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-August 2009); Archive 7 (September 2009-January 2010); Archive 8 (February 2010-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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undo'ing of Wiki works

hello MBK004,

I noticed that you removed my contributory edits recently (2/27/10). These edits are correct and accurate as I am a contractor and cruise industry / marine vessel 'buff'. It would be beneficial to receive a reasonable explanation as to why these are removed as this was not the first time. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you kindly in advance.

Regards,Mrriotto (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)mrriotto[reply]

Copyright of STS-134_Mission_Patch.jpg

As I'm sure you can see, I'm just learning to edit Wikipedia, so I'll miss things every now and then. Can you please take a look at File:STS-134 Mission Patch.jpg and File:STS-133 Mission Patch.jpg and make sure that I have done what was expected? Thanks!

Rezin8 04:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow dude, that was completely uncalled for. First off, the STS-133 patch IS the final mission patch, as told to me by a friend that works in Mission Control AND as said in the original document from NASA announcing the contest ([1]). It says in that document "The winning design artwork will be flown on a future shuttle mission". As a fan of space and NASA, I can assure you that is the STS-133 patch.

Secondly, the STS-134 patch is the official patch as released by NASA. I just can't seem to find the page on NASA's massive website where it was released. Yes, it does say on the site that the STS-134 patch came from that it is not to be reproduced, but the patch has since been released and is available.

I can also tell why this page has been semi-protected. You really need to relax your extremely combative nature and not come off like such a prick when you write to people. I explained that I'm new to editing this thing and you came at me like I had broken a law and a commandment in the same move. While I can respect that you are an administrator of this site, that is still no excuse to act like an asshole to the noobs.

Rezin8 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Middim13

He's back after his block, on User talk:68.49.118.180 again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked for a longer duration this time. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa battleship

Hi MBK. What's the plan/schedule of work here? Since Feb 21 there have only been a couple of removals of unwanted stuff, a couple of typo fixes and a bit of link tweaking YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Cromdog's assessments of Milhist articles

I've discovered that there is potentially a serious flaw with Cromdog (talk · contribs) and his assessment of WP:MILHIST articles. I've discovered at least two cases when articles of at least C class (I know Milhist doesn't use this) have been marked as stubs. I first raised the issue with Cromdog, but on discovering a second problem assessment I also raised it at WT:MILHIST. As I feel that I'm "involved", I don't think it would be fair for me to sanction Cromdog over this. I wouldn't be looking for a block at this point in time, but would a temporary ban from assessing articles be in order while other editors check Cromdog's assessments. I appreciate that there are over 1,000 articles that he has assessed, and there are over 42,000 stub class Milhist articles. Is this something that we can keep "in-house" rather than taking to ANI? Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was odd...

...thanks, I'm not sure what happened here.[2] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Question

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice! I think that I have decided to wait for the next election to run (if I run at all). I feel like I still need to get more involved within the WP. If I run I want to make sure that I feel certain that my time and talents can best be used to help the best WP on Wikipedia. Thanks SO much and Have A Great Day! :) Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander_Fleming

Can you protect this page please ? It has become a magnet for comedian wannabee vandals, I suspect because it's on the school curriculum. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have stopped, and the level of vandalism is not to the point where the article would usually be protected. In the future, for faster consideration you can make these requests at WP:RFPP because I am not always available. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark Strait

