Hi Nathan ,

I've some more names of JetwaveDave's sockuppets for you. We need secure comms for some of the int.

Regards, Precision V (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

These pictures are great! Frebel93 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of help. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the move at Recreational use of dextromethorphan. You're a gentleman and a scholar. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:21, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Sure, glad to be of help. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, many thanks for sorting out many of the pages I list at WP:MDP. Secondly I have a bit of a complex one so if you don't mind I'll outline it here. Red Dragon was moved to Red Dragon (Novel), and Red dragon was moved to Red Dragon (Disambiguation). Red Dragon (novel) has had edits as well. So a mix of misplaced dab and incorrect capitalization. I'm not sure if it should all be moved back to the previous positions or discussed properly via WP:RM. Tassedethe (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

At very least, Red Dragon (Novel) and Red Dragon (Disambiguation) should be moved to the lowercase dab, and in the case of the dab page, lowercase "dragon", since there are terms there that are not proper nouns. I think a move request at WP:RM should be filed to determine if the book (or anything else on the dab page, for that matter) is the primary topic, or whether the dab page should be at the undisambiguated location. I'll go ahead and move the pages to the correct capitalization. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! It's me again! :) A user moved an article to Prins Claus of the Netherlands, failing to notice that Prins is not an English word. He has nothing against moving the article to Prince Claus of the Netherlands, as you can see here. Could you help us, please? Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've moved the page as you requested. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on SMS Von der Tann - a valued contribution to the project in the area of German military history. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Shannon lark, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Shannon lark is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Shannon lark, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have all of the incoming links for the old airport changed to go directly to the article under its new name. It should be safe to move the new airport over. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
for helping me with Minas Gerais! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I saw the article needed an infobox, so I pulled out my trusty copy of Conways :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've reviewed the article Braunschweig-class battleship for its nomination for Good Article status. I have one concern about referencing (along with some other comments and questions), so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review or individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to reevaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

...this may be a blacklisted link, but take a look at this. I don't know what/where his sources are, but maybe it'll help you. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an interesting read. Since it's on blogspot, it probably is blacklisted, but perhaps if the author responds to your question we might be able to find the sources he/she used and use them ourselves. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob, figured you would like it. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

His reply:

Thanks so much for the kind words! The main source I used for this post was a book by Richard Hough called "The Great War at Sea 1914-1918." It is a very good book on the naval war during World War I and it has tons of useful information. I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.

Also, would you like to take Amagi-class battlecruiser to WP:MHR#A-CLASS? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I might have to check that book out from the library, and see if it has information that isn't in the other books I've got.

Sure, I'll nominate the article for A-class. I've got 3 exams this week, so when I find some time I'll get to it. Or, you can if you like; either way is fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that we will have to deal with much. ;) I think it's ready. I've got 3 exams this week too though, with spring break coming up - should we hold off until next week? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea; I'd hate to have either of our studying suffer because of it, especially since it can wait a week. `Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead for the battleship since we needed more than two lines for a mainpage linked ship. I will be here on an "on again off again" basis over the weekend, if you need another set of eyes/hands to help upade the article, otherwise I wish you and ed good luck with the rest of the update ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured that since it was on the main page, we ought to fix it up while it's highly visible. I've managed to find a couple of PD photos of the ship, and a few incidents she was involved in, but I've pretty much just been trawling through Google Books. I'll probably be on and off tonight as well, I'll be out having dinner with my family for a good chunk of the evening. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed that you have moved the article to 8-track tape. The request was to move it to 8-Track Cartridge as seen here.[[1]] Could you move it to that one, but using capital letters? Thanks. --Juan D. (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not find the reply. :( --Juan D. (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on the talk page appeared to me to move to 8-track tape. Capital letters would be inappropriate for either title, since neither is a proper noun. (Apparently, I was in the middle of writing my reply, had not yet hit the "save" button, but thought that I had. I guess that's what happens when you have multiple browsers open). Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

About the move, yes about at the second half of the consensus, it was requested to be moved to 8-track tape, but I requested to be moved to 8-track cartridge for several reasons that I explained there. Don't worry about the capital letters, as far as I can remember the original article had capital letters, but it doesn't matter now. --Juan D. (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

One other thing to consider is that, at least according to a Google search, "tape" is by far the more common name. (See 129,000 for "tape" and 15,200 for "cartridge"). If you can show evidence that the Google hits are skewed for some reason, then we might have something. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I did some homework today, searching ramdomly through the hits in google regading 8-track tape or 8-track cartridge. Here is what I've found.

