User talk:MBK004

; Archives
	Archive 1 (July 2007-January 2008); Archive 2 (January 2008-April 2008); Archive 3 (April 2008-)

edit count | edit summary usage

MBK004 is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.


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)

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBK004.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Space Camp - Advert

I'm curious what about the Space Camp article reads like an advert to you. It had been previously marked as such , and I've been working to edit that tone out of the article. Another editor (ComputerGeezer) had previously removed the ad-status on 20:58, 7 February 2008. What specifically are you calling out? Crkey (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I noticed you are willing to give rollback rights to users. I am very interested. How can I apply? Wiki Zorro 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible ship infobox?

At the peer review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290), TomStar81 (talk) said that you might know how to make infobox sections collapsible. Is that right? The box for the Matoika is really l-o-o-o-n-g, and, for aesthetic reasons, I would rather not split it into eight (or so) individual boxes. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thank-spam

MBK004, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And an extra thankyou for also supporting my previous RFA :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the Spike TV schedule again.

Could you please check the Spike TV schedule again? I want to make sure no mistakes were made in removing Star Trek: Deep Space Nine from the schedule. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the infobox template reminder, must have slipped my mind. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Action regarding my corrections to the Implacable content

Sir,

With respect, I disagree with your position vis-a-vis my statements to the content on the page containing content supposed to be about the "Implacable Class" carriers of the Royal Navy.

The "flow" of the article is in need of being "disrupted"; it is inaccurate and misleading, both, and these are serious problems in an article of such brevity. You will note that I have cited my primary source, that I have written and edited other WK articles on HM ships, and that my corrections are matters of fact, not opinion.

So long as we continue to infer that Wikipedia content is verified---the caution that all content must be verifiable appears on every page, and one cannot but draw the inference from the statement---it is incumbent upon us either to do so, or to take significant action to correct the record when errors of fact---that is, errors which are at direct variance with specific factual records---occur, or when the opinions expressed are not supported by argument and are contrary to any established thought.

I do not argue that content must cleave to established thought, only that if content is to challenge an established viewpoint, it must do so in an organized, logical, and scholarly manner, with facts to support it.

However, an error of fact is a different manner altogether. I may disagree that Admiral Darlan was a Fascist, but the facts of the Implacables are not subject to interpretation---they did not owe any aspect of their design to Ark Royal (see my citation for confirmation of this fact). To write that they did is to misinform, which is contrary to the purpose of a reference, and does not improve the reputation of this site.

I have posted corrections to "Talk" pages before, only to discover that they never go any further. Perhaps you find it edifying to read these pages; perhaps you believe that users will peruse them before relying on the information in the article itself; I do not hold such views.

Where I can, I make minor edits (I just made such an edit on the page for the 'County'-Class 8-Inch Cruiser Shropshire). Where the content is grossly misleading or factually incorrect, I state so clearly.

Until some means is established whereby an entry containing clear errors of fact, or mis-statements not supported by facts, may be replaced by one based on facts, I disagree with the intent of your focus---its ought not to be the continuity of the erroneous page we concern ourselves with, but the accuracy of the information.

I should prefer that the article on the Implacables was moved to the "Talk" page and the simple statement of fact that I wrote be put in its place; but in any event, the errors of fact must be removed.

Thank you for your time and concern.

Very Respectfully, Caryn96 (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

II would have preferred to email you concerning our differing thoughts on the Implacables entry, but cannot seem to find your WK email address, or any quick means of emailing you otherwise.

Thank You.

