User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 37

I hope this is appropriate, but I wanted to thank you for your help and advice on USS Omaha (CL-4). I know we haven't always seen eye to eye on some things, and I'll admit that I was worried when you picked the article to grade, but your criticism was both constructive and helpful. Pennsy22 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Pennsy! You know, the longer I've been around here, the more I've realized that we all write articles differently, and it's unreasonable for someone to try to force someone else to adhere to your own ideas about how an article should be done. Sturmvogel and I basically developed the standards for warship articles over the last decade or so, but even we have differing opinions about some things, and when I've reviewed his stuff, I take that into account. You and I disagree on what belongs in an infobox, for instance, but it's not really productive for me to force you to accept my view or else hold the review hostage. Parsecboy (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the August 2017 Military History Article Writing Contest with 59 points from seven articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Panther-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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zara-class cruiser (1879) 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) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Panther-class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Panther-class cruiser for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Zara-class cruiser (1879) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zara-class cruiser (1879) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look here? --Olonia (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For the many impressive ship articles you've made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iazyges, much appreciated! Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Canopus (1897) 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) 14:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The article HMS Canopus (1897) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Canopus (1897) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, do you know someone who will do source reviews? Eagaldyth doesn't like how I keep my sources in order. Battle of Rossbach is just needing that before it will pass FAC. auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You can request them here - that's probably the easiest way I think. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

	The Yorkshire baronage barnstar
	Thanks for the review, Parsecboy- a pleasure working with you. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 15:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Since "YOU" seem so sure of yourself on the Nimitz article - per your edit summary - would you kindly provide the policies and/or guidelines you're using? It was also interesting that you didn't follow my request - and per BRD - to discuss on the talk page before reverting. Also interesting was your wholesale revert, ignoring both MOS:CAPS generally and MOS:JOBTITLES specifically. And the questionable civility of your summary comment. But really interesting, was your revert of "Secretary of the Navy" - since the official source uses "secretary of the Navy." Discussion would have been the wiser choice. X4n6 (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you bother to read JOBTITLES? Specifically the third bullet point? And as for BRD, you've been around far too long to not know that the burden of discussion and proving their case is on the person trying to change something (i. e., you). Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you bother to read Discuss at BRD? As in all seven bulletpoints? Or the 3rd bulletpoint in Bold. Or the 2nd in Revert? Or CIVIL? As for JOBTITLES, did you bother reading the first sentence before jumping to the 3rd bulletpoint? Especially, since it hadn't yet been established what that "the correct formal title" was by reviewing sources. Like when the official source I provided proved you wrong? You've been around too long for this. Esp. for an admin. You know better. X4n6 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Somebody made an edit, I reverted it. Instead of opening a discussion, as you should have done, you reverted (and then had the audacity to lecture someone else about edit warring). It's really rather simple. If you don't know what the "correct formal title" is, perhaps you shouldn't be edit-warring about it. You might consider that someone else has more of a clue. But what should I expect from someone whose talk page is routinely filled with warnings for edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you have a problem with facts - and apparently, chronology, let me set you straight. My first, most recent edit there was here. I stand by it for the reasons stated at the time. I could also have added MOS:HEADINGS. The immediate prior edit that drew my attention was from - a sock. I fixed it. You said "Somebody made an edit, I reverted it. Instead of opening a discussion, as you should have done, you reverted (and then had the audacity to lecture someone else about edit warring)." Actually, I am the person you reverted. And I don't see anywhere that you opened a discussion. So are there no mirrors in your little world? So don't you have the audacity to lecture me, when I civilly asked someone to "discuss at talk, but pls stop edit warring." As for my history, I certainly have nothing to apologize to you for. To the contrary, I'm justifiably proud of it. But it says everything about you that you tried your gratuitous and weaksauce PA. Just more incivility. Are you really an admin? Because with your actions and attitude that depresses me. Especially since you can't even muster the class to admit when you're wrong. Wrong from an official source. Wrong from an MOS noticeboard full of folks who tackle this issue regularly. But don't bother responding substantively now. This stopped being constructive a long time ago. All you want is a pissing match - and I promise you I'm more than capable of showing you how it's done. But ignoring you is even better. So we're done. But feel free to have the LASTWORD - that I won't bother to read. X4n6 (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was following the same sock - I apparently didn't look that closely at the edit history to see that you were the person I initially reverted. That does not change the fact that the burden is on you to justify your changes on the talk page.

