User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 26

I left a question for you here. I think we should discuss this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I passed the article for you. However, I think her fate section needs to be reworked. You should also state somewhere that 200 men of the surviving Tirpitz crew went on to serve on Lützow. Also noteworthy are her battles in East Prussia. Very interesting read in Prager. Actually you need to read Prager to move the article further up the chain. I fear that too much will be missed without MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. I can get a used copy on Amazon for $10, so it shouldn't be a problem to get. The only issue is that I'll be starting my first quarter at grad school next week and I don't know how much time I'll have for Wikipedia after that. I'll keep it in mind if it turns out I'll have a little free time for here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place but here it goes nontheless. The article Mission-type tactics should be renamed "Auftragstaktik". The german word has no real equivalent in English, as mentioned in the article itself. And since "Blitzkrieg" is under its original german name, I think this one sould be too. Can I move it? Yosy (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Probably the best thing would be to file a request to move the page at WP:Requested Moves, so you can have some other opinions. For what it's worth, I've seen the term used in English-language books on a number of occasions, so I don't think it should really be a problem. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks; I tried to change it but the new title is a redirect so I guess I can't Yosy (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, added some illustrations to this test page. Comments please. Hilsen KjellG (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Those look pretty good. If you upload them here, you should add a link to the ONI illustration and maybe give page numbers for the sources you used. Maybe they should go in a gallery at the bottom of the section with descriptive paragraphs (I'm thinking something like this would be good). Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"She was laid down at the Kriegsmarinewerft shipyard in Wilhelmshaven in June 1931 and completed by November 1934. Originally classified as an armored ship (Panzerschiff) by the Kriegsmarine, in February 1940 the Germans reclassified the remaining two ships of this class as heavy cruisers." I think the Reichsmarine/Kriegsmarine problem struck again MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had fixed all those, but I guess not. Thanks for finding that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the infobox :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay, maybe not. Congratulations again! EyeSerene^talk 16:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Swords for your superb work on German battleship Tirpitz, SMS Ostfriesland and SMS Kaiserin, all of which were promoted to A-Class between July and September 2011. EyeSerenetalk 16:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Parsecboy. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be so kind as to explain what exactly is your problem with Gdynia/Gotenhafen? I took the matter to talk page, but apparently you chose to revert anyway... //Halibutt 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this will not happen any time soon, but out of curiosity if you were nominated for the position of Coordinator Emeritus would accept the nom? Given that you're work is principally in the article contributions (as is evidenced by the German gunships you've brought up to recognized classes) I am uncertain if there would be sufficient support among the project members for the adding you to the short list of people at the position, but I figured I would ask just to see what you thoughts on the matter were in the event you had any interest, and if you do, then I would be happy to nominate you for the position the next time we elect the project coordinators. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, my main concern (and the reason I'm not running for coord duties again) is how busy I'll be once grad school gets into high gear (today is first day of classes). I'm basically going to have my nose to the academic grindstone for the next five years (at least), so I don't know how much time I'll have to spare to use here. If that's not a problem, then cool. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I plan to add a paragraph describing the ship's armour scheme to the description and was thinking about breaking out the changes to the ship's armament into its own paragraph. Although I don't know if it's better to handle the changes as a separate paragraph or to integrate them into the text as part of the various refits like I did with the Hood and Renown-class articles. I've also go info on addition of radar and aircraft arrangements that need to incorporated. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I think the way you structured the Hood/Renown class articles works fine. I'd think the radar and aircraft arrangements could be their own paragraph, unless it's not long enough. Otherwise, they might fit in the dimensions/machinery paragraph. Alternatively, we could put the aircraft info there and put the radar (and particularly gunfire control equipment) with the armament paragraph. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll use Hood as the model to enlarge the description, although progress will be a bit slow as I've got to synthesize Burt and Raven and Roberts into a coherent account and to reconcile some confusing bits in each.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'm finishing up Littorio class battleship at the moment anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunno if you've heard, but there's a new book coming out soon on the Littorio's soon. You might check it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has popped up in my Amazon recommendations - do you know when it's going to be released? I think the article as it stands is certainly good enough for GA, though this book appears to have enough in-depth detail as to essentially be a "must" for A/FA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Should be imminent from what I can tell. You're probably right about good enough for now. It's not like that class has the problem common to the Brits as to their activities during WWI and the interwar years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda the reason I chose to work on that article and not the WWI-era dreadnoughts ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to restore Battle of Alamance in its entirety. The material quoted by the site you used as "proof" of Copyvio came from the Wikipedia article. The source of most of the material, incidentally, is the publicly released description of the battle by the Site. Next time, maybe you should start by posting a message at the page asking about potential violations before jumping to conclusions. 5minutes (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See here. The person removing the comment marks was on another IP, too. Perhaps semi the articles for a while. fwiw, a mechanism to have an automatic margin-top above any navboxes would be best.  —Portuguese Man o' War 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that IP as well - it's probably a work/school/etc. IP and unless the editor starts reverting from that again it should probably be left for now. As for the navboxes, I'm not really a coding guy so I wouldn't know how to fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

