User talk:Pennsy22

Hello, Pennsy22! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Icarus (Hi!) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

September 2016

Hi, I want to let you know I reverted some of your edits on John Mellencamp's albums as only the first genre in the infobox should be capitalized, see strict guidelines under genre.

Reference Errors on 21 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jackson Covered Bridge page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lost Covered Bridges of Parke County, Indiana

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Lost Covered Bridges of Parke County, Indiana, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Category:"Lost" Covered Bridges of Parke County, Indiana. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Armiesburg Covered Bridge

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Armiesburg Covered Bridge, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Adams Covered Bridge, Indiana. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Armiesburg Covered Bridge

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Armiesburg Covered Bridge. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Adams Covered Bridge, Indiana. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Adams Covered Bridge, Indiana – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Pennsy22, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Gilliam (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Kingsport Victory title choice

See the Talk:USNS Kingsport Victory (T-AK-239) for some issues. The title name, USNS Kingsport Victory (T-AK-239) meets neither original nor best known selection among a number of names/designations. By far the best known, the one appearing in all references to satellite work are under the name USNS Kingsport (T-AG-164). Palmeira (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New: Along the lines of our comments and your clean up efforts see Talk:USNS Captain Arlo L. Olson (T-AK-245) and my revision of the entire article. It is a good example of the danger of tagging similar commercial type hulls with Navy "class" as this ship was never in any such class. Have fun! Lots of checking and modifications to do there I suspect. Palmeira (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I really like what you did with it. I guess I was thinking along the lines that these ships had been ordered by the Navy but the MC handles the paper work, etc. until delivered to the Navy. Yes, as the war winded down and these ship were orphaned it gets confusing as to what officially happened to some of them. Some are listed as being Commissioned and Decommissioned the same day. Ugh. Thanks again. Pennsy22 (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. See what I just added at Talk:Emory S. Land. That is why the WSA "fleet" was the largest of all and the story of how the U.S. industrial might that really did win the war, even admittedly by people not so impressed with our generals or the rest, got "over there" across hostile seas. WSA controlled essentially all oceangoing commercial type ships, even many Navy and core Army fleet hulls. They were "on loan" or "bareboat chartered" to the services. So, Navy commissioned and made USS ships it actually did not "own" at all until you find that title transfer post war. It was through WSA allocation, a process closely coordinated with the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff and British Ministry of War Transport, and our own Joint Chiefs of Staff with personal access to and intervention by FDR for sticky cases that Army, Navy and others got those hulls. Somewhere behind those big transports named after generals switching about was a WSA allocation decision. Consider this from Land's report:

"The responsibility of the WSA under the Executive Order of February 7, 1942, extended to all phases of shipping including the purchase or requisition of vessels for its own use or the use of the Army, Navy, or other Government agencies; the repairing, arming, and degaussing of WSA controlled vessels and Allied vessels under lend-lease provision; conversion of vessels to troop transports, hospital ships, and for other special purposes; training and providing ship personnel, operating, loading, discharging and general control of the movement of these ships; administering and marine and war risk insurance laws and funds, and the control of terminal and port facilities, forwarding and related matters."

The other big "hidden" and "forgotten" in WW II U.S. logistics is the role of the Army Port of Embarkation (one of these days I'm going to finish that proect) system that controlled movement of men from even training and base camps far inland. Their trains, even from some Midwestern base, were under port control because that was how they got off and marched into embarkation camp barracks just vacated by a bunch just exiting the harbor on transports. Troops were under the Port Commander across the country through the port, on the ships until handed off "over there" to an overseas combat command. They also controlled all that industrial stuff for our and allied armies from industrial plant loading dock till into an overseas depot. They literally kept track of how many widgets passed through the port and there are some minor "scandals" when there weren't that many widgets overseas—minus those known to be sunk. All in the days before computers. On 3X5 cards and at best punch cards. Amazing stuff actually. Palmeira (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Pennsy22! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 07:26, Saturday, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

September 2015

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give USS Chattanooga (CL-18) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very sorry about moving the articles the wrong way, I had no idea I was doing it the wrong way. I have now submitted the moves the right way, I hope. Since the pages already exist it wasn't as easy as using the "move" tab. Thanks for your help. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up over it. Your editing was in good faith, even if it was wrong. You'll make many mistakes editing Wikipedia. As long as you learn from them you'll be fine. Wikipedia is a big place and it takes a while to learn all the ins and outs. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and you're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Galveston (CL-93) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{commons category|USS Galveston (CLG-3))}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Early US cruiser articles

