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.
Nate, I've just started scheduling TFAs (and loving it). I prefer to schedule as many with anniversaries as I can; I think that's one way to demystify the process. Before the end of the year, I'm going to go on a massive hunt for date-relevant articles ... but for the moment, all I've got for Nov 17 is this one. It's a really interesting article, and it would be great to get another British ship into November. Do you know if anyone has worked on this since the failed TFAR two years ago? - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I know Jason did a fair bit of work on the description section, but I think that's about it. The section on WWI needs quite a bit of work - I'm in the middle of bringing SMS Kaiser Friedrich III up to snuff, but after that I can shift gears and at least get to the WWI bits. I know Jason is working on the Africa de-stub-athon, so I don't know that he'll really want to take the time to do much more on Royal Oak.
Great. I've got some TFA scheduling to do today and the TFA bots are cranky; I have to at least put an article title up in each TFA slot. I'll use Royal Oak for the 17th, but I'm not pressuring you to get it done, this is just my best wild guess at the moment for what will wind up there so that I can move on and schedule other days. If it looks like Royal Oak won't make it, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good - I have another three pages or so to translate for Kaiser Friedrich III. Hopefully that'll be finished by early next week, and then I can get to work on Royal Oak. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I had time to do about half of it, I hope this helps. I'm giving a somewhat literal translation to make it easier to catch my numerous mistakes:
The squadron's ships were Kaiser Friedrich III (flagship), Kaiser Wilhelm der Große, Weisenburg, Wörth (flagship of the 2. Admiral until December), Braunschweig (flagship of the 2. Admiral starting in December), and Elsaß (attached to the formation beginning in May 1905). Nothing special happened during the autumn maneuvers, apart from a wintertime exercise by the combined fleet in the eastern part of the Baltic. There is also nothing special to report from the first quarter of 1905. After gaining Elsaß and the modernized warship Brandenburg and losing Kaiser Wilhelm der Große (to I Squadron), II Squadron remained at its previous strength of six ships. From 12 July to 9 August the fleet's usual grand summer tour took place, which Kaiser Friedrich III participated in during 20-24 July at Göteburg (Gothenburg, at that time), and at Stockholm during 2-7 August. The autumn maneuvers of the active battlefleet then followed. Yet another (if only slight) alteration in the organisation of the fleet affected Kaiser Friedrich III once again: she lost her position as squadron flagship to the new warship Preußen, moved to I Squadron, and took over the position of flagship of the 2. Admiral. This position had been re-created on 1 October and was staffed by KzS und Kommodore Pohl; sein Asto wurde KL Krah (Waldemar). The rest of the year brought I Squadron, with its flagship Wittelsbach, an even larger exercise in the Baltic. In 1906, the usual routine resumed. In the summer there was a larger tour in Norwegian waters. Kaiser Friedrich III was anchored 20-26 July at Molde and from 27 July to 2 August at Bergen. The autumn maneuvers of the active battlefleet were comparatively short, 7-15 September. In a previous fleet engagement, the artillery staff (under artillery officer KL Karl Heine) had been able to achieve for a second time the Kaiser-Schießpreis (Kaiser's shooting prize).
The subsequent autumn change in duties brought a new assignment to [the ship]. In a reshuffling of the order of the fleet, the warship lost its identity as flagship of the 2. Admiral of I Squadron. Since the new chief of fleet, Admiral Prince Heinrich von Preußen, was raising his flag on the new warship Deutschland, this freed up the previous fleet flagship, Kaiser Wilhelm II. After that, the 2. Admiral (???) Rollman. Kaiser Friedrich III remained however in I Squadron. The rest of the year proceeded uneventfully, apart from a December sortie into the North Sea. The same was true for the first half of 1907. The spring exercises (8 May - 7 June) and the summer exercises (12 July - 10 August) in the North and Baltic seas went without incident for the warship, as did the big autumn maneuvers (26 August - 14 September). Immediately afterwards, Kaiser Friedrich III entered the K. W. Kiel [Kiel shipyard, I think] and was readied for decommissioning. On 30 September 1907 came the end of a Front career of almost 10 years. The sister ship Kaiser Barbarossa took her place.
The year 1908 and the beginning of 1909 saw extensive modernizations to warships, as has already been reported. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Nate, now that I'm looking at the schedule through the end of November I realize we have too many MilHist and too many ship articles, so I'm pushing this one off till its Jan 15 anniversary. Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good - thanks for the translating work above, by the way. I see you have SMS Lützow scheduled for the 29th - I might push off Royal Oak and go through HRS for that first. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure it's fine, it was just written before I had access to HRS, so I'm sure there are some details that could be added. Granted, the ship was in service for only a couple of months, so there likely isn't all that much. There's only about a page to translate, so there won't be much. Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm using the phrase "one of the most consequential battles of the war" to describe the Battle of Jutland. My understanding is that, since Germany couldn't send their fleet out, they had permanent supply problems, and the only way to compete was by sinking merchant and warships with U-Boats, with significant consequences. Would you say that Battle of Jutland supports the "consequential" description, or am I pushing it too far? - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you could make a case that it was pretty consequential - I actually wrote a paper on Jutland in a counterfactual history class I took in grad school to see what might have happened if the results had favored the Germans in a bit more lopsided way. The line in our article that most directly supports the argument is this one: "In this view, the most important consequence of Jutland was the decision of the Germans to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare." Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait ... I'm being dumb (again). All I need is something that indicates the significance, and no one will object to calling it "the largest naval battle of the war". Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It's certainly a skill that's developed over time. One of my older FAs (SMS Lützow, written back in 2009) is scheduled for the main page at the end of the month, and I've had to go back through it quite a bit, and it probably needs more work. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Those are apples and oranges - the equivalent would be a cancelled plane type and a cancelled ship class, and there is an article for the Lexington-class battlecruisers. But there's no point to creating permanent stubs that basically duplicate content from the class article. There are exceptions to this rule of thumb (Japanese battleship Tosa and German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin come to mind) when the ships had something notable happen to them, but for most unfinished ships, it's not the case. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Parsecboy.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Hello, Parsecboy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Parsecboy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey I found a whole bunch of ships in the class that were never built, do you think the nonbuilt ones should be AFD'ed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iazyges (talk • contribs)
I saw you haven't worked on this so in an effort to help I went through the issues that were marked and fixed them. I hope I haven't over stepped anything. The only thing that I changed from the GA list was that I added "State of" to Mississippi, this matches a lot of the other battleships and I felt it helped with continuity. I also added a couple of refs to clarify the turret explosions.Pennsy22 (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated, especially the material from those newspaper articles - I haven't had time over the past day or so to take care of the review. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Checkout the changes to the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) that an IP's been making. Most are unobjectionable and fairly trivial, but the main thing is that he's changed all the dates from DMY to MDY. I don't want to roll them all back, but I have no desire to manually change them back. What do you think the best thing to do is?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Took me a bit to find the time to go fix it, but I've gone through and reverted the date changes - think I got them all, but no guarantee. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm actually a coordinator at the MILHIST project (and an administrator). I saw your report last night, but haven't have time to look at it in depth. Certainly, biased editing is a problem on Wikipedia. At this point, it's probably best to let the discussions at MILHIST and the article talk page run their course - the more eyes you have on the situation, the better. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
in the article Battle of Jutland there is this sentence to be read:
Beatty's battlecruisers did not score any hits on the Germans in this phase until 17:45, but they had rapidly received five more before he opened the range.
