On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Brandenburg, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

On April 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kaiser Friedrich III class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

I wanted to let you know that I promoted the Kaiser Friedrich III class battleship article to GA, good job. --Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article for GA, Kumioko! Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to this, you may want to deeply examine the editor's talk page and block log. I've issues a rather stern warning due to the ongoing behavior: User_talk:GoldDragon#Continued_edit_warring_and_no_discussion. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, concerning these edits of yours I would like to inform you that nested parameter is not needed anymore. Banners are automatically nested when inside WPBS. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The first draft was worse. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspected he just might be a repeat offender. I propose execution. Can we make that happen? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Deutschland class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wittelsbach class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

The USS Ranger CV-4 page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-4) has just been extensively improved with verifiable inline references throughout. Based on this I'd like the article to be upgraded from a stud and the red question mark box saying "This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (September 2008)". How would I go about requesting this and where?

Thanks Ussrangercv4 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy your feedback is much appreciated. The technique cited for how to do the citations is just what the doctor ordered. I plan to do it just that way moving forward. It's a lot less work and presents a much less cluttered appearance as you noted. I'll definitely look at all of the links you provided because I'm sure they'll be super helpful. Thanks again for your assitance. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

On April 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Deutschland (1904), which you created or substantially expanded. 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.

Hello,

About a week ago your were so kind to review the USS Maine (ACR-1) article for B-class. You found a few more places needing citations and were so awesome to even point them out to me! I added the refs where needed and posted on WP:MHAR if anybody could reasses, assuming the review was still open since you didn't strike through the name. That was 6 days ago and since then nobody has looked at it though. Now I was wondering whether I should consider the review ended and start a new one, or just have patience? Cheers Yoenit (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Bushranger's page, I've tried to forumlate a hook for Erzherzog franz ferdinad. Here goes:

• ... that the SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand fought in World War 1, a war started by the assasination of her namesake?

Of course, the draft is only at 1015 characters. It's going to be a while...

Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Yeah, sometimes it's difficult to track down enough information to make the size requirements. I'll see what I can track down to help out with the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have the right to delete what you decide it's "redundant". The article was showing these vehicles ordered by gun caliber, not by something else, as the articles you mentioned! Where in this : Lists of armoured fighting vehicles you find what i did?!

"Moreover, no one ever refers to a tank or mechanized artillery as a "fully enclosed and armored breech loading ground fighting vehicle."" Whether you are aware or not, this is the right way to describe all these vehicles, and this is what i meant, ordered by gun caliber. What you or someone else call these vehicles is not necessary what they are!

Now, you going to revert back the deleted article as it was before. If you have objections, use the "Discussion". You don't delete, just because you don't like it! Oblivion Lost (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do; the list was redundant to both the existing lists as well as categories (for instance, List of assault guns sorts the vehicles by nationality, gun caliber, and conflict). Your title is a flagrant example of wikiality, of someone creating an article with a title they themselves made up. Find me one reliable source that refers to any of these vehicles with the title you invented, and then maybe we'll have something to talk about. The article will stay deleted, because it doesn't meet our requirements for inclusion. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of us actually do something in Wikipedia, create, others....just searching themselves by patrolling other people's work. Oblivion Lost (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't even know me or what I do here; I've written 50 articles that have been rated GA or higher, including 14 featured articles. If you're going to resort to baseless attacks, please do not comment here again. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For brief - yet incredibly eloquent - demonstrations of your argumentative skills on the MilHist Talk Page, particularly with regard to unit capitalization, I am delighted to award you this barnstar. For all debaters everywhere, Cam (Chat) 22:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cam :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy! Erzherzog passed GA, and Zryini is approaching a nomination, I;m here to tell you that, pretty soon, a GTC for those articles will be created. You, being the dude who did half of them, should know about. (Any chance of getting one of the to an FA and helping me get Erzherzog to FA?, both for an FT and Erzherzog to help me get closer to a Four Award At DYK, as you know. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This actually occurred to me while I was at work this evening. I think the class article could easily be pushed to A-class with some light work, and then it's but a short hop to FA from there. If we can get that article along with Franz Ferdinand, we'll actually have a FT, since 50% of the articles will be featured. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I mocked up the GTC box here for use once we get Zrinyi to GA. Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've uploaded a postcard I found on one site that should replace the old Zrinyi. Check it out if you need assurance. Buggie111 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about Ussrangercv4 (talk · contribs) and his edits to USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) USS Tennessee (BB-43) and other ship articles. I see that you have began some conversation with him, but his edits to add in these tables don't seem to conform to not only the MOS but also place a precedent that does not even exist in the existing FAs of battleships. This also has to do with the list of commanding officers issue we all know about. Perhaps you could ask him to enter into a discussion at WT:OMT about this since large tables like he is adding are actively discouraged at FAC and should instead form stand-alone FLs. While I welcome the enthusiasm of a new editor, and I realize I should be the one to raise these concerns, I would most likely have issues with WP:BITE and WP:OWN. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm about to go to bed, but I'll drop a line on his talk page tomorrow about it. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

