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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Re di Portogallo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Re d'Italia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not required, and I generally don't use them - it tends to cut down on the frequency of IPs coming to vandalize my talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Messina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Enrico Dandolo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, can I interest you and page stalkers in participating in April? Up to £200 in Amazon vouchers and books up for grabs.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian ironclad Caio Duilio you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Partenope you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Montana (ACR-13) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you forgot about this one, but I answered your remarks regarding a disputed source over a month ago. If you're short on free time in real life, I don't have a problem waiting, just let me know.--Saxum (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nate, would you consider protecting or semi-protecting this in the face of persistent anonymous edits violating Not censored? Doesn't appear to be a static IP so not sure if it's worth trying to warn or block... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I just semi-protected it for a week - I can re-apply if they start back up once it expires.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Minerva you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roma-class ironclad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Parsecboy, I know its been almost a year and I apologize for that. I have posted a new profile pic of the O class Battle cruiser for the use in the article on the O class battle Cruiser. I have been working on it more lately however it is still being mapped with small details. If it doesn't seem complete enough then I suggest to watch for updates that I plan to post real soon as in within the week. I figured if I at least posted it on the site that it would motivate me to keep the work going. I have been working on 4 large Physical models. One is a model of the Starship Enterprise from the original series that measures at 13 feet long. I have kicked Myself a bit to finish these ship illustrations though so I can get the book published on Amazon, Kendal. I'm probably losing money for not doing so. Anyway, You did a great job editing the D class article. I will work on making some angle shots also if You would like some of those. Let Me know, and I promise to not be such a stranger in the future. Haratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 04:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I added 2 angle shots, and will work more on the Model tomorrow and in the next few days. I want to finish with it somewhat as to get onto the P class ship design next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, we all get busy with other things. Good work so far on the O class model, I've added all three images to the article (and the main image to List of battlecruisers of Germany). I'll look forward to see the work you do on it, and the P-class one as well! Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have actually laid out the P class cruiser but it is the hull with the guns in place. I need to ad the superstructure and detail the small parts and details. I have also in the last day drawn and almost finished the SpahKruiser hull. It was kind of part of the Plan Z ship projects and yet not. Even after Plan Z was canceled they were still planning to build 3 of the Spahkruzers in the final 1940 configuration. They ordered the powerplants and canceled the ships. they used the engines in other Destroyers. Anyway TY, and Ill keep sending updates, and finish the O class. It mostly needs the front railing and ballords, cleats, and the porthole work, which is somewhat done on the model, I just haven't 2D mapped it yet. Oh and the anchors and chains with the windlasses and that should be about it. I modeled the crane for the O class but I need to model a few different types in the future, along with a few spotlights, however those can be added. I need to also ad the optic doors to the 15cm guns. LOL I am getting a lot of this done so I can finish My book that I have been dragging My feet on for over a year. I could actually make some gas money if I kick myself hard enough to stay focused and do this stuff. TY again Your Wiki friend, Haratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I still need to write up the Spaehkreuzer article - haven't gotten around to it yet. You know how that goes ;) Thanks for keeping me in the loop about your projects - I bet it'll be nice to get the book finally done. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Tegetthoff (1878) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 10 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I edited the Spahkruezer article stub slightly. I changed the 2 classes to 3 classes, as they had designed 3 even though they only seemed to show 2 on Kriegsmarine.de. I also sited Kriegsmarine.de as a source. I added a basic line illustration for the Spahkruezer 1940 design in the commons. You might not wish to put it in the article yet, as it only shows the hull from top and bottom. It is just the beginning layout template for the size layout. I have continued to detail the O class illustration also, and hope to finish that soon. I am close to finishing the E book for Kindle about the ships, I just need to keep on the ship illustrations themselves. I have thought about writing a Wiki article on the phoney plans of German ships that have cropped up on the internet forums, and in World of Warships. I do plan to write a chapter about it in My book. Let Me know what You think about that as it is not a bout anything real I don't know if it belongs in here. Anyway I just wanted to update you. Haratio.
Thanks - I really ought to get around to rewriting that article. Lately I've been working on the Austrian ironclads that fought at Lissa - I more or less finished with SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max (1865) this morning. We can hold off adding the image of the ship until you're done (or close to it).