if it is a dynamic IP, they'll not be back on that specific one. semi if this continues. adding a top margin would not be for any individual navbox, it would be done for a wrapper that might be implemented in {{navbegin}} and {{navend}} (after {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}). all articles would have to wrap their boxes, which would be tedious. there might be a better mechanism; i'd have to give it some thought.  —Portuguese Man o' War 21:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why I want to hold off on blocking it. I have the pages watchlisted so if s/he returns I'll be able to take the necessary steps. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

works for me. fyi: [1], [2]. more, i expect.  —Portuguese Man o' War 04:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WHOIS shows that all trhee IP's are coming from a company named 91.10.26.140. Buggie111 (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The article SMS Dresden (1917) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:SMS Dresden (1917) for things which need to be addressed. Buggie111 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I still owe you a review of the article. Please bear with me. I get onto this within the next week. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, there's plenty of time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I left you a pointer on the review. I hope this helps address the fate of Panzerschiff Deutschland MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nate, I see that recently the outgoing lead coordinator handed out something like this to all the new and returning coords: "[[File:US-O11 insignia.svg|thumb|center|200px|Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011]] Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars." You're welcome to do the honors, or I'll can do it. Best of luck with the doctorate program. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would, but I have to pound out a book review for tomorrow morning, so I don't have the time at the moment. Thanks, and good luck to you as the new lead coord. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nate. If you want to do it in a couple of days, that's fine ... if you'd rather I do it, that's fine too. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Either way will work, if you're in no hurry I can probably get to it tomorrow afternoon. Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck from me too, Parsec. If you want, I'll be happy to read through it when you get done... you never know, maybe I could help out a bit. It wouldn't repay all the help you've given me, but it'd be a start. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, it's not that big of a deal though - it's for a weekly reading group we have set up for the military history grad students, not a class or anything. That said, I still had to do it :) I'll keep your offer in mind though, when it comes time to write papers and such. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, the stars have been handed out :) Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nate, for your phenomenal work during your tenure as lead coord; I'll try to do you proud. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy,

Could you put the Coordinator stars like you have on your "User page" on my "User page" ... Like in the same spot on mine? It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Good luck serving as a coordinator over the year! Parsecboy (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Parsecboy. First BIG role for me since November 2006 when I joined Wikipedia. As you can see from my edit count or edits, over the last three or four years I've been pretty much editing to improve everything. Over the last year, I've made a little friendship with AustralianRupert on Wikipedia. I feel I get on with Nick-D through the Z Special Unit article and of course Ian Rose I've approached several times for some help. Once again thanks, I appreciate it. Adamdaley (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his fine effort in the September 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 86 points from 17 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Probably my last major push for a long time, so good that I could go out on top :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Passed. Buggie111 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sir, Good to see you jumping in to the coord stuff! Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Im here to apologise , about a grudge which ive been holding against you; without a doubt we have had some disputes but since being blocked i've learnt my lesson and i am genuinelly sorry if ive irritated or caused you any wikistress in the past. I have learnt from my mistakes and its time to move on. Also i thank you for your edits , paticulary concerning history which i have found very interesting ( i am also an historian :) ) Goldblooded (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I have no hard feelings. One of the biggest mistakes people make here is to take things personally. Very rarely is someone out to get you, and in those cases, it's usually pretty transparent to everyone else. That said, the internet (and written word in general) isn't the best at conveying the tone in a discussion, and things can come out sounding harsher than one might intend. In any case, all's well that ends well, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CityOfSilver 21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Nate for helping to promote SMS Bremse to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. Can you take a look at this article and settle the issue of the decommissioning date? Thanks. Orpy15 (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the situation and made a comment on the article's talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on that. I think I've found a way to square this particular circle. Best regards. Orpy15 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PB,