He is still at it, now on aircraft carriers too. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you aware that OSU has a run of this indispensable magazine? Much of it has been indexed at http://www.warship.org/wi_index_intro.htm. I'd be interested to see exactly what issues the library there has on hand as there are a ton of interesting articles from the magazine's early days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like most of them are in the book depository, so I'd have to request them through the system. There are two at one of the libraries, but unfortunately they're "use in library." Once I get finished with some of the books I've got checked out for my thesis I'll try the ones in the depository and see what I find. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you in case you'd forgotten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on SMS Goeben, SMS Helgoland and List of battleships of Germany, promoted to A-Class between February and April 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi PArsecboy. I've decided to create Mediterranean Division, the article about Goeben and Breslaus division. Just one concern here: Goeben provides a wonderful description of the Mediterranean Divsion [[8]]. Problem is: do I copy and paste over to the new article or reqord it? Thanks for your help. Buggie111 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would reword it, if only so that the text counts towards a DYK (since they don't count text that has been copied from another article). There's probably more information out there than what's currently in the article, so we'll want to incorporate that as well. Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you granted User:Pmanderson rollback rights on 4 January 2010. Were you aware that he was blocked for edit warring only two weeks before that (although rescinded on a promise that he would keep away from the article in question)? And that he had a history of edit warring and blockings? And that his ArbCom restriction on editing the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines was re-widened on 31 August 2009 "due to continuing disruption"? And are you aware that he appears to be breaching that ArbCom restriction right now, here and here, in which he refers to another editor as a "bully"? I am filing at AE now.

Is this the kind of user who should have rollback rights? Tony (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, that was in January 2009, Tony—before the shit started flying. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any diffs of Pmanderson using rollback inappropriately, which is what really matters in this situation. For the purposes of the "should he have rollback or not" question, it's mainly irrelevant as to whether he has violated the ArbCom restriction. If he's been misusing the tool, then sure, he should lose it, but if he hasn't, removing it is an inappropriate form of punishment for an unrelated issue.

For reference, here is his request from last year. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I went back through his contribs for the past several hundred edits and found only one use of the rollback tool, which was to revert himself. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, my mistake about the year, too: sorry. Tony (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I initially thought the same when I first saw the dates, then realized my mistake :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of SMS Hannover at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article as already appeared at DYK, I've opened a discussion at WT:DYK on this subject. Maybe you should consider going for GA status instead? Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help! - The Bushranger (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is only your opinion. Two other admins have argued completely different. They argued that this would be a "content dispute" see here [9]. In contrast, you argue with a completely different argument to eliminate the original name of the city which is documented by the Encyclopaedia of Islam which the article describes as "The Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) is the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Islamic studies." This concludes that your argument is only your own POV. --Kulumpu (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