Caryn96 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

It would appear you have deleted my corrections to the Implacables page, rather than moving them as you inferred. As I am only able to see the "Discussion" tab ("old skins" as I gather from the "Help" pages), I am not certain, but it certainly appears that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryn96 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to USS Topeka (SSN-754)

Hello. I should have realized that a claim such as mine needs to be sourced. Thank you for noticing and taking the time to post on my talk page. To back it up, I cannot cite the blog in question (The Stupid Shall Be Punished ) because of Wikipedia guidelines on blogs. I could probably contact the blogger though - what could he produce to serve as verifiability? It's pretty clear from reading his blog that he is very knowledgeable about the blog's subject of submarines, and I'm completely sure that he indeed served in the Navy and on Topeka. I can't use that as a source, though, can I. Could you offer any advice, both about how to verify my claim and about whether you think all this is notable? KNVercingetorix (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Replies

I do not wish for the article to be replaced by "mine", so we are in agreement on that point, though I acknowledge the gratuitous tone. I wish the article to be made convergent with the facts. My paragraphs were intended to make clear the serious errors of fact present in the article, not to substitute for it---I have no objection to anyone writing a new, factually accurate, article, your own August Personage included. I confess I find it appalling that you are more concerned with style and form than with content. Why "the flow" of an article riddled with errors of fact is so much more important to you than the remedy of those errors, I cannot fathom.

If you lack the technical knowledge to understand my points, pray make use of my references; if you lack sufficient background to understand the technical points, help those of us who do to work with you to meet your style and form standards, while still presenting useful and factually correct information.

Caryn96 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message

Hmph. Perhaps destoyers just don;t have any wow power to motivate people like the battleships do. At any rate, that is interesting, the contributer who worked to bring HMS Ledbury (L90) up to A-class should get a barnstar or something for being the first to get there. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the battleships always have commanded great attention, so I guess its only appropriete that they get first dibs for attention. And we are working on the Carrier: HMS Ark Royal (91) is closing in on featured, albeit slowly (she just recently failed an A-class review). (Incidentally, thats going to look real bad for the States if the britis get a carrier to FA status first, but I'm not complaining :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axe that: HMAS Melbourne (R21) is an FA-class aircraft carrier. I guess we do have one after all. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to up the ante, you could work on a carrier of ours that is presently a muesuem ship; in this way, we could technically have a stake in the "firsts" since no featured carrier article here is a meusum ship yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man your lucky. The only meusum ship I have ever been on is Niagra, and thats sort of a technicality since Niagra was rebuilt after raising. Lex should be next then, before we fall to far behind our carrier operating breathern. On a seperate note, I think the states have claim to the first featured warship because I do believe that Missouri was the first warship to be featured (certainly the 1st battleship), so we get bragging rights there anyway :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someday, I suppose, I'll get to tour these great ships. In the meantime we got plenty to keep us busy here. I went ahaed and dished out a WP:SHIPS barnstar to the A-class nominator for Ledbury, correcting that oversight. I am trying to rebuild Iowa, but have put it off until after the Monatanas clear FAC. And I have located some new info I intend to add to the Iowa class article sooner or later. (more the former than the latter since I go back for summer school June 9). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the Wisdom Teeth; I had mine pulled about five years ago, and it was...an uncomfortable experience, mostly for the first 48 hours, owing to the swelling of the cheeks. With regard to T&A 08, try and put in a little effort for the "phase two" reload, Roger is going to try and get the drive relaunched in mid june, and I promised I help by starting then to try and regenerate some interest for the those editers who are throwing in the towel. As for the inquisition: I am ready to go (aside from my nervouness, but people can't see nervousness when edit from behind a username); I'm just waiting for Roger to get the nom up and running, then answer the question and see what happens. With any luck, the third time really will be the charm :) TomStar81 (Talk)

Also, a cursory glance at the editting history for Reuv (talk · contribs) suggests s/he may be on extended break; there are long periods of inactivity in the contributions tab. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Station Citations

You called for more inline citations on the Palmer Station article. I am happy to do what I can, but I would appreciate it if you could be more specific. The guidelines requiring cites say "They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations."

I see few statements that are contentious or likely to be challenged, so the "need" part is unclear. As for statements of fact, much of the article has been written by individuals who have spent a lot of time at Palmer Station and some the facts are based on personal knowledge or experience. While in a scientific paper you might see a reference to a "personal communication", in this case some of the facts I see are really information being transmitted by a primary source.