On your history of edit-warring - no, that's not a personal attack, that's simply me pointing out the fact that you seem to be incapable of letting things go when you're wrong. The fact that you are routinely warned for edit-warring is obviously relevant in this discussion...about your edit warring.

Funny, somebody lecturing about needing to have the last word - speaking of people who need to find a mirror...If you were really "so above it all", you wouldn't have bothered wasting both of our time posting that useless screed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oldest rhetorical trick in the book - and one of the most revealing: tell someone you won't read their response. Gives them the chance to simply disengage and maturely move on. They take it? Smart. They fail? They're exposed for what they are. But "I apparently didn't look that closely at the edit history" is probably as close as I could expect to an apology from someone like you. So I'll, graciously, accept it. Later, you can deny that's what it was. Totally expected. But you still failed to discuss your revert at talk. That was your responsibility, so spare me your finger-pointing. You'll lose. Just as you can't deny you made personal attacks, since the edit log shows this was a childish afterthought - and this pettiness, is just the latest proof that you are ill-suited for the responsibility this community has entrusted you with. Finally, as to my contributions here, because your attacks won't go unanswered, you think my record, a month older than yours leaves me vulnerable - when yours exposes the hypocrite you are? Mic drop. Now we're done. Again: no mirrors. Just a big fat BOOMERANG. X4n6 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of self-awareness is sad, frankly.

As for my block log, you have no clue what you're talking about - both of those blocks were for reverting banned editors, and one was correctly overturned, which you would have noticed if you weren't so obsessed with the dick-measuring you claim to be above. Are we done, or are you going to continue embarrassing yourself? Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you would have time to review my Type 1934-class destroyer article? No worries if you don't. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I went and pulled a couple of the oldest articles in the queue instead - one had been sitting there since February. I'll see if I have the time to do any more after those. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. I have opened a query at thew FAC talk page regarding the structure of warship FAs. I hope you can understand that I'm not deliberately ignoring what you have to say, I'm raising the issue because I simply disagree with the model you are using in the SMS Brandenburg article. I don't have any axe to grind or ill-will towards you, I'm simply querying how these articles can satisfy FA criteria in their current format. Please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your stance in any way. Regards Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I certainly understand your point of view, we just have a disagreement on this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the August 2017 Military History Article Writing Contest with 42 points from five articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		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 Jul to Sep 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

[1] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha - that's pretty good. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Ocean (1898) 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) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Goliath (1898) 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) 14:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The article HMS Ocean (1898) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Ocean (1898) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with diamonds for your excellent work on developing SMS Brandenburg, SMS Wittelsbach, and Greek battleship Salamis to A-Class status. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker! Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Arcona (1885) 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) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The article SMS Arcona (1885) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Arcona (1885) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Alexandrine 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) 15:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The article SMS Alexandrine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Alexandrine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Marie 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) 16:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The article SMS Marie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Marie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Added several hooks. It is my nomination, but it is your article. Altho9ugh I think it is improved, too. But your input on the hooks would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The article HMS Goliath (1898) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Goliath (1898) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the November 2017 Military History Article Writing Contest with a very creditable 67 points from eight articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, AR! Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

This is to let you know that the SMS Wittelsbach article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 13, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 13, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for another quality ship! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carola-class corvette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Mecklenburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Aditya! I hope you enjoy the holidays too! Parsecboy (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bzuk, and the same to yours! Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you Krishna! Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope the family got spoiled rotten! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a little too much! It's a good thing we did a purge last week to make room for all the new stuff they got. How was your Christmas? Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Haha! Lucky kids right there. :-) Christmas here was good, lots of family and food. Ludicrous cold too, but that's what fires are for. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! I was laid low with the flu for the weekend, but I was feeling better yesterday, so while some plans got messed up over the weekend, we ended up ok. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eduard von Jachmann 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) 08:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Eduard von Jachmann you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eduard von Jachmann for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article SMS Pommern has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! Everything looks fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

		2017 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki as the co-recipient of third place for the 2017 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2017. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS Olga 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) 02:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carola-class corvette 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) 00:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		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 October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The article SMS Olga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS Olga for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted my edits to Eduard von Jachmann and File:SMS Amazone (1843).jpg pending asking you the following question that I was wondering after performing these edits: Why not just fix the licensing tags on the file at Commons? (File:SMS AMAZONE.jpg) If I understand why, my assumption is that the file on Commons should be nominated for deletion due to lack of true evidence of a free license for that image. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably ought to be deleted because we don't know who the author was, so we can't prove it's PD in Germany. We don't even know if the source provided is the first publication (given the age of the ship, it likely wasn't) so we can't really know if it was published without an author disclosure or not (meaning we can't use the PD-EU-anon license either). Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Eduard von Jachmann you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eduard von Jachmann for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Parsecboy. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for SMS Hannover at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Parsecboy – I have several things I'd like to ask you about:

1) In the first paragraph in the lead, you have this sentence:

• Hannover and the three subsequently constructed ships differed slightly in both design and construction from the lead ship Deutschland in their propulsion systems and slightly thicker armor.