In this article:

• German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee

You have this sentence:

"On 8 October, the following day, she Newton Beech, which Langsdorff had been using to house prisoners."

First off, this is not a complete sentence. There is no verb or adjective. And because of it, secondly, I don't know what you are trying to say. I could guess, but don't want to get it wrong. I think it needs to be merged with the sentence that immediately follows it, and then condensed.

Thanks. Carry on. 209.86.226.61 (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I"ve got the ref (click on the small 18 and it will ist a book), and it says "sank", so I've fixed it. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Buggie. Parsecboy (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nate, I've just nominated Tupolev Tu-142 for GA, and because of your experience with GA/FA work and your non-involvement in the article's development, could you please have a look at it? Thanks Sp33dyphil © • © 02:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of articles that have been waiting at GAN for quite a while, including a few from August (though the backlog has shrunk considerably in the past couple of weeks), so what time I can spare to review an article or two will be reserved for them. The article looks to be in good shape, so I bumped it up to B-class for now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Parsecboy! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

I am somewhat disappointed you speed-passed Talk:HMS Garland (H37) without so much as a comment on the issue I raised at the talk of the article (Talk:HMS Garland (H37)). I obviously had no chance to raise it in the GA discussion (which never took place). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The article easily meets the GA criteria, which is why I felt no discussion was needed. I saw your post on the talk page before I reviewed the article, but disagree that more detailed information is necessary for GA. If Sturm takes the article to A-class or FA, then yes, I would expect a more through summary, but it's not required here. Quickly passing the obviously high-quality articles helps reduce the backlog and limits the number of articles that wait a month or longer for reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy,

Article: 27th Guards Rifle Division.

Thanks for assessing the above article. It was assessed for "B class" which had "no" for all of them. That is why "B class" was the way it was when you re-assessed it. Once again, I appreciate it. Adamdaley (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Discussion page: Talk:Manchouli Incident

This article discussion page claims to have been unassessed, but once the Discussion talkpage has been loaded then click on the article, it is redirected to another article which is already assessed. Should we take out our WikiProject Military History on the above Discussion page? Adamdaley (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and deleted the talk page, as it's unnecessary. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew you'd come up with a better idea than I would have had! Thanks! Adamdaley (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy,

Article: Diego de Holguin.

There seems to be some confusion. When I click on the article in the "Category:Unassessed military history articles" it is unassessed. I had a funny feeling I had assessed this article already and apparently I was right. It gets redirected from the above article name to the following article name Diego de Holguín. If I'm not making any sense follow it from the above "Category" to see what I mean. Adamdaley (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the same situation as the article above - the article was redirected to a duplicate but the talk page was left. I went ahead and deleted it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the October 2011 Military history WikiProject Contest with 72 points from 14 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy,

Article: Talk:Ethnic cleansing of Lipovača, Vukovići and Saborsko.

This page needs to be deleted. It already has a duplicate page and has been assessed under another Article name. Adamdaley (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Move from (My subpage): User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 3

