User talk:MBK004

; Archives
	Archive 1 (July 2007-January 2008); Archive 2 (January 2008-April 2008); Archive 3 (April 2008-September 2008); Archive 4 (September 2008-January 2009); Archive 5 (January 2009-March 2009); Archive 6 (April 2009-present)

edit count | edit summary usage


User Page	Talk Page	About Me	Userboxes	Battleships	Sandbox	Userspace	Contributions

**Leave a message, sign your posts, get a reply. New topics go at the bottom!**
Image by Mailer Diablo.

Please feel free to leave a message (or email), but if you post here you I ask that you observe the following requests:

Due to vandalism from unregistered users, this talk page is semi-protected, if you wish to leave me a message and are not a registered autoconfirmed user or wish to post as an IP, please do it here: User talk:MBK004/Anon.
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).
If you are looking for a prior conversation, I usually archive conversations after one month of inactivity.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

Moon "men"

I concur and support your stance taken on WT:SPACE re. the 24 moon voyagers, and hope you will do so if the vandalism persists. Thank you. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. The results of my preliminary investigation may be found at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GayleNuffer. Did I mention that I am in training as a SPI cleric ... ? :-) — Kralizec! (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a rangeblock would work in this case. Leaving aside the massive potential for collateral damage, Gayle has asserted her opinions on this topic from two different ISPs as well as an AFB. Should she press her juvenile threat, I suspect that WP:RBI paired like a fine wine with WP:DENY would be our best option. In the meantime, I am going to go ahead and add the articles in question to my watchlist. If you do the same, that should afford us some measure of protection. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Sennet references... Help?

Hi there,

I am having a bit of a challenge incorporating the references, since I've never was requested to do so before. So it's lack of "HOW" on my part.

As for the references, I was honored to photograph the final honors of CPT Clark at Arlington National Cemetery and have been working on a memorial book for the family and have received material & references from his son and the webmaster at www.sennet.com

Another reference is a book provided to me is US Submarine Operations in WW II, by Theodore Roscoe published in 1949 by the US Naval Institute, Annapolish (no ISBN number) and references page 487.

Both his obitiuary, published in the Washington Post 9 MAR 2009 and the Sennet website are sources for the information. Could you help include these to honor this outstanding American who also was awarded the Navy Cross for this mission success in the 4th patrol of the Sennet?

Thanks!

JM Military photographer (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INS Arihant...

The only things I have added to the article had to do with clarifying that presently, the sub is nothing more than a floating hull, with no sensors, reactor, or weapons installed. The versions prior to my edit made it sound like the submarine was already fully functional and were undergoing trials, which were untrue. However, for some reason, there have been quite a few fly-by-night editors who chose to omit my sources and clarifications. Since each time an omission was done by a different editor or IP, I found it rather difficult or even tiring to reason with each one. Furthermore, I see no need to explain my edit beyond the edit summaries, as the cited sources clearly state the same thing, if only these other editors would bother to read them, they'd agree with me too, unless of course they had ulterior agendas. By78 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Hi MBK, I need some help with a page move. I tried to move Arandora Star to SS Arandora Star but that page name is used as a redirect. Shinerunner (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -MBK₀₀₄ 01:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Shinerunner (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Forgetfulness

Thanks for the barnstar, I've been waiting for that one since before it was officially ratified for use by WP:SHIPS. To be fair to you, I remember that you left a message concerning me and this barnstar about two years ago which said something to the effect of ' he hasn't received one of these barnstars yet (hint hint)'; I guess no one took that hint. At any rate, I'm glad to have finally received the ships barnstar, I guess its one of those odd facts that those who most deserve a certain barnstar are among the last people folks think to award the barnstar too :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: References for edit?