What does it mean open the range? Was it not meant: ...before he opened fire?
That refers to when Beatty turned his ships away slightly to increase the distance between his ships and the Germans (thus increasing or opening up the range between the two groups). The article could probably use a once-over for phrases like that that aren't immediately obvious for what they mean, or are overly jargon-y. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Now it seems obvious :)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Raids of July 24th 1941
Hi Parsecboy hope all ok. A funny thing re the Brest raids on the 24th of July 1941. They appear to have been far more complex than we have documented. Sharnhorst moved just before the operation, to La Pallice. She was attacked by Halifaxes and medium types after a swift reorganisation of the operation. Gneiseau was still at Brest and was attacked by the 3 B-17s as well as other types. The operation was complex and deserves an article actually. Here is the story [[1]] Irondome (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, all looks fine to me - wouldn't be the first time Garzke & Dulin flubbed a minor detail. Hope you're enjoying the new year. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Military Historian of the Year
The WikiProject Barnstar
For "...[making] several significant contributions to Austria-Hungary military history" and "[having] numerous GAs to credit this year, and also A-Class and featured content", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 7 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Velites, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Widefox; talk23:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Italian cruiser Trento 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) 08:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I do have casualty figures for the sinking of Trento. The ship carried a complement of 51 officers and 1,100 NCOs and men when she was sunk; 602 men were rescued (22 officers, almost all wounded; 100 NCOs, 31 of whom wounded; 480 ratings, 149 of whom wounded) and 549 went down with the ship, including her commanding officer, Captain Stanislao Esposito. Source: "La Marina italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale - Volume II: La guerra nel Mediterraneo - Le azioni navali - Tomo 2°: dall'1 aprile 1941 all'8 settembre 1943", by Giuseppe Fioravanzo, Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare, page 312. 21 of the 602 survivors later died of their wounds.--Olonia (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the details - any idea why her crew was so much larger than the peacetime crew?
Do not know the reason, I just noticed that pretty much every kind of Italian warship - cruisers, destroyers, torpedo boat -, whenever I can find numbers about the casualties and survivors in their sinking, seemed to carry a significantly larger complement than the one specified in their 'characteristics'. Heavy cruiser with a supposed crew of 700-800 actually carried 1,000-1,100 men, light cruisers with a theorical crew of 500 actually had 600-700 men aboard, destroyers with a theorical crew of 180-200 actually carried 220-250 men, and so on.
Trieste: I do have figures, but the source is not official. This page, that mentions the book "La Maddalena 1943, la piazzaforte di latta" by S. Sanna, mentions that according to earlier despatches the casualties were 2 officers killed and 2 missing, 6 NCOs wounded and 6 missing, 67 ratings killed or missing and 67 wounded. The same (only difference the number of wounded ratings, 69 instead of 67) in this other page. This memorial in La Spezia lists the names of 80 men killed on Trieste.--Olonia (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think any of those would qualify as reliable sources. If we had more details about the La Maddalena 1943 book, like a specific page number, we could obviously use that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I found another web page describing the sinking of Trieste, among its sources the La Maddalena 1943 book is given, with reference to page 11. There is stated that the final toll was 66 men killed or missing (3 officers, 8 NCOs and 55 ratings) and 66 wounded (8 NCOs and 58 ratings).--Olonia (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Any particular reason why you chose to move it again? There are in fact two ships of the same name and the pennant number is a common discriminator. WCMemail18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are several. It's obviously the primary topic for the ship name (see for instance 8,400 page views vs. 338 views in the last month), which means it should occupy the un-disambiguated spot. Also, the un-disambiguated location redirected to the article, so functionally, it's identical. A dab page is not required when there are only two items. Lastly, the original move should have been discussed in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Parsecboy. I've written a proposed expansion for the article Altmark incident. It is to be seen in my sandbox. Can you read it end correct my grammatical errors? My English is not the best unfortunately. Some citations will be added and a few minor changes will be also made tomorrow. Please write your opinion about the article. Thanks. --Andreas (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trento-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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Reply
1. I do believe I've demonstrated quite an ability to work with other editors, and you can see that if you bother to check the drafts on the same talk page you posted. I want to do collaboration, but most when they find out about me just pull out the "banned card" and suddenly all my contributions for which I worked hours to find the sources and write them are "disruptive".
2. I've been carefully following Wiki policies in my editing: NPOV, reliable sources, all that. Wiki policies also state that contributions from banned users, when constructive, do not need to be removed. You can do it, but you don't have to. So...What exactly is the problem? 86.123.126.168 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't get it, do you? Let me be clear: you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. At all. Under any circimstances. It doesn't matter at all whether you are being constructive or not. You were banned by the community. The fact that you are continuing to edit while you have been banned is prima facie evidence that you cannot abide by Wikipedia policies. As Sturmvogel, Ed, and I tried to tell you some time ago, if you want the ban to be lifted, you need to wait 6 months without editing at all, and then ask for your ban to be reconsidered. The clock can't start while you are still evading the ban, and frankly, the fact that you have been evading your ban all this time does not help your chances of being un-banned.