to

Article: Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Dear Admin,

I was asked by Halibutt to fix the article on the main page known as Battle of Radzymin (1920). He asked for someone who spoke fluent english and I said I would help with the article. The reason why I had put it onto my subpage was not to interrupt the article named above (Battle of Radzymin (1920)) while I were trying it properly format it to an acceptable standard that it could be assessed as an overall article, at the same time avoid any conflicting information being over-written while one user was trying to edit it while a second person may edit the article at the same time. Please take into consideration the time and effort of myself (Adamdaley also a WikiProject Military History Coordinator) as well as Halibutt. Adamdaley (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This article took a while to do. Please don't let the time and effort be wasted. Adamdaley (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though Halibutt has already copied the article over, and a history merge isn't necessary (as Halibutt has pointed to the subpage in his edit summary). Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Then what does the tag mean at the bottom of the main article of Battle of Radzymin (1920)? Adamdaley (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. It's not necessary (and probably shouldn't be done in any case, as the pages have overlapping edit histories) so I removed the tag. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would really like the edit histories be merged. I'm not sure if I followed the right procedure, but what I want is our edits from Adamdaley's sub-page to appear in the main article's history. We spent quite some time improving the article and it would be nice (and CC-by-SA compliant) to mark our edits with our names. //Halibutt 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To make things easier for you I reverted the article to pre-merger state so that edit histories don't overlap. //Halibutt 15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

By noting the draft page location in your edit summary here, you have satisfied the requirements of Wikipedia's licenses. The issue with overlapping edit histories is that both pages were active and edited simultaneously, so if you looked at the history of the merged article you'd see conflicting edits (i.e., alternating edits from both pages spliced together). In any case, I have merged the articles and simply left the conflicting edits from the old version deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thank you :) //Halibutt 07:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nate
You remember you said to let you know if our mutual aquaintance User:Jonas Poole showed up again? It seems User:SpellMaster75 (contribution history, here) has the same obsessions (well, one of them anyway) and the same tone. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly looks to be our friend, especially based on his revert here. I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I noticed the edits you made to the Spellmaster back catalogue, and I’ve gone through the rest; I also notice your conversation (below) with Ericoides, and have made a made a reply to him, also. Good luck, Xyl 54 (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope everything is forgiven. I've sorted the whole thing out. Sorry for the mix-up. Belugaboycup of tea? 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick message to say thanks for watching my back i really appreciate your help , paticulary since we had a little dispute in the past ^_^ thanks mate :) User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you rv the change on the Bentley Beetham page, out of interest? Our article calls the place Spitsbergen not Spitzbergen, to which you have rvtd it. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section three headers above this one. The edits of banned users are reverted without regard to their merit. Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the reply, but I think that's not very wise. Now someone has to go and revert your edit. Ericoides (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Spitzbergen is an accepted spelling and doesn't require a change - similar to Kiev and Kyyiv (or any other official spelling that slightly differs). The idea is that banned users are not allowed to edit, so any edits they make with socks should be rolled back. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the idea was that we used the form that is used in our article. If you look at the article it quite clearly states of the Spitsbergen form that "this usage had become general" and that Spitzbergen is not used. What you say above seems to me to be a triumph of legal small-mindedness over common-sense. (NB When I originally wrote the Beetham page I used the outmoded Spitzbergen form. As we are creating an encyclopedia I was happy to be corrected by someone who knew more than I did; that he is a sock is of little interest...) Regards, Ericoides (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many situations when that is not the case (for example, the Danzig/Gdansk issue). I submit that the number of "fixes" Jonas has made indicate that Spitsbergen isn't as widely used in English as he and others argue. The point of rolling back banned editors' edits is to dissuade them from seeking to "win" despite having exhausted the community's patience with their disruption. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see the logic. Thanks for the replies, Ericoides (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy,

Article: Talk:Douz skirmish.

The above talkpage needs to be deleted. It is a duplicate while the actual article and talkpage has been redirected. Adamdaley (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the talk page should be retained (mainly because the IP has been a problem). Regardless, I've protected the redirect to prevent more of his/her shenanigans. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

trophy.png

Hi Parcecboy. I love your articles. I am very interested in WW2 stuff, but this time I am coming to you for another reason: I created yesterday a page for the company I work for called " Richard Heath and Associates, Inc." and the page was deleted due to G13 and G11. I read both G13 and G11 and I do not believe that it was copyright infringement, and also I do not believe that it was marketing, but rather just telling what the company does. Indeed, I copied some of the informational stuff from the company website, but it was not copyrighted. A bunch of us from the office were planning to use the wikipedia description of the company on our facebook pages, but I did not know that it was going to be deleted. Is it possible that you could send me a copy of what was deleted, so I could write it again, but not in Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for your help. Leoguerra33 Leoguerra33 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any material that is published online (or in any other medium) is indeed copyrighted and cannot be reproduced without the express consent of the copyright holder. Therefore, I cannot provide you with a copy of the deleted page. Parsecboy (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The following Talkpages need to be deleted since they have been changed and have been assessed on their alternate Talkpages.

