User talk:Parsecboy

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.

	This page may occasionally be locked for IP editors.
	If my main talk is protected due to vandalism, please leave comments here.

A cup of tea for you!

I hope this is appropriate, but I wanted to thank you for your help and advice on USS Omaha (CL-4). I know we haven't always seen eye to eye on some things, and I'll admit that I was worried when you picked the article to grade, but your criticism was both constructive and helpful. Pennsy22 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Pennsy! You know, the longer I've been around here, the more I've realized that we all write articles differently, and it's unreasonable for someone to try to force someone else to adhere to your own ideas about how an article should be done. Sturmvogel and I basically developed the standards for warship articles over the last decade or so, but even we have differing opinions about some things, and when I've reviewed his stuff, I take that into account. You and I disagree on what belongs in an infobox, for instance, but it's not really productive for me to force you to accept my view or else hold the review hostage. Parsecboy (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2017 Military History Writers' Contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the August 2017 Military History Article Writing Contest with 59 points from seven articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panther-class cruiser

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panther-class cruiser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zara-class cruiser (1879)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zara-class cruiser (1879) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panther-class cruiser

The article Panther-class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panther-class cruiser for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zara-class cruiser (1879)

The article Zara-class cruiser (1879) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zara-class cruiser (1879) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Roma/Salerno

Could you take a look here? --Olonia (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Maritime Barnstar

For the many impressive ship articles you've made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iazyges, much appreciated! Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Canopus (1897)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Canopus (1897) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Canopus (1897)

The article HMS Canopus (1897) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Canopus (1897) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

source review needed for Battle of Rossbach

Hi, do you know someone who will do source reviews? Eagaldyth doesn't like how I keep my sources in order. Battle of Rossbach is just needing that before it will pass FAC. auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You can request them here - that's probably the easiest way I think. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks!

	The Yorkshire baronage barnstar
	Thanks for the review, Parsecboy- a pleasure working with you. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 15:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Chester W. Nimitz

Since "YOU" seem so sure of yourself on the Nimitz article - per your edit summary - would you kindly provide the policies and/or guidelines you're using? It was also interesting that you didn't follow my request - and per BRD - to discuss on the talk page before reverting. Also interesting was your wholesale revert, ignoring both MOS:CAPS generally and MOS:JOBTITLES specifically. And the questionable civility of your summary comment. But really interesting, was your revert of "Secretary of the Navy" - since the official source uses "secretary of the Navy." Discussion would have been the wiser choice. X4n6 (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you bother to read JOBTITLES? Specifically the third bullet point? And as for BRD, you've been around far too long to not know that the burden of discussion and proving their case is on the person trying to change something (i. e., you). Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you bother to read Discuss at BRD? As in all seven bulletpoints? Or the 3rd bulletpoint in Bold. Or the 2nd in Revert? Or CIVIL? As for JOBTITLES, did you bother reading the first sentence before jumping to the 3rd bulletpoint? Especially, since it hadn't yet been established what that "the correct formal title" was by reviewing sources. Like when the official source I provided proved you wrong? You've been around too long for this. Esp. for an admin. You know better. X4n6 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Somebody made an edit, I reverted it. Instead of opening a discussion, as you should have done, you reverted (and then had the audacity to lecture someone else about edit warring). It's really rather simple. If you don't know what the "correct formal title" is, perhaps you shouldn't be edit-warring about it. You might consider that someone else has more of a clue. But what should I expect from someone whose talk page is routinely filled with warnings for edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you have a problem with facts - and apparently, chronology, let me set you straight. My first, most recent edit there was here. I stand by it for the reasons stated at the time. I could also have added MOS:HEADINGS. The immediate prior edit that drew my attention was from - a sock. I fixed it. You said "Somebody made an edit, I reverted it. Instead of opening a discussion, as you should have done, you reverted (and then had the audacity to lecture someone else about edit warring)." Actually, I am the person you reverted. And I don't see anywhere that you opened a discussion. So are there no mirrors in your little world? So don't you have the audacity to lecture me, when I civilly asked someone to "discuss at talk, but pls stop edit warring." As for my history, I certainly have nothing to apologize to you for. To the contrary, I'm justifiably proud of it. But it says everything about you that you tried your gratuitous and weaksauce PA. Just more incivility. Are you really an admin? Because with your actions and attitude that depresses me. Especially since you can't even muster the class to admit when you're wrong. Wrong from an official source. Wrong from an MOS noticeboard full of folks who tackle this issue regularly. But don't bother responding substantively now. This stopped being constructive a long time ago. All you want is a pissing match - and I promise you I'm more than capable of showing you how it's done. But ignoring you is even better. So we're done. But feel free to have the LASTWORD - that I won't bother to read. X4n6 (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was following the same sock - I apparently didn't look that closely at the edit history to see that you were the person I initially reverted. That does not change the fact that the burden is on you to justify your changes on the talk page.