Here's the long and the short of it. At some point, I or another admin will get tired of watching you evade the ban, and we'll just lock the articles you edit to prevent you from touching them. The choice is ultimately up to you. Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I still don't get some things. I respect such policies like NPOV and reliable sources, why me breaking this one policy trumps respecting all the others? If I recall correctly, it said pretty clear that positive edits by banned users can be allowed to stay, I really do not understand the sense of urgency you have to revert all I do, it's not vandalism, it's not malicious, it's not hurting anyone. The ban is said to be enforced to protect Wikipedia, and not meant for punishment, yet that is exactly what is being done to me, because I'm not doing any harm yet I'm still banned. Finally, tell me honestly, does it have a point at this point to stop editing? I first considered it, until some Mister Silver Barnstar popped out of nowhere and labelled my account as a sock of some user called Iaaasi, or something like that, whom I swear to God I am not. So would it even have a point due to this? My word against Mister Silver Barnstar, can you understand the impossibility of the position I am in? If that label calling me a sock of that user would be gone, I swear I would stop editing, I would do anything to be legally allowed to come back. But as long as that label is there, I think there is no hope for me... 86.123.126.168 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris - everything looks good to me. I'll have a look at the article in the next day or two to make sure not too much dust has gathered on it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Idaho (BB-42) 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) 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Benbow (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) 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
ARA General Belgrano
I've made a move request to put ARA Belgrano at ARA Belgrano (C-4). You reversed the move on the basis of no discussion but having finally got round to looking there was a discussion in October 2016 and as you were the only person to object (some time later) it seemed to be uncontroversial. WCMemail14:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
PS not sure what I did but I must have accidentally hit the wrong button on my tablet whilst editing and initiated the move myself. WCMemail14:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you reverse the move. If the undisambiguated name redirects to the article, then there is no point in adding disambiguation. There are only two ships with that name, and this one is obviously the primary topic. Adding hull numbers solely for consistency is not supported by WP:NC-SHIPS. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Ed and I were talking about trying to whip the article into shape for the March Madness contest and then send it forward to FAC as a co-nom. I don't think that very much work needs to be done so I'm hoping that you'll have time to help with the polishing. BTW, we'll probably need to dump the Scarpaci material as SPS, even though he's done a updated version with a new title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
<Montgomery Burns voice>Excellent!</voice> Ed's already started, but I'll let the two of you guys work your magic before I jump in. Unless either of y'all want me to handle anything in particular. I'm cool, either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Lussin 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, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Avnillah, Avnillâh or Avni Illah?
Hi. Thanks for creating an article on this Ottoman warship, a very interesting ship. One thing I'm thinking about in this regards is, is the ship's name spelled Avnillah or Avnillâh? A look at Google Books seem to indicate that Turkish language sources use Avnillâh. What do you think? Manxruler (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There are tons of different transliterations for the names of these ships - the article I just wrote, Mukaddeme-i Hayir has variants that include "Mukaddeme-i Haϊr", "Mukhadem "Khair", "Mukaddami Khair", and "Mukaddeme-i Khayir". I just used the spelling in Langensiepen's & Güleryüz's book, since it's the primary source for the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. I suppose that the Ottomans would have used their own alphabet when writing the ship's name, making even the name used in modern Turkish sources (Avnillâh) a transliteration. I think the thing to do then, is to create redirects for the other possible transliterations of the name. Maybe I'll have time later today. Manxruler (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Good idea - I can take care of that shortly. The other articles will need the same treatment, though most of the articles haven't been created yet, let alone redirects for them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Do any of the sources at your disposal say anything about why the Khedivate of Egypt transferred several ships to the Ottoman Navy in the late 1860s? Manxruler (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't thought to look for that - Langensiepen & Güleryüz state "Egypt's ambitions for independence continued to trouble the Sublime Porte in the 1860s. The new Vali, Ismail Paşa, was presented with a powerful bargaining chip in the form of the Suez Canal, but made a major strategic mistake in omitting to invite the Sultan to the opening ceremony. The Sultan was stirred to exert his authority and a Ferman of 5 June 1867 insisted that Egypt hand over the ironclads building in France and Austria and reduce its army to 30,000. Negotiations dragged on, and it was not until 29 August 1869 that the warships were formally handed over to the Ottoman navy." Parsecboy (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Very interesting, I did suspect some sort of power struggle. I think something explaining this should be added to the articles. Manxruler (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Why not expand the Ottoman ironclad Asar-i Şevket article, for example, with this piece of information on the Ottoman-Egyptian power struggle prior to the latter's handing over of the ships? Sorry for intruding like this, but I would've done it myself if I knew how to cite this appropriately (page number, etc). Cheers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If original documentary sources are not acceptable then many of the Wikipedia articles are forced to be sourced by acceptable sources that can contain erroneous information, uninformed opinions, etc. I was under the impression that the Wikipedia effort was one that wished to distill true fact by soliciting a myriad of inputs. Apparently I was mistaken.Федоров (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources, and there are rather robust methods to evaluate sources at least so far as reviewed articles are concerned. What we cannot accept is original research.
In general, if there is something notable about a topic, it will have been published in reliable, secondary sources. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I assumed that citing an official document from the U.S. Navy Historical Center archives in Washington, D.C. would have been a reliable source. Is this not good enough?Федоров (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, primary sources should generally be avoided. And you did not cite anything from the USNHC, you cited "information from extended Brumby family and Russia's Central Navy Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia". Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin - fluffed edit: references
Mmm, yes, cheers for reverting, I need to try again! But - can you give me some detail on your point about the references? (It didn't look to me as if I was putting anything at risk and I'm still unclear.)
SquisherDa (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem was, the citation to Groener also covers the line about the Soviets refloating the ship in March 1946. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the reference sources available to me - nor of course your general grasp of context to help with gaps. Can you clarify the ship's later history for me?
The first and simplest point is about the Soviet records. The article (current version) says "The first ship to be sunk, Lützow, was sunk off Swinemunde on 22 July 1947. On 14 August Graf Zeppelin was towed into the harbor" . . that means the same harbor, right? - Swinemunde?