Fine, then why don't you put the correct dates into List of GPS satellite launches? -- Denelson 83 22:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Hi. Regarding the comment you left here; please provide a source for your information. As I explained at User talk:Javert#User_talk:209.36.244.253, there's no point in edit warring over something like this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my understanding of the policy and this line: "These notices and templates are necessary in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to share important information about e.g. blocks and sockpuppetry with other users." I have never seen anything to say that removing block notices is okay but unblock and sock notices are not. If we truly intend to have this policy say that it is okay to remove active block notices, then shouldn't this be discussed on WP:AN or on the policy's talk page? While there is little point in edit warring, the IP is abusing their ability to edit their talk page post-blocking to request an unblock and should be reverted and their access removed. It is unfortunate that the non-admin did not request that the block be tweaked to disallow talk page editing or request protection, which is what should have been done. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have omitted the part of the page just prior which refers to which "notices and templates" shouldn't be removed - those are " ... declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), as well as miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) or, for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." I don't see block notices listed there. Again, putting policy aside (especially as it doesn't even apply in this case) is it really beneficial to anything to revert these edits? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says two different things in two different places. I suggest you propose a clarification to the policy to address this. Also, I have seen many admins, do exactly what I have done, so I am clearly not the only person who sees the policy the way that I do. Let's leave this IP's talk page the way it is now, plus there wasn't a sharedIP notice before I got there. The blocking admin should have added it via looking at the WHOIS link and then the IP's blanking would have been against policy even as you see it. I really have no stake in this except for seeing the policy is clarified. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care to so feel free. Just trying to understand why people think policy wonking and edit warring on a user talk page is beneficial. Unfortunately I still don't understand it but hey, that's Wikipedia for you. Cheers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no policy-wonker (and MBK004 isn't either, I would imagine), and I really would have had the IP think they had the last word with "Try harder", but to call editors who are trying to protect Wikipedia "edit-warriors" is a bit beyond the pale. You may have had this policy interpretation discussion outside normal watched pages, but Javert et al have done nothing wrong here, in my opinion. – B.hotep •talk• 00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aspiring policy wonk and someone who participated in the WP:VPP discussion that lead to the specific phrasing at WP:BLANKING and WP:DRRC, I may be able to add some clarification here. Editors -either registered or anonymous IPs- are permitted to remove almost any message (including warnings and block notices) at will from their own talk page. However, in order to prevent blocked editors from potentially gaming the system, they may not remove either declined block notices or confirmed sockpuppetry messages from their talk pages (note that these messages may be removed once the editor is no longer blocked). Additionally, unregistered editors may not remove shared IP header templates, which are explicitly defined as those at Category:Shared IP header templates (note that the {{whois}} template was designed for non-shared IPs, so since it goes on the talk pages of static IPs, the IP may remove the template if they choose).

While I can understand and appreciate the sentiment Bubba hotep expressed about the "edit warriors" comment, unfortunately the opinion he expressed is not supported by Wikipedia policy. The WP:USER page explicitly notes that "restoring talk page warnings is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." As 3RR is a part of the Wikipedia:Edit war policy page, anyone who violates the three-revert rule is, by definition, an edit warrior. Looking at the edit history of User talk:209.36.244.253, it appears that in the span of 50 minutes Abce2 and Javert reverted the page seven times each. Does this mean that I am blocking them for edit warring or 3RR violations? Absolutely not, as they either did not know about, or did not fully understanding the WP:BLANKING section of the WP:USER guideline. That said, I have seen editors blocked (usually for 3RR, edit warring, or harassment) for edit-warring with IPs over talk page warnings. In fact, I have performed some of those blocks myself when editors have stubbornly refused to "let it go" even after they have been brought up to speed on WP:BLANKING.

Hope this helps clear up any confusion that people may have experienced over this issue. Assuming MBK004 does not mind us using his talk page, you can feel free to respond here if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this topic. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is confusing. I've had editors I know tell me one thing, and then others tell me another. We need to clarify or something abut this.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 05:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With wikis, few things stay the same for long. :-) So ... if someone told you differently at some point in the past, the other person might well have been correct. However it has only been within the past sixteen months that WP:BLANKING was explicitly updated to include anonymous editors. Prior to that was anyone's guess. And yes, lots of people have unknowingly flubbed this up over the years and inadvertently harassed IPs over their talk page warnings (me being one of the worst). As penance for those earlier harassment sins, I now travel about and try to help people avoid making the same mistakes I did. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I apologise to all involved for getting het up about it. I think I articulated my views better on Javert's talk page. – B.hotep •talk• 10:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Blackops work group

I was hoping for some more input from the other projects before formally committing to the creation of the working group, but from what I see we have enough people to create the working group. I'm concerned that we have no response from the aviation project or the paranormal project, more the former than the latter since a lot of the blackops pages are aircraft related. If I get a moment tomorrow I will look into setting the group up so we can get started on the road to tightening standards for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're live: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Black project working group. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article merges?

