

Wiki crowdresearch (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)