I've worked on a large number of USN ship class articles, mostly destroyers and submarines (see my user page), and I'm planning to start on the cruiser class articles. I also plan to add information to individual ship articles where that ship is the only one of their class, as is the case with most of the early USN cruisers. I noticed that you've edited many of these articles. I'd like to standardize a style that complies with the direction the Wikiproject:Ships wants to move in. Anyway, I plan to add a "Design and construction" section for each ship, using info from Friedman and other sources. I'll add a "Refits" subsection where appropriate. I've noticed that one of the project's goals is to move citations out of the infobox. I feel that, for armament, citations of Navweaps.com pages provide valuable additional information. Therefore, I plan to largely repeat what's in the infobox about armament, and add citations as appropriate. Although I've usually put Armament in its own section, I now see that it fits better as a paragraph of the "Design and construction" section. Can you recommend an article that currently conforms to the standards that the Wikiproject desires to achieve? I realize that very few articles are alike stylistically. I personally like the infobox style of USS San Francisco (C-5), but it does contain some citations, and the additional infoboxes for refits may be undesirable. RobDuch (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My edits have gone through several changes since I really got started in Spring 2015. I was adding citations to everything in the infoboxes because that was what I had seen on other pages, then I started removing all the cites, but I didn't want to lose the reference so I started adding them in the headers, again, I had seen this on a few other pages too. I love the idea of adding a "Design and construction" section and I even added them into the Template:Sclass- pages. It's a huge project. It was recommended to me to add the extra infoboxes for the refits by a major Wikiproject:Ships contributor. I was making notations in the infobox and it was making it look very messy. I've made mistakes but I hope I've learned from them. Check USS Omaha (CL-4), I think it is what you're looking for. I have a Navweaps.com and Historyofwar.org tab open all the time for reference but I find that most people disagree with each other. Some list as the ship was built, some list how the ship was designed and some list the ship at a certain point in time. I try to put the "as built" info in the infobox and leave refits and upgrades to additional infoboxes and the main article. I don't know if this helps, I hope it does. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Arkansas (BB-33) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on}} and {{convert|1.25|in|abbr=on}}, respectively. Five of the 5-inch guns were removed and eight [[3"/50 caliber gun|3-inch/50 caliber anti-aircraft guns were installed. The mainmast was removed to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

changing to sfn format cites

Be advised that changing an existing consistent cite format to another is forbidden by WP:CITEVAR, whatever your own preferences. Strictly speaking, you should respect the format of the first cite used in the article. You can see where I've gotten myself into trouble when I standardized a mixed group of format cites into a single format that wasn't the very first one used at Talk:HMS Curacoa (D41). I suggest that you revert yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

USS Colorado

Thank you for your edits to subject article. I intentionally deleted the sentence you restored because the paragraph I added covered that Pacific cruise in greater detail. Might the reference citation you added be appropriate at some point within the subsequent paragraph to avoid the duplicate information? Thewellman (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see now! I only noticed that you deleted the sentence and noted that it wasn't referenced. I hate to see things deleted because of lack of reference when maybe someone can take the time to reference it if its noted. I unfortunatly failed to read the next paragraph where Amelia is again referenced. I will gladly move or remove the sentence. Thank you for taking the time to explain, much appreciated.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Amatasi

Hallo Amatasi is on my watch list for some reason, and I've amended a few of your recent changes:

The template {{Multihulls}} was converted to the list, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_26#Template:Multihulls, so I removed it.

MOS:ITAL says that italics in quotes should be preserved.

