This is an archive of past discussions with User:Parsecboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A new data point for you. According to Grützner Bayern received orders to head for Scapa Flow on the morning of 23 November 1918. The crew size on orders of British was reduced to 175 men only. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, does he give a footnote for that information? I've always seen Bayern included in the list of ships that left on 21 November. For instance, Herwig's "Luxury" Fleet and Gary Staff's German Battleships 1914-1918 doesn't mention a different departure date for Bayern, but he does for Baden (which left on 7 January). Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'm an admin over at English Wikisource, and thought you'd like to know that this work is up for deletion, since it has no source information. Would you happen to have the information to hand? A link would be OK, but we'd also like to have some bibliographical data such as date, whether it was part of a larger report, author (US Govt is sufficient, but more detail would go a long way to making the work more useful). For reference, here is the link to the deletion proposal. Thank you for the contributions, and I hope you find the time to contribute more to Wikisource. Please get in touch if there is anything I can do for you. Cheerio, Inductiveload (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Suitcase nuke / Pen nuke Article merged.
Parsecboy,
I've came across Suitcase nuke with a merger on its Discussion page. I would like to see it has been done properly and see if you could assess the WikiProject Military History on the Suitcase nuke against "B-Class". It would be appreciated. Anything in return, I'll have a look at. Adamdaley (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The merge looks to be fine. The article doesn't meet our B-class requirements, however, as there are still a significant number of unsourced sections of text. The Russian section is much better, though the quote from Alexander Lebed needs to have a citation, for instance. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I asked you first to take a look at it and do the "B-Class" assessment. Unfortunately, since you didn't reply, I asked User:AustralianRupert to have a look at it for me since I've asked him to look at quite a few articles for me for his opinion and "B-Class" assessments. Thanks anyway. I'll come back and ask some other time! It's appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Scharnhorst
I have always wanted to buy the series "Deutschlands Generale und Admirale - Deutschlands Admirale 1849-1945 - Die militärischen Werdegänge der See-, Ingenieur-, Sanitäts-, Waffen- und Verwaltungsoffiziere im Admiralsrang". It's a series of books each running at 70 to 80 Euros (roughly 100 USD) a piece. I just can't convince myself yet to invest. I will see what I can find. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You live in Germany, right? Worldcat shows five libraries in Germany have what looks like complete collections of the books (the link is just to the first volume, worldcat split them up individually) - maybe one of them is close to where you are? If not, could you get them through inter-library loan? Free is better than 70-80 Euros. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I live in Germany. Unfortunately the closest library is still more than 100 miles away from my home town. What I can get for you are the references in the Wehrmachtbericht for Scharnhorst and Otto Ciliax. I will see what I can do for you. I keep you posted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Do libraries in Germany have any inter-library loan program? It's pretty common in the US (and I've gotten a number of books through it). Thanks for helping with this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to check this. I have never tried this. Regarding the Wehrmachtbericht (similar to a presidential unit citation) and Scharnhorst, she was mentioned three times. 1st 9 June 1940, 13 February 1942 and 27 December 1942. I ordered another book "Hitlers Admirale: 1939 - 1945" ISBN3813208729. Let's see what this reveals MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It's very worthwhile if you can do it, it might save you a lot of money. Do you have any of the details of the Wehrmachtbericht citations? The German battleship Bismarck article has a section with the mentions the ship received (see here), and it might be useful to do the same for Scharnhorst if possible. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I added the text and my translation. I find these literal translations very difficult. You may want to tweak the wording here and there. The books have shipped! I hope to get them soon. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I made a few tweaks, but nothing major. I also added a note stating that the mentions aren't entirely accurate (forex it incorrectly stated only one destroyer was sunk on 8 June 1940 when two had been sunk). Thanks again for adding that. I'll be curious what those books will add. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm working on Gneisenau now, here. Do you know if she was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht at all? Also, do you know anything about the apparent overlap in command between KzS Otto Fein (who left the ship in April '42) and KzS Rudolf Peters, who took command in February '42? It may just be a typo. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Gneisenau was mentioned twice: 9 June 1940 and 13 February 1942. Same text as for Scharnhorst. I'll check what I can find on the commanding officers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you please assess the "B-Class" criteria for WikiProject Military History on New Britain campaign? It would be appreciated and one less thing to be done for the WikiProject Military History. Seems like User:AustralianRupert might be AWOL from Wikipedia because of the flooding near Brisbane, which is understandable. Adamdaley (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Your behaviour on this article stinks. As someone who knows a little about air combat in this period, who wrote an article entitled Operation Donnerkeil which deals specifically with the Luftwaffe operation that day, I would think that you would accept my changes and wait for replacement sources - which I was in the process of putting in until you edit conflicted the entire thing. Then, within seconds your threatening a block. I won't tolerate you threatening me not now not ever, understand? Dapi89 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You can edit according to core policies, or you can not, whatever happens after that is entirely up to you. Your supposed expertise on a particular subject area does not give you the right or ability to ignore those policies. You also never indicated that you had sources forthcoming. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Uh uh, no you don't. I edit to core policies when it comes to citations, I always have. And what 'policies' are we talking about exactly? Are you being deliberately vague? I've already told you that those sources were coming within minutes, so if you're not getting away with implying that it was a deletion without replacement. In fact, you cancelled that replacement out in an edit conflict. Moreover, specialised air sources (which of course you knew I had) outrank those coming from a naval source. That much is obvious. I also take note that you are still not behaving. My supposed expertise are quite real thank you. On the question of having the right - I never suggested I had any. If you had waited five more minutes, you'd have seen that. You sir, on the other hand, had no right or justification to make that edit summary comment. Dapi89 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:V and its corresponding guideline WP:CITE specifically, though it should not have been difficult to discern that. You told me the sources were coming after you put them in - that's not exactly the same as what you imply. You did delete without replacement, twice, after I asked you not to do so. I find it odd that you assume I had you in mind when I wrote that paragraph...You didn't need to verbalize your belief that you can edit as you please - your actions speak as much. And waiting five minutes, I think not. It took you 12 hours to add the source, after two reverts. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You reverted a reputable editor SIX MINUTES after he made his last edit of the night. Even to you, it must have been glaringly obvious that it wasn't nonsense, and that Dapi89 must be on to it pretty soon.
Besides they were always going in this morning and you edit conflicted twice - your second revert coming onto of my citations. So I did not have the right of reply and unfortunately this does not show in the edit summary this morning. So if you hadn’t been trigger happy, you would not have had to revert in the first place. Needless to say, the information was incorrect. And I verbalised no such thing, accept to make an obvious point was there is no dash in Bf 109 or Fw 190 and that Galland's rank was not an 'ace' but General der Jagdflieger, as well as JG meaning wing not squadron. A glance at two article titles and an intro would have told you all you needed to know. More to the point, you had 12 hours to ask a simple question, or prompt me. Reverting is laziness - particularly after SIX MINUTES. And as I have already said, you know I had the sources. It hadn't crossed your mind that the editor that created Donnerkeil could have any better citations about this?
And stop deleting references from the bibliography. It should be self-evident that these are going to be used – particularly after my communication to you today, a second obvious point. If any one is being obstructive it is you. Dapi89 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You made no indication that you were going to provide sources in either edit - am I supposed to read your mind? "Any editor who removes [unsourced material, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." -Jimbo]. As for Galland, he is famous for being a fighter ace, not a General der Jagdflieger. "Reverting is laziness" - why then did you revert me without added a source? You yourself had 12 hours to find your sources and make your changes. Do it right or don't bother doing it at all. This article is going to go to FAC eventually, and I won't tolerate unsourced additions to it. Go make more work for yourself on your time, not mine. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Just as I thought. No excuse, not justification. Re: Galland, no, just no, not at all. And I did not 'do it wrong'. For the third time, sources were coming, sources will always be coming, sources were added. Try listening. You've wasted enough of my time. Dapi89 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Get glasses. They were lost in an edit conflict because of your second revert because you were too quick on the trigger. Got it at last? Had you waited, you'd have got them without ever needing to revert again. Got it? Dapi89 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you know that Generaladmiral Rolf Carls was a cammander of Hessen (3 October 1932 – 2 October 1933). I would expect to find this kind of info on an article at GA or higher. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I've never seen his name before. The German pre-dreadnoughts are not particularly well documented, even those that went on to serve in the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine. Where did you find that information? It's not mentioned in his biography here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at the German WP article. The English article is only a stub so far. I created it when I started working on the Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine. I am far from done yet. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright - if you have a citation handy you can just post it here and I'll incorporate it into the article. Thanks for finding this. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Also note that Kapitän zur See Hermann Boehm (also a Generaladmiral of the Kriegsmarine) and Kapitän zur See Wilhelm Marschall were also commanders of Hessen at one point. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
According to German sources, the Bayern class is also referred to as the 2nd Baden class. Baden was ordered before Bayern. I think this should be mentioned (source Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe). MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Parsecboy, as I have finished the Thüringen review, I thought I'd take a quick look at Oldenburg. I'm not sure if these have been brought up in the GA review yet, but you might like to take a look:
in the lead it says that the ship was commissioned on 1 August 1911, but in the infobox and in the Service history section it says 1 May 1912;
which volume does Citation # 8 "Staff, p. 44, 46" relate (Volume 1 or 2)?