Hi MBK, I was working on this article Type C4 class ship which lead me to General G. O. Squier class transport ship and Haven class hospital ship. Do you think that seperate class articles would be best or should there be a proposed merge of some or all the articles? I wanted to get your opinion before I proposed any merges. Shinerunner (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is above my pay grade, individual articles via WP:NC-SHIPS I can answer, but a decision such as this needs consensus of the community. I suggest that you bring this up at WT:SHIPS so others can comment as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Just thought that I would bounce it off you. Thanks again! Shinerunner (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For crunching numbers for the FAC rate in the August newletter I present you with the Working Man Barnstar. Keep it up! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering do you have any battleship articles I can work on

I'm from NJ and worked with Postoak on the BMC Software article. I've never done a battleship article and perhaps you'd know which ones needed the most work.Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer[reply]

I tend to agree that this is an editor that could cause problems for us down the line, but unfortunately the encyclopedia lacks a policy for preemptive action even when the editor in question appears to have unresolved wp:own issues. To be fair to the man I've had own issues too, that is why I no longer create pages here within the realm of fiction and refrain as much as possible from editing fiction based articles. Realistically, if he wants to edit the pages there is nothing we can do to stop him using the existing policy and guideline structure, and the right thing to do here would be to follow AGF and offer him a chance to see what he can do. Before that though, we should invite him back to answer a few questions to get a better idea of how he will be able to help. To start with I would like to hear from Tom in his own words as to why he is abruptly shifting gears from business to military history, as its unusual for editors in active in one area to abruptly switch gears like this and head to an entirely different area. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is wide. I like working on all kinds of articles (actresses, statistical agencies, businesses, philosophers, fashion designers, New Zealand (I might move there someday)). I'm a pretty good researcher, semi-competent writer (somewhat boring). My motivation is liking to see my stuff on the web, a feeling of accomplishing stuff, and learning. I want to avoid edit warring and stupidity. What I like to do is take stubs or troubled articles and revamp them, expand them; this takes time and work. I don't mind if people take what I do afterwards and improve it, modify it, rewrite it. What I don't want is a situation in which the hard work I've done gets chopped to bits, because then I feel stupid, like I've wasted my time. And this is what I feared was about to happen in the BMC Software article and I got quite defensive about it. So, in this yes, I have "ownership" issues, only in that I want to create stuff which has some hope of lasting. So, my approach now is more like working with established users (administrators) on projects they're interested in, getting a sense of what they want and how to go about it, and who can protect what I create from vandalism and power-player types, and steer me in a way so I'm not wasting my time. If I can work on such projects, let me know; but there are other areas I'm interested in also. I'm working on the "Spinoza" article. But if you feel I'm a "problem" editor there are lots of other areas where I can contribute.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer[reply]

Tom, we'd be glad to have you. Take a look through User:The_ed17/Sandbox2 and pick an article you would like to work on; if you need any help, advice or anything, feel free to ping me or any one of the coordinators at WP:MILHIST! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably one of the stubs or starts, the B, GA, A and FAs are in good shape and don't need as much work. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're all problem editors, Tom; that is why here to problem solve. What I was concerned about was an apparent case of the "mines" over an article, but you have explained your position there and I accept your explanation of the events. You are, as noted above, welcome to edit any article here on site, we have no authority to prevent you from doing so. If you find you like the call of the battleship articles you are also welcome to join us for the ongoing Operation Majestic Titan. Do note though that the group that most actively edits these articles is composed of both coordinators and administrators, and that we are all a little protective of our gunship articles, so as long as you remain open to discussion on matters relating to the battleship pages and abide by the established consensus for those pages you are welcome to assist us as much as you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Iowa (BB-4)

I happen to have spotted your comment to ed when I went back to see if he had responded to my message; I left a message for Tom about his work with the article. At this point I think a PR may be in order, it could help the article and offer tom new advise for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA

hi, i was wondering how to transclude my RFA to WP:RFA ??? please guide me. user: Roger Davies gave me some tips to improve my RFA page and i will work on it shortly. But first i need that "transclude myth of mine" to be cleared. what is it actually ? The guide to RFA dosnt seem to help me as when a "new to RFA guy" reads it .... he feels like totally lost. regards.. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Iowa (BB-4)

Wondering what is happening with this article. I saw the "under construction" tag and assumed you're doing something with it. If not, I'm waiting to work with others -- is the next step peer review, or what is your sense. If my help is needed, let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

