User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

GA Backlog

Hey Parsec. I don't suppose I could interest you in doing a GA Review at the backlog here, could I? *Charming Smile* I'm trying to get the backlog down to a more managable level, and I figure if I can get a few people to do one each, then it could get done quite quickly. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've actually never really participated in any of the article reviews, other than on the receiving end, but I'll take a look around and see what I can figure out. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pacific war

In general, I avoid contributing to articles which are likely to be endlessly controversial -- like Pacific War; although, of course, I do recognized that the subject, and the disputes it inspires, are inescapably significant. Nevertheless, the article is on my watchlist; and your recent edit summary caught my attention. In that context, I wonder if it might be helpful to ponder this -- just another tidbit of information which could be worth adding to what you already know. --Tenmei (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't heard of that before (although Australia during WWII isn't a specialty of mine). I would say that it only supports the fact that Australia operated in the Pacific mostly under American strategic control, in that Prince Henry was appointed to counter the perceived dependence of Australia not on the UK, but on the US. Of course, in the European theater, it was the other way around; the Aussies operated under British control. Anyways, thanks for pointing that out to me. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I wasn't suggesting that you do anything, nor was I intending to be critical. In fact, I wasn't even wanting to disagree -- not precisely. You wrote:

• Australia was effectively independent of UK control (in fact, they operated mostly under US command), and the British played a key role in the CBI theater)

Your words are defensible -- not wrong, but not correct either. Your observation struck me as being potentially elegant in its balance. I modestly sought only to introduce a mildly discordant note in the context of presumptions which would seem to underly a couple of deceptively straightforward declarative statements. Please consider this as nothing more than food for thought. --Tenmei (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I was doing :) My apologies if my reply made you think I had assumed your original comment to be critical. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Varsity FAC

Hey! Just to let you know, I've nominated Operation Varsity for an FAC, and any comments would be welcome at the nomination page. Skinny87 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lissa (1811)

Many thanks for you comments and suggestions on the above article that is now a Featured Article. Your assistance during the review process was much appreciated and helped make the article what it is today.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasons behind Axis defeat

Thanks for explaining it in detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing, the article V-2 rocket is saying (Developmental history) by late 1941, the basic technology for the V-2 rocket was prepared, but Hitler did not show interest in V-2 rocket. It was only after it bacame clear the war is lost, the Germans tried to produce V-2. I have heard if Hitler payed serious attention for the V-2 in the early years, the war could be in favor of Germany. Is it true? Early attention to V-2 may have resulted in better technological progress in later years. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lubu42

Chumly didn't seem to understand what final warning meant. He vandalized the William Shatner BLP. How long does he go bye-bye for? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely :) (Unless s/he apologizes and makes a good effort to edit constructively, of course) Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can do!

Can do, thanks for the concern per Varsity. I don't think the bloody thing'll pass - apparently it has a lot of MoS issues, and the only supporter I've got is Cam, who as he noted is an editor of the article as well. Casting an eye over the article or the FAC would be appreciated. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. I've been keeping an eye on the FAC, and it didn't seem like there were any real issues that hadn't been addressed. I've hesitated to participate in the FAC thus far, mainly because I have taken (relatively minor) part in the recent work on the article, and still am not sure I feel comfortable Supporting the article at FAC (I don't feel that I myself would not be impartial, but others might see it as a COI). In any case, keep your chin up, you've done a lot of great work on the article. I'm sure it'll get there :) Thanks again re: the Von der Tann. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that you would bring up in the FAC that you could here? Anything, even if its minor. I really want this to pass. Skinny87 (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a couple of minor comments on the FAC page, in regards to the usage of "Drop-Zone" vs. "drop zone" and a particular word in the 6th Airborne section. Honestly, I read over the article a couple times in a row, and couldn't find anything else that might be a point of contention. Really, great work in redoing the article. The page is literally 8 times as large as it was before you overhauled it (5,000-some kbs, to now over 42,000 kbs). I really don't see a problem with it passing FA. Parsecboy (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just a note, if you happen to take a look over SMS Von der Tann over the next couple of days, I'm going to be away from most of my books (but still on Wiki - I have my Conways, but it's fairly limited in information), so I won't be able to address specific sourcing concerns until Sunday afternoon at the earliest. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Stab-in-the-back (WWI)