I don't know if an article about the fake ships would work - probably the closest articles we have are on ships that were planned but not actually constructed. At some point someone tried to create an article on the supposed H-45, which had been created on a forum somewhere, but that got deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I will work on the Illustration for the Spahkruezer. I plan to do at least 2 models, and possibly 3, as the 1939 design and the 1940 were relatively the same other than the Plane and torpedo set up. I have been spending a little time working on the O class illustration. I made that to big, but it works. When I finish the spah's and M class light cruisers, and the H class BBs and so on, Ill go back and fix the size issue on the O class. I have to model new turrets for the Spah designs due to that they were destroyer turrets and were shaped different than the Mains on the M class, or the secondaries like on Bismarck. I can write a draft about the Phoney ship designs later and see what You think. I am going to write about it in My book. The premise as an article is to state the ships, stories, and how they seemed to show up on the internet in forums, yet lack any substanciated proof. Its not that big of a deal if it cant be used on here, but it will ad an interesting chapter to My book as I can present it in a more conjectural setting. I will update and let you know as I get more done on the illustrations. As I illustrate the H class designs, that should add considerable imagery to that article. The M class was the first model I made in blender however I messed it up and need to redo it. It is one of My favorite ships as I have a 9 foot scratch built hull that I am working on also in My shop. TY again. Haratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Prinz Eugen (1862) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Juan de Austria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Habsburg (1865) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Euridice you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Urania you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Iride you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Aretusa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Caprera you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Calatafimi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the first one is better quality - I'll upload it over the old one in a little while. Amusingly, I was just waking up when you posted it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
You whippersnappers and your "staying up to all hours of the night" - early to bed, early to rise, I always say. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Do please be polite on my talk page. You added the material, he partially reverted your additions, and you restored them. Let the discussion run its course or we can start discussing edit-warring in more detail. Plain and simple. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: USS Wyoming (BB-32) --: my edit of 20:56, 6 May 2016
You can't get much better than this, for source material.
On the other hand, I have asked an acquaintance at the "Naval History & Heritage Command" to look for the deck log of the USS Wyoming to corroborate the information and to check up on the Wyoming's response to the 13-gun salute.
It's a personal website that purports to host hand-transcribed ship logs. Not exactly what I'd call reliable, and there are certainly much better sources. Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It's got scans of the original logbooks, so I'd have to rate it considerably higher than that. There are occasionally transcription errors, especially for ship names, but they can be pretty easily rectified by looking at the scans.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This also applies to your rejection of my edit of the HMS Hannibal entry: ships' logs are a key source, and having compared this site's transcriptions with my own inspection of logs in the UK National Archives, they appear to be wholly reliable (with the usual transcription slips, where the original handwriting is problematic!). The more one compares archival material such as this with the 'standard' sources, the more problematic the latter become, no matter how distinguished the author (and the more one checks Burt against the archival material, the more the detail errors multiply; don't get me started on 'Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships') .... Disallowing on-line transcriptions of logs simply because they are are on a 'personal' website means that these 'standard source' errors will be perpetuated in Wikipedia for ever, as the likelihood of the UK National Archives ever putting the logs 'officially' on line is zero - I can't think of what you mean as 'much better sources' for ships' log data (especially as Wikipedia disallows 'original research', which as I understand it includes one's own inspection of archival data!). AMDC
Romanian cruiser Elisabeta
79.113.134.115 is continuing to add Galati shipyard to the builder section of the infobox. He's gotten a couple other warnings for tendentious editing so you might consider more severe punishment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Now he's moved on to the Russian battleship Potemkin article, adding a bunch of website-derived material that fails WP:RS, under two IP addresses: 86.123.123.74 and 79.113.130.255. Probably best to protect the article for a week or two and see if he gives up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Dude seems to have switched addresses again, 79.113.132.225 and continues to insist that installing the armament counts as building. Can you protect the Elisabeta article against IPs?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: I blocked the IP for 31 hours—I wanted to go for longer but technically they haven't been warned yet on that specific IP. I'll probably go to a month if they keep vandalizing once the block's up, and I'll protect if they keep switching IPs. I put the article on my watchlist as well. Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to let You know that I have added the main gun detail and structure to the Spahkruezer illustration. It shows enough detail for the basic understanding of what the ship would have looked like. I need to resize it though as it doesn't blow up enough like the other 2. Ty Haratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I was just following the instructions on the Commons page ("Additionally, you may want to check for Wikimedia projects that use this item and then remove or, if possible, replace with a superior item.") Keri (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