Query with a bit more substance to it . . The ship was scheduled as Category C, to be destroyed or sunk in deep water by 15 August 1946. Our existing text says "Instead, the Soviets decided to salvage the damaged ship and it was refloated in March 1946." That instead looks wrong to me. They refloated the wreck, towed it to deep water, and sank it as a weapons-research target. So, ultimately though rather late, they complied with the scheduling. Is there any evidence that they ever intended to salvage the ship instead? (which of course would have been a breach).
I believe there was some consideration to finishing the ship for testing purposes - the Soviets were thinking of using it as a testbed for the development of their own carriers. I think the Kuzin & Litinksii article discusses it - I'll have to look later. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds pretty interesting. The key for me is whether the Soviets really considered bringing the wreck back to life or whether it's just that Western analysts / historians considered it possible / likely. The title of the source you mention suggests the authors are not of Western outlook!! - so anything much said there will give a clear answer.
While Western ideas were the only information available, they were directly on the article's agenda. Now the Polish Navy has done its thing, the Western speculation becomes an example / case-study in East-West relations post-war. That source sounds very interesting in that context.
Hi, I think that the article "Asar-i Şevket-class ironclad" qualifies as "start", so not sure why you downgraded it to "stub" even if you're still working on it. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Please provide additional information, such as the name of the author/photographer and their lifetime, so that potential re-users in countries not following the rule of the shorter term can determine when any remaining copyright in this image expires for them.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have time, could you take a look here? I and other user have been discussing back and forth with no progress, somebody else's opinion would be a great help.--Olonia (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Dapi and I don't exactly get along, for much the same reason you're having trouble with him now, so I don't think it would be productive if I got involved. I will say a couple of things here, though - first, he's wrong here, Uboat.net is a reliable source (per discussions like this and elsewhere). Second, it seems obvious that if there are records of vessels in service after they were claimed to have been sunk, Wanklyn was wrong and it should be made clear that he was wrong (not "left to readers to decide" - we aren't cable news).
Probably your best bet would be to post at WT:MILHIST to get other editors involved, and just comment on the facts of the situation (i.e., the article presents it as though Wanklyn sank Settembrini when he did not, etc.) Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Meteor (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) 19:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes ;) - I try to fill a red link a day, and call that productive, but had a FA and three GAs also this year, and more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly another way to measure it! And an FA in four months is nothing to sneeze at - that's as many as I've had (unless you count SMS Schwaben, but that FAC ran from November to the beginning of January, so I'd put it in the 2016 column). Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 11 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Iclaliye 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Osmaniye 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Aziziye 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Orhaniye 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Mahmudiye 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ottoman ironclad Hamidiye 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, in part because I have no way to evaluate Russian sources. What I can tell you is it's covered in Polmar's Cold War Submarines, so it might well be a notable project. Not all cancelled projects ought to be deleted - those that are covered in reliable sources usually merit articles. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osmaniye-class ironclad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breastwork. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It looks like it was just a short thing, so protection probably isn't necessary - if the trolls come back, let me know and I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Feth-i Bülend-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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This National Barnstar of Merit for the state of Germany is awarded to Parsecboy for his extensive and far reaching work in the department of German naval history, a topic that is sadly underrated. Cheers, and God's speed. Vami_IV✠11:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Avnillah-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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently doing a GA review of the Eugene Cernan article and I get a copyvio warning using the tools. I think it's because there's a large quote in the text but since I'm new to the review thing, I am unsure what to do. I was wondering if you could give me some guidance. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like it's the long quote that's causing the problem. There are a few snippets of text that are identical, but those are phrases like the specific degree titles he earned and such. I wouldn't be worried about a copyvio, I'd probably just note the long quote causing the warning in Earwig's tool and that it's ok. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Parsecboy, thank you for your recent change to the current Haitian gunboat Crête-à-Pierrot. I was just wondering if you could possibly take a look at some other Haitian ships that may need renaming; it would tremendously be appreciated . It's a relatively short list and have compiled them to the following (which are all redirects):
Hi, Savvyjack - most of those (if not all) are probably better at their current location, since their careers were longer and/or more notable under their original names. For example, the first vessel spent 16 years as Umbria and less than a year as Consul Gostrück. On a somewhat unrelated note, you might be interested to know I wrote the article on Umbria/Consul Gostrück. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey!
Columbidae is under review from quite a while now. ProgrammingGeek was on a wikibreak until september; however, he commented on the review in starting june, which I was unaware of (apparently, it was not on my watchlist ). I amended the issues pointed out by him, but it looks like his wikibreak might have resumed. I worked on it a lot to get it to striking range of GA, and I really need this review. So, could you review it instead? It would be really helpful. Thanks a bunch. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Normally, I'd be happy to help, but I'll actually be going on a trip myself the morning after next, and I don't know that I'd have time to complete the review in that time. You might post a request at the GAN talk page like I did here - you might find someone able to take on the review. You could also ask at the Birds Wikiproject, though I have no idea how many active editors there are there. If you haven't by next the middle of next week, I can take a look then. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your advice. Yeah, I will do the same; let me ask some other user to review instead. Also, thank you again for your advice. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Good luck - I just realized I had left out a bit above - I meant to say "If you haven't found anyone to review it by the middle of next week..." Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No, If you haven't by next the middle of next week, I can take a look then, I read that, and understood that you would review it by the middle of the next week, if I could not get anybody to reivew it, so you did not leave out anything. You are really really kind. . Also, you think you could review the other one Amami rabbit? It is short and is not reviewed yet. I took care of most things. Even if you could not complete it by when you depart, could you complete it by 28th? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Basilisk (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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Blitz (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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Jasmund (1864) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Comet (1860) 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 Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Drache (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 Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 10 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Attacks by another editor
Morning,
Was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page history please. I'm currently being attacked by another editor. I've given him warnings, but I need an uninvolved admin to take a look to see if I should take this to another level. Thanks Llammakey (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In my opinion, the attacks are blockable, but only in in isolation. There's a bit more to the story. First, have you ever read WP:DTTR? That pisses people off right quick, especially when it's not like the edits in question were unobjectionablevandalism. Second, what's with the default reversion? You didn't explain why you were reverting. WP:REVERT: "In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea." WP:TWABUSE: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."