Thanks for the quick pick-up, Parsecboy! Your explanation was most helpful, and certainly that there's a mainspace page (with no fewer than 11 interwikis!) to which the article had no internal link! I'm adding that right away, and I'll see about rewriting that passage at my next opportunity, based on the content you've provided. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help point you in the right direction :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan

I looked through the edit history of the article and saw the altercation you had there with the User:The High Commander. You were quite correct, of course, that having homophobic views is not a valid reason for removing well sourced material related to gay people and their lives. However, I do think that the reference to wedding in the article needs to be fixed. The current text says "On 15 April 2008, they revealed in an OK! Magazine exclusive, that they were recently secretly married and that they honeymooned in Nevis in the Caribbean." I looked up the OK!Magazine site and could not find the said story/interview there, even after a bit of searching[1]. Do you know if the reference to the OK!Magazine is correct? I did find alternative verifiable references to their marriage and wedding, such as this story [2] in the Daily Record and also this article[3] in CanadianPress. I think that unless the reference to the OK!Magazine story can be verified, it is better to replace it in the text with these (or other) verifiable references. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to replace the sentence with information from the two sources you found. When I was searching for a ref or two to prevent THC from removing the information again, I couldn't find a reference to the interview in OK! Magazine as well. However, I didn't search too thoroughly, so I didn't think it right to remove mention of it. It does seem that there is no such article at the magazine, so it would be appropriate to replace it with something sourced. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll change the reference. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 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) 19:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet Another Deserved Reward

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		To Parsecboy, for helping me above and beyond the call of duty in dragging Operation Varsity kicking and screaming to FA-Class Skinny87 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm... wadnt vandalism.

The latest revert you did at the DMB article wasnt actually vandalism. Moore really did puncture a lung. Thats not mentioned in the cite, granted... but it was a good faith edit. I dont care if that particular addition is in the article or no, but I just wanted to point it out to ya! Happy editing! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooo

And not to spam your talk page, but perhaps you should see this. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That falls under inappropriate names, doesn't it? =] TREKphiler 04:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Massive strategic ignorance

While I applaud the revert, "no rational person" was a bit over the top. I'd be willing to believe it's simple ignorance, seeing it's been deleted a few times before. TREKphiler 04:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When has a little hyperbole ever hurt anyone? :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 8 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 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Parsecboy, 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) 02:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Response

If OPFOR is referenced in the article, fine. But the refimprove tag clutters space - when it is more proactive and worthy to spend time on improving the article rather than throwing tags around and going elsewhere. I never understand that - someone reads an article (or, like you and I, share a valid interest in it) and just throws a tag without actually trying to contribute positively. If that is the primary reason of failure, spend all efforts in improving rather than a tag. And it is quite arbitrary to throw a tag if a ref is missing in one section or two - rather than the entire article itself. So I disagree with you - and challenge to spend time, along with me, to find the reference(s) to help the section(s). Deal? Rarelibra (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ship name examples

Thanks for that. I thought this morning I should have added some examples but you got there first. Sandpiper (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

and ditto, I didnt know how to turn categories into links.Sandpiper (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you just add a colon in the beginning of the link. Easy as that :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

hello parsecboy. thank you very much for you work on fixed the details, grammar, and whatnot on the Korean War page. by the way, OSU? i used to be at kent state before moving to Pitt. Hongkyongnae (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem re the Korean War article, everyone makes typos every now and again :) Yeah, I started at Ohio State this past January. It's good times. Parsecboy (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated "Ships by navy" category discussion