there is inconsistency here: "German Battleships: 1914–1918 (1)" as opposed to "German Battleships: 1914–1918 (Volume 2)";
there is inconsistency here: "Tarrant, pp. 246–7" as opposed to "Tarrant, pp. 225–226".
Thanks, I had started to go through Oldenburg with the changes you suggested for Thüringen, but I was interrupted halfway through and then forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here, though I already saw your review and made the changes you suggested. I have a habit of watchlisting the uncreated review subpage so I'll see it when someone creates it. Thanks again for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I had written the class article a long time before the ship was moved to "Grosser" and apparently never went back and fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm doing the WWII ships now - see Scharnhorst class battleship, which I wrote some time ago. It references the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, and Bismarck class battleship refers to it as well as the Second London Naval Treaty and the escalator clause that went into effect after Japan failed to ratify the treaty. The design development information on a type of ship should go in the class article, not the individual ship articles. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
My personal congrats -- any other month that almost certainly would've been a winning total but Bushranger had the bit between his teeth... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have submitted the article for A-Class review. I would appreciate your comments since you are very familiar with some of the ships he served on. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I might have some time in between class and work today, but if not, I should be able to get to it over the weekend. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Michael Yon edits
Parsec,
In looking at your contributions and accolades, it appears that you are well respected on Wiki. In contrast, I've very limited experience with the protocols and ways of wiki. Nevertheless, I've attempted very neutral and sourced additions at the Yon page. (I think I messed up the proper sourcing originally, by using "insert link" instead of "cite.")
I do recognize that an "edit war," while being one way to get the attention of neutral parties is not beneficial. It appears to me that user John1964H wishes to engage in one, and is attempting to prevent the neutral additions of Yon page. Yon has indicated on his facebook page that he has asked a fan to monitor his wiki page.
Hi, AmericanVet. John1964H has violated the 3-revert rule, so I've blocked the account for 24 hours. He is certainly welcome to return after the block has expired and discuss the disagreement with you (or any other interested editor) on the article talk page or elsewhere.
I would suggest you attempt to contact him on his talk page (he can still edit that while he's blocked). If you can come to an agreement, great. If not, and he returns to edit-warring after the block expires, then you can either let me know, or file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Hi, I found non-copyrighted stuff that you could use, but you haven't put it in. Surely, the quality of the article would thereby improve? Hpvpp (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Parsec,
Can you check Campbell for the activities of HMS Duke of Edinburgh, the only survivor of the 1st CS? I'm most interested in her maneuvers after the Grand Fleet's echelon left and and how much ammo she fired, if any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I left the relevant quotes on the article talk page - looks like she steamed up the fleet's engaged side and slowly made her way up to join the 2nd CS. Apparently she fired only 20 9.2in rounds at Wiesbaden during the entire battle. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you confirm another thing for me on the survivors of Indefatigable. Snippet view leads me to think that page 61 gives Elliott and Falmer as the two survivors from the ship. Is this correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's right - Able Seaman Elliot and Leading Signalman Falmer were the only two survivors, picked up by S16 at 1950. Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Over the past few days there has been a discussion between an administrator (on en.wikipedia.org) as well as Tim PF and myself concerning the English version to use on this particular article. So far we have agreed to go with "British English" and have done distance conversions where appropriate. I suggested the following people may help the three of us that has started the conversation to improve the article or have suggestions. The following users have been named by myself who could be of some assistance:
I looked at the SMS Elsass article, which I believe you helped bring to GA Class. You probably know by now that I have an affinity for people so I was wondering why the following notable commanders are not listed Kapitän zur See Hugo von Pohl, Kapitän zur See Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz, Kapitän zur See Leberecht Maass, Kapitän zur See Otto Schultze (Pour le Mérite and later Generaladmiral of the Kriegsmarine), among others who became Admirals at some stage of their career. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry again, you often mention the ships costs in marks. I think it would help if you put the price tag in context for the reader. I tried this on the Ernst Lindemann article (see cost of education). MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, if it's a German warship article rated higher than start-class, I wrote it ;) I didn't see references to any of those men (I'm sure you saw I did mention Scheer's tenure as commander). Do you have the dates of their commands and page numbers (I'm assuming from Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe)?