• Talk:4th Texas Mounted Rifles

• Talk:5th Texas Mounted Rifles

• Talk:7th Texas Mounted Rifles

• Talk:Battle of Elkhorn Tavern

• Talk:Sibley Brigade

Adamdaley (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Restored and redirected, as should have been done to preserve histories. — Joseph Fox 09:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll work Joseph. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On 21 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Kaiserin Augusta, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during the Spanish–American War, German admiral Otto von Diederichs was ordered to attempt the acquisition of colonial concessions in the Philippines, using SMS Kaiserin Augusta (pictured) as his flagship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SMS Kaiserin Augusta.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

On 24 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Breslau, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on the first day of World War I, the German light cruiser SMS Breslau (pictured) bombarded the port of Bône in French North Africa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SMS Breslau.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

No problem. I hope you studied hard :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the November 2011 Military history WikiProject Contest with 60 points from 8 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Greek battleship Limnos, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Salamis (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I be happy to review them. Please note that you will receive some comments from me regarding lack of crew details. I want to remind you that when I had first commented on Bismarck you informed me that this type of info goes into the class article, I commented on this again when reviewing Tirpitz. This time you argued we don't know if the info about Bismarck is also applicable to Tirpitz. By token of logic this means the info on crew structure does not belong in the class article either. Somewhere along these three articles I want to see the divisional breakdown of the crew structure. I believe this to be a fair request MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 11:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In USS Guam (CB-2), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Port Arthur (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) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thought id just pop a quick message in, hope that all is well mate and a warm seasons greetings :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 12:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Goldblooded, and to you as well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask that when you make page moves (as you did with German armored ship referendum, 1928), you make sure that you update any templates on the page with the new link. Although redirects are fine from other articles, the templates should have the exact link. Thanks, Number 57 13:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are fine, and a bot will usually be along at some point to fix them after a page move. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me! Done and promoted, nice tream effort by you and Sturm. Could you please give 28 cm SK L/40 "Bruno", which I am reviewing at GA, your second opinion please. I find the info too sparse, lacking detail, and I feel uncomfortable to promote this article all by myself. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And sure, I'll try to look at the article tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you had a look yet? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Japanese aircraft carrier Shinyo, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Home Islands (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) 10:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You are requested to nominate the Commons version for deletion then. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Or you can do it, or anyone else can. This is a wiki, no one has to do anything they either don't have the time or inclination to do. Parsecboy (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season. Hope Ohio State, despite being located in an inferior state, is treating you well. Your friend, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed :) I hope your break has been excellent as well.

As to the question of inferior states, the reason Michiganders don't like Ohio cops is that Michigan residents don't typically know how to drive. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I've heard Ohio drivers are only a small step above Fibs, which isn't saying a lot. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I assume that since you drive almost entirely with your fellow yoopers, you have no real experience with Ohio drivers. See, we know how speed limits and stop signs work, even those tricky four-way buggers. Honestly, I don't know what they teach you people in driver's ed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Speed limits are for bored grandmothers. We certainly know how stop signs work, as that's all we have here – stoplights are iffy, and roundabouts are unheard of. Now Ohioans are the ones who are hurrying to their destination and have a nasty tendency to cut everyone else off while doing it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So Ohio drivers are both bored grandmothers who follow the speed limit exactly AND lead foots swerving in and out through traffic? Methinks you're a little confused. Like your typical fuzzy-headed Michigan driver. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Frohe Weihnachten and may all your wishes come true. While I am here I wanted to ask you if you could have a look at the images I used in the article of Werner Hartenstein. The reviewers expressed concerns about the non-free rationale. Maybe you can give some recommendations? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and you as well. And sure, I can take a look at the images. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you're having a great time, Parsec. Wish you well. Buggie111 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you as well Buggie! Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

