"If an admin happens to stroll upon the issue at the page, they'll most definitely view it as an edit war, and they'll be much less likely to go easy on you if they see you using misleading edit summaries." Define "misleading edit summaries", there is nothing wrong with them. Now I have even provided a source (as it seemed that people could not bother to check the facts) - the United States Department of Defense to convince certain person about the United States involvement in the China threatre of war as an combatant. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the talk page you will see where I highlighted my objection and why I thoguht each particular image should be kept. There is no concensus for this change, Dna-Dennis merely experimented, I changed back some things, does not mean the new version stays.--Miyokan 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been taking some serious flak from others during Word War II, flak which is the result of my previous actions. I just want to let you know that I appreciate your views & actions, either if they support or disapprove with me. Regarding the flak, I sincerely hope you're not wikistressed, but rather feel that it is/has been intellectually stimulating. I say so, because I was once myself very close to lashing out at some views. You have my sincere appreciation. My warm regards, --Dna-Dennis 06:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does he happen to be a sockpuppet of Jetwavedave? They both seem to have the same style of writing ForeverDEAD 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have picked up a wikistalker in 65.102.184.183, who seems to be doing nothing more than reverting edits of yours and sometimes adding vandalisms (e.g., Firefighter). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that, too. Makes me wish for a change in policy so that anon IPs can't edit. Binksternet 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the crowd! I think a great many editors would cheer if it would happen, but holding one's breath waiting for it to happen is not advised. :-( Askari Mark (Talk) 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Parsec!

Since I have clearly noticed our shared concern about the WW2 article size, and that you mentioned some stuff here, I just want to inform you that (mainly) Oberiko and I have had a long and IMO fruitful discussion starting here and leading to a basic framework here. If you have time, you might want to read it through and participate with comments/suggestions. If you have time/interest, that is. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Parsec!

I have noticed your "triggerhappiness" :) on pic inserts and stuff in the WW2 main article.

I just wanted to ask you if you think it's ok if I (at this moment) try to scrutinize the rest of the pics/captions, i.e. Asia/Pacific/Aftermath, hopefully improving selections/pruning? (Don't worry, I'll think it through and be careful). If you prefer that I wait, I don't mind. It's just that I feel an itch to do it at the moment...:) My regards, --Dna-Dennis 22:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. I just worried about being too bold, considering the amount of changes I've done lately. Don't forget to flame me/undo if you disagree with any changes of mine. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You replaced my Pearl Harbor mighty battleship with your puny little destroyer! Shame on you! When those good, daring Japanese fought so bravely to defend their fatherland against the evil imperialism of USA! No seriously, I considered the destroyer pic as well - it is more dramatic, but I have trouble seeing the actual vessel itself. But neither I do care very much, so I let your puny destroyer be there. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 06:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just nommed this for GA. (I admit bias, I was the principal author) I noticed you rated it "start". What do you think it's missing to bring it to B? Perhaps you could comment on the article's talk page? ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{Refactored to keep threads together per my policy ++Lar ) To be honest, I didn't really look at the article closely; we're in the middle of an assessment drive (we've assessed over 2000 articles in the past 3 weeks or so). We're trying to clear out the "unassessed articles" category, not necessarily review them to rate them "A" or "B" class.