First of all, kindly sign your comments on my talk page. Secondly, please refrain from threatening editors who actually try to improve articles. Thirdly, I strongly refuse your accusations. They are baseless, nobody is trying to "own" article, but and heg. I have made a series of minor edits, which were all reverted by this sockpuppet. Its hypocritical to ask me to discuss the edit, since and heg made no specific objections at all, he is just edit warring and reverting my edits regarding their contents. In short, there is nothing to discuss - if he had raised specific points it would be all different, but this "I revert u, discuss" is just transparent. Discuss what? That he is a sockpuppet and he is edit warring yet again? He is entitled to edit war again? Well perhaps according to you, but not according to wikipedia rules... But since you insist in going the wikipedia way, even when sockpuppets are involved, I will then file an ANI for and hegs disruptive edits, meat-sockpuppetry, and ask for a 3rd party opinion on the edits. I will be really interested what could be the problem with them.... like... adding to text that the hit in question was from a 38 cm shell..? Adding breaks to the quoted primary source that its easy to read? Adding to the introduction that the German force was at first reluctant to engage - something that is well known and mentioned in the article? That the British ships intercepted the German ships..? Over and out. Kurfürst (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurfürst has expressed himself in his usual diplomatic way! However he has not mentioned this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive which might shed some light on his comment. I am going to leave a comment on his talk page about it. -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Saying that a revision is unecesarry when no wrong was done in the previous edits is not an attack, it is a statement. If I remember correctly, there is nothing to say that a user cannot reinsert altered content if it actually helps the page... Magus732 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, on top of that, there was no contestment, only a outright removal, with no explanation other than "not helpful"... how is that an acceptable practice, MBK? Magus732 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter if that coutesy in not returned... it's one thing to ask for a discussion, it's quite another to simply turn the clock back on the page... seeing as how there was no attempt to explain the mistakes I made, I don't see why I should entertain his point of view simply because he reverted my edits... it's not a difficult concept to grasp, MBK, but it is difficult to implement in the real world... Magus732 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have seen people do what I did every single day without reprimand, but whenever I do it, it's wrong? Okay, so maybe I shouldn't have just put the stuff back, but would it have been too much to ask for a reasonable explanation from this person? "Not helpful" gives nothing to the other editors as to why it is being reverted, and "even less helpful" is just insulting... Magus732 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tact

Please exercise some tact when addressing people mistakenly using Wikipedia as a memorial. These people have no ill intention, and they are grieving for a loved one. This also falls in line with WP:BITE, so do take care. It is possible to communicate our concerns with all respect due our fellow man in times of personal tragedy. Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Sorry

I'm So sorry! When I first nominated an article for FA, it asked you to notify numerous Projects and People who were involved in the article. Again, I am SO sorry! Have A Great Day Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 03:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! :) Sorry Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 03:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I will remember that next time. Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Deserve It! :)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		You may not have realized it, but I just wanted you to know how important your advice has been to me lately. I think that you have made me (and others) become better Wikipedians. Thanks So Much for your contributions. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Incidences

I have been out for some time. Thank you for you vigilance regarding these pages.PB666 ^yap 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the FT.

Sorry about my spurious oppose, as you put it, to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of Germany/archive1. I hope i didn't get off on the wrong foot with you. Happy editing! Buggie111 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, you stated yourself that you were a noob when making it and you did not know about that requirement yet. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Navy Yard

Thank you for your comments on my minor change to the Washington Navy Yard. I must say, I didn't find your accusation of vandalism, and your threats to have my account blocked for my efforts, to be very helpful, particularly given your terse reason for this. I am not sure how much you know about the constitutions of the Commonwealth Realms, so I hope I don't sound patronising; the article on Monarchy in Canada explains that one person is sovereign of several independent countries at the same time, in accordance with the Statute of Westminster. History of monarchy in Canada explains that George made the 1939 tour as King of Canada, not as King of the UK. For this reason, the tour is listed as a Canadian State tour in List_of_state_and_official_visits_by_Canada. As such, it is, at best, misleading to say that "Britain's King George VI" visited the Navy Yard; although he was Britain's king when he visited, he did not visit as Britain's King, but as Canada's. If you think that merely referring to "Canada's King George VI" in the Navy Yard article would be confusing, please correct it in some way that is clearer.

Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this new trend of threatening people with being blocked to be both unwarranted and disgusting... I understand being frustrated, MBK, but giving people a reason not to contribute is not the right way to correct it... Magus732 (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Re [3] - something to keep in mind is that WP:MILMOS#NOTE as a section is not part of the guideline. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Re ACM listings

Uff, thanks for the catch MBK. I didn't realise we had separate sections for the other awards (didn't scroll far enough down the page!) EyeSerene^talk 08:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore class cruiser

I am not 100% sure, but the additions of User:98.67.173.16 to Baltimore class cruiser look not that bad. Is there a possibility to fact tag them and rework them or put them on the talk page for discussion? --Stone (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are, he is claiming something that is fully inaccurate and untrue. He is attempting to suggest that USS Fall River (CA-131) was not scrapped in 1972 but is a museum ship at Fall River, Massachsetts. In fact, the very tip of her bow is on display there along with the USS Massachusetts (BB-59) (File:Bow of USS Fall River at Battleship Cove.JPG). Plus what he has done is tantamount to plagarism by just listing Janes at the bottom without all of the proper reference information and not using in-line citations when putting in a massive infusion of text. If it were one or two lines or even a paragraph fact tagging would be a possibility, but when the amount of improperly referenced material equals a significant portion of the article that course of action is not feasible. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The other stuff he did was not 100% vandalism, but for some pages it looked good at the first glance but it was hidden vandalism.--Stone (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd for Carnival Glory

Just letting you know: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carnival_Glory_(2nd_nomination). Clconway (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the award. --Kumioko (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship notabilty

Can you please link me to the section that describes the consensus reached for inherent notability of ships? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cruise Books and Wikipedias NPOV Standards

Request a re-review of the use Cruise Book references in Wikipedia articles.