I'm totally confused by your removal of File:SMS Wiesbaden.jpg from SMS Wiesbaden. It has an apparently valid license, seems to be the correct ship, and it appears that *you* originally uploaded it. It also has no delete request on commons. (Hohum ^@) 14:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I had uploaded it back in 2007 before I understood copyright law - there's no source to document the license so it can't be used. (I was thinking of File:SMS_Pillau.jpg, which I had just nominated for deletion - I'll do the Wiesbaden photo now). Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Aaah! (Hohum ^@) 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Magdeburg class cruiser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Imbros (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) 10:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you need a link, next time ask for it. Dont just erase my articles because YOU dont know the sources--Gonzosft (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person who wants to include information, not on the person challenging it. Please read our policy on reliable sources and provide one if you can. SMS Goeben is a Featured Article and I intend on ensuring it continues to meet the criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

the turkich navy high command website should be a qualified enough source ! you wouldnt doubt nwww.avy.mil ? i dont carry any burdons for an unvissble aim like special feature article. if you want the english wiki version lack of turkish origin infos, just because they are not proved by CIA, NCIS or whatever sources you belive - or just because you cannot read foreign language articles - then erase it. It will be still be there in the german and turkish versions in the future --Gonzosft (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you don't care about maintaining the quality of Featured Articles, then you shouldn't be editing them. You perhaps need to read the various editing policy pages again if you're going to contribute to en.wiki. Sources are required for all content, especially in a Featured Article. Moreover, a list of commanders (none of whom are notable) isn't encyclopedic for an article like this. Look at any other ship-related Featured Article - none of them have lists like this. We don't put every possible detail about a subject in its article, just because it exists. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Graudenz 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. Buggie111 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article SMS Strassburg 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. Buggie111 (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Note this review will be claimed as part of the 2012 WikiCup. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Magdeburg class cruiser you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Magdeburg class cruiser for things which need to be addressed. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Already seen and replied, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Magdeburg class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Magdeburg class cruiser for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I've started reviewing another article you nominated. This time I have a bit more questions, so I would ask you to respond on the review page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited SMS Elbing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trawler (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) 11:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		For List of ironclad warships of Germany, List of heavy cruisers of Germany and German battleship Bismarck, promoted to A-Class between November 2011 and January 2012, the military history project awards you the A-Class Medal with Swords. Keep up the good work. Buggie111 (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Buggie. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to take another your nomination for review. While I'm pretty sure that I can do it without prejudice regarding our previous dispute, I'm not entirely sure that you can trust me on that matter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, no. I don't like to hold grudges over disagreements, especially one so minor as ours was. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his great efforts in the December 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 163 points from 21 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, Parsecboy! I'm just letting you know that I will be reviewing your GA nomination of Pillau class cruiser. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Pillau class cruiser/GA1. I look forward to seeing you there, and hopefully passing the article! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is passed! Congratulations!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Parsecboy (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Parsecboy! Just wanted to let you know that I'll be reviewing your GA nomination of SMS Kolberg. Here is the link to the discussion, so you can help as needed. I wish this article the best of luck! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised by how quick this review went, but I did not see anything which might serve to delay the article's promotion to GA. Congratulations!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Will :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was distracted! Yes, I will finalize my review soon. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it's easy to get distracted around here :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Once you're done with your spate of Imperial German light cruisers, don't forget about USS Alaska. Getting that up to GA would be very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking I'll round out the Kolberg and second Konigsberg class and then take a break from them. Alaska would provide a good change of pace. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that you've gotten Alaska up to speed, perhaps you might consider working with Ed to take Hawaii to FAC and/or starting on the List of US Battlecruisers. Either or both would be helpful for our Battlecruiser FT. Hawaii mainly needs some clean-up on refs and a better description covering everything in the infobox. Or maybe even working with Cam on the Kongos. And if you could take a look at Akagi's FAC that would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