• 8-Track Cartrige: [2][3] [4][5]

• 8-track tape: [6][7][8]

Most of the 8-track tape hits, are from auctions, here are some ramdomly choosed links. [9] [10] [11] [12] (I am not doing publicity here, just some examples :) )

Well, here it is. I believe that more people are familiarized with tape than cartridge because tape is a shorter word, but I still believe that cartridge is more accurate than tape (mostly for the pages that i've found and some reasons that i've written on the talk page). What do you think? (It took me several minutes to write this, but I'm doing it for the Wikipedia) Juan D. (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, 3 of the 4 you linked for "cartridge" use both terms throughout the text, and the first one you linked for "tape" says "an 8-track tape is a hard plastic cartridge". It seems to me that "tape" and "cartridge" are pretty interchangeable, and it doesn't really matter which one we use; readers will understand both. Maybe it's time to put our findings on the talk page of the article and see what others think? Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both "tape" and "cartridge" are interchangeable, but the name of the article should be "cartridge" for all reasons given, we can add to the first sentence also known as 8-track tape, Stereo 8, etc, so people know what we are talking about. I requested that the article Stereo 8 should be moved to 8-track cartridge, because I did a search of what should be the proper article name first, then I add the request. Just an example, The Compact Cassette is much known as an audio tape or cassette tape, but the title of that article Compact Cassette is more correct. Thoughts? Juan D. (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either one is more "correct" than the other; they're both common names. Compact Cassette is the trademarked name, the equivalent here is Stereo 8. The difference is that Compact Cassette is a genericized trademark, while Stereo 8 is not. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Compact Cassette is a well known trademark, but going to the point, I want you to rename the article to "cartridge" instead of "tape". The article had this name (you can check in the history. example [13]), which was fine to me and most users until ProhibitOnions rename it to Stereo-8. In other words, I want to restore the original name that it had before it was renamed to Stereo-8, and then I can edit the article properly. --Juan D. (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read my proposal? Could you rename it? Thank you. Juan D. (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, your comment must've been buried under more recent messages. I'm still not convinced that "cassette" is more correct than "tape"; maybe the best route would be to post your thoughts on the article talk page, and see what others think. I just deleted and recreated 8-track cartridge (to place only one edit at the redirect, so non-admins can move the page there), so if it turns out there's consensus to rename the page, you can do so yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Parsecboy, what is your take on the picture on the top of this article. I know the Bundsarchiv captions says Gneisenau, but it looks like Roon to me. Check out the two single turrets amidships, as opposed to casemates, as well as the single 3.5 inch gun at the very stern. This is a picture of Scharnhorst, by comparison. [[14]]

Best regards, 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that's settled. And nice work on the Braunschwig class article Orpy15 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my recent revert of your sandbox... total accident, won't happen again. Kehrbykid (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed it. No worries :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous argument since the title of the article you're speaking of is Amphibious Warfare and people looking for information about the band should be able to go straight to it. JohnBWatt (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, trust me, it's COMPLETELY ridiculous. If the article was named Amphibious Assault, before the original band article written before the merge, had been written, I'd be more apt to agree with you. It wasn't though and the band info should be search-able. It's a moot point because you're just going to keep changing it back anyway. JohnBWatt (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, your argument is ridiculous; an obsure band should not be put above a well-known military tactic/operation. The hatnote is more than sufficient. Skinny87 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No it's actually not sufficient. I'd actually be more open to the thought of an actual disambiguation page for the redirects instead of being TOLD that this is how it's going to be. At least that way people looking for the band are not forced to a page where they may not even see the note up top. JohnBWatt (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. You keep making it about one article's notability over the other. My point is that they should both be equally search-able, hence my suggestion of an actual disambiguation page. Everybody wins in that case, I believe. JohnBWatt (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't be dropping it. Why would the 100+ articles that point directly to the Amphibious warfare article need to be changed if I'm suggesting that searches looking for the words Amphibious Assault be redirected to a disambiguation page? Existing articles would still link directly to Amphibious warfare and the 2 Amphibious Assault redirect pages would go to a disambiguation page where people could choose. Once again, it has nothing to do with how many search for one page more than the other. It should be set up easily for anyone to find what they're looking for. JohnBWatt (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• As I am an administrator and have been for some time, I can access deleted pages as easily as non-deleted pages. But what happens nowadays when a non-admin tries to access a deleted page?:
  1. He is merely told "there is no such page".
  2. He is told that that page has been deleted and its deletion comment.
  3. Or what?
  • I seem to remember that #1 happened when I started in Wikipedia, but I have seen many changes to the English Wikipedia system while I have been an admin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried logging out to see what an anon user would see; it showed the pinkish deletion log (stating who had deleted the page, and under what rationale) and the standard "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for..." message. I think the main difference is that there isn't the option to see/restore the deleted edits. To see for yourself, just log out and look for a page you know has been deleted. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Random searching on the LOC's website turned these up; I have no idea if you can use even one of these, but hey. :)