It took me a minute to figure out that "the lead ship" was the first-built of the five ships. I am thinking of the average Wikipedia reader. I don't think the average Wikipedia reader will know what "the lead ship" really means.

• What do you think about a link to lead ship?

2) Later in the lead, you have this sentence:

• The ships of her class were already outdated by the time they entered the service, being inferior in size, armor, firepower, and speed to the revolutionary new British battleship HMS Dreadnought.

When I read, "entered the service", I wondered what "the service" was. Because of the definite article, "the", it's got to refer to a specific service. Do you think it will be clear to the average reader that "the service" means the German High Seas Fleet? I wonder if you would consider removing the definite article, and have it read "entered service". Does that phrase work with this subject matter?

• I think the "the" is just a typo or the result of rewriting things a few too many times.

3) The first sentence of the second paragraph reads as follows:

• Hannover and her sisters saw extensive service with the fleet.

I think this is the first time you use "sisters" to refer to the ships built at the same time as Hannover. I wonder if you would consider using the phrase "sister ships" just this once. After that, you could use "sisters".

• That makes sense - also linked to sister ship.

4) I noticed that you used the day-month-year British date format throughout the article. Thus, I assume that the article is written using British English. (There's always Canadian, Australian, and Indian English, but I don't think those would be applicable to an article on a German ship.) Thus, I wonder why you use the American English spelling of "maneuver". British English would spell it "manoeuvre". I didn't change it in case there was something of which I wasn't aware, but I thought I'd mention it. I know there are some particularities regarding style in military history articles, and perhaps "maneuver" is one of them.

• The article is in American English, but per WP:MILDATE articles on military subjects should generally use DMY.

5) I saw you used em-dashes in several places. My preference is for spaced en-dashes, so I changed the em-dashes to en-dashes, but if you really prefer the em-dashes, let me know and I'd be glad to change them back.

• I don't have that much of a feeling on it.

6) Twice, I changed "in the mouth" to "at the mouth" of the river. I had never heard "in the mouth" of a river. It is a given that the ship is in the water, and floating or cruising on the river, but the location is at the mouth of the river. If "in the mouth" is common military jargon, I don't know about it, and in any case, I think we should use language that is understood and used by the average Wikipedia reader.

• That sounds fine to me.

7) The first two sentences of the "World War I" section are the following:

• Following the outbreak of World War I, Hannover was tasked with guard duty in the Altenbruch roadstead at the mouth of the Elbe River during the period of mobilization for the rest of the fleet. In late October, the ships were sent to Kiel to have modifications made to their underwater protection systems to make them more resilient to torpedoes and mines.

I'm not sure it is clear what ships are meant with the phrase "the ships". Also, I'm just wondering about the word "resilient". Does it mean just that, to make it so the hulls are more flexible and can "bounce back" after being hit by a torpedo or a mine? If not, perhaps "impervious" would work?

• I was probably thinking of "resistant" - have changed it to that.

8) Later in that paragraph, you have the following sentence:

• However, skirmishes between the rival destroyer screens in the darkness convinced the German fleet commander, VAdm Friedrich von Ingenohl, that the entire Grand Fleet was deployed before him.

The reader could guess what "destroyer screens" means, but I don't think readers should have to guess. You might want to explain or link the word "screens".

9) Then you have the word "battlefleet". Is that really a word? If not, perhaps "battle fleet" or just "fleet".

• Probably a typo

10) In the second paragraph, you have this sentence:

• This was followed by another resultless sweep by the fleet on 23–24 October.

I don't think "resultless" is a word. Depending upon what you really mean, you might want to substitute one of these words:

• futile
• fruitless
• unproductive
• unsuccessful
• vain

If you don't like any of these, look up "futile" (or any of these words) in a thesaurus and you'll see lists of related words. You can look at the definition of each word to find the one that expresses exactly what you mean.

• Replaced with "fruitless"

Also, it's not really clear what is meant by "another...sweep".