Summary of Major Points

1. Wikipedia provides for the allowability of Cruise Books - Cruise Books qualify for use under Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources by meeting all five criteria for use.

2. The US Navy Considers Cruise Books as reference material - The Chief of Naval Operations OPNAV Instructions identification of Cruise Books as important historical information supporting the contention that Cruise Books fall under the allowable use of self-published sources

3. Libraries consider Cruise Books as reference material - The existence of Prominent Libraries maintenance of cruise book reference collections supports the contention that cruise books fall under the allowable use of self-published source

Details

I. Wikipedia's Published Criteria

Per Wikipedia self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving 2. it does not involve claims about third parties 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Cruise books are not unduly self-serving, they do not make claims about 3rd parties, the don't involve claims about events not related to the subject, the authenticity is not in doubt, and the article that referenced the cruise book is not based primarily on the cruise book. Because of this Cruise Books fall under Wikipedia's allowable self-published rule.

II. Chief of Naval Operations OPNAV INSTRUCTION

To bolster this case please see Department of the Navy Office of the Chief of Naval Operations OPNAV INSTRUCTION 5070.1C which identifies cruise books as extremely important "historical material" and requests their collection.

http://www.cruisebookcentral.com/content/dod-opnavinst-5070-1c-nonfillable.pdf

The United States Navy considers cruise books as reference.

III. Prominent Libraries established use of Cruise Books as reference material

Additionally, please note that the Navy Department Library maintains a collection of Cruise Books for use as secondary sources (reference material) on par with deck logs and ship muster rolls.

http://www.history.navy.mil/Library/special/cruise_main.htm

Navy cruise books collections can be found as reference material at some of the most important libraries in the United States such as the New York Public Library and the library of the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island.

Prominent Libraries consider cruise books reference material.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq14-1.htm

--Ussrangercv4 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being elected to another term. You're the only one left from our election pool year, so all the best to another tranche! Cam ^(Chat) 02:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations MBK, and thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa class battleship

Yeah, I did not want it fall, but I simply could not get my hands on anything to help the article in the house, or the libraries either in Odessa or El Paso. As much as I hate to admit it though, I am grateful to Brad for his microscopic analysis of the article; as I am sure it will help the Iowa's bounce back stronger than they were before. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benea

I recently asked Benea (talk · contribs) about adminship, and he was positive in his reply. I did say that I would nom him at RfA, but I've bitten off a bit too much there. What do you say to nominating him, with me as co-nominator. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm's WikiChevrons

Yes, sorry, feel free to add it yourself or post on my talk page what should we expand on it. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate! --Eurocopter (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petlyakov Pe-3 and MiG-3 ACRs

Hi, I've just started an ACR for the Pe-3 and think I've done everything properly to cross-list it between Aviation and MilHist, but it would be worthwhile to confirm that. I'd also be obliged if you, as an uninvolved party, could close the Aviation ACR on the MiG-3 based since it passed the MilHist ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you for another six months, at least. – Joe N 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reminder

Thanks, I had forgotten. I've started up the FT addition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Standish

This article is on the FAC list. I have some concerns about it, which I've partly laid on on the comments page. I added it to the WPMH talk page, but does a bot automatically do these things, or do you have to do it manually? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is done by bot, I do the majority of the work and it is all by hand. I'll take care of this now. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I thought it was a bot, you're so efficient! Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BB DYKs

[4]...and I've got two more in the pipe :P Parsecboy (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Brain ACR

Many tks for the notices, MBK - normally do it myself of course but got waylaid after the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring and no discussion