On 16 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chilean battleship Capitán Prat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1898, the United States Navy attempted to purchase a battleship from Chile for use against Spain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chilean battleship Capitán Prat.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The usual 7 day hold, etc. etc. Usual excellent work - just a few spots. Don't expect any issues with them getting resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Si senor! His name is de:Johannes von Karpf MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited USS Alaska (CB-1), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Pedro Bay (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) 11:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Oh, yeah... errr.... I promoted that a few hours ago and forgot to tell you. Oops/congrats! Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I keep the pages on my watchlist, so I saw :) Thanks again for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think adding external links to (possibly) copyrighted images is all right, per Wikipedia:ELYES#What_can_normally_be_linked. At least I don't see any rule here that would clearly exclude it. And those images were quite relevant to the article. They are very likely to be Allied reconnaissance photos and thus in public domain anyway, so I really see very little possible harm in linking them. Still, the article is categorized as a Good Article, so maybe different standards apply, hence I will not restore it but I invite you to reconsider. JustSomePics (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my internet went down right about the time you posted here. The GA criteria (see here) requires images used in the article to be suitably licensed - I interpret that to include direct links to images on external sites, as the function is exactly the same.

You're probably right about the actual status of the image (they're aerial photos taken at a time when the Luftwaffe was all but nonexistent). More than likely, they're a pre- and post attack reconnaissance photos, but without evidence we can't use them. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I believe one online source where this image can be found is aerial.rcahms.gov.uk, so this demonstrates these are Allied images (presumably RAF but I am not sure). Unfortunately, I think that website charges for viewing high quality copies of images, and licenses them as non-commercial use only, even though the original images themselve are in public domain (see terms). So we probably cannot just use these on Wikipedia, though I am not clear on the legal side of things. As for the original site I linked to in the article as an external link, it had no source information. JustSomePics (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's one image showing the cruiser in Kaiserfahrt. You can tell by the distinctive round crater from the Tallboy bomb next to the ship. JustSomePics (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That photo is almost certainly the same as the second photo on the original link, so I've uploaded it here. Legally, aerial.rcahms.gov.uk cannot place restrictions on items that are in the public domain, so we can use it freely. This is an excellent addition to the article. Thanks for doing the work to allow us to use the image. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The photo looks great in the article, thanks for uploading it. JustSomePics (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a great addition to the article - you usually don't get overhead photos like this, so it's pretty unique. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is another nice photo, here, made by Soviet Navy commission examining the wreck in May 1945 or afterwards. It probably counts as the work of Soviet government, but the copyright rules for using that kind of photos seem to be in flux these days. Maybe they will be clarified in a few years and then we can use that one as well. JustSomePics (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent photo as well. But yes, unfortunately the Russian copyright law of 2008 placed thousands of photos from World War II back under copyright. Perhaps we'll be able to use the photo at some point. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to the December 2011 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. AstroCog (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Erich Raeder was her first commander (17 January 1918 to October 1918) HRS v2 p182 MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		Congratulations for being nominated as one of the military historians of the year for 2011 in recognition of your phenomenal output of high quality articles. I am pleased to award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of this achievement. For the Coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited USS Wichita (CA-45), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeboard (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) 11:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've promoted USS Alaska (CB-1) to GA status.

On a related note, this brings the total number of surface vessel GAs, assuming the count in that section is correct, to 494. Any idea what the special 500 is going to be and who's going to claim (or share) it?

Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sven. Well, there are four more warships at GAN right now (three more of mine and one from User:Ed!), which brings us to 498. User:Sturmvogel 66 has been working on USS Lexington (CV-2) and I've been hammering at USS Wichita (CA-45), so it'll probably be one of those two, depending on how quickly we can get them done. I don't know if anyone else is working on any warships at the moment - I haven't seen any pass through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests in a while. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you to have another look at the review? The review has been in limbo for some time now and I don't know if further actions are required. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had forgotten about it, sorry. I'll look at it again this afternoon. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

For all practical purposes I removed the image MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done here MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ping MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I had looked at it yesterday but got distracted before I updated my comments on the review. Everything looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Parsecboy, just a quick note to say you've got open comments there and have done for a while now. I'd like to review the list but won't do so until you've addressed the existing the comments, if you're interested in my opinion! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for reminding me, I had lost track of it. I'll get to it soon. Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'll try to get to it in the next couple of days! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)