The "How to cite this" in the encyclopedia included the author's name etc - I've reworked the ref.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Happy Editing. PamD 07:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Chevrolet Corvette (C1)

Please read Chevrolet straight-6 engine#235. While the engine was originally used the the light-duty Chevrolet trucks, it had been used in their passenger car application with the Powerglide transmission since 1950. When the Corvette was developed, they used this application as the basis for the Corvette as the trucks were not available with the Powerglide transmission. They also used as much of the other mechanicals from the passenger cars as possible to keep the development costs as low as possible. In fact, the part and part number for the front suspension cross member was the same as used in the passenger cars from '49-'54 and in the C1's all the way until 1962. You could literally unbolt the front supension from a '49 sedan and bolt it into a 1962 Corvette. (Although there WAS a small difference in the spindle drop). I am a fan of SuperChevy magazine and have subscribed to it off and on for almost 40 years. However, as a reliable source, I would limit using it. The particular article you link does not seem to be that well written and does not contain any sources itself. The section discussing the origin of the engine says The Powerglide six was a solid, passenger-car version of the 235ci Chevy truck engine but omits the year that they started using it in passenger cars, thus seeming to imply that the Corvette was the first passenger car application for the engine, which is not the case. Nyth63 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the version used in the Corvette was the higher compression engine with the truck camshaft that was used in the Chevy trucks. I thought I had a book at home that talked about it but am unable to find it. I know that the 235 was used in passenger cars, but the engine used in the Corvette was from the truck line. Maybe I'm not wording it to your liking but the 53 Vettes engine was basicly a truck engine, maybe you just don't want to believe that, but it's true.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catlin Covered Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Hur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Potential 6"/50 caliber USN gun article

I've noticed that you've produced a good series of articles on pre-WWI US Navy gun types, and I'm sure you've noticed that I've added coast defense information where appropriate. Are you planning an article on 6"/50 caliber guns? A number of these (Navy guns in addition to Army guns) were used for coast defense in WWII, and some of these (mostly Mark 6 or Mark 8) survive. RobDuch (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know how I missed it. Yes, I will hopefully write it up tonight and please feel free to add whatever you want. I just thought that this was an area that was very lacking and I just hope I've helped. I thank you for the additions that you've made also, coast defense is very interesting to me, I live in Florida near Fort Desoto, which is a Spanish-American War era fort and I hope to maybe be able to contribute to this area some day.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Abele (AN-58), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages North Vancouver and Fort William (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Adder (SS-3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Nixon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pennsy22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring

It would be helpful if, instead of edit-warring, you took your concerns to the article talk page. There is absolutely no reason to switch {{convert}} to your pet template when the changes are transparent to the reader. Nor is there reason to remove valid links, or to change the citation style for no purpose. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If switching the conversions is no big deal then why do you keep undoing my edits? I didn't remove valid links, I removed repeated links. I didn't change the citation style, I corrected it. You are the one that started this. I did take the verifications to the talk page, I guess you couldn't be bothered by that.Pennsy22 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Because you removed valid links (it is perfectly acceptable to link something in the lead and the body, especially in longer articles), added spurious citation needed tags, and changed the citation style (there is no "correct" style, by the way) - it's much easier to revert the transparent changes, since they are irrelevant, than to go through and fix everything by hand.

I started nothing - you boldly made a change, and I reverted it. You failed to discuss. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Pennsy22. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships

Hi, when you add {{WikiProject Ships}} to the talk page of a template, such as Template talk:Boulder cargo beam, there's no need to include |class=Template|importance=NA as well. The first of these is detected automatically, as shown at Template:WikiProject Ships#Usage, second bullet. The |importance= parameter is ignored entirely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know, I actually just copied it from another template because I wasn't sure. Does this mess anything up? Do I need to go through and change them?Pennsy22 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, they're harmless as they stand. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

USS Mifflin

Concerning you undo of my edit and then citing it did not meet Wiki standards MOS:HEADINGS. The Checkbox at the very top of that page states that Wikipedia expects editors to use "common sense". Further on it gets to what you are citing but not quite. It states that Wikipedia prefers that Headings not be links but it does not outright say "not permissible." Which leaves open the possablity of exceptions. Your heading "Invasion of Iwo Jima" is directly followed by the link " Battle of Iwo Jima". That is redundant writing. You repeat this again with the "Invasion of Okinawa" and the link "Battle of Okinawa". This is equally redundant. This style of writing reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