Because you had commented in one or more of the WP:CFD discussions for Category:Royal Thai Navy ships (discussion here), Category:Imperial Russian Navy ships (discussion here), and Category:Royal New Zealand Navy ships (discussion here), I wanted to let you know that they have been closed, and consolidated into a new discussion with several similar proposed category renames. Please take a look at the new proposal. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division A-Class

Hey Parsec. I was wondering if you'd like to look at the A-Class Review for 11th Airborne Division and help me improve the article, since you were a real help with Operation Varsity. It's this link:[4], but I can't figure out how to link it smart-like. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

world war one

when you have a moment, have a look at what I just put on the talk page. cheers Johncmullen1960 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Place copycat page moves

Hi, I don't know if you remember, but you helped undo a unilateral move of Grand Place. The same user, Westermarck then moved it again, against consensus, and you put it in its proper place.

Westermarck just moved a whole bunch more pages unilaterally, and they can't be reverted by a non-admin. Westermarck has a history of unilateral, contentious page moves, so I request that you revert all the moves, so a consensus can be arrived at (or at the very least, a title without technical problems) can be arrived at. Thanks! -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you think it fair, perhaps some sort of slap on the wrist, as he keeps doing this sort of thing in spite of warnings. Up to you of course. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not moving, but he's at it again. Apparently, if he were to have not blanked his talk page every time he receives a warning, it would be full of them. See here and here. Now he's deleted content again without an edit summary, despite having been warned twice. -Oreo Priest ^talk 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, editors can do whatever they like to their own user and talk pages, including remove warnings and the like. It's generally frowned upon, but not prohibited. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox

Thanks for the education about how such page reshufflings are accomplished. I've linked to WP:MDP from my userpage so I'll be able to use the information when I find another annoying page like Orthodox.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Glad to be of some help to you. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the dab project

Hi, Nathan/Parsecboy. Thanks for the quick work on the malplaced dabs, and welcome to the dab project. I see that you're in Columbus; I'm just down the road in Dayton. Go Bucks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I figured that since I had been keeping an eye on the malplaced dab project for a couple of months now, I might as well formally sign up, right? Hopefully, this year will end better than last year. It was kind of funny afterwards though, because my old First Sergeant (who was a huge Michigan fan) while I was in the Army sent a message to me, something along the lines of "Michigan won their bowl game, what happened to OSU?" He was always busting me about going to OSU after I got out. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Question re: this

Hello!

I may be doing something wrong but I seem to be having a hard time figuring out exactly what that is so just bear with me while I try to reason this out and please let me know where my logic is faltering.

In your message to me you suggested that I always use to "move" button at the top of the page to move pages. I am familiar with the move button and have used it many times in the past. But as far as I was aware, since I am not an administrator, I would be unable to do so if I'm trying to move a page to a destination that already exists, ie moving over an existing page. Both Nascent and Nascent (disambiguation) existed at that time so, if I wanted to move one to the other or vice versa, I would have been unable to do so.

It may be hard to deduce from the merged history of the two pages but the main edit that I had made at that time was to undo this edit by restoring the page according to what I thought was the best name for a disambiguation page after consulting with Special:WhatLinksHere/Nascent. James-Chin (talk · contribs) seems to have had created a duplicate disambiguation page and made one of them a redirect to the other. All I did was to reverse that edit/redirect.

So my two question for you would be:

1. How do I use the "move" button in a situation like that where the target page already exists or do you suggest that non-admins refrain from such work?
2. Are you suggesting to never manually make an existing page into a redirect even if the page I'm turning into a redirect is a duplicate of an existing page and even if its cut-and-paste creation is the only edit in the page's history?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A note about page moves

Hello Parsecboy. Thank you for the note, I will be more watchful.--Nil Blau (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

That was NOT content dispute, that was clear disruption that was not to be overlooked and discarded with a link to dispute resolution. Now I'll have to take it to WP:ANI. Jooooy. :-P Regards, Húsönd 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that it is a content dispute; two other admins in addition to me turned the request down and suggested you go elsewhere with this issue. AIV is only for clear-cut vandalism. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Huang Hua