As for putting the cost in context, that will be somewhat more difficult. I've got the naval budget figures for 1899, 1905-1906, and 1913-1914, but I don't know that comparing the cost of the ship to the budget would be all that helpful. When you're talking about currency in the millions, it's difficult to wrap one's head around. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making fixing my grammar and cleaning the article up, also thanks for assessing it! Also would you say that the ship should be high-importance on the shipwreck importance scale, seeing as she was the first capital ship sunk solely by aircraft? Thurgate (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. You're doing some excellent work with the KGV class ships. I don't really know how the Shipwreck project importance rating system works - to my mind it doesn't really matter whether it's mid or high (presumably the goal of ranking importance is to point editors towards the most important articles, but since you've improved Prince of Wales, it's sort of moot). You could always ask on the project talk page, of course. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. On another note, do you reckon I should put it up for a GA review after I've done a bit more cleaning up? Thurgate (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll be at work for the next few hours (til 10pm EST) but I'll have time in the morning to take a look and see what I can add. I'm sure this will be extremely valuable, thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The following captains (listed in both of my books) commaded SMS Markgraf: Kapitän zur See Hermann Nordmann (October 1914 – August 1915), Kapitän zur See Karl Seifering (August 1915 – October 1916), Kapitän zur See Friedrich Behncke (October 1916 – August 1917), Kapitän zur See Hermann Mörseberger (August 1917 – November 1918) and Korvettenkapitän Walter Schumann (November 1918 – Juni 1919). Unfortunately my very brief research revealed nothing extraordinary about these men. However, I find it interesting that command always changed in the month of August or October. Is this something unique to SM Markgraf or systematic for all ships? Also noteworthy is that all commanders held the rank of Kapitän zur See, while Schumann (intern commander) was only a Korvettenkapitän (two ranks below Kapitän zur See). MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll need page numbers for the sources so that information can be incorporated if we decide to put them in. I don't know about the promotion timing - it could just be that the ship was commissioned in October, and commands were approximately a year long each. It was typical for the ship commanders during the internment to be of lower ranks than during the war. As for KzS Friedrich Behncke, do you know if he is related to Admiral Paul Behncke, the commander of the III Battle Squadron at Jutland? Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure! The captains are listed in Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz Volume 6 page 43. Good question about Friedrich and Paul Behncke. I will have a look. I left a another question on SMS Markgraf review page for you. I think there is something odd about the 8.8 cm armament. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Parsecboy - Your work on SMS Prinz Adelbert was really amazing - especially how quick you completed the article. As I am fairly new to wikipedia, I was wondering if I could ask for your assistance in the form of feedback on an article I recently rewrote about an active-duty warship? (I know WWI is your focus, but ships are ships) I had been working on an article on a dog that was a home-front campaign symbol in WWI and then a children's book hero afterward K9C Sinbad (USCG) and wound up making some edits to the article on his ship, USCGC Campbell (WPG-32), and then found that its replacement, USCGC Campbell (WMEC-909), had only a stub, but some notable history besides that which it inherited - so I tried to do it justice. I would be most interested in your guidance on the WMEC-909 article if you are willing and have time to share your expertise.