No big deal - things are easy enough to reverse or restore as the situation calls. And I wouldn't have seen that you nominated it for deletion if you hadn't removed it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Your edit summary
In your edit summary [4] you wrote "Please see the MoS page Llammakey linked - definite articles should not be used with ship names"
In his edit summary [5] he wrote "See also: removed definite articles before ship names per MOS:SHIPS"
Last time I looked at the policy (some years ago) - and I cannot find that policy now - and your "link" as you call it is like a chocolate fireguard - the policy was that the definite article should not be used before letters such as HMS or USS, but should be used before the name of the ship. However, I would not be surprised if Randy from Boise has changed this, as it is not current US Navy practice in official writing.-- Toddy1(talk)20:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Think of it like any other proper noun. I don't call you The Toddy1, I call you Toddy1. It also works for other named things. For example, "the Nike shoes", where it is used as an adjective for the shoe, however if you are talking about the company itself, you do not say "the Nike is making some great shoes these days." You say, "Nike is making some great shoes these days". Llammakey (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Folgore-class cruiser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I wanted you to know that I added a good line profile illustration for the M class light cruiser article. I have tried to figure out how to put the illustrations in the article, however I have not figured it out, or it is fixed so I cant. If that is the case that is not a problem.
I have been working more on the illustrations so I can finish the book that I am writing about the Plan Z ships and get it published on Amazon Kindle. I rushed the M class a bit but have figured out how to expedite the pictures in Gimp and less in Blender but I want them looking good. I might have to brush up some small stuff on this one but nothing major. I have to finish the O class and upgrade it. I still have some work to do on the Spahkruezer illustration with detail. I get those done and I can start on the H class BB illustrations.
Anyway I would appreciate it if you could ad the M class illustration to that article. Ill write again as soon as I post a new illustration and finish the Spahkruezer detail so we can get that one posted. TY much Haratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz
Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, the review of which you commented on. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem - and the Delaware class article looks fine to me. You might want to go back and turn off the harv field in the reference if it's not being used, since that generates an error in the template. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I've found something weird in the article about SMS Erzherzog Karl. If he was ceded to France, why was he cruising to Britian? Could You verify this? Thank You. Mati7 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to check the book tonight. But it's quite possible the French sold the vessel to ship breakers in Britain - that happened pretty frequently to the ships of the former Austro-Hungarian and Imperial German navies. For instance, the ships awarded to Japan like SMS Nassau and Oldenburg never went to Japan and were instead sold to breakers in the Netherlands and Britain, respectively. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I checked the article after I replied here - I don't have that specific book of Hore's, but I have another that preceded it (and should have much the same information in it). That line was added by Buggie111 (talk·contribs), who is not very active anymore. If I can't verify it from the book I have, you might try emailing him. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't check the Hore book, but I did have a look at Rene Greger's Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I, the ship "was on passage to Toulon when she ran aground at Bizerta". The page number is 21, and the full reference is:
Greger, René (1976). Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I. London: Ian Allan. ISBN0-7110-0623-7.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Goito-class cruiser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Partenope-class cruiser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Here's the invitation I've been sending out. We'd love for you to join.
In Columbus Ohio, several members of Wikipedia Connection are forming the Ohio Wikimedians User Group. Our goal is to expand our efforts beyond Columbus to create an organized group that promotes Wikipedia, puts together events, and forms a better local community here in Ohio. We'd love to have you on-board as one of our founding members! Being a part of the user group will allow easy communication between active Ohio editors, notifications of upcoming events in the Ohio area, and, if you're interested, the opportunity to help organize events such as edit-a-thons or workshops. If our User Group is approved in time, we plan for our first event to be a Wiknic in early July.
If interested, feel free to add yourself to the list at the bottom of our page on Meta. Also feel free to contribute to the page itself, or ask any questions you may have.
I am in Columbus, so I'll put my name down, but between work and family, I barely have enough time to write, let alone take on more tasks, so there's probably not much I can actually help with. Thanks for the invite! Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Parsecboy. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 16:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Would you mind moving the article back to the z spelling? The move somehow disabled the GAR link that used to appear at the top of the Talk page. Separately, the two English lang sources on the subject use the "z" spelling. Please see: Williamson and Bagdonas. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Parsec! I know you're busy, but I wanted to put this event on your radar:
Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.