210.11.81.228

On 10 September 2009 you tagged User talk:210.11.81.228 with {{repeat vandal}}. I don't know whether you have been watching this user's edits, but in case you haven't I thought I would mention that since you placed the tag this IP address has been the source of 6 more edits, every one of them blatant vandalism. As you were responsible for a tag which produces the message "Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block", perhaps you may like to step in. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You too

If you would still like to nominate me, please create/add to WP:Requests for adminship/The_ed17_2. :-) Thanks dude, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Its live: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17 2. I await your conom, then its yours to add to the que :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but I'm going to bed and I've got statistics to do tomorrow morning/afternoon (ugh) so I probably won't be able to add my co-nom for about 13.5 hours (I may decide to do this before statistics and in that case it would be about eight hours), please hold off on transcluding this in the mean time. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, Roger :) Good luck with your statistics MBK, and do not worry about the rfa: Eds waited almost 8 1/2 months for a second shot, I'm sure a few more hours will not kill him :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks MBK; whenever you get to it.~~ :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, I'm got NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) to write a conom so that I can transclude it sooner; the only large amounts of free time I will have will occur for the rest of today, tomorrow and Sunday, so I need to get it on WP:RfA asap. Please add your own conom whenever you can though. Many apologies, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've had a terrible day that was compounded by a power outage for most of the day due to downed lines. Good luck! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) - sorry to hear that, as those always suck. Feel free to add a conom now if you want, but you have my gratitude in any case. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

List of spaceflight records

You recently reverted an edit on List of spaceflight records of mine. Considering that it is marked as a minor edit, I'm assuming this was done as a rollback. My edit was not vandalism. If you wish to discuss the merit of my edits, there's already a section on the talk page. But please don't simply revert without checking or giving reasoning. Please also let me remind you that abuse of the rollback permission is grounds for losing your administratorship. Vertigo Acid (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

I noticed you had left a message on the talk page of User:Nono64. I also see you have sysop abilities also :) This user unilaterally changed the IB Diploma Programme into International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme. In doing so they seem to have wiped our archives as well as our to do list. Is there anyway you could get them back for us? I suspect Nono64 cannot. I would use revert but I don't actually know what will happen when a page has been renamed.

I'd appreciate your input. Thanks --Candy (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -MBK₀₀₄ 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks :)

--Candy (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station

Hi there MBK, I'm looking to pick your brain. I've constructed a plan for an A-class review in my sandbox, which involves contacting each editor who commented in the recent PRs, GANs and FACs, and asking them to comment in a new PR. I've put up a draft of the message I'll send to each editor and the wording of the PR request in my sandbox, and I'd be grateful if you'd have a look over them.

On a similar theme, I could do with a fresh set of eyes to look over the automated peer review page (here) for the article - it's stating a few errors which I THINK I've dealt with (with the obvious exception of the ToC), but I'm so institutionalised by the code for this article I'd like it if you could go over it and see if I've missed something or if the reviewer is throwing up issues which aren't there.

Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request!

Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I understand everyone has commitments. Please take your time! AshLin (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I may be going out of town a while, I have done my voting, so this is not about that, though it has helped me to understand a persons position. I am interested in the experience and to get a handle in which direction the project is going. AshLin (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about US-centricity and large mentions of navy and naval articles. IMHO the Project should develop reasonably uniformly in all parts notwithstanding that people will edit things they prefer or like. We need to bring up weak spots so as to have at least a large set of the important articles which give a broad and complete coverage of milhist into B+ and preferably A class (very tall order indeed). I thought I'd mention it as a sort of feedback. AshLin (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry, my bad; autoupdated computer reopened the tabs and I thought this was mine talk page, not yours. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Grounding

The goal is always FA, but the means by which we get to FA are important as well :) That is why I'm concerned at the moment with the principle task of updating the article such as it were so that it will meet the standards for inclusion in the FT supplemental nom. If while I'm gone someone else takes the article to A or FA class so be it, but I hope to be the GA class nominator so as to retain the needed sequence for the 4 award. I think the best course of action will be to follow your plan and move to GA then A and FA so as to preserve the integrity of the nom. Thanks for the advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completed Ariane 1

I have completed work on the Ariane 1 article. I have also removed the reference tag. You can have a look and see if it's OK. I don't know whether I am authorized to remove tags. Regards.