However, to reply to your question, the article seems to be pretty good. In my opinion, and my interpretation of the assessment guidelines, it probably is at least a B class article. I've never reviewed an article (I've only been involved with the Ships Wikiproject for about a month now), and am generally sort of leery to do so, but I think that, in a fit of boldness, I'll rate it at "B" class. You may also want to ask someone more experienced than I to review it as well. Regards, Parsecboy 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in a few assessment drives and know what you mean about time. Maritime isn't my area of focus so wasn't watching the project pages closely. But to being bold and giving it the B... I've also rated a few articles carefully and basically in the end you have to think about the criteria and go with your gut. It's not quite like GA where there are some pretty good criteria to use to decide. I'm pretty sure she's at least a B which is why I decided to put her up for GA. I expect I'll get shedfuls of feedback that way. I was sort of hoping you'd spotted something off so I could fix it. :) Thanks for your efforts. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I made a couple of minor fixes; the reference section wasn't formatted right, but I think the article is in pretty good shape. Regards, Parsecboy 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:United States Army#Terrorist Organization The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, the main page is misleading! It shouldn't even be on there until the treaty is signed! Therequiembellishere 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are not idiots they are just creeps. They know that a concensus was reached! They were there. they know that the image they support is the one least support it. Yet they try to return it by lame arguments. How can i act civil to them? Please say something there. M.V.E.i. 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You know how hard it was to get a consencus. You were there! Can we give some minority people to kill it all?? A revert war already started there just see the history. M.V.E.i. 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Vicy were Axis. There was a French devision fighting for the Nazis at the Eastern front and the Race laws were active there, like in the whole Axis part of Europe, but leave that. If theres a problem with the image, it should be fixed. Just talk to Oberiko, he knows how to do that. But what they did was unforgiven, and esspecialy Haber. What was he thinking?? No one had any problems with returning the six-photo image instead of the big-normandy one because it has everything the previous one has, but more NPOV. But when reverting back to the big-normandy one, dont you see it would start a war?? Please talk to him. Leave him a messege, something. He really should have thought before acting. You know how i wanted the 6 photo image to be (and it was supported more then the 5 one). But yet i had the honesty to admitt a concensus was reached, and now trying to make shure the concensus will stay. I really couldn't handle it by myself. We will need a common effort to keep the concensus. I hope you agree with me on that. M.V.E.i. 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This one? Really nice. It doesn't have the cool changing thing like their, but it's good. Is it correct? I haven't noticed any un-correctness in this one, except having France s an Allie (i mean, they gave up after a month. They weren't refered to as Cheese-eating surrender monkeys without a reason). But the rest is fine. What about you? Notice anything? If not i will upload it to the article. M.V.E.i. 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats it :-) The change was done. But please, if you see someone returns the collage and i'm not there to revert it back to the map, please do it. As i said, a common effort is needed to keep the concensus. M.V.E.i. 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hhh i to dont know how to do that. Anyway, we can be calm now about anyone raising questions about the map. M.V.E.i. 19:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of your edits, where you had changed assessments of lists to NA. The assessment FAQs for both MILHIST and SHIPS state that lists will be assessed as for other articles - except that they progress towards featured list, rather than featured article. Viv Hamilton 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond my skills, I'm afraid. I think we should avoid NA because it will fool the project members into thinking it doesn't need attention, whereas 'start' is the proper assessment, and 'list' would still flag up that it isn't at the right place! Viv Hamilton 16:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success of fire suppression in northern forests. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 06:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I was beginning to wonder if there was anyone else around who read the policies and thought that they were at all applicable to this topic before expressing an opinion on it!. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nate, I need some urgent help in dealing with Winky Bill! He's messing with all your articles! --Eurocopter tigre 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, blocked indefinitely. Next time, it would be extremely helpful if you could point the next admin to the original User:Jetwave Dave history. I hope you understand why an admin would not want to indefinitely block a user purely on the basis of the random series of edits. It looked like just two users edit-warring. You still might consider a checkuser, assuming that it hasn't been done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Anytime. Of course, what's incontrovertible to you is difficult if not impossible if I can't exactly figure out what Jetwave Dave was doing. Still, I think it would be better to find maybe any sleeper accounts and get Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jetwave Dave filled out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He's back with another stalker account: Secparboy -- D.E. Watters 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked User:Ricky81682 to intercede again. Maralia 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and I've updated the checkuser request as well. Ask me anytime; I'll be on it immediately now that I'm familiar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