Your advice on how to handle this, please, and examples of things you recommend citations for would also be appreciated.

dufour27216.164.51.18 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Triple Crown

Already there :) Just waiting on an answer to the questions before moving forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in answer to your A-class question: I wouldn't link just the hull numbers; from where I sit there wouldn't be enough context for the link and the material would be better covered in the Iowa class battleship article; however, if you wish to link the hull numbers you are more than welcome to. Who knows, it may be a hit with the project people. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Hopefully, this FAC won't be as controversial as the Illinois FAC (I'm still have nightmares over that nom...)

Re:Avro Vulcan XH558

Thanks for undoing the last edit on XH558. The edit made by the last person, was just trying to spoil the page. Thanks again Ollie Harvey (Schlongboymega) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlongboymega (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Me

Hi,

Thanks for the note. Please be assured that I'm the only user using this account in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I am the lead guy for educating people about the Navy's new maritime strategy that calls for greater cooperation among the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, as well as, enhanced global partnerships to prevent war. This is the first time in history that all three sea services have signed a common strategy and I'm updating relevant pages to reflect that for historical purposes.

I figured I should have a username that provided transparency to this educational effort but if you think I should do these updates anonymously instead, please let me know.

Have a great night.

Best,

NavyPublicAffairsOfficer (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)NavyPublicAffairsOfficer[reply]

Regarding your revert to USS George Washington (CVN-73)

One of your recent reverts was not justified and was reverted back. Your revert reverted useful content to the article: USS George Washington (CVN-73). Just be cautious that not all edits that are bad in grammar constitute as vandalism. WinterSpw (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits should always be checked up. Thanks again. WinterSpw (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed

Please block User:OOC OCD for continued vandalism of Living Lohan. He or she keeps adding info copied from the show's web site and images that haven't been uploaded correctly and keeps changing links to other Wiki articles. Thank you. 67.78.143.227 (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquisition

I brought up the rfa point on Roger Davies' talk page, and wanted to let you know so you could comment there on the matter of another rfa for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Take care, and get well soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thanks for dealing with Vandalism on my User page :-} --ARBAY (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 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) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Young (astronaut)

According to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military History#Scope the articles does not fall underneath the category:

Note that military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability.

JonCatalan (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder

I actually am working at the USSRC at the moment and have seen the damage first hand. If you would just wait a minute I was working on uploading a photo of the damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.111.165.1 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

steven decatur

i put a direct link from the page to the jersey devil page that tales of the same report!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect request for Andrea James

Please see my comments on the talk page, now that the warring editor is indefinitely blocked for BLP vandalism and sockpuppetry. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Camden

Hi MBK,

I see that you reverted my edits on the two USS Camden articles. Would you mind directing me to the guideline you mentioned that introduces an exception to the guideline I cited? I tried WP:SHIPS, but I couldn't find anything applicable, and as it was a WikiProject, it wouldn't have been binding if solely located there anyway. I tend to have to cite this particular guideline quite frequently, therefore it would be very helpful for me to know of any exceptions.

Neelix (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Formidable

I don't mean to sound argumentative, but asking the question, did Britain not have the capability to repair aircraft carriers during the second world war is connected to the article. If it were true, could it not be added to the article? Joe Deagan (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Joe Deagan (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The latest newsletter is here! View it at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter archives/2008 6. ShepBot (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Normandie and USS Lafayette (AP-53) merge(?)

I saw on the talk page of SS Normandie that you were going to do a proper merge of USS Lafayette (AP-53) into the Normandie article. Since it looks like it didn't get done, consider this a friendly reminder about that. Hope you enjoyed your vacation :) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA

This is no joke. Anderson Cooper did work for the CIA. HRCC (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Anderson Cooper CIA" and you have pages and pages of links.