Hi, thanks for your moving Huang Hua (disambiguation) to Huang Hua. Please also move Talk:Huang Hua (disambiguation) to Talk:Huang Hua and close the move request discussion there. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate it when that happens. Guess I should pay closer attention though, right? :) Thanks for letting me know the talk failed to move. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer still going on

I'm just pinging you to make sure you were aware about some more proposed changes at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, since you were involved in the last discussion to make sure you didn't have anything to add on this latest round. Also since you mentioned nationalism on your userpage I thought you might like comic Doug Stanhope's bit about it [5]. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty good routine, thanks for pointing it out to me :) Parsecboy (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your User Page

Hello,

Sorry, this is probably not the correct place to bring it up, but I wasn't sure where I could say something. Being a stickler for misspellings, I noticed that you misspelled "misattributed" on your User Page:

Quotes and such that I like

* "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -misattibuted to Voltaire.

You may or may not have heard this before, but supposedly, the quote actually comes from The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, considered something of an epitome to Voltaire's attitude. Just thought you should know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.41.38 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the typo, and yes, I have heard that the quote came from that book. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Faget

Hey, Psb, I was wondering if you could advise on my notion to protect or semi-protect the disambiguation page "Faget." It seems an irresistable temptation to juvenile humor to add the names and supposed sexual transgressions of random people to that page. If editing on it were limited to people who were registered or signed in, I think most of the problem would vanish. Is there a way to do this and, if it is, is it worth doing? Roregan (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem to be a frequent target of IP vandalism. I semi-protected the page, which should put a stop to it. Given that it's just a disambiguation page, there isn't (at least in my opinion) much collateral damage from unregistered users no longer being able to edit it. Thanks for letting me know about the problem. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Regiment Nato.PNG

Sorry for this mistake. Wikimedia Commons' version uses small letters at the end (png vs. PNG). I'll fix it. Anyways, You should not worry, because MetsBot is reviewing all tagged images before any admin action. Thank you for noting.--OsamaK 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

11th Airborne FAC

Hey Parsec. Was wondering if you could swing by and take a look at 11th Airborne Division (United States)'s FAC; I forget how to link to it. It's already had one reviewer, who rather rudely stated that it needs a complete prose rewrite. Understandably that's dampened my mood somewhat, but any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert

Yeah i know, i meant to click on 'Undo' but instead went onto 'Rollback VANDAL'. I didn't mean to, but i couldn't really stop it lol. In any case those genres shoudn't be listed there since they're not reliable. Jakisbak (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Wave

There was consensus that no-one uses the term 'Audience Wave' so I moved it to 'Mexican Wave' which is the most well-known international term. --The High Commander (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there was no recent discussion in regards to the move; the threads on the talk page are from 2007, and had no real result. It's always better to initiate discussion on something that is apparently contentious before going ahead and doing it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will do so, and by the way I have watched Triumph des Willens at least 30 or 40 times and Der Sieg des Glaubens 10 or 15 times. I fail to see where the propaganda is, they are simply a snapshot of what happened during the NSDAP's party congress. --The High Commander (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I would expect from a person who thinks mentioning the two things Hitler is most famous for (starting WWII and the Holocaust) in the intro to his biography is a violation of NPOV. Parsecboy (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

wikisource

Sorry it took so long to respond. I only noticed your message as I scanned my talk to see if it could be archived. (I watch my Wikisource talk much more closely)

I have roughly answered on s: Parsecboy user talk, and I am notified via email if your Wikisource talk page changes -- so, if you need more info, ask there to avoid fragmentation and being lost in the madness. :-) --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I had forgotten about it myself :) I'll continue the discussion (if there be need to) on Wikisource. Thanks for your help again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With thanks

		Military history service award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work tagging and assessing military history articles in Tag & Assess 2008, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to the drive. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)