Given this, I'd trout you and ask that you at minimum leave an edit summary when reverting good-faith edits in the future. (And an apology from both sides + a dash of cold water wouldn't hurt either.) Best, Ed[talk][majestic titan]19:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that I made one bad revert. For that I apologize. It is vandalism to constantly undue MoS and guideline stuff because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Did not warrant the attacks, considering I was just following policy and guidelines. I will not take this further unless that attacks continue. I may also suggest that the other editor look into WP:OWN. As for templates, I will keep that in mind going forward. Llammakey (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware of WP:OWN. I happen to think WP guideline on spacing (in ref ammo) is stupid. I also think the guideline on ship naming is stupid. (Both have been ignored, it seems, on other pages, without any fuss, presumably because they've escaped notice of the self-appointed Guideline Policeman.) Both are contrary to common practise in all the sources I've seen. Both, by all appearances, are unique to WP, & so I tend not to default to them. As for "personal attacks", when you open with claims of "disruptive editing" & "vandalism" based on rv's you don't like, you may expect an annoyed response from me. Demands for "respectful treatment" following such posts are unlikely to garner any when you start from a position of not offering any & from an attitude that any disagreement is perforce vandalism. It appears there is a view only one possible interpretation of the guidelines is acceptable, & it can be, & will be, enforced by blocking anyone who disagrees with it. Needless to say, I take exception to that proposition. Neither was there just a single edit involved, since the reversion of the Campbell page was almost as high-handed, & was (notice) intended to place the naming in compliance with the guideline (along with other edits); it was immediately rv'd. Guess who by. Some people are never satisfied. Oh, and one last thing: the immediate resort to claims of "disruptive behavior" & "vandalism" violate another guideline--WP:AGF. Apparently, the guidelines are only meant to be adhered to by others. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 16:03 & 16:08 & 16:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The assumption of good faith is not applicable when reverts are because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's a not a good faith edit. That's prototypical vandalism and ·disruptive editing. Llammakey (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Llammakey, that doesn't mean that you should immediately jump to accuse a long-time editor of bad-faith editing and vandalism... there was absolutely no need for an escalation of that sort. Yes, policies and guidelines were on your side. But that doesn't give you carte blanche to kindle a conflict like you did. Next time, stand down and discuss why you're making the edits. If that doesn't work, try WT:MILHIST.
Trekphiler, all that said, you're not exactly blameless here. You lost your cool, something I've seen before from several editors but still doesn't justify the edits you made. Let's try to not repeat that. :-) I have my own distaste for several provisions in the manual of style, but we have it for many good reasons, and we don't exactly have the editor numbers to scrutinize every edit for MoS compliance.
Both: It's interactions like this that can lead to people leaving Wikipedia (and contribute to our community's toxic reputation). Let's all keep our cool and remember the ultimate mission, eh? Ed[talk][majestic titan]22:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Really ed? So I put a template on somebody's page and I should be abused? I deserved to be abused? That's what you're telling me here ed? That's a pretty disgusting statement. I should bring you up on admin review for that crap. Jesus, that's the kind of shit that makes me want to leave Wikipedia. Have a nice day ed. I hope I never speak to you again. You're a disgusting person. Llammakey (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Ed, you'r not wrong, I'm not blameless. There's a difference between not adhering to the MOS & vandalism, & there's a way to address the distinction that doesn't involve vandal warnings. I wouldn't characterize my response as "attacking" (incivil, yes; hostle, yes). What I'm seeing here amounts to somebody who saw a deviation from MOS & wants to block me for doing it. Excuse me if I disagree. And excuse me for thinking the MOS is absurd on these two issues. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura23:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Llammakey: In no way was I saying that you should have been abused, and I apologize for giving you that impression. I've been in a similar position, and no one deserves to be on the receiving end of invective language like Trek sent you. What I'm trying to convey is that this situation could have been defused before it started, and that you escalated it by reverting without edit summaries and with a warning template. But I think it's obvious that while you brought it up by a notch, it was subsequently and totally unjustifiably taken up about ten or twenty more notches by Trek. Again, I'm sorry for giving you a mistaken impression about my views on this.
@Trekphiler: Yes, and yes. But jfc, there's no time where it's necessary or even useful to leave messages like you did last week. Like I said to Llammakey: follow dispute resolution. Try talking it out (you did, although in a pretty hostile manner). If that doesn't work, bring it to a wider forum. Someone not following DTTR doesn't give you a license to tee off on them. Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Reverting of my edit of South Dakota-class battleships (1939)
When you reverted my edit of the above-named article, your note to me was, "(Actually the previous wording was correct - you're thinking "composed of")"
Just to set the record straight, I was actually thinking "comprised of", as in this copied passage from the dictionary.com definition of "comprise":
"Idiom
1. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of: The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores."
Nevertheless, I've been editing since about 1998, so I've leaned well how it works. I'm at the bottom of the editing ladder, so my edit is incorrect, and as such I'll leave the article as you have it. ETO Buff (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
"Comprised of" is generally deprecated in style guides. While it's fairly widely used in non-professional contexts, it's not really appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Delphin (1860) 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) 02:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Cyclop (1860) 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 Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit war?
I've been going back & forth with User:Andy Dingley over a minor thing at Stirling engine. I removed a second use of the full name, which was linked, thinking either was redundant, & both certainly was. Andy rv'd. I can just barely understand putting the name back in, but it's mentioned about six lines above, so I don't think it's needed; the link can't be. So I took out the link. Andy rv'd that, too. And when I rv'd that, he slapped me with an edit warring notice.... Suggestions? FYI, I've had User:Denniss insisting on "Nazi Germany" on the SdKfz 234 page, which I don't see as apt for a non-political page, & I'm at 2 rv's there, too... TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura19:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You missed out the part where you started insisting on mis-spelling the name. Also, if the name is so obvious that it needn't be linked at the start of the "History" section, why have it at all? I support having and linking it, but if it's worth re-stating at all (because this is a separate section, it's a highly relevant section as "History" and readers do sometimes read a single section alone) - then why not link it. And why keep re-adding the obviously wrong name? That is typical of your editing on every article I encounter you at: accuracy is secondary to your bruised ego, and you really don't have a fraction of the knowledge you think you do. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The mis-spelled and mixed-up "Mephistofele" was introduced here - by you.