If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!
Thanks for your recent edits on {{Destroyers of the Indian Navy}}, {{Submarines of the Indian Navy}}, but what is the need for the template to be trimmed down. It is a navigation template for the destroyers and submarines of the Indian Navy respectively, not of classes. There are many templates similar to this. I am not questioning you, you are one of the most experienced editors, I just wanted to know the reason. As you trimmed down the templates to the classes, but all the ships of the mentioned classes were not used by the Indian Navy, only some of them were of Indian Navy, can mentioned of classes directly be misleading? If that is the valid format please trim down the {{Corvettes of the Indian Navy}}, {{Frigates of the Indian Navy}}. Thank you. Regards, KCVelaga☚╣✉╠☛01:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Tripoli you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Saetta you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I translated this series of articles to pl.wiki, and during DYK nomination somebody pointed that Italian cruiser Monzambano have vey strange set of machines. All other cruisers from this class are 6+3 or 4+2 boilers+steam engines. But Monzambano is 4+3 - what is quite strange because then how steam from last boiler was directed. Can you please check source just to be sure? PMG (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, though I don't generally worry about including costs - the figures are kind of meaningless without context, and going through the trouble of adding context seems to me to be going too far off on a tangent. Also, the figures can't really be adjusted for inflation, or at least not easily. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Nautilus (1906) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:SMS Prinz Eugen.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SMS Prinz Eugen.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
Yeah, I've been trawling through them for a little while now. You'll want to be careful though - I've found a number of errors. For instance, see the photo of SMS Feuerspeier—if you look at the image description page, it lists it as another vessel, though reliable sources (e.g. Greger, Conways, etc.) disagree. Parsecboy (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Albatross (1907) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for kindly GA-reviewing the article. I just wanted to let you know that if you so desire, I can email you some of the news sources I cited, which may be hard to find. Some are in French, moreover. Once again, I appreciate your help.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kinburn (1855) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Gorizia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Formidabile-class ironclad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If you can't figure that out...
I've figured that out, now. But it was not so easy.
Four ships are involved (two on each side), and it looks like all of them were already in shooting range (British ships fired at both Germans ships. But later is stated 'By this time, Bismarck had found the range to Hood', so this is confusing too) and no battle map is provided. Time indications are not always provided, and how much event in one sentence are related to the one in preceding sentence and to the one in the following sentence is not always so clear (Maybe paragraphs subdivision should be improved).
This is why I asked for elucidation. (I've not stated all the article is horribly bad. Just that something may be improved). Instead of just reverting completely (with a touch of irony), please help improve the article. --5.170.13.173 (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The preceding sentence states which ship Prinz Eugen was shooting at - again, if there are problems with clarity, it's not the article's fault. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the article says about many events, as I've written one can not be sure that the second sentence is talking about the same shooting of the first one.
The article was perfectly clear as it was - if readers cannot be bothered to follow a simple narrative, that's not a fault of the article, but of the reader. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I don't know much about Flickr, but I see it says "All rights reserved" at the bottom - I'd assume that means we can't use it? It is a nice picture though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Believe Flickr users can be asked for permission, despite any 'all rights' notice, and this photo (which obviously he didn't take) is old enough to be outta copyright. I thought perhaps you were experienced in obtaining permissions. (I'm not.)
If you go to the person's Flickr member page — https://www.flickr.com/photos/69559277@N04 — and click on "More," one of the choices is "send Flickrmail." (But you might have to be a Flickr member to do that.)
I've traded a few comments with this guy, an Aussie named Steve Givens, on specific pictures, and he's always been friendly. In his profile, he describes himself as a "retired Navy photographer with an interest in old images and the restoration of them." Sounds like you (or Adam) might have something in common with him. Sca (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never tried uploading anything from Flickr - I usually just dig through old journals and history.navy.mil for usable images. I'll have to give that a try tonight - unfortunately the filters here at work block access to Flickr (who knows why) and I'd rather not try to do it on my phone.