11) The second-to-last paragraph in the "Battle of Jutland" section starts:

• Late on the 31st,...

I didn't recall reading "the 31st" anywhere, and it has been so long since you mentioned any date that readers may be mystified by this phrase. One paragraph earlier, you have "Later on the first day of the battle", but I'm not even sure when that was.

• Added a line to clarify this.

12) In the last paragraph of the "Later actions" section, you have "Armistice", linked. Then the word appears three more times, first capitalized, then lower-case, and finally capitalized. These ought to be consistent, but I'm not sure they need to be capitalized. You might want to give this some thought, and perhaps read some other articles and see how it is handled.

• Fixed

13) At the end of the first paragraph in "Postwar service", you have this sentence:

• She visited Stockholm from 18 to 22 October, where Rosenberg was received by Gustaf V of Sweden.

A few sentences earlier, his full name was given. I believe his family name was "von Rosenberg", not just "Rosenberg". Shouldn't this be "von Rosenberg"?

• I wouldn't generally use the "von" except in the full name - as far as I know this is the standard in academic writing.

Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. What a magnificent ship!  – Corinne (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough copyedit, Corinne! Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Vengeance (1899) 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) 02:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Vengeance (1899) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Vengeance (1899) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The article HMS Vengeance (1899) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Vengeance (1899) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Carola-class corvette you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carola-class corvette for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Parsecboy,

you have mentioned Hugo Meurer twice as becoming Commander of the ship. October 1910 seems to be the incorrect one. According to German Wikipedia he was only between October 1912 - July 1916 Commander on this ship. Here the list:

Kommandanten (of SMS Deutschland)

3. August bis September 1906 Kapitän zur See Wilhelm Becker
September 1906 bis 31. März 1909 Kapitän zur See Günther von Krosigk
1. April 1909 bis Oktober 1912 Kapitän zur See Ehler Behring
Oktober 1912 bis Juli 1916 Kapitän zur See Hugo Meurer
Juli 1916 bis August 1916 Kapitän zur See Rudolph Bartels
August 1916 bis 10. September 1917 Kapitän zur See Reinhold Schmidt

Greetings --Andreas (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you're right - I hadn't noticed that (and nobody at FAC or any of the other reviews did either!). Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. It was nice to help you.--Andreas (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Campania-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) 21:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's fine that you have some concerns about McTiernan's reliability regarding the International Squadron and Cretan intervention information I have been working on. A critical eye always is important. However, there is no requirement that Wikipedia sources be written by Ph.Ds, nor is all information from Ph.Ds correct. McTiernan's paper seems well-researched and well-written, it includes a bibliography of his own sources, and corroborating sources exist independently for at least some of what he writes giving us little reason so far to question it. I encourage you - and others - to find additional sources with which to improve the article, of course, but I see no reason to reject anything McTiernan has written absent a discovery of "better" information. Had I thought differently, I would not have used him as a source. Do you have better information? Or has McTiernan broken ground in an area poorly covered, at least in readily available English-language sources? I hold the latter view. I look forward to Wikipedians discovering additional material and adding it to the article. Mdnavman (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)mdnavman

Well, if you're worried about changing the quality rating, then go ahead and change the quality rating. That doesn't bother me at all. I just think that, once everyone is happy with the quality rating, the article should stand on its own, with Wikipedians improving on it over time. It's not as if his thesis is some half-baked, highly questionable personal opinion. It seems grounded in good research, and to be objective. When I discovered the International Squadron article, it had three sentences in it. Now it is much better. I don't see how Wikipedia gets better by removing information that seems credible and well-researched, so I am not sure what you are proposing or what end state you are seeking. Do you have sources which discredit McTiernan's information? (Point me to them and I'll improve the article.) Would you propose going back to a three-sentence article? Or caveating its talk page somehow? Or just changing its quality rating? Mdnavman (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)mdnavman