When you renamed it here, you were dead against the "Fiat" label you've just re-introduced (but at least you got the orthography right then). Now I really don't care about this - I'm happy with Fiat Mephistopheles or Mephistopheles (car), as one is probably more common and one is more accurate. But Eldridge built and named it Mephistopheles, not Mefistofele, and this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Italian. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I contacted him. I didn't want to see him get blocked for standing up to your "perfection". Please try to assume good faith. - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not canvassing anybody. I came here looking for a neutral observer rather than continue dealing with you, since you showed no sign of being reasonable about it. As for the "spelling mistake", I've seen at least one magazine source that uses Mefistopheles, so you might want to get your facts straight; if they were wrong, so be it. As for "discussing"? I had no sense User:Denniss was going to be any more reasonable about it than you. Maybe I should have given him more credit. And "stalking"? No, that was having the page watchlisted & seeing you, yet again, deciding you know best. Which I also see you're now doing at the SdKfz 234 page, because you obviously think I can't be right about anything. If anybody's stalking anybody, it appears to be you, since you're the one paying such minute attention to my every edit. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura21:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about your first spelling today. The one you insisted on edit-warring into place. See it yet? You've been told often enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There are a couple of things I find concerning about this. First, this is the second time an edit-war related dispute involving Trekphiler has arrived on my talk page. Perhaps that's evidence that you (Trek) ought to be a little more careful with the revert button. Second, is Andy's haste in labeling an edit he disagreed with as vandalism, then warning Trek about edit-warring while participating in said edit-war. And frankly, Andy, reverting the edit instead of just fixing the misspelling is not helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I see repeatedly forcing an obvious mis-spelling into an article, when you're being warned not to and that it's an error, as vandalism. I don't care whether it's due to mischief, an inability to read or (as I believe here) the arrogance that an editor is always right, in the face of experienced editors telling them they're not. This isn't about the link (although BRD is an alien concept to Trekphiler), it's about the spelling. If you see this as me "disagreeing", or being "too hasty", then are you supporting this mis-spelling too? Doesn't matter how long or how carefully I look at it, it still stays wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's not vandalism. And in my experience, labeling obviously good-faith—if incorrect—edits as vandalism does not generally defuse a conflict. The better solution would have simply been to correct the misspelling, ideally without clicking the "undo" button to accomplish that.
I wonder if Trekphiler believes your insistence on repeating a link in two successive paragraphs, regardless of WP:OVERLINK and the fact that he, an "experienced editor telling [you] that [you're wrong]" to be "the arrogance that an editor is always right". Parsecboy (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently problematic with that revert - it might very well be wrong (I don't have the time or interest in figuring that out), and inserting it without a source in a paragraph that has a citation at the end does imply that the citation covers it (or at least later readers won't have an idea what the citation covers and what it doesn't). On the other hand, snide remarks aren't making you look better here, Andy. I suggest you disengage. Let's all find something more productive to do with our time. Parsecboy (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
"it might very well be wrong "
Do your basic fact checking before you describe other editors as "snide". Of course it's not wrong. But Trekphiler doesn't have the first clue about, or interest in, accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the bit about equating the 45mm plate with 80mm of vertical armor. In any event, the burden of proof remains on the individual adding the material. And none of this is exactly relevant to the disagreement you and Trekphiler had on the Stirling engine article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Well for that you need to refer to the (well-known) German technical report on the T-34, whose name I'm not even going to try spelling. Adding a {{cn}} would have been appropriate. But this is a well-known comparison, appearing in any reasonable history of T-34s or Panthers, and it does not warrant immediate reversion with a snark "uncited, masquerading behind another source, & (AFAIK) incorrect" of which 2/3rd is unreasonable. And this is far from an unusual response. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Then take the issue to ANI and try to get him sanctioned in some way for uncollaborative editing if you feel it'd that much of a problem, but going around getting in edit-wars with him is not the way to go. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Andy, you want to call it snarky? It's still masquerading behind a source that probably doesn't say it. And it is incorrect, I just can't say by how much from memory: does the 60deg plate give a 1.5:1 edge, 2:1, or 3:1? None of those add up to 80mm. I'm not inclined to look it up when the person making the edit wouldn't be bothered to. And BTW, I notice you insisted on moving the Mefistofele page to your preferred spelling. You just can't stand not getting your preferred spelling, can you? Everything else must, perforce, be "a mistake". As to whether I'm too quick to rv, maybe I am sometimes. In this instance, I'm hardly the only one to blame. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura10:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Find a single credible source for your name of "Mephistofele", with the mixture of "ph" and "f". That's not a matter of opinion, it's just an inability to spell.
As to the armour thickness, then it's school trigonometry to calculate the equivalent vertical thickness, so most of us have no problem. . The ballistic subtleties (making it either more or less effective) depend on the ammunition used. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"As to the armour thickness" You were the one saying you doubted its incorrectness, funny boy, not me. I guess you can't stand that somebody else actually understands the issue. Or you refused to believe I could understand it, which I find insulting, but unsurprising. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
And now he's rv'g even hidden comments, such as here. Evidently, nothing I add meets his "exacting" standards. It's also beginning to feel like he's tracking every edit I make to see if he approves of it. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura22:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You are shoving personal subjective OR into an article body, rather than on a talk: page, and implying that wrapping it in HTML comments makes this OK. It does not. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Y'know what, screw you. You put in false & misleading information, hiding behind a cite that doesn't support the claim you were making out it did. Add to that your obvious misunderstanding of the thrust of the 1957 White Paper, you really have me wondering if you're qualified to judge the issue. And since you are the sole person complaining, & since you are threatening blocking based on changes you started, I can only conclude this is a calculated effort to get me blocked because you disapprove of my very presence. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"Stop lying"? Stop threatening me. Take a look at this and this. The first is untrue, the second is misleading, & both are being presented as if the attached source is where they came from. It's not. Who's lying about whom? And you are evidently stalking. You want to go to ANI, buster, bring it on. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura00:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
"with your confusion that Bomarc was a ballistic missile" Are you really, really that ignorant of the issue? I never once called the BOMARC a ballistic missile.