do not disturb me anymore, you are wrong [10]. This is Original Research because you are ascertaining by yourself which name is allegedly widely used. The original name was completely different. The readers of wikipedia must read right information documented by best sources like the Encyclopaedia of Islam and not allegedly widely used wrong information by bad sources like Britannica which are not qualified to write good articles about the orient. --Kulumpu (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So much articles are wrong in the English wikipedia. It is because of admins like you. You are only threatening me but you do not care for quality of our articles. Today I have corrected a misinformation for which you did not care for years [11], it was a selective citation concealing or denying the massacres of Turks. Then I corrected the Istanbul misinformation. The name Istanbul is found in early Byzantine and Saljuk sources. You do not like this name, I think so, in spite of your defence, however this does not change anything. The usage of the name Istanbul is documented in very early sources. You have to read the Istanbul article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. --Kulumpu (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for his great efforts in the April 2010 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 126 points from 13 articles. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked a question on ed's talk page regarding the article listed above and whether or not he had more sources. He said that, for the improvment of the article, two issues of Warship International. "The Riachuelo (Brazilian battleship)". Alan Vanterpool. N2/69:140. §N3/70:205 would be nice. Sturm then later suggested you. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied on Ed's talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Parsecboy:

I have just finished evaluating the article on Reinhard Scheer as a Good Article, and now will be the first to congratulate you for an excellent job. Cheers, PKKloeppel (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've nomed it. Feel free to comment. Buggie111 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll add my name there now. Hopefully we can get this through FAC (I plan on taking the class article through ACR next once Deutschland-class battleship gets done) so we can work on making it a featured topic. Parsecboy (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the discussion between me and WhiteShadows at User talk:Buggie111.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually planning to make some additions using the Greger book. I don't always do everything all at once. I guess I might as well ask you is there's a cite for Baden and Bayern being designed with diesels in mind. I thought it was only Sachsen.

As for moving a cite in the Seydlitz article, that was inadvertent. Sorry.

Best regards Orpy15 (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought to inform you of this. I've got a draft of Baden off-wiki, so I'd like to be able to expand it and take credit for it. Buggie111 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@Orpy: Oh, no problem then. I wasn't sure what you were doing with the Greger book, go ahead and re-add it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@Buggie: Oh, I was hoping to do all of the German ships more or less by myself (it's been a project of mine running long before OMT ever hit the slipway), but I guess I don't own anything. I've got the Admiralty report from the Baden tests and I was planning on working on that article sometime soon. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Buggie, why couldn't you and Parsec collaborate... ? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the admiralty reports. I wasn't really that far into the draft, and please don't percieve this as an annoyance. I'll just check for another one, and leave it at that. Buggie111 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll settle with the Kroprinz. It is a stub after all. Buggie111 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, you're not an annoyance. I was just planning on doing all of the German ships myself. I don't want to be too territorial, but I've been working on this for a very long time (actually, today is 3 years from my first edit to a German BB article), and would really prefer to do it all myself. Would you mind working on articles from other nations please? Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite responses. Sure, I will, but I've got a lot of refs for German ships, if needed. I'll stick with American ones. Buggie111 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I've been waiting on the second volume from Gary Staff's German Battleships series to get into the later dreadnoughts (it will be released in June and I've already got it pre-ordered ;) What sources do you have for German ships? I've got Groner's, which is pretty excellent for technical stuff and Staff's books on the BBs and BCs which are useful for service histories.