It appears that user 184.97.155.158 also thought these were redundent. But, you not only undid their edit of this article you went looking to see what else that user had edited and undid those other edits too. The undo of the SEABEES/ANTARCTICA edit is particulary odd. Looking into it, I believe that entire article was a College Wiki Project. The student's understanding of the subject was reasonably limited. User 184.97.155.158 made edits to make the article more accurate which you undid. That user is a former Seabee, that I happen to know, who was in Antarctica. He also worked on the ice runway mentioned in the edit. There are limited few on this planet qualified to edit that Seabee/Antarctica article user 184.97.155.158 being one of them. Your reverting the article to a state of inaccuracy begs the question why? Then right after that you did those undos that user's entire edit history was deleted from his page. mcb133aco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.155.158 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

First off, I didn't write the rules as far as the heading rule goes. Second, it would appear that user:mcb133aco (Mobile Construction Battalion 133) and user:184.97.155.158, and user:184.97.245.52 are all the same person? Looking back over the undo, it was mainly because the conversion was removed from the original article, but I don't see where any info was lost, it was just reworded from the original. I'm not sure which edit history you're talking about, I can see all 6 of your edits. Five made to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133 and one to my talk page. Now I can see where you edited your comments. Please don't edit others talk pages. Third, the reason I checked and other edits is because people with IP addresses tend to be Vandals and checking on their recent edits can turn this up. I hope this helps answer some of your questions. Also, please see Wikipedia:No original research to help answer questions about personal knowledge not being allowed, it must come from reliable, published sources.Pennsy22 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Nosy busybody showing up here because of this note. This disagreement seems to centre around our manual of style for headings. @Mcb133aco: Although linking in section headings is not recommended, it isn't strictly prohibited. However, it should only be done under extraordinary circumstances and would need a justification. Having said that, I agree with mcb133aco that the further information links looks a little redundant. A better solution would be to integrate the links directly in the article text. For example, something like:

Mifflin was responsible for transporting the 2nd Battalion 23rd Marines during the [[Battle of Iwo Jima|invasion of Iwo Jima]]. On 19 February, her boats landed the 2nd Battalion 23rd Marines and their Shore Party, B Co 133 NCB—4th Marine Division on beach "Yellow 2", Iwo Jima. etc... This drectly integrates the link into the paragraph and eliminate the need for the further information link or linking in the heading itself. Thoughts? -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Mcb133aco:, no problem. I'm sorry he feels I'm being vindictive, first off, I felt like his edit to USS Mifflin (APA-207) didn't help the article, he removed links and a citation template, second, while the rule doesn't ban the use of links in section headings I again feel that adding the {{further}} template seems reasonable, third, his edit to Seabees removed a conversion and made claims without citing sources. I thought that I explained why I had reverted these edits. I have not deleted or removed anything from his account, I do not have those abilities, I only wanted to bring it up that these accounts seem a little strange, as you can see on my talk page he refers to himself as a "friend of his", which is what prompted the Sockpuppet question. While I thank him for any service he provided to his country that doesn't give him permission to add material to articles without proper sourcing. I appreciate you taking the time to help resolve this issue.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I am on Wikipedia is the NMCB133 article. What was posted was fiction. I had made some effort to get the Navy to correct the "History" to no avail. When I learned about Wikipedia it was Ah ha!!!!! If I posted one fact after the next it would be very hard to dismiss facts with footnotes that the whole world could read. The 133rd still exists and has a facebook page. It had links to several sites regarding it's History. Since I have posted those facts, Wikipedia is now really the primary source for 133 History online. The Naval Heritage and History link is now a 404 error. The same thing happens for 133 at the Seabee Archives. The only reason I ran into you is the USS Mifflin is linked to the 133 article. My only other edits are on linked articles. I thank you for the offer but I am really very close to done with what I plan to do. Whatever issues there are with the 133 article I will address so you are welcome to point them out. I think that Bare URLs tag can be removed- I think. Strange, but I never thought about the lead until today.(I had history to correct) I think it meets the bare minunum now. What remains now is for the Awards Division at USMC Headquarters to review what I submitted regarding the award issue mentioned in the article. One of the men that drove a D-8 cat onto yellow beach 1 at 0935 D-day asked me "to get it done". The Wiki article is an offshoot of that effort. The facts are exactly what they are. I am hoping the Marines give me something to add to all this. Now if I could write an article about ineptitude at the Board of Corrections for the Naval Record, Wikipedia would get another article out of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.155.158 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 184.97.155.158 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)mcb133aco184.97.155.158 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)