MFpart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was clearly vandalizing the page. I highly recommend leaving it alone until he is blocked. If ANYONE tries to block you for 3RR, let me know (reverting vandalism is the exception). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Parsecboy, I got that information from this forum. http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php?23,68186,68198,quote=1 I know you're not supposed to do that, so feel free to remove the information. In the meantime, I'll see if I can't find a hardcopy source, ideally a translation of Die Deutschen Kreigschiffe. Though I did find an interesting New York Times article dated Dec. 28, 1914, discussing KzS Pieper's court-martial. Best regards Orpy15 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I was thinking the same thing. Orpy15 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, the picture is really offensive and I am honest about it. It is not only myself, all most all Chinese feel same way. If a certain group of people all feel the same way, isn't it indicate at least something to you? I wish you can understand, although you are so young. Peace. Dongwenliang 15:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"I understand that you find the image offensive. ....... If you don't want to see something, don't look at it." Oh my GOD, if I did not look it in the first place, how would I know if it is offensive?? And, not only myself, I think almost all Chinese feel the same way. Honestly that is really an insulting. Dongwenliang 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"If you see something you don't like, why would you keep staring at it? Look away. It's as easy as that.". It is about memeory, I don't know how to erase the image in my brain. "Obviously, our intent is not to insult anyone. ", I think it is us, the victim to say if it is an insulting or not, regardless other people's intention. People cause damage not only on purpose, also by mistakes.Dongwenliang 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stop removing the image, or I'll report you for disruptive editing. Parsecboy 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC) ". Is this another threatening? Go ahead and report it. I am sure I gave enough explanations and there should be someone who is really try to keep the neutrality of Wikipedia, not only a slogan like you.Dongwenliang 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not threatening anyone; I'm making you aware that I intend to enfore Wikipedia policies. As a side note you seem to be pretty hypocritical, according to your userboxes. You claim to be against censorship, and a supporter of 1RR, but your actions on the talk page and main article speak otherwise.". As I already explained in the discussion, we have different understandings of censorship. If Wiki is 100% censoreship free, why can not you find porn image? Dongwenliang 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Go to here to see a softcore porn video. Go here for another softcore image. here's another. here's an image of a "pearl necklace". Here's an image of a guy holding his penis. Here's a BDSM related image. Need I go on? Parsecboy 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC) "

Do you really know the defination of porn? How do you think a women show her breat, or a man holding his penis is porn? Any part of our body is nature, it is not dirty or evil at all. The defination of porn is the image or video shows people having sex. Dongwenliang 01:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"This was nice, and very WP:AGF of you. I guess since you haven't been able to force your views on the article, you tried to force us off the article. What are you going to try next? Parsecboy 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