The American articles are actually in a pretty rough shape for the vast majority of them, and could use your hard work :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Their e-books, which I can't get a hold of right now. Ospery is a publisher of two of them, mostly about Bismarck. Buggie111 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's good to know. The Bismarck articles (the ship and class article mainly, I don't see Tirpitz being much of a problem) are fairly contentious, especially when it comes to assessing their armor/guns/effectiveness/etc. I'll be sure to drop you a line when it comes time to work on those two. It'll be useful to have another editor who can help deal with the both the fanboys/haters. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've got one by R. A. Burt, basically each ship from 1897 onwards, two by Gordan Williamson (one's on pocket battleships), Conways, Jane's, and one overall book by Peter Hore. Hope this helps, and sorry for the orange banner. Buggie111 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I don't know the correct term, the Hore book is HMS Warrior to Sovietsky Soyuz class battleship. Shame there aren't any Iowas. Buggie111 (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Buggie, you have as many/more sources than I do right now! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, Gröner (or an editor) seems to have gotten the builders of Sachsen and Württemberg mixed up. So say Grießmer, Preston, the Royal Navy's Naval Intelligence Division, &c.. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Grießmer says the same as Gröner: Sachsen at Germaniawerft and Württemberg at AG Vulcan (look at the Tabelle 8 at the end of the book, it has the ships organized chronologically by builder). I'd be more inclined to trust the German sources over the English, especially wartime intelligence. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that in the Bayern class battleship article though. It says "Sachsen was laid down at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Hamburg ... Württemberg was built by Germaniawerft in Kiel." And it references Gröner for this revelation. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, it's a copying error on my part; it seems Gröner is in agreement with everyone else. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi sweetie.Cranterp (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How cute. I must point out what she has changed her name to, however. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to thank you. Yesterday, for some bizarre reason, I read through all of your German battlecruiser articles before I went to sleep. I wrote the first two parts of my History IB Exam today, and question #1 on the second part was "compare the significance of naval warfare in two twentieth century wars". WWII has been my pet obsession since fourth grade, so that was easy. Having read all of your battlecruiser stuff helped significantly; keep up the excellent work! Cam ^(Chat) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And glad to be of help :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rofl, that is an awesome question, one I wish I had on one of my AP exams. However, I am curious as to what the "bizarre reason" was. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you missed the point, again. Yep, you did. And please don't talk to me like you talk to the punks in your hood : "You need to watch your tone". My tone is pretty fine, but yours.....Keep in mind that being an administrator doesn't provide you protection when you deside to force the "law" on the rest of the users unjustly!

What you need is to fix the problem instead of keep telling me that there is one. Otherwise, why are you here!? Use this (http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Object_247.jpg) and fix it. Can you do that. Because the ukrainians did! Oblivion Lost (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"The copyright notice on the Ukrainian Wiki is wrong." All right, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't know that. You should have started with that. By the way, if it's so wrong, why is it still there, a?

About this : "You're walking on thin ice, friend. Keep up your attitude and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a block.". Keep up with these threats and you may end up in the footsteps of this user : User:Wuhwuzdat. He was cocky and rude with everybody who had "lower rank" than him. Take a good look at him now. Oblivion Lost (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that I was one of the people who took action against him (including removing his access to rollback), and I can say that Parsec is nothing like him. Now both of you, focus on the damn image and leave the extra stuff out.

With regards to "why is it still there," if I were an admin on Commons, I'd bet that there are thousands of pictures I could go through and delete simply because they are copyvios. 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feel free to try and get this. If it works, tell me. :) [12] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks really interesting. The closest copy is in Ball State, but I can request it through OSU's interlibrary loan system. Unfortunately, the system won't accept my university ID number, and the office I have to call to get it straightened out isn't open for another 2 and a half hours. This stupid ID card has given me more problems than it's worth... Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Turns out my ID number wasn't associated with my name in the library system, so they had to put it in my file, then wait until the server updated so I could make the request. Hopefully I'll have it soon. Thanks again for letting me know about it! Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got a copy. It's pretty good although I haven't compared it to Parsec's articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I hope it helps you somehow. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to leave ANI notices around, on your talk page, for at least a little while, if not for the duration of the ANI discussion. Since users making ANI reports without notification has been a prominent problem that ANI regulars are trying to "crack down" on, it would make things easier if you left evidence that the reporting party did notify you, just as a courtesy to everyone looking. It would save us from possibly attempting to contact you again, along with reprimanding the reporting party for something they actually didn't neglect to do. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll keep that in mind. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Wikipedian Parsecboy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Parsecboy's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Parsecboy! Keep up this work, --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Extra999! Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting another Good Topic for OMT since all of the article of the Bayern class are now GA or above... -MBK₀₀₄ 07:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, go crazy! Also, the Deutschlands are almost there too, just waiting on Schleswig-Holstein to get a GA review. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then could you please tell me why on the official US Navy web site it is using Short tons for the Nimitz class carriers? The link I have just given shows displacement in both short tons and tonnes (metric tons). If you also take a look at other classes of ships in the US Navy, such as the Burke class DDGs, the unit used is Long tons. Can you explain this? Recon.Army (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Recon.Army, Parsecboy:

I tried to contact navy.mil several months ago but my message would not go through. I did get a message through today and will post any reply, or the gist of it, on the Nimitz class talk page. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

...that isn't SMS Bremen. This NYT article refers to a commerce-raiding Bremen which I cannot find online and HMS Glasgow (1909), which I can find but was apparently in the Adriatic in 1917? Help would be appreciated before Bahia hits the main page tomorrow. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was on 6 August 1914, not '17. I'd bet my hat it's a mis-identification of SMS Dresden; the ship was in the area at the time and ultimately did butt heads with Glasgow, twice. Visually they were similar (both 3-stackers and close in size). Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Take this excerpt from Halpern's A Naval History of World War I:

The Dresden was on her way home from the east coast of Mexico when war came, and she was ordered to work her way down the coast of South America and attack trade off the Plate. The Dresden had sunk only two ships when the Admiralstab on 8 September ordered her into the Pacific...

Seems to be the same ship. Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a silly mistake. Thanks Parsec! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Parsec! I was wondering where thos last 500 so characters would come from. I'm gonna write about each of the ships now, in order to get a DYK. Buggie111 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I saw you ask WS for help, and thought there might be another mention of the ships in Halpern somewhere. You might be able to pull some useful info from here. You could also use this to beef up the last para in the service history section. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Army of the Danube order of battle.
Message added 17:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

comments? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 50% done with it. Can you take a look at it and tell me how's it going? Thanks.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good. I'd say the lead needs to be sourced (you might be able to get by, considering a good deal of it will be sourced in the body, but I prefer to be safe than sorry). One big problem is all of the images (except the one for the Habsburgs and the Radetzkys) don't have suitable copyright information for them to be used here. They need sources that state the date of publication (for images published before 1978, it's date of publication +95 years in US copyright law). Parsecboy (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done now. Just need to add in what books I used and souce the lead. As for the images, I am terrible with stuff like that. Do you mind attempting to fix the issue(s) for me? Thanks a ton.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything is done. Can you history merge my sandbox article into List of battleships of Austria-Hungary for me? Then it's off to DYK and to FAC (once the images are fixed of course)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 03:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've merged the page and am looking into the photos. We're going to end up using this photo for the Erzherzog Karls because I found the same photo in an old book I've got. It's The European War: The Powers, which was published in 1914 in the US. The only question is whether it's also PD in Europe, which will determine whether the photo remains on Commons or is moved to en.wiki. I posted a question here on the specifics of Austrian copyright law. As for the rest, the book also has some good replacement photos that I can scan and upload; there's a photo of the fleet on maneuvers that looks to me to have been taken at the same time, as well as some nice photos of several individual battleships. The only problem is because they're so old they're not the best quality. I'll let you know when I've got them here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. Now It's off to DYK and later a FLC :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

oh...can you delete me redirect for me as well?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'd strongly recommend taking it through a MILHIST ACR first though, that will help you pass FLC with greater ease. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot. They will not let me since I've got 2 other ARC's right now. And what work is left for it to be done before it will pass an ACR?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 13:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, realistically speaking, neither of those are going to pass, so you might as well just wait for them to be closed or withdraw them. I didn't take a close look at the prose other than to fix obvious typos, but it more than likely can use a thorough copyedit, something Dank is quite good at doing. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll withdraw them right now. As for the list, what work is still needed on that one before an ACR would pass. It does need a coyp-edit but is that it?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For pushing through obstinate resistance to clean up problematic copyrighted images both here and on Commons. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If only more admins "abused" their powers like you, we'd have far fewer lingering copyright issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to know that some people appreciate my efforts :) You're right though, there are far too many people who are either unaware of copyright restrictions or don't care enough to stop using copyrighted material, as this instance glaringly illustrates. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The book listed in the Erzherzog Karl discussion above happened to mention Franz Ferdinand, so I got thrown into the dilema again of whther or not to send it off to FAC. If it passes, I'd get a WP:FOUR and a large step closer to WP:GOLDENW. OTOH, the state of the Habsburg's has left me wondering if ant AH ship would become an FA. Help with the thinking process here? Buggie111 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've uploaded a picture of the Erzherzog from the Magyar wiki at File:Erzherzog_franz_ferdinand_001.jpg, but would like you to abuse your admin rights and see if the picture, whose author is unknown, is all right. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