"The issue in 1957 was the view that anti-aircraft missiles, like Bomarc, had replaced manned interceptors" Nonsense. The issue in 1957 was that ICBMs were replacing bombers, making manned fighters (perforce) less necessary, which, if you look at what I actually wrote, was what I said. You chose to rv that. (Amazingly, you failed to call it vandalism this time.) You then said SAMs were replacing fighters. They weren't, & nothing I have ever read anywhere suggest anybody thought they would. If they did, pray tell, why were so many countries, including Canada, spending so much money developing manned interceptors? BOMARC was a variety of "last ditch defence" (which explains the nuke). Your evident lack of real understanding of this issue makes me wonder if you should just stay away from it entirely. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura00:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You are talking crap, because, as always, you know far less about any topic than you think.
Andy, one wonders why you're reverting Trek on this new article in the first place. You haven't edited the article (apart from a vandalism revert a year ago where you reverted said vandal elsewhere first) in the last 6 years, which suggests the article is not on your watchlist. I suggested before, but now I'm telling you: disengage. If I continue to see you WP:HOUNDing Trek, this will be taken to ANI. Find something better to do with your time. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
As something of a coda, Andy's done this...& my own (admittedly bad) past behavior appears to be the main focus, rather than Andy's baseless claim. I hesitate to involve you...but if you do feel like commenting, it'd be welcome, all considered. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura08:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, an IP editor has posted a link to an article creator’s LinkedIn profile to my Talk page. I removed it, but since it’s PII, I assume it’s appropriate to have it rev-deleted it as well. Would you mind doing it? The diffs is question are: original message & my removal. I would appreciate it (if you think it's necessary). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel the pain of feeling like you're the only editor working on a massive project. Have a burger on me. Vami_IV✠08:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Vami - if you can tackle the lists, we might just finish Phase 1, though I'm not particularly looking forward to dealing with all those British battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, me neither, but someone's gotta do it. I'll be hitting the mattress with OMT again within a few days, tackling my main project (Württemberg). Just hang in there, you're doing great! –Vami_IV✠12:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I ran across the article, and I was wondering if you were planning on taking it to GAN. You haven't edited it in a while, but it looks close to being/is already ready for GAN. -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum06:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I need to translate the chapter on the ship from Bilzer - see the SMS Lussin article for example.
On a side note, I see you're working on the German aviso list. You're missing a number of articles from what you have currently - it should include the ships as seen here (and that's incomplete as it is - Preussischer Adler and Barbarossa are missing, off the top of my head) Parsecboy (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll work on that; do you have any good books that will cover many of them/some of them in detail? I've made it thus far using only google books, but I can't find a lot of stuff on some of them online. -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
For the German ships? Hildebrand et. al. is indispensible - you won't get far at all without it. See for instance what I've been able to do with Blitz, for instance. Those are all on the docket for someday, but doing the translation takes time, and of course it's balanced with other priorities like keeping a steady stream of my battleships passing through ACR and FAC. As for things you can accomplish via Google Books, I don't think there's much left as far as German ships are concerned - I've just about done all that can be done that way, and any further progress is going to require specialized (and German) sources. If you're in the market for lower hanging fruit, you might consider reworking all of the DANFS copies like I've done with, for example, USS Idaho (BB-42). There are a ton of them out there that are little more than copy-pastes of DANFS, which is fine, copyright-wise, but isn't exactly going to win any quality awards. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Zara 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) 08:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Spalato 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) 10:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Sebenico 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, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Parsecboy. Please could you advise me? I have encountered an unexpected problem in editing at Battle for Caen, which was a major component of the invasion of Normandy in WW2. There was a "controversy" in that battle, in that things did not go at all according to the original plan, but after the war General Montgomery vociferously maintained the contrary, and claimed that the top American commanders had all completely misunderstood the plan. This controversy is widely acknowledged, and has been described in several of the reliable sources, so I have been attempting to add it to the article. However I have encountered some editors here – one a very experienced editor – who have gone to extraordinary lengths over several months to keep this info out of the article. Third opinions which do not support them have been ignored, and a recent DRN process ended inconclusively after they stone-walled it. Per my understanding of WP:NPOV, the article should represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." WP:NPOV also says that this principle cannot be superseded by editor consensus. Am I misinterpreting the NPOV policy? Please could you advise me on this? Wdford (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I've seen this conflict pop up at WT:MILHIST in the recent past, but I don't have time to look into it in detail at the moment - I'm about to head out the door on a weekend trip.
But yeah, if it's a significant viewpoint, it should definitely be included in the article - that's basically the fundamental point of the NPOV policy. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Despite WP:NPOV, they have now started to edit-war to remove my neutrality tag from the article. When you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the article and the talk page - I have collected a stack of supporting quotes in my sandbox at [2]. Enjoy your break. :) Wdford (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm tired of seeing OPM slowly dying as members vanish or wander off to other projects; what can I do to help? You've said on this page before that if I get the lists, we might be able to finish Phase I, but you also said that you weren't looking forward to tackling the British ships.
I'm not either, so let's do them together. Beyond a bunch of copies of Conway's, Burt 1988, and maybe Jane's, what books and/or resources should I find and use?
Addendum: I know that many members of the project have library pages and that the project page has a small references section; I wanted to get your take as an experienced member of this project. –Vami_IV✠10:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Most of the remaining British ships aren't in too bad a shape, apart from the class articles and the late dreadnoughts. Burt is a good starting place - that will cover the bare bones for service history stuff (and a lot of details on somewhat more mundane things - there are specialized books on Jutland, for instance, and Burt doesn't go into detail on stuff like that, but he's good for miscellaneous accidents and refits, peacetime activities, that sort of thing). Parkes' British Battleships is also very good (though I don't have it, and the last I checked it's fairly expensive).
For the pre-dreadnoughts, Burt is the go-to, though much of that is already done - in fact, most of them just need a bit of polishing before they're ready for GA (though they'd require a lot more to get above that). Jellicoe's memoirs are really useful for the first two years of the war (it's available online here) for any ships that served in the Grand Fleet.
For the WWII ships, Raven & Roberts' British Battleships of World War Two: The Development and Technical History of the Royal Navy's Battleship and Battlecruisers from 1911 to 1946 is good (though I don't have it - Sturmvogel did), Garzke & Dulin's Allied Battleships in World War II is also very useful. Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea 1939–1945 is also pretty indispensable for constructing the narrative.