Wasn’t that you threaten me that you would report it to an administrator for blocking me in the first place? What was your good faith? And I already got a warning of blocking and you got nothing. I think it is totally unfair, I am offended, insulted and being threatening to be blocked just because someone insulting me in the first place. I will still fight, although I don't think you or many people here are fair. If Taiwan wants independence, for the good of democracy, do you think it is better to be voted by Chinese in Taiwan only or all Chinese include both Taiwan and China? If an image is offensive to all the Chinese, do you think we should investigate only the Chinese editors or all the editors in world? Why the US and Canadian governments are among the only 4 nations among all the nations who rejected the right of indigenous people not long ago? Do you think the indigenous right should be deciding by themselves or by the white people who is the majority?Dongwenliang 01:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you both select one of the solutions available at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than arguing. I am sure that will be more productive. Dongwenliang, definitely don't fight. That's not what Wikipedia is for. If you have disagreements, you might try WP:3O to get help solving this problem. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I am trying to calm this conflict you are involved in. Comments like [1] don't meet Wikipedia's standards of civility. Please, don't make needlessly inflammatory remarks to another editor who is obviously upset. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, as a matter of fact, do you have a break down death number from each state of USA? Dongwenliang 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right here, provided by another user the other time this came up. It's actually got some pretty good statistics at the bottom of the page, and explains pretty well. Parsecboy 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so tired about the bronze image deletion tags on the article History of China. I did send email to bronze.cn, the owner name is Xu Hong for permission of using this image. I explained this to User:N,(he is only one who can listen, he is from US military too), and other admins or non-admins. Today I got two deletion tags again. Probably because the Korea War disbute caught some attetion. A picture insulting me and my people was nominated as a featured picture, while the images show 4000 years ancient bronze art are always under the risk of deletion. Maybe you are right, this website is not place I should stay. I wish along with growing up and getting older, you can understand others better with tolerance. I will remove the bloody image again now and take a vacation from wiki. Dongwenliang 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since some silly troll keeps harassing you, have you considered filing a WP:RFCU on those accounts to see if there's an IP address behind it that we can block? Anyways, nice to meet another Ohioian/Wikipedian ;) Happy editing! Shell ^babelfish 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its never fun when someone latches on like that; about the best you can do is ignore them until they get bored. And I'm from the Akron area, about an hour south of where you grew up. Shell ^babelfish 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to drop you a line regarding your edits today to Talk:HMS Lysander. As per the instructions on {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, we typically only use the shell when an article is tagged with three or more project tags. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment indicates that NA is the appropriate importance for pages that are not main space articles. I went ahead and updated the page, but please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that in the future. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for all of your hard work during our assessment drive! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nate. I read your user page. it's an honor to meet you, as someone serving in our nation's military. hope you like my edits to the entry for U.S. Army Service Uniform. I got your name from the article's talk page. please feel free to look the article over, and of course to suggest anything you may wish. glad to have you here. please feel free to write anytime, or also to let me know if I can help with anything. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since your page is on my watchlist, I saw your comment about getting out of the Army. Congratulations on finishing you tour of duty and thanks for serving your country. It isn't always pleasant, fun or glamorous, and really sucks at times, but now after having done it you really qualify to voice your opinion about America, unlike many who just take from the country without ever even giving a thought to giving anything back to their country. Enjoy your break, good luck assimilating back into civilian life, and thanks again. wbfergus ^Talk 13:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you beat me to the reversions; I'm reporting our old friend momentarily. Maralia 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Parsecboy, I noticed the edit you just made to CIA, and want to point out something you'll find interesting: according to Wikiscanner, the CIA has in fact edited Wikipedia, but most every edit has in fact been completely legitimate, and those that wren't were petty vandalism, not manipulation of data. So while it is true that some people at the CIA have edited Wikipedia, they have made no manipulation. Just thought you might find this interesting since the CIA has been accused of so much. Also, Wikiscanner does indeed show as the source says that the CIA has edited Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan, both those edits were completely legitimate. Food for thought, how accusations can be rather misleading.--LWF 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail. Maralia (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On Derfflinger class battlecruiser and Moltke class battlecruiser, you replaced the sort terms with a single Defaultsort. The class articles are supposed to sort at the tops of their class and era categories. That's why they had sort terms specified with a leading space. Just wanted to explain my reverts. TomTheHand (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Same thing here. The "| Nassau class battleship" sort term is necessary for proper sorting. TomTheHand (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

::slaps head:: Yeah, I completely forgot. Thanks for cleaning up after me :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for using "rollback" there and wiping out your previous edit too. I didn't pay attention to the fact that you had made the previous edit, and wasn't really thinking that rollback goes all the way back to the previous editor; I should have used undo or something manual. TomTheHand (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it was easy enough to fix. All that matters is we got right what was supposed to be right, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you apparently changed your opinion on Gdynia again. OK. And as usual without giving anything meritoric. I'll try to check wikipedia mechanisms for dealing with such problems, although I really don't have time for this. You for sure have more collegues on en.wiki, so "democratic" voting is easy to foresee. --EAJoe (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Parsecboy. I have an idea that I'd like to run by you. I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Variants, and it says, "Variants of a model of a firearm such as folding/telescoping stock variants, target versions, variants chambered in a new caliber, compact/carbine variants generally should not receive their own article, instead having a section to the variant in the parent firearm's article." So, perhaps it would be appropriate to merge the Kimber Custom TLE II article into the Kimber Custom article, and have "Kimber Custom TLE II" redirect to the combined "Kimber Custom" article. In mulling this over, I decided to create a draft copy of what the enhanced Kimber Custom article would look like. You can see it at User:Mudwater/draft6. I've incorporated the material from the TLE article and expanded it a bit. Besides following the WikiProject Firearms guidelines as I understand them, this would make the Kimber Custom article much better, in my opinion. Please let me know what you think about all this. If you reply here, I will see what you say. Thanks. — Mudwater 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the response. I've added merge proposal templates to the two articles, and started the merge discussion at Talk:Kimber Custom#Proposal to merge Kimber Custom TLE II into this article. Feel free to join in. I'll wait a week or so, then if there's general agreement to the merge, I'll make it happen. — Mudwater 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

just keeping watch....--ANOMALY-117 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OO
^ hm..editing showd but nothing here not even hidden messege are you watching me? or are you testing to see if im watching? well i have to get off so i won't be watching but rember i know all!ANOMALY-117 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Parsecboy 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings and regards from Wild Surmise.