On your history of edit-warring - no, that's not a personal attack, that's simply me pointing out the fact that you seem to be incapable of letting things go when you're wrong. The fact that you are routinely warned for edit-warring is obviously relevant in this discussion...about your edit warring.

Funny, somebody lecturing about needing to have the last word - speaking of people who need to find a mirror...If you were really "so above it all", you wouldn't have bothered wasting both of our time posting that useless screed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oldest rhetorical trick in the book - and one of the most revealing: tell someone you won't read their response. Gives them the chance to simply disengage and maturely move on. They take it? Smart. They fail? They're exposed for what they are. But "I apparently didn't look that closely at the edit history" is probably as close as I could expect to an apology from someone like you. So I'll, graciously, accept it. Later, you can deny that's what it was. Totally expected. But you still failed to discuss your revert at talk. That was your responsibility, so spare me your finger-pointing. You'll lose. Just as you can't deny you made personal attacks, since the edit log shows this was a childish afterthought - and this pettiness, is just the latest proof that you are ill-suited for the responsibility this community has entrusted you with. Finally, as to my contributions here, because your attacks won't go unanswered, you think my record, a month older than yours leaves me vulnerable - when yours exposes the hypocrite you are? Mic drop. Now we're done. Again: no mirrors. Just a big fat BOOMERANG. X4n6 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of self-awareness is sad, frankly.

As for my block log, you have no clue what you're talking about - both of those blocks were for reverting banned editors, and one was correctly overturned, which you would have noticed if you weren't so obsessed with the dick-measuring you claim to be above. Are we done, or are you going to continue embarrassing yourself? Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review request

Hey, I was wondering if you would have time to review my Type 1934-class destroyer article? No worries if you don't. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I went and pulled a couple of the oldest articles in the queue instead - one had been sitting there since February. I'll see if I have the time to do any more after those. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Query raised at FAC

Hi Parsecboy. I have opened a query at thew FAC talk page regarding the structure of warship FAs. I hope you can understand that I'm not deliberately ignoring what you have to say, I'm raising the issue because I simply disagree with the model you are using in the SMS Brandenburg article. I don't have any axe to grind or ill-will towards you, I'm simply querying how these articles can satisfy FA criteria in their current format. Please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your stance in any way. Regards Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I certainly understand your point of view, we just have a disagreement on this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2017 – September 2018

In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 Military History Writers' Contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the August 2017 Military History Article Writing Contest with 42 points from five articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Jul to Sep 2017 Milhist article reviewing

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 11 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Jul to Sep 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

One of us

[1] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha - that's pretty good. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Ocean (1898)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Ocean (1898) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Goliath (1898)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Goliath (1898) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Parsecboy:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, you too! Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Ocean (1898)

The article HMS Ocean (1898) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Ocean (1898) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Military history A-Class medal with diamonds

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with diamonds for your excellent work on developing SMS Brandenburg, SMS Wittelsbach, and Greek battleship Salamis to A-Class status. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)