There are also theater/campaign specific books that would be useful - most of Vincent O'Hara's books are good for ships that fought in the Mediterranean in WWII (though if I'm remembering correctly, Struggle for the Middle Sea is the most operations-focused), for instance. Julian Corbett's official history of naval operations in WWI is useful for details on ships that took part in the Dardanelles campaign and other things outside the North Sea (though of course, like Jellicoe, one has to be careful how one uses it, since it has an obvious POV). Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Following this discussion, I have decided for the moment to tackle the List of battleships... for the United States of America and for Russia/Soviet Union. –Vami_IV✠14:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good - the Russian/Soviet topic is basically all done apart from the list. I think there's one class article that's B-class but is more or less good for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Tiger (1887) 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 Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Greetings Parsec, are you still following the debate? You wrote
in Buckley's section (which seems scattered and hard to follow), earlier works are referenced only to dismantle their arguments, which is obviously not NPOV. On the other hand, we do need to be careful that the section doesn't turn into making Monty (or anybody else) a whipping boy. If the criticisms of Monty are dated (and I don't know if they are or are not - this is not my area of expertise), then that should be made clear, and that should have an effect on the weight placed on them.
which is quite a charge and I wrote it. I'm not sure what you mean with "obviously not NPOV". Did you mean that you thought I was using Buckley with an ulterior motive or that Buckley is questionable? The section ascribed to him is a synopsis of historical views, just like the Schlieffen Plan section, except not directly lifted from the writers' works. Did you mean that their works should be described from the sources, not through Buckley? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think "ulterior motive" is a bit strong, and that's not how I'd characterize it. My sense is just that you side with Buckley's interpretation (and again, this is not my area of expertise, his is probably fair - I don't put a lot of stock in the Monty bashing, myself - these things are rarely so simple). The thing I don't know is if there actually is anything that opposes his views that's been written less than 30 years ago. If his is the most recent, accepted scholarship on the subject, then it's fair to present him as such, but if there's still debate, the way it's written now is too lopsided in his direction.
One of the problems is the way the Analysis section is divided - there's a sub-section on Copp's book, one on Badsey's article, and then Buckley's. The framing is a big part of my perception that the earlier arguments are being presented only to be disproved. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
At first it was all part of the analysis but then I separated it because of the morass of controversy, scholarship and bogus scholarship on the Monty issue. I left a few paragraphs in the Analysis that seemed most pertinent to how it really happened and segregated the rest in the history of the history section. I could redo it using the sources rather than Buckley's version of them but I think that it would give undue weight to what looks to me (through sources post 1990) to be obsolete. I have about six other sources (French, Doherty, Place etc) I could list directly but I don't have Beevor, who I suspect is the most recent nay-saying author. The sub-division is provisional and I've been busy getting the 3rd Ypres articles ready for the centenaries so haven't done anything lately. At the moment I'm so bored with the constant bickering that I'm ready to wash my hands of the article and I'm busy at work for the first time in ages, which also takes up a lot of time. On the other hand I don't like leaving things unfinished but think that it would be better to finish the Battle section. Anyway, I'm always interested in your opinion so thanks for answering, your talk page comments make sense now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to help things along toward resolution, there are many sources post 1990's who maintain that Montgomery lied about the original Allied intentions for Caen. As I have recently stated on the talk page, these include Hixon (2003), Carafano (2008), D'Este (2015) and Hastings (2015). To this list we can add Hart (2007), who called Montgomery a liar at least twice in "Colossal Cracks" in 2007. The criticism is thus very far from being "obsolete". There is no need for "constant bickering" – we just need all editors to edit in compliance with WP:NPOV, and to allow reliable sources on BOTH sides of the controversy to be included in the article. If everyone else is busy with other things, I am happy to make a start on cleaning up the article? Wdford (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Did any of them write that he lied during the presentation of the Overlord plan to manipulate the Air barons or do you mean he lied after the fact? I've quoted the plan twice and you've ignored it twice. I suggest you keep your hobby-horse to the Caen talk page. I predict that if you start tampering with the article again, you'll get reverted because you've forfeited any claim to good faith. Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any opposition to anyone working on the article - I certainly don't have the time to do anything myself (between trying to fix this mess, finish HMS Canopus (1897), and being gone again this weekend [camping this time], I'm just about tapped out).
I would ask, though, what exactly you want to see included in the article, Wdford - is it just the idea that Monty couldn't execute the plan he had intended and then tried to cover up his failure after the fact? Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: I have responded to your question at the Caen talk page - it's quite lengthy. Thanks for your input, and any further input you could offer would be most welcome. This guy blatantly ignores WP:NPOV, and he ain't budging. Wdford (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hellow there, I hope you are doing great. Would you be able to review the common loon for a GA? However, if due to any reason you are unable to, that would be fine too. I hope you have a good great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm totally in the wrong here, but two article I've made extensive changes to have been attacked by another editor, including the article you're grading for GA status. I took into consideration some of his criticism but feel that some of it is unwarranted. I tried backing up my reasoning but he reverted my revert so I obviously don't want to start an Edit War. Besides Omaha he attacked USS Oglala (CM-4), which I reverted and started editing, but he reverted it again before I finished. Most of the article was copied and pasted from DANFS, with changes made in reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions but not all of the POV/Flowery words had been removed. These edits had been made in May of this year and I believe it's listed as a Start on the Talk page.
I don't know, he said that I needed to make changes to Oglala but when I went to do it he was already making changes and adding snide comments and such with every edit. If you don't want to do anything I understand, you just know the rules a lot better than I do. I never claimed that the article was good the way it was anyway. I had made many of the changes that he made, I just didn't know he was editing the article at the same time I was. Thanks. Pennsy22 (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was busy yesterday and didn't have time to get to this until now. I left a message on the talk pages of the articles, but it seems like things might have calmed down. What you might do is add material in piecemeal, already having been rewritten - that's what I did, for example, here with USS Constellation (1854) (not so much because it was controversial, but because it takes time to rewrite the text and I frequently get interrupted while working on these things). I would assume that if the POV stuff is dealt with, the other editor won't object.
Thanks for that - I've commented there too. It stands to reason that the ship would have been towed back to the Vulcan yard after the war, since they were hoping to force the Greeks to pay to finish the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Camäleon-class gunboat 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) 01:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.png)