I have been modifying my edits in response to concerns of other editors, especially on North Carolina class battleship. However, other editors refused to compromise and simply reverted to the original. GoldDragon (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the difference between User:The ed17 and User:Wiki-Ed's versions of battlecruiser.[5] User:The ed17 only made a minor change to my previous series of edits, indicating that he accepted most of my work or at least did not disagree with it. [6] I continued on with User:The ed17's version and proceeded to change an introduction paragraph [7]. Then User:Wiki-Ed completely reverted all of my changes. Presuming that User:The ed17 and User:Wiki-Ed were likely editors of the same clan, that was why I discussed and worked out only the proper introduction with User:Wiki-Ed. I then incorporated that introduction into User:The ed17's verison...why was this considered disruptive editing ? GoldDragon (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, User:The ed17 was the editor that I worked with on North_Carolina_class_battleship#Washington. GoldDragon (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to say that I didn't disagree with it. I clicked the page, saw that it wasn't perfect English, and copyedited it. The major problem here is that you didn't refrain from changing it to your version while discussing it on the talk page. I'm not going to comment on this being a good or bad block becuase I rarely support it barring a blatantly obvious vandal. GoldDragon, before changing it back again, you need to talk about it on the talk page. Try to come to a compromise; if this doesn't happen and consnsus is against you, back off and leave it be. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I still don't want to comment on the block, but it should be noted that you received multiple warnings from MBK. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the intro which has been settled, could you take a look at my other changes to battlecruiser? I knew that I didn't have concensus at North Carolina class battleship and so I followed the discussion. However assuming that you didn't seriously disagree with most of my additions to battlecruiser, User:Wiki-Ed thus cannot claim to have concensus and do a wholesale revert. GoldDragon (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburgs

Thanks for tagging the ship articles' talk pages, I got distracted :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACR

Thanks for that MBK. I had wondered about the talk page history; seeing as it displayed correctly I thought I'd wait before I made any further changes to the other fields. I'll get it right next time. The poor alphabetical order was me seeing lots of SMS and skipping to the end of anything with an acronym at the front of it! I'll also use tabs in future - this time I just wanted to follow through the instructions one stage at a time, but I usually submit multiple fields at once in different tabs (for GA noms/reviews etc). I wasn't aware of the cross listing agreements though (I knew some did, but I don't know which). Is there a list of all the projects that use/share A class assesments with milhist so that I know which project boxes to update next time?

Cheers again, Ranger Steve (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volkov

Sorry about that, and thanks for a friendly reminder.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 12:43 (UTC)

ACR Review process

I wanted you to know that my comments weren'y directed at you. I agree that there needs to be a limit, I am just dissapointed at the low participation and after I stepped back realized I hadn't done much for the review process either so I will also start making mroe comments myself. --Kumioko (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC closings

Thank you again, MBK ... you are a gem! I'm sorry for not following closer: I've got a lot of gardening to do today. So far, looking good, except for one thing ... I try to avoid saying "failed" on FACs, prefer archived. I usually stick with terminology of "promoted" or "archived" ... "failed" is hard on nominators :) Now that you've done this, you can probably appreciate how steamed I was for years that no one ever thanked Gimmetrow for the work. Thank you ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I've just realized something I'm not sure about ... when a GA is promoted to FA, I don't know if you have to removed it from WP:GA? I spose so? I thought of that when I saw Red-capped Robin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gimmebot does that along with automatically update the tallies there and renames of articles. When I'm done I'll go back through I guess. As to the failed vs. archived, you caught that after I had gone through all of those, all I have left to bring FAC and FAR up to date is some of the successful FACs. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again ... I appreciate your thoroughness ... still catching up on my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed all recently promoted FAs from WP:GA. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the going gets tough, the tough get going ... and Dabomb always shows up for the party! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do you format your diffs like this; i.e., without the name of the page title in the URL? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at how the bot did it and then just did exactly what it did, I deleted everything in-between the ? and diff in the URL just like the bot does. I don't know why it does that, but to keep everything like the bot had done it, I went ahead that way. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks for closing the Ganoga Lake FAC and updating the talk page! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azura

So when you said that my edit was unacceptable because of wikiproject guidelines, that was a lie? I did have a brief look through and I couldn't find anything in the guidelines that suggest as such, in fact looking at various examples, other than the one you recommend, it would appear to be fairly common to provide an overview of ships facilities in cruise ship articles. That said, I will rework the section with references, and to avoid it sounding overly promotion, but in future please do not revert my edits and justify it with mere conjecture. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete stuff just because it lacks an inline ref

hey, I noticed you deleted some unreferenced stuff on the USS Texas (1892) and Indiana class battleship pages (and probably several others I don't have on my watchlist). I want to kindly ask if you could in the future use ((cn)) tags - when there is a reasonable chance the edit is true - instead of just deleting the information. As per WP:DONTBITE. Both edits were made by anonymous users and 100% correct, but just didn't have an inline ref. Cheers Yoenit (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand times, thank you