Certainly Adam would with regard to the restoration work. Hopefully he'd be willing to license the image for us to use. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh hey! That's from Von der Tann's 1909 visit if Sao Paulo is in the background. Let me know if you need any help, I took the Flickr email route for File:USS TexasSan Jacinto Park in Fog.jpg. If they're uncomfortable with the idea, they can freely license a smaller version of the photo for Commons while retaining copyright over the larger version (eg Bundesarchiv 2010 Commons mass upload). Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Bolzano you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Novara (1913) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Lissa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I've actually been thinking about it - I'm of course no longer in grad school, which was the reason I retired in the first place - I guess I was slow to adjust, given that I've been done for going on 4 years now ;) I'll put up a nomination either tonight or tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Thanks for your edits to my (the) B-Dienst article. They are much appreciated. Even though it is not completed, I'm glad somebody is doing some copy editing on it. I think another month or two should finish off the offensive and defensive parts, which have taken about 2 years squirrel out the information needed for it. I'll be glad when v1.0 is complete. I've got this other article on hand, which is almost finished as well. It is this it: German Naval Intelligence Service. It needs work to fix the ref system, which is half and half of the two different referencing styles, and copy-editing. I also need to expand some references. Mostly copyediting. Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks. Scope creep (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Us not knowing who drew the image in 2016 is not the same thing as it having been published anonymously. I do recall seeing at least one edition of Brassey's that did credit an illustrator. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
While you may already know of the existence of this image, there is always the possiblilty that you might not or could otherwise make better use of it than I.
Hello, Parsecboy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Four years ago ...
majestic battleships
... you were recipient no. 254 of Precious, a prize of QAI!
Hello, Parsecboy. You have new messages at Talk:SMS Prinz Eugen (1877)/GA1. Message added 00:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2016 – September 2017
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you work a lot in naval history, I was wondering if you had much knowledge or desire to develop Roman navy articles? I do most of my work around roman military history, and was wondering if you would like to help. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I generally keep to the steam era - I'd probably be a bit out of my depth to go that far back. The bigger problem is one of sources - I'd probably only realistically be able to contribute what can be found through Google Books. It does sound interesting, though, so if there's a specific article you have in mind, I might be able to help out, given those constraints. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Not trying to pick a fight, as you are a very active editor, while I only dip in once in a while, but wanted to know if how much detail in the rest of the article to summarize is just a matter of taste, or are there written guidelines that I have violated? I really want to know so that I don't waste my time in the future. Busaccsb (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
To some extent, it is a matter of taste, but in general, the major battles a ship participated in should be mentioned in the lead section, and especially enemy ships the topic sank (as in the case with Wichita and Chiyoda). Some can be rather lengthy (see for instance HMS Hood, and others a good deal shorter (eg: SMS Wörth), some of which is a function of how famous a given ship is. As for Wichita, there's some room for debate on, say, specifically mentioning the 1929 Cruiser Act in the lead, but engaging a battleship off Casablanca is pretty significant (particularly for non-expert readers), as are the two battles ship took part in during her deployment to the Pacific theater.
Thanks. I see that you are an administrator, so let me ask another question that has come up for me lately. Seems like I used to see a lot of pages with metric conversions of gun caliber to the mm, esp. 8 in. to 203mm, but lately I see more and more with less precision (which of course may have been fake precision anyway). Has there been a change in the convert tool? A final question. When I have questions like this, where should I be asking them? Thanks. Busaccsb (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It's probably a problem in how the convert template is entered. If you just put {{convert|8|in}}, the template tells you that 8 inches is 200mm, which is obviously wrong. If you put {{convert|8|in|0}}, it gives you the correct output of 203mm. I think it's less of an issue with metric to imperial though - {{convert|203|mm}} produces 8 inches with no problem.
As for questions, it might depend on what question you have. If it's something specific to a ship-related topic, you might try WP:SHIPS. If it's something like the convert template, you might ask someone who's been around and might know (I certainly don't have a problem being that resource for you), or you might try posting at Template talk:Convert - I've had to do things like that in the past and there are usually a few people who watch those templates and can answer questions (like here, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Metric equivalents on gun calibers
Thanks for your quick response. On the Baltimore-class cruiser page, the convert function had "sing=on" rather than "0"; I changed these to "0" and got the correct 203 and 152mm for the 8" and 6" calibers. So I should feel free to fix this when I encounter it?Busaccsb (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, go right ahead. Sometimes you'll have to play with the template to see what the right parameter is to get the proper level of rounding. There's a chart [[15]] that explains how it works. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of nine Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