By the way, we are having a discussion on some issues in the 2009 in spaceflight artcile in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight. Your views are welcome. Thank you. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page...that's the weirdest i've ever seen though.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Leda (1800)

The reason I removed the class info is that I separated that into a class page: Leda class frigate. Leda has sufficient info on her own account to merit her own page, and the class info should be on its own page so that one can add to it and link vessels of the class to it. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DesGarçon

Hi, I'm notifying you of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DesGarçon because of your efforts to resolve the situation in the past. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of edit contributions

Greetings MBK004,

I'm replying to a message from you from earlier today in regards to my edits on MS Enchantment of the Seas. The information submitted was correct so if you could please provide some insight as to why not just this, but the other edits i made this morning were removed, i would be grateful as i want to be sure that the correct process is followed. Thank you kindly in advance for your assistance with this...

mrriotto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrriotto (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azipod citation

The sources on the MS Oasis of the seas article already established that the propulsion consists of three Azipods, and Azipods are distinguished by there ability to Azimuth. The citation tag was never apropriate in the first place, that is why I removed it. --Opcnup (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: TP Protection

I've unprotected. I had protected because that annoying IP that you were so kind as to block yesterday was hurling abuse at my talk-page. Incidentally, could I ask you to semi-protect Battle of Verrieres Ridge? That same IP has been upsetting the article for the last 72 hours continually. I'd protect the page and apply the hammer on him myself, but I'm directly involved (COI). Cam ^(Chat) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. Cam ^(Chat) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was probably it from the start. I've been emailing back and forth with Roger & Enigma on the issue for the last two days. Cam ^(Chat) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already read it actually. The sadist in me is already trying to work the Knights Templar into the conspiracy theory ;) I'll send that to Roger. He'll get a kick out of it. Cam ^(Chat) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just blocked another one for the same reason. It's outside of the range of the previous one (137.193.199.34), whereas the other ones were 188s. Thanks for all your help. Cam ^(Chat) 02:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Patton article

Thank you for your feedback on my addition to the George S. Patton article, which has been cut up in such a way that it now reads somewhat strangely, grammatically.

It would, of course be terribly irresponsible of me to use material that was not cited and verifiable. After all, I did not know the man personally, and I could be guilty of libel if I posted something publicly that did not actually occur. For that reason, I made sure to add what is currently the last line in the primary sources section of the bibliography of the article, which reads:

"Platt, Anthony M. with O'Leary, Cecilia E., Bloodlines: Recovering Hitler's Nuremberg Laws, From Patton's Trophy To Public Memorial, ISBN 1-59451-140-3 (paperback); Paradigm Publishers, 2006. 268 pp."

I will again review the instructions at the link you provided, just to be sure that I didn't miss something. However, it has been my experience that when I make an edit to an article, and someone with authority at Wikipedia doesn't like it, even when I show that I followed the rules, my edits are not replaced, and I never receive a response on the matter. Therefore, although I only desire accuracy, fact, and truth, because I have no desire at all to create contention, I will again back down, and when I have time I will remove the other additions I made to the article, as well as the source. Nevertheless, I would like to mention that I find it odd that only a portion of the additional information that I contributed was removed, even though it was all obtained from the same source.

Thank you again, and I apologize for having caused an issue and ruffled feathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ETO Buff (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, I knew about signing these posts, but I don't post very often, and frankly, I'm quite tired tonight. I think I subconsciously figured that whomever poted this would show up somehow. Thank you for calling my attention to it, and please accept my apology for causing the inconvenience. ETO Buff (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Article History for supplementary nomination?

No, actually, {{ArticleHistory}} doesn't actually deal with supplementary nominations (i.e. FTAs), just FTCs/FTRs. So when a supp nom goes through, the articles that are added to/removed from the topic have their ArticleHistorys updated as if they have just been part of a nomination for a new topic/full FTR (e.g. here, note it's an FTC not FTA), but the articles that remain in the topic with no change do not have their ArticleHistorys updated at all. The system was established to be like that before I took over closing topic noms, but I guess the reasoning would be that it doesn't directly effect the other articles, and on some articles it would cause a serious lengthening of the article history, most obviously Solar System - see Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System and the 9 supplementary nominations that topic has had! rst20xx (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oops, my mistake indeed! rst20xx (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private communication

Well noted. I removed the private communication on the CoRoT page. Just note that the heading should be about the DPU failing not the Photometric chain#1 failing.