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	To MBK004, for your extremely helpful offer to take care of FAC and FAR "paperwork". Your efforts are truly appreciated. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. After several hours of poring through FAC, "botifying" all of this would make my head swim. I don't know how you have the time, but I'm grateful you do. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

ACMs

Apparently you beat me to awarding Sturmvogel 66's ACM, but forgot to note that at the nom page because I just re-awarded him the same medal with the same citation. I've got it fixed now, I think, but I could use an extra pair of eyes to check and be sure of this. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for doing something when I'm half asleep. You fixed everything. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Hi MBK004,

Thanks for telling me about the blogs, i did not know that, so thanks again.--Yankeesman312 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

didn't exactly think it would cause a problem

I thought that was the only way to move a article, what is the move feature, for future references--Yankeesman312 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lion class battlecruiser GTC

Wow, you move fast! I was thinking that most of the procedure for a G/FTC had been automated without telling anyone! Thanks for helping me out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment updates

Ah. I presumed that once one Wikiproject had upgraded it, the others followed suit automatically. My apologies, I won't make that mistake again. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Very sheepishly Very sorry about that, that's a heinous edit and I should really have looked at the page a bit closer after I was done. FWIW I think I can see at least part of the error - the version of the page after I messed with it is extremely similar to the diff you left on my talkpage to demonstrate a nom, and it appears I somehow edited the diff rather than the page. When I was doing the nom, I did actually nearly edit the diff admittedly, but saw the warning at the top of the page that you get when you edit a previous version of a page, had an 'aha' moment and went to the main version. Then I just typed my nom in beneath Eds second nom. I know I did that at the very least, because when I put my nom in I copied the wording used in Ed's, and I remember this specifically because I recognised the name of the Battle of Osan and resolved to go and read the article later. But Ed's nom isn't in that diff (being a later addition). Whatever I did though, it seems my edit did go through from the previous version of the page and not the latest version. Again, apologies. If you don't mind though I'll continue to make noms when I need to, aside from this unfortunate/unlucky edit it's otherwise a pretty straightforward thing to do. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I can handle the trout (well deserved), but I do find the awards page edit summaries a bit harsh... Ranger Steve (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I guessed it might be a bit heat of the moment, and the summaries are at least accurate : ) I'm a bit busy in the real world as well, so I can appreciate the feeling. I'll doubly check in future, and one day maybe I'll even close an ACR perfectly! Ranger Steve (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Cruises

well wait some were there before i made changes like the Pacific Princess had the world cruise there from 08 and now its removed??? and why wasn't the Itinerary on the Ruby Princess removed??? and i wasn't trying to advertise.--Yankeesman312 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACW Sesquicentennial Drive

Hi mate. A few of the guys have raised this as a possibility and, as a coord for the relevant task force, I'd like to lend my support to getting it off the ground, though its realistic objects will be limited by the year or so it can run. Given your experience with OMT, can you advise any requirements for making this an official special project, such as consensus from the coords? Of course any other advice would be welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[8] ;-) --Jor70 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q re: WP:NC-SHIPS

I saw that you commented opposed at Talk:MS Caribbean Princess#Requested move, so was hoping you can help clarify. This is the same question I had asked everyone at that discussion - but I hadn't gotten a reply, so decided to ask you directly.

Before I comment support/opposed, I'm trying to understand what part of WP:NC-SHIPS that is being used for the oppose positions. From the way I read it, the guideline seems to support removing the prefix from the article name.

The guideline states "If a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name" and "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous". As the ship builder website, the cruise line website, and all but one ref in the article all seem to omit the prefix - it seems that this does fall into the category of a ship not known by its prefix.

But, I fully admit that I may be reading it wrong or missing some other section in the guideline. Can you help clarify? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colossus-Majestic

The edit isn't a problem, and its kinda nice to know that someone's watching. If you have the time, would you be able to do a very quick review of the draft and tell me what you think so far? -- saberwyn 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ships importance

Should I remove the importance= parameter on ship templates? I did just that on USS Nicholson, but I doubt that it is significant. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a look at the hist section of the War of 1812, I'm not sure it should remain unprotected at this rate.

