User Page	Talk Page	About Me	Userboxes	Battleships	Sandbox	Userspace	Contributions

Please feel free to leave a message (or email), but if you post here you I ask that you observe the following requests: Due to vandalism from unregistered users, this talk page is semi-protected, if you wish to leave me a message and are not a registered autoconfirmed user or wish to post as an IP, please do it here: User talk:MBK004/Anon. Place new messages at the bottom of the page, not at the top. This preserves the chronological order for the page. Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header== and Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Please indent your posts with : if replying to an existing topic (or :: if replying to a reply). If you are looking for a prior conversation, I usually archive conversations after one month of inactivity.	Archives Archive 1 (July 2007-January 2008) Archive 2 (January 2008-April 2008) Archive 3 (April 2008-September 2008) Archive 4 (September 2008-January 2009) Archive 5 (January 2009-present)

I decided to work this next. Care to help with the list of astronauts there? I'll do USMA after this is done. Also see the merge proposal on the talk page, you've already supported the rename. USNA astros is now FL, two more are at FLC and soon I'll file the main USNA alum list for FLC. Thanks for all the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astro and CNO are both FLs now. Legislators is still at FLC. As you see, the main list is now at FLC. If you see anything to fix or improave at the main USNA list, feel free and thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rolling Apollo 13 back- it was too complicated for me to untangle. YosefK (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (aka. the IP which asked for it)[reply]

I noticed this article is subject to frequent vandalism. Do you have the clearance to semi-protect the article? Thank you in advance if you are able to do this. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for checking. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for blocking this user! It was a pain fixing their re-directs. CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kralizec! made the block, I just placed the notice since I figured that he was busy cleaning-up the damage. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Egg on my face there... But anyway, there really should be a way to make it so that established users can re-direct articles, but that of course would probably cause problems! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the block notice for me! That was #2 on my list after "clean up mess." --Kralizec! (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to double-check that I moved everything back to the right spots. As my wife always points out, I am a notoriously bad speller, so I may not have been the best admin to fix all her moves. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take Category:United States Naval Academy out of them because you don't include the parent AND child cat, but making the cat more specific was the right move. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you removed my addition to the article for being unreferenced. I got the information from a flyer dating from July 1974, that a friend (who was active in the antiwar movement) gave me. Can those kinds of things be reference? It seems like an interesting chapter in the ship's life, so would seem valuable to include... JensWilkinson (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what you describe, that doesn't sound like a reliable source to me or something that can meet the verifiability guidelines. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Thanks. So I just need to put what articles I am going to be working on, and the coordinators will put my points on the scoreboard? Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks So Much and Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MBK. I just remembered that we were in the process of getting MILHIST's triple crown, but I don't recall what ever happened with that. I know you have the eligibility status of MILHIST members in your sandbox; do you know what's going on with it? Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:MBK004/Sandbox/MILHIST. We are fully qualified and Durova is aware, but we have yet to come up with an appropriate image for her to use to create the MILHIST-specific award. It is in a state of limbo so if you think of something, be sure to give her a poke. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. I seem to think that was discussed on the MILHIST talk page, but nothing was ever decided. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you could do this. Thanks for the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Two ideas:

1. Put the Academy logo to the left of "United"
2. Maybe put the main list on the line with the other three as it's not obvious where it is since you have it split with USNA in the title line. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done is the limit of my knowledge with these things. You might want to find your template wizard to do more. I think the alumni should be in the title, so if you want, you can add it to the main list as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to use talkback on my page, I have a watch on yours. See my tweaks to the template; I'm asking User:Gadget850 about the image. I don't like the image with its white background. Other than that I'm okay with it now, how about you? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Everything looks good except for that white background on the image. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Gadget about that too. He's pretty good at this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comments on Gadget's talk page and the template itself. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not aware of it. You could have simply told me rather than threatening to block me. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my latest action and yours must have coincided to the second (almost). I note your adjustment to my decision. I hope that didn't/doesn't present any difficulties?--VS ^talk 03:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No difficulties on my end. I was going to block for 3 months, but then decided to be lenient. I have no objections to your duration. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.--VS ^talk 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding answer, MBK004! I agree with everything you said, but I would like to point out that you missed one other important point in favor of keeping GA class: Durova's triple crown award requires GA class articles, so abolishing the system means we forfeit a project triple crown and alien those who wish to obtain triples by forcing them to look elsewhere for a chance to bring an article up to GA-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of the individual users who haven't already gotten a triple crown. Removing GA class in milhist deprives them of a chance to get a milhist based GA. At any rate, as you noted, we do have the an image to decide on for the triple crown. I haven;t got an idea for that. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy userday too! Not sure how I managed to miss that, but its an outstanding accomplishment to be today's wikipedian, and you are definitely deserving of the award :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please review the edits at USS Texas (BB-35). I noticed that some of the formatting templates were removed and a few MOS issues introduced. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me make sure I understand you correctly... you want me to start a discussion page with the community for every single vessel, for every single change. Is that what you're telling me? Honestly, as much as I enjoy editing, I'd rather leave than clog up the discussion pages like that... you're telling me what I'm doing is ridiculous, and I can accept that it might be, but it seems more ridiculous to open a forum for everything that goes on around here... if you don't want me to edit any ship pages, at all, ever, just say that... Magus732 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what exactly does "consensus" mean? I've read that a consensus of editors should be reached in order to do major edits, but nothing in the rules supports that, at least nothing I could find... it's frustrating when I can't figure whether I'm doing something correctly or not... Magus732 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see... well, now that I think about it, it does make sense... it's just... well, sometimes I get focused on something, and doing it becomes almost subconcious... I stop thinking about it... obviously, I need to work on that... Magus732 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another thing I have a problem with: why does the rulebook insist you needn't capitolize every major word in a heading (ie the title of a section), even though that's the way stardard English dictates it's written? Magus732 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding with the Ilyushin Il-86 page, right? This is the only page you have a problem with? What part of the MOS says that it's supposed to look the way it did before I changed it? The changes I made only comply with the other pages, almost all of them being that way before I touched them... I'm starting to think you're following me... Magus732 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going over my revisions, and I've noticed something that may interest you... you only started reverting me after my edit to USS Texas (BB-35)... but, every battleship edit I made prior to that, you left alone, and in the case of USS New York (BB-34), you reverted it back to my version... care to explain? Magus732 (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about USS Arizona (BB-39)? Does it need fixed now too? Magus732 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck on the Election for Coordinator! I Hope you Make It! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to see some Texas folk as Coordinators. Keep up the Good Work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 18:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing this page for more than a month and after multiple users agreeing with me, they lost interest and the subject and her army have stepped back in to continually add poorly sourced info and revert good faith edits. Read the article from beginning to end AND all of its supporting sources and you will see that almost all sources point back to quotes which the subject gave in interviews. This sourcing (as well as the subject's own edits) are not reliable and fall under the "immediate removal" rule under wiki bios. I left all material that can be verified by reliable third party sources. Submitted in good faith. Jrbot22 (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#List_of_United_States_Naval_Academy_alumni_FLC_help — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes, that is getting ugly. Unfortunately images are not my cup of tea to begin with and the fact that we all know that they are PD is so frustrating. Hopefully someone can help you out because I'd be up a creek without a paddle trying to help. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering since you haven't yet voted on it (at least not that I know of), What is your Opinion on Having a C-Class for the WikiProject? Have A Great Day Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion is greatly appreciated, it is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject. It looks as if you put a great amount of thought into your answer, which is very respectable. Keep up the good Work! :) And it is for some of the reasons which your actions have displayed that I voted for you for Coordinator and also those reasons prove that you will make a Great Coordinator, Great Job! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits on the spacewalk list. I appreciate the detail look over the lists. On one point I went back and looked at the reference again, regarding the repaired thermal blankets. My thinking now is that the reference is a bit unclear. I'm going to try to find an alternate reference to make sure exactly what was repaired. WVhybrid (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert [1]! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This must be what happens when reliable sources fail. Its diner time, but I'll be back on when I'm back, and we can plan our next move. I leave a message here for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other possibility is that it's just fringe history. I'll take a look over the few resources relating to Texas that I have and see whether that is the case? Cam ^(Chat) 23:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, people,how about we do this: We have unconfirmed reports that the article Texas has a total of 42 errors, but we also have an article that has passed different standards of higher assessment. I say we give two weeks for Ironship to produce evidence that he can site the information he provided with reliable sources. If this does not happen, then we mark the section as historical and move it into the archives. If we encounter further problems with the editor in question we request a checker and move into a formal dispute process, either rfc or god-forbid arbitration. How does that sound? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good plan to me. I've put in a question with BB35 Restorer (talk · contribs) about the veracity of these errors. If anyone we have access to should, he is our man. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your leadership of The Military History WikiProject from September 2008–March 2009, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. Cam (Chat) 00:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have our eight official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check your mail!

Best Regards BB35 Restorer (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have one from me too. Guess who forgot to click "send" after finishing his reply earlier... :( —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]