(If you are wondering why I wrote about a dog, Sinbad was unique in classification as military personnel rather than property and was the only Coastguardsman to be biographied until fairly recently.)--Rwberndt (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Rwberndt. Sure, I can take a look at the article and help you out. And thanks - one of the things that helped me write the article so quickly was that I had three of the four sources on hand (and I had used the fourth last night in another article). I'll look at the article either tonight or tomorrow and let you know. Just from a quick glance, the article looks much improved from the previous version, so excellent work so far! Parsecboy (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Flak
Hi. Noticed your addition to Markgraf and wondered: Was Flak a WW1 term? The earliest ref I can find is to Rheinmetall producing some Flak models in the 1920's. Somehow it has a WW2 feel to me, but I could be way wrong. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that your submission to T:TDYK of the article SMS Friedrich Carl (1867) did not include a review of another article. Perhaps you can answer that requirement by reviewing my new article Gary Rader as seen under the DYK nomination of Draft-card burning? I made my DYK into a double-nom but I have not been able to stimulate the first reviewer into finishing the job. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
On 21 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Friedrich Carl (1867), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the actions of the Germanarmored frigateSMS Friedrich Carl during a rebellion in Spain nearly precipitated a war between the rebels and Germany? 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.
Do you happen to have Von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book? The German version contains a few chapters about the construction and design team as well as on Bismarck's crew structure. If you want I can write an abstract for you which you can add to the article at your discretion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do - I haven't read it in over 10 years though, and had forgotten all of what was in it. I'll have to see what I can add to the class article before it goes to ACR/FAC, and when I rewrite the Bismarck article. Thanks for reminding me about it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for SMS Hansa (1872)
On 25 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Hansa (1872), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the German ironcladSMS Hansa's service career was cut short due to severe corrosion in her hull? 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.
On 26 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS König Wilhelm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the German ironcladSMS König Wilhelm was the largest and most powerful warship in the Imperial Navy in the late 19th century? 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.
You're welcome. Happy to help out. Spitsbergen was one of the few places the exiled Norwegian Army saw action during the Second World War. I've never heard of Spitsbergen as a refuelling base, quite interesting.
Tirpitz also interest me. I have lectured on her Norwegian deployment, so I'm quite familiar with the story. I would also like to say that I greatly admire the work you and the other Majestic Titan members are doing on the battleship articles, its really nice to see consistent good work being done on the relevant articles. When I come across poorly written battleship articles, it's comforting to know that in time you guys are going to greatly improve them. Manxruler (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Preston's Battleships of WWI
I saw that you referenced Preston's BB book in your Markgraf article, was it any good? I haven't seen it myself, but I've been contemplating buying it. What are your thoughts on it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You know, I honestly don't remember it at all. I must have borrowed it from the library, because I don't have it. I do have Preston's Battleships (ISBN: 0861240634) which was a disappointment (but, I got it for like 94 cents on Alibris, so I can't really complain). Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ship names
Thanks for returning those articles, I didn't want to say anything because the guy was an admin but I resented the move without it being discussed.Tirronan (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. H's currently being discussed at ANI for making all of those moves (which I don't think have all been reversed yet - I plan on going through and fixing the rest after work today) but who know what will come of I. Based on his talk page, he has a history of disruptive behavior, which is unsettling for an admin. You shouldn't feel like you can't question an admin's conduct, we're no more special or priviledged than anyone else, despite how some behave. Regardless, given the level of opposition, I don't think the hyphens are going to stay around for much longer. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been working on this for some time, building up from Start. I feel it has now reached GA - there might be a bit more to do but improvements from here are marginal returns. Would you be so kind as to review (or refer to others to review - I am not sure how this works and if one reviewer is sufficient for GA)? Many thanks. Friendofleonard (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is looking much improved - excellent work so far! The article should be formally nominated for a GA review before anyone reviews it. You can list the article for a GA review at WP:GAN (all you have to do is copy the nomination template onto the talk page. In this case, it will be {{subst:GAN|subtopic=War and military}}). A bot will add the article to the list of articles up for GA review, and any editor can find it easily. And yes, GA reviews are typically conducted by one editor, though more editors may help out if requested or the article is particularly long. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Anthony. I do them only very infrequently - aside from the one from last night I can't remember the last one I did. I'll add it to the log, thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
.png)