Wild Surmise (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

		Armenian Barnstar of National Merit
		I, hereby award you this Armenian Barnstar of National Merit for all the work you have done to improve and maintain the coverage of System of a Down related articles. Keep up the great work! VartanM (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		In recognition of your outstanding efforts during our assessment drive, I award you the WikiProject Ships Barnstar! You sir, are a regular assessment machine! Kralizec! (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's always nice to know your efforts are appreciated :) Glad to be of assistance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nate. Congrats on all your awards, you seem to be making some significant improvements to the Wiki military scene. I have been watching the F-22 Raptor/Eurfighter Typhoon/4th Generation jet fighter pages with some interest but lately things are getting even more frenzied. I don't believe the accusations of sockpuppetry are legitimate as I have had a perusal through both involved editors' talk and edit histories to see a running feud that has developed. Anyway just my 2¢. Bzuk (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't really believe that Downtrip is Wikzilla either (the reason I mentioned checkuser sometimes giving false positives), however, the IPs were confirmed as being the same as Downtrip. Whether it's a simple case of forgetting to log in, being logged out automatically after a period of time at a public computer, or actually just attempts to circumvent 3RR, I cannot say. His comment on the checkuser case page that he simply had several browsers open, and didn't realize some weren't logged in is plausible, if he wasn't using the "remember me" function. Regardless of the reason for the IP usage, Downtrip has been behaving poorly, and should be punished to an extent. Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that another editor may have used a sock allegation as a weapon of choice without anything more than "it doesn't feel right" to go by. My recommendation would be for both affected parties to sit down and let it go for awhile. Agin, whatdaheckdoIknow?! (written in typical Canajanspeak). FWIW {:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Sorry if I am getting a bit sensitive about this but I reverted both you and Freepsbane's comments. Would you like it if someone wnet around making accusations about you without incontrovertible proof? Yes, I did edit inadvertantly a few times without realising I was logged out but to say that I was trying to deceive anyone is wrong. Further I would point out to you that Freepsbane was exaggerating in his statements to say the least. While I am not happy about the single admin conclusion It must be noted he/she said "Likely" not "definitely". See "Likely, based on IP range, that Downtrip = Wikzilla, but it's impossible to confirm based on IP evidence alone because of the age of the Wikzilla account. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)"Downtrip (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Again sorry for my seeming boorish behavior but this is getting tedious and it is taking time away from making real contributions.Downtrip (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing you must think about, if you do get the block overturned, is that reverting good faith edits, like the one I made on the F22 talk page, and calling them "vandalism" isn't going to do anything to further your cause. I never said I thought you were Wikizilla, and stated that checkuser can give false positive results. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
To give you back your peace of mind I think it would be best to semi-protect the article, eh?? This IP does not seem to be finished with it and - unfortunately! - you. :-((
--Fromgermany (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Any idea who that is? Is it a blocked user who came back or what?

Yes, it's the banned editor Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs). He was banned back in May of this year, and has been harassing me ever since. Ain't it wonderful? Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok thanks. Yeah that's always a pleasure...

Equazcion •✗/C • 14:36, 12/22/2007

Hello Parsecboy, friendly note on standard displacement. You may want to use "normal displacement" or "load displacement" for the high seas fleet articles you've been editing. "Standard displacement" is basically a term of art from the Washington Naval Treaty. It's defined as full load minus fuel and water, as I recall. The British pushed for the definition. Something to do with keeping Nelson and Rodney legal. But "standard displacement" as such didn't exist before 1922. I can't vouch for internet sources, but almost all print materials will use "normal displacement" or "load displacement" for ships that preceded the Treaty. For whatever reason, the term has outlasted the treaty, and I dont know the reason for that.

And good work by the way on your ship articles. I hope you don't mind me poking around and changing small things here and there. Orpy15 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I'll have to keep that in the back of my mind. Thanks for the note. And by all means, if you can improve the articles I've created, go right ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)