I supported the above FLC. Also, I added Rlevse to the nominator line because he is the top contributor to the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, I contributed the vast majority of the full content. The reason he has more edits to the page is because he has dealt with more of the issues brought up at FLC than I because of real life time constraints. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that in itself is a valuable contribution; considering how tumultuous the FLC was earlier, it could have very easily failed had he not kept tabs on it. Anyway, feel free to remove his name if you wish. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed his name. He will be recognized by me once the FLC is complete, plus even he considers the list "mine" as much as can be within the constraints of WP:OWN. I am especially aware of how tumultuous the FLC was early on, and the unexpected real-life time constraints with my school work which came literally hours after initiating the FLC had me seriously thinking about withdrawing it until I would be able to satisfactorily spend enough time on-wiki to address the concerns. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Sorry for adding his name without consulting you, that was an oversight on my part. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The March 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) 03:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the fan I have with Tgyvb (talk · contribs), huh? At least he is a lot more entertaining than the other prolific sockmasters I have dealt with! — Kralizec! (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and participate in the discussion to determine if/how Houston neighborhood articles should be merged/redirected to List of Houston neighborhoods. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the USMA astronaut FL, outstanding job!!!! 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What's up with my edits? Reverting? Just like that? All of them? Do you know how much time I spent combining this info from different sources? This is not one sentence you reverted, but several evenings of work. If you don't believe in reliability of the info, just put [citation needed], and I will provide a link. I made it more readable, clean and true to facts. Info is taken mostly from official RosKosmos papers. Mikus (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• MZMcBride (talk · contribs) resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while the above arbitration case was pending. Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or approval of the Committee.
• MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions.
• MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.
• MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions.
• MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Please read my edits, I was not disrupting or removing any of Cla68's work. More talk is on the article webpage. GoldDragon (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it to the talk page. No hard feelings, I'll keep the edit summaries in mind next time. GoldDragon (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the SS Andrea Doria article has been delisted and been regraded as C class. I'm not questioning whether delisting or your regrading was correct. What I do wish to ask is this:-

When a FA class article is demoted, why does it have to drop right back to the Stub/Start/C/B system. I'm sure that many FAs which get demoted are at least of GA class. They will have had a lot of work put into them to get them to FA class in the first place and it seems that this is not recognised when an article is delisted.

I realise that this is something which probably needs discussion in the wider community, but I'm not sure where to bring it up. If you have any ideas please feel free to copy this over at the relevant place. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at WT:FA#FAR Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, that will come in very handy!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MBK. I had a feeling that I was going to be awarded the standard ACM instead of the ACM w/oakleaves; thanks for fixing that. Also, thank you very much for granting me the rollback feature, I'm sure it will come in handy. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a MilHist coordinator and fellow administrator, I was wondering if you could help me with something. While working on a GA review, another editor contacted me with questions regarding an image upload I made long ago. While looking into the issue, I discovered a mistake I made in 2005. If you could don your MilHistCoord and Admin hats and offer some suggestions for how I can best fix my mistakes, I would be eternally grateful. While the obvious answer (liberal use of the 'delete' button) is the easiest solution, I would prefer some way that causes minimal disruption and still allows us to retain some visual aspect of these ships that were indispensable in their day, but now are largely forgotten in the tides of history. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thank you for cleaning up after my HMS Endeavour page move. I'd barely completed the actual move when you were there doing the machinery edits behind it. The move was a little bold, as there hasn't been that much discussion first, but I think (hope) it will be uncontroversial. Thanks again for doing the tidying up for it. Euryalus (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'm still fiddling with the review stuff and will be adding bits over the next week or so. I'll write something comprehensive for the newsletter just before it goes out (at the end of the month).  Roger Davies ^talk 06:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not forgotten and will be adding something on Sunday, along with the other final tweaks before the newsletter goes out on Monday/Tuesday. I hope all is well and your exams aren't too horrific :)  Roger Davies ^talk 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock tags go on user page (wipe out whatever they have there), not on talk page. Note the tag I used too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, MBK, can you move USAT General Frank M. Coxe (ship) to USAT General Frank M. Coxe (apparently a redirect with history)? I figure that since USAT is a ship prefix, there's no need to further disambiguate. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -MBK₀₀₄ 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, your next task, should you choose to accept it: A cut and paste move of USS Poinsett (AK–205) to USS Poinsett (AK-205) on 10 September 2008. The only edits to the former after the C&P move seem to be the addition of an {{orphan}} tag and the Sambot run adding Category:1944 ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the challenge. Cut-and-paste repairs are not my specialty, and thus I try to stay clear of them. Perhaps Kralizec! (talk · contribs) or Parsecboy (talk · contribs) can help you, I've directed their attention to a few (but I forget who). I would tage it with {{Db-histmerge}} but this isn't a clean history merge because of the conflicting page history since the proper page was actually created before the final factual edit to the older page. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it, should be no problem :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I love your use of the term "Plaxico'd", I hope you don't mind if I steal it for my everyday use. ;-) (Morethan3words (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I saw the {{unreferenced}} tags added to List of submarine classes of the United States Navy, etc. Since these are list articles, does it really makes sense to have references on them? Wouldn't it be more appropriate, and less duplication of effort, to make sure that the articles for the lists' items are properly referenced? Just my 2c. — MrDolomite • Talk 05:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you reinstated the header saying that the article on Hoffman lacks citations. I carefully reviewed the guidelines on citations, and it seems clear that this entry meets those guidelines. I'm not clear on what you think is missing.Davidlchandler (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick work adding the FAC on the Take Ichi convoy to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review two minutes after I nominated the article! Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know you can watchlist redlinks? -MBK₀₀₄ 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't; that's interesting to know. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]