@the picture, there's no evidence on the source page to support that it was published before 1923, so it's not all right. Sorry. :/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn it. Abuse your powers and delete it, while voting in it's FAC. Buggie111 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ed's right. I've gone and deleted the image. As for voting in the FAC, I wrote a good chunk of that article, so that wouldn't be quite right ;) Speaking of that, would you mind if I add my name to the nomination? I'll be able to help out when you go on your trip. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to put @ed. But, ok. We might need help with SMS Zrinyi. Buggie111 (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your assistence is already needed at the FAC. I'll be away for most of the day (and week) so you two will need to get to work. I've fixed up the images and made the citations consistent ect but we need a copy edit and some more info for thecitations.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Althpugh I think your are watching the FAC, File:Flag of Italy (1861-1946) crowned.svg needs to list why cc-by-sa-3.0 is applicable. Buggie111 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to look into it. I ran into a similar problem on the SMS Helgoland FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Ruth got the copyedit, great. I've got a lot on my plate, so as long as she's handling any objections that come up, I'll work on other articles. If things get stuck bad, give me a shout, please. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate all the work you've done on a number of my recent articles at ACR and FAC. I'll let you know if anything comes up. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you fixed that issue with the flag of the Regia Marina?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, I'm still trying to figure it out. Parsecboy (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well as of right now, it's the only remaining issue for the FAC. I'll bet we'll get our first few supports if that is adressed.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything to clear this up, so I've asked the experts on Commons (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we just sit back and wait...--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. You might want to keep an eye on that thread on Commons; I've got class tomorrow morning and afternoon, and might not be able to act on any replies if they come then. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it tommorow when I wake up and when I come home. I doubt that we'll get an instant reply though...--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you look up a few threads, it only took about 9 hours for a reply to my last question. And any Italian editors on Commons will more than likely be up soon (given the time difference). Parsecboy (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess so. Anyway, I'm going to bed. Good luck on getting that issue fixed and hopefuly we'll be able to pass this FAC.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Yet. And the thread below was answerd! Buggie111 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Flanker has confirmed it was his interpretation, so the CC license is valid. Should be good to go on images now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! Are there any other issues that we have not fixed yet?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

British spelling. Buggie111 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of SMS Posen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You have an email! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And you as well :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pong —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your name-dropping here, I've kept those locations bookmarked: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_23#Has_the_FAC_strike_rate_improved.3F and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/Newsletter_August_2009 -MBK₀₀₄ 09:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on Deutschland class battleship, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and SMS Hannover, all promoted to A-Class in May 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have made a few comments at Talk:SMS Posen/GA1. In general, I think it is a fine article. I enjoyed reading it, although I am not a "ship" person. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've addressed your first and third point. I explained your second point on the review page and wonder if you have any ideas how it could be made clear in the article. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, will check out. Xtzou (Talk) 15:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And I've helped on the second. Buggie111 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Titan's Cross in Bronze
		For your incredible improvements to German warship articles, including the German battlecruiser featured topic and your work with that country's battleships, the members of Operation Majestic Titan hereby award you the Titan's Cross in Bronze. Keep up the great work!

• I'm not a coordinator, but there has been no ruling as to whose job it is to give these awards out once consensus has been reached. However, a quick glance at the nominations page of the Titan's Cross award section will show that consensus has indeed formed. As a result, I gave it to you on behalf of the members of OMT. (Man we need to designate who hands these things out but I hope that you all were not too mad) Good job and keep up the wonderfull work!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's any member of the project? I've altered the wording above. (oh, and congrats I guess. ;) )—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Yeah, I don't think anyone's going to be upset or anything ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. (I hope you like the color scheem) your welcome. Congrats!--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

Novels

I appreciate the offer, but between real life, my battleships, and the other things I do here, I don't think I have the time to take on any more projects :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)