The article Campania-class cruiser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Campania-class cruiser for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Canopus-class battleship 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 Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Canopus-class battleship you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Canopus-class battleship for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Canopus-class battleship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Canopus-class battleship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with diamonds for your excellent work on developing SMS Zähringen, SMS Braunschweig, and SMS Elsass to A-Class status. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cinderella! Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello to you again Parsecboy. I have been quite busy with my various scattered projects, however i have finished the first volume of my book (Warships of Plan Z) and have self published it on Amazon. I have also dug out the Blender work for the P class Armored cruiser, and SpahKruezer to finish them. In my book instead of using foot notes I hyperlink what would be illustrations of the ships to the Wikipedia articles. This keeps me from having to pay Amazon for the Illustrations. It generates visitors to the Wikipedia articles. lastly I have nicely asked them and or gently encouraged them in the book to consider making a small donation to Wikipedia with a link to the page. I have also mentioned that between Wikipedia and German Navy.de that approximately 80% of the information for the book was learned and researched. I feel a great sense of accomplishment for getting this first volume published, after about 6 years of off and on work on it. I am already working on the second volume that will cover the H class Battleship designs. The Aircraft Carriers, including the conversion projects, and the Hybrid designs. Ships like the Wolf class torpedo boat, and the Zerstroyer 1936 A/B that led to the Spahkruezer design. Anyway I don't mean to ramble and I know you hate fragmented subjects and paragraphs. I intend to update the Spahkruezer illustration just as soon as I finish it so it isn't just a hull with guns on it as it is now, and I am working on the superstructure of the P class cruiser and detailing it. I have also ordered German Warships 1815 to 1945 by E Groener since that seems to be the main footnote source on these ships besides the information that I have from the Bundes Naval Archives, which i cant footnote.

I also made an edit to the P class article and I think I inadvertently deleted a footnote marker. You will see this i think when you look at the review. Its good to be back. Ill contact you when I have the P class illustration, and angle pics to consider for the article. Thank You much in advance, your friend in German Naval History; Haratio Fales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good - I'll fix the citation in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see My talk. I was trying to add it here but put it in my talk. To answer the question simply though, My Book is available on Amazon Kindle as a E book. Warships of Plan Z (The German Fleet that never fought) I am working on the foot noting so it can be sold as a Paperback or Hardback edition. I'm also working on the second volume as I mentioned before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 05:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vz. 24 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) 23:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I reverted an edit to this page that made significant changes, including removal of content and links as well as a change of the layout. In the edit summary I wrote;

• propose these mass changes on the talk page for consensus, post notices at WP:SHIPS & WP:MILHIST

But being as edit summaries are limited, I also immediately posted this comment to the article's talk page, and pinged the editor to ensure he was aware of it. But then I see that you reverted the edit back again, with the edit summary;

• Not at all necessary to see[k] permission to be bold, reverting a legitimate edit because you think some bureaucracy needs to approve it is not at all in line with how Wikipedia works. If you have objections, the onus is on you to spell them out

I was surprised at this for a few reasons, one being that you are regular contributor to naval articles, two, that you're an admin and three, the overt hostility of your comment. Of course people can "be bold", but bold edits can also be reverted. In instances like this, the revert is to hopefully initiate a discussion, which was my intent. At no time did I say this editor "needed to seek permission", nor was I was looking to involve any "bureaucracy"... just other editors. Editors like yourself, that have experience with these types of articles and perhaps have already put some work into them. And as far as "spelling out my objections", that is why I posted on the talk page, so I not sure why you seem to have gotten upset over this. However, as you can see, you have since been reverted, and not by me, but by another editor, like the type I described above, who also since posted his concerns to the talk page as well. So, I would ask that you reconsider the approach you've taken here, and perhaps join the discussion on the article talk page. Thank you, and have a good night - ^theWOLFchild 05:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s always amusing to see you lecturing people about hostility, real or otherwise. I also find it interesting that someone who feels no qualms about rudely demanding others leave his talk page has no compunction about posting on those same individuals’ talk pages.

In any event, this is not the first time in recent history (i.e., the last week or so) I’ve seen you revert edits simply because no one asked permission first. That is not how Wikipedia works. And you need to stop. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You're justifying your (clearly real) hostility because I've apparently "rudely demanded" someone else to not post on my talk page? (and then I apparently posted on theirs?) I'm really not sure what, or who, you're referring to, but I also don't see the relevance, nor the justification. And, you're again accusing me of demanding that others seek "permission" to make edits? I don't recall ever using that word, so if you have a diff, I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile I see you've told me, again, about "this is not how Wikipedia works", yet, based on the recent edit you contested, others don't agree with you. Nor do the guidelines. And lastly you say, "I need to stop" Stop what, exactly? Before you reply though, (if you intend to), know that I'm looking to resolve this, (whatever this is), I'm not seeking conflict with you. You seem to have been carrying some kind of gripe, and for awhile. If you're willing to discuss this, I'm sure we can resolve whatever the issue is that is bothering you. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You can read whatever you like into what others say. You might also take offense to the suggestion that you're a hypocrite, but hypocrites usually lack either the self awareness to see or the humility to admit their hypocrisy. But none of that is my problem.