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like we've already got a cropped version of the Hindenburg here. The second one, of Frauenlob is actually pretty good, and all we've got right now is a photo of the ship's bell. Unfortunately, the first set of three photos is pretty small, and I don't know if it's really usable. Do you know if we can find larger versions anywhere? Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could request that a larger version be uploaded? Try asking Durova if that is possible, as she probably knows the LOC like the back of her hand after all the images she's gotten and restored from there. ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. I dropped a note on Durova's talk page to see if she can point us in the right direction. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It passed. :) Great work! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Now on to the Goeben! Man, it's going to take a while to get the 5 remaining German BCs up to FA (and that doesn't count the 4 class articles), especially if I keep working on other articles :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh trust me, I know the feeling :))) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And then there's the 20 or so WWI German battleship articles, the dozen or so armored cruisers, and the handful of destroyer class articles that haven't even been written yet. I'm planning on trying to get Von der Tann the TFA for 31 May, for the anniversary of Jutland (she blew up Indefatigable early in the battle), and I was thinking I'd try to get Moltke on 21 June, the 90th anniversary of the scuttling at Scapa Flow, but it'll be the first day of my honeymoon, and I really don't think I'll have the time to be checking Wikipedia then :) So I suppose it'll be a non-important date for her. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. High aspirations! Good luck there :)

Von der Tann would have a good date relevance on 31 May for sure. Should be alright.

LOL. Well, we could all be checking it for you if you wanted... No. She wouldn't care what you did on the first day of your honeymoon. Not one bit. ;)

And congrats on marrying! She's a lucky girl! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and if I were only as fast as Belhalla is, I'd have been done months ago :) Yeah, I'm not too worried about getting the Von der Tann on the 31st. I thought about just nominating it anyway and letting you guys take care of it, but what fun is that? I wouldn't even get to see it on the main page. Thanks a lot :) Though I think I got the better end of the deal ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why must you tease me? :P
Well, if you started being Bellhalla now, you'd be done in 3.5 days...good luck trying that though. :D
Yes, you probably did lol! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, because it is my solemn duty as a most high and powerful admin? :p

Yeah, if only we all could write articles as quickly as Belhalla does. My most pressing concern, though, is that I've got end-of-the-quarter finals coming up next week, and I really need to keep my GPA up if I ever hope to get into a good doctorate program. I've still got about 2 years to go before I'm there, but it's probably easier to keep the grades up now than try to bring them up later, right?

Yeah, well, she's a certified sign language interpreter, and they tend to make a pretty good salary, so I keep telling her I'm mooch off of her and write Wikipedia articles all day long. That'd be the life, wouldn't it? Maybe then I could finish all those articles lol :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

=(

Then go study! Geesh, you have the summer ;P And yes...easier to get good grades now in the easy classes lol.

That sounds like a good plan...but I don't know if she will like it! :D That would be the life though. Maybe I'll apply to Brittanica someday ;D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry, you'll get the bit soon enough if you'd do more work in admin-related areas!. Then you can pick on the lowly peons too! Didn't they tell you that was the primary task for admins?

Well, I'm not too worried for this quarter; I've got a German class that's going well (I just started it this quarter, and part of my motivation for learning German is so I can read archival documents from the Bundesarchiv if I ever make it over there. It's sort of a pipe dream :) I'm actually thinking about doing my honors thesis on something related to my Wiki-activities). I've got a basic astronomy class that's fine too. My only real concern is my "history of the Roman Republic" class, since it's a higher level class and is actually part of my major. The teacher is nice enough to give us the possible essay questions in advance so we can prepare a bit, but those won't come out until probably Wednesday. So I guess until then, I'll be mostly free to do stuff here.

Yeah, maybe we could get hired by Britannica to rewrite all of their ship-related articles. That would take ages, but wouldn't it be fun? I guess we could bring Belhalla along :D Parsecboy (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nassau class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For this. It's nice to know someone saw me obsessing over it haha. :) JPG-GR (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup! Anyone can check and see that you've got almost 3,000 edits to the page over more than 2 and a half years, which is quite impressive. :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)