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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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

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!

[1] ;-) --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.

[2]

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 [3] 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]

Wink! Keep up the good work. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:28, 19 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]

Image Galleries

Thanks for letting me know about this and I did not know the rules. But can these images (some of them) be added along with the text?. If not i will try to upload them to Commons as you have mentioned. I just added information to the Russian cosmonaut pages since they look pathetic compared to NASA astronaut pages. Again the problem comes to not much of information is available on them in the net sometimes not even their photos. Hence have to wait till NASA publishes or to edit an Expedition Group photo. Hope these are allowed. Kurun (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

...that I didn't catch the new ACR for the Fortifications and Ottoman task forces before you did; that's supposed to be my job. I'll be quicker on the draw when I get caught up on my ACR copyediting and reviewing. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologize. If you look at my editing from last night, you will see that I have a general routine that I do when I have the time, and catching up on ACR/PR/FAC/FAR is one of the first things. As to it being your job, not so much as any other coordinator who notices it, I just happen to be the first a majority of the time, or the others leave them to me to do. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest: I leave them for you if I see them. The problem is that I rarely see them before you've posted all the notices. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I'll use the same approach I use in my other work: wait 24 hours and see if someone else does it :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Tks for chipping in at Electric Warrior and my talk page, mate... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:FAC notifications

I guess I'll just have to use the old excuse of "this was my first day on the job." Figures that the first time I do a notification post, I miss a crucial element. But I guess it's all part of the learning curve. I will more careful in the future. Thank you MBK004, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STS-135

Sorry for my stupid edit and thanks for correcting it. --Bernardoni (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessments

With all due respect, those shells are a hassle. They are a necessary evil when there are four or more project banners on a talk page, but for three or fewer the benefit and space savings are really marginal. Just another click a person needs to make in order to get to the underlying banners. As for the talkheader, it may have an occasional positive impact on the talk pages of truly controversial articles, but seeing it on each and every talk page pretty much reduces its benefit to zero. You are welcome to disagree, of course. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 20, 2010; 22:51 (UTC)

Texas indpendce listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Texas indpendce. Since you had some involvement with the Texas indpendce redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: contributions

Thanks for your welcome note, MBK004, and I will do what I can to be a helpful contributor to this treasure trove of information which I constantly consult and mention/recommend at every opportunity. Being a proofer and editor for 30 years [and dubbed The Streamliner along the way], all manner of typos and structural goofs on various pages have jumped out screaming at me to be rescued. I wish I had at least made note of these before now, as well as deciding far earlier to wade in formally to address them; but as many occur in places I look up frequently, I'm sure to run across at least some - as well as any henceforth. I look forward to gaining more knowledge and experience thereby and hope my little efforts at "housecleaning" will be well-received. Thanks again, and long may the Wikipedia wave!

Redbone360619 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:OMT discussion

Hello, MBK004! I am informing you that there is a discussion at WT:OMT#Moving forward on whether or not to implement a reward called the Titan's Cross. As you list yourself as a member of the project, I suggest you vote in it. Have fun! Buggie111 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate revert of F-111B edit

Why was it neccesary to immediately revert unsourced information on the F-14? I was just about to add those later, wouldn't it be more WP:CIVIL to simply tag it? If it's something obviously made up or libelous, that's one thing, but information easily corroborated n the F-14 wikipedia page? Redhanker (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Scorpene class submarine

Why did you revert my edits on that page? You say it was unsourced but it was sourced, I put two references to two fair sources (not blogs nor politicaly bound), so why did you remove them? Matthieu (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, if you look at the time of the edit with regards to my time zone, fatigue was definitely an issue there. The most probably reason I reverted is because your edits added a section which did not have references. You are correct that the edit did add additional references, and I did overlook them. Unfortunately due to subsequent edits I cannot undo the revert, but you are welcome to go back and re-edit the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaznavi

Hi. Could you possibly move Ghaznavi Missile to Ghaznavi (missile) in line with RND. It seems the two were merged at some point in the past, and whilst the incorrectly named article has most of the history, both histories need to be preserved so a simple db-move wouldn't work. As an admin, you would be in a better position to sort this out than I am. Thanks. --G W… 20:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, have you ever thought about acquiring your own mop? You've definitely got the tenure, article writing experience, and demonstrated need for the tools... -MBK₀₀₄ 22:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered it, but I don't know if it is practical. I know I can sometimes be divisive, and I am probably too stubborn in discussions relating to sourcable factual errors. That has set a few users against me. There was also some confusion a few years back when my old public account (which at the time I could not publicly acknowledge was mine) was mistaken for somebody else's sockpuppet. My attempts to defend the account without acknowledging it was mine just caused a mess. I won't rule it out though, and if you think it might be a good idea, I'd be happy to continue discussing it. --G W… 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet issue is definitely one that will need some quite-clear explaining if we were to go forward with an RFA. I'd need some time to investigate the issue before I were to nominate you, but I definitely think that you are a good candidate and as to any major issues, as long as enough time (at least six months to one year) has passed the issue should not be a deal-breaker. Also, I'm going to invite User:Colds7ream to also join this discussion as a possible co-nom (different perspectives is always a good thing). -MBK₀₀₄ 00:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be away for the weekend, so I'll get back to you when I get back. The sockpuppet issue occurred in August 2008. --G W… 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How could i contribute to the Robert F. Overmyer article, using an old newspaper I posess?