Not aware of what I'm talking about? How about your move-warring over on AR-15 style rifle followed by a very WP:POINTy requested move? You even went so far as to state "I think your issue is that you're under the mistaken belief that I want the original name. As long as the name is NPOV, and the community supports it, then I'm fine with it being renamed... properly." That is exactly the kind of behavior is what you need to stop. No one needs your permission (or anyone else's) to be bold, and reverting them simply because they haven't followed whatever procedures you deem necessary is not helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So... no diff to back up your "permission" accusation. Got it. As for that move request, it speaks for itself. A controversial move, made while the title was being discussed, with no consensus. A proper RM was posted and because of that, over twenty editors got an opportunity to contribute to the move discussion that otherwise wouldn't have. There is now a consensus that is solid, and will prevent further disruption, from anymore "bold" moving of that page. But I don't think that's really your issue here, is it? No, I think it goes beyond that. And for the record, I also think "hypocrisy" and a "lack of either the self awareness to see or the humility to admit... hypocrisy" is exactly your problem. I can't believe you can carry a grudge for so long, be so rude, miserable and insulting, refuse to engage in a civil dialogue when one is offered to you and be an admin. You obviously have no interest in resolving anything here and would rather continue with this uncivil behaviour. Since you clearly have no interest in a civil discussion, I'll just move on. Good day - ^theWOLFchild 17:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time or inclination to sort through your edits, not that you'd listen anyway - I gave you two specific examples and you're too busy lawyering over a specific word when you know damn well that you don't have to use a specific word to get the meaning across. If all you're capable of is that kind of stupidity, you had best move along. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"If all you're capable of is that kind of stupidity," - Wow. The next time I see you block someone for "personal attacks/incivility", I'm going to point them to your speech here on "hypocrisy". Unbelievable. Well, I tried, but, yeah... we're done. - ^theWOLFchild 21:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. You said you were moving on once before - or do you need to have the last word? Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I may have to Remove and or have you Remove the information about the P-39 design. I have just received the book German Warships 1815-1945 (Major Surface Vessels) Volume one by Eric Groner. 1982-86 expanded edition. I also have the Book Battleships (Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War 2) by William H. Garzke, Jr. / Robert O. Dulin, Jr. 1985. 1st the information about the P-39 design is on a Russian Web Page: http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/32_p.html I personally don't speak Russian, and darn sure don't read it. There is suppose to be a Google Translator, however I couldn't find one. Secondly the website seems to be well constructed and contain a lot of information about the ships of the German Navy at different history intervals and is quite a large data base. The problem I have with them though is that anything that is written in their site that is, or might be conjectural can be construed as facts, or truth by someone who doesn't read Russian. Poor translation by a translation tool like Google Translator, and or it could just be presented as facts when its conjecture or opinion. This Website claims their source for the information on the P class ships as E Groner, the first book i mention above. German Navy (Kriegsmarine.de) uses this and the second book I mention abouve for about 95% of its citation sources. As far as the Italian alternate cruiser and battleship studies. I have that information from the second book W H. Garzke, above. It is in English. They would be more as article stubs as their is not a lot of information regarding them, however there is enough stats and basic line drawings that I can model the ships, and make the color line illustrations, and some angle shots like I have done before to make it interesting. I have also found in the book where Spain had 3 designs for a Pocket-Battleship design similar to the D class cruiser with variations of 203mm, 305mm, and 283mm guns. they would have been between 17,000 and 20,000 ton ships. I am working on the second volume of Warships of Plan Z and have planned to ad these Italian, Spanish, and possibly the B-65 Japanese design in the book. And yes i would love to write and or add to the articles of these ships. The illustrations take the longest amount of time, but I do enjoy working on them. I am working on the P class illustration right now, and I want to detail the Spahkruezer before moving on to the H class Battleships. Thank You once again. Ill be in touch.

                                                                 Haratio Fales  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haratio Fales (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 

The article Vz. 24 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vz. 24 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mauser Model 1893 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) 03:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

The article Mauser Model 1893 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mauser Model 1893 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Should Greek destroyer Vasilefs Georgios, aka ZG3 Hermes, be added to the topic? Unlike ZH1 it saw service in the Greek Navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think so. I would draw the line at vessels that never saw service in the German navy (for example, I didn't include Volya in the battleship topic even though Germany technically possessed the ship for a few months). Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I was afraid that's what you'd say ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your parade :) Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think so!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing my article! GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to help! Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)