Cheers.--Tirronan (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MBK004,

I left a message for you regarding your deletion of the content I posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Andrew_J._Higgins_(T-AO-190). As I stated, I was the captain of that ship from 1989-1993 and again in 1994 (this is verifiable through US Navy archives or the N1 (HR) directorate at MSFSC). You have not replied to my note, so I take this next step toward mediating this situation. If you check the Wiki entry for USNS Rappahannock, you will find me cited there as the delivery Master. So where do we go from here? As things stand now, a bit of genuine history is in your trash bin.

Regards, (Captain) Chuck Becker, Retired

Delta 7920

With regards to your edit summary comment in 2009 in spaceflight, the remaining Delta IIs are two 7320s, a 7420, a 7920H, and five unspecified (and currently unassigned) heavies. Therefore the baseline 7920 must be out of service. --G W… 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can't read my own notes. --G W… 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information at ASAT Talk Page

I just wanted to let you know that I removed the information on the talk page because I didn't believe it benefitted the article as it didn't actually engender any productive discussion. I'm perfectly aware that I was involved in the argument but I believe I acted rationally and explained my edits instead of wildly accusing the other side of POV-pushing and trolling. In addition, I just want to state that I deleted the section from the talk page purely for the above reasons as I have nothing to hide. That is why I archive past discussions on my talk page (instead of just deleting them ) even if people accuse me of acting against the best interests of Wikipedia. Vedant (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

I would actually appreciate you actually looking at the edits rather than just assuming that I am the "bad guy" in the dispute.

For battlecruiser, User:Wiki-Ed has been reverting my edits several times, even though his preferred version was unsourced. In the most recent dispute, I had a reference to back up the statement. As the old existing statement was not backed up, and possibly even inaccurate, that does not put the onus on me for the BRD.

For pre-dreadnought, I was adding a source so the fact tag was no longer needed in the intro. Yeah, an anon user has been trolling me for some time, why am I considered to be edit warring in this case ?

GoldDragon (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the battlecruiser problems, I feel that User:Wiki-Ed is not assuming good faith as his first reaction is to revert my edits. By contrast, User:Trekphiler has been tweaking my contributions for Allied submarines in the Pacific War, the latter is what I expect when I edit articles.

[9]

GoldDragon (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article history

Thanks for the heads up. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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) 19:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgic and Brittanic

Hi, both ship did have slightly different appearences visually and they were also built with different dimensions in length and beam, these items are mentioned in the book by Richard De Kerbrech "The last liners of the White Star Line MV Brittanic and MV Georgic".

This would make them running mates and not sister ships etc and the other info i added is from the book.

The book is available on Amazon and is a very good read and someone has already added it to the further reading section in the article!

Jimmy-tarbuck (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message on my talk page

This [10] was left on my talk page for you... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MBK004. You have new messages at Colds7ream's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Colds7ream (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		For your tireless efforts in thankless behind-the-scenes work for OMT, MILHIST, and Ships as described here. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Iowa class battleship

When it rains it pours :) More seriously though I have known for a while that the article's sourcing was going to be an issue, I was going to move straight to that article once Iowa class battleship cleared its FAR, but as you know the class article crashed, and that is why the armament article hasn't seen much attention yet. I'm still of the mind that the armament page could be deconstructed and the relible information ported to the other articles (guns, missiles, etc) to create a series of B/GA class articles, which would allow us to delete the page on grounds of its no longer being needed. Just something to think about should the article make it FAR in its current state... TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

revision of article on HMS Eagle (R05)

Re: HMS Eagle R05. I apologise for not leaving more sources, I was busy trying to get the facts right and double checking my spelling! The article as it was and has been reverted to is highly inaccurate, which is why I editted it. Has my revision of the article been saved? Took me a while to put it together and would hate to start all over again. I can provide sources for all revisions, and some of the errors are glaringly obvious, such as stating Eagle recieved her angled deck in 56-57, ie after Suez, and the 'more powerful catapults in 67 refit'. This is a field I have researchhed exhaustively over at least twenty five years, albeit in an amateur capacity and I spend a lot of my spare time on defence related forums discussing these very topics. I also noticed my expansion of 800NAS' history has disappeared, I did leave sources for this so I wonder if this is just a blanket removal of anything I have posted. I would find that very disappointing.

I look forward to your reply with interest.

Obi WAn Russell (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Russ[reply]