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.
Hey, Parsecboy, would you have the time to do a GA Review of Kongo Class Battlecruiser? It's just finished a rewrite five months in the making, and I figure that if I don't ask someone personally it could be that long before it's reviewed. Cam(Chat)03:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I should have time this morning to look the article over. I know what you mean about waiting at GAN, I've had articles there for multiple months before. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I've run out of time doing other things this morning, but I'll get to it either tonight after work or tomorrow morning. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That looks good, at least as far as I can tell. There's one point I raised on the GA review page here that needs to be addressed before I pass the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Great work! I have access to a reprint of the 1914 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships; do you know if I could help at all with it? Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Is there anything in the Jane's that isn't in the article? Does it have specific dates for when any of the ships were laid down? Groner just has the year in most cases. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, here's a question: does it have an overhead line-drawing of SMS Hela in it? Both Groner's German Warships 1815-1945 and Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 just have side views, and at the GA review the reviewer asked if one was available. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I can help somewhat with both of these. Jane's generally gives months for launching, although not dates; do you need all of them, or just some? Like with most other vessels, its section on Hela has two line drawings: a side plan and an overhead plan. I don't quite know how I'd upload those, since I don't have a scanner; would you be interested in a photograph of the page? I also don't know where to upload the image — obviously the book is PD in the USA, but I'm going to ask at MCQ to see if the book is PD in the UK as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not as familiar with copyright law in the UK. Maybe the best option would be to upload it here on Wikipedia, since it only needs to be PD in the US. If it turns out the book is also PD in the UK, it can easily be transferred to Commons. If you have all of the months of launching, that would be helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a request for help at Commons talk:Licensing; because the drawings are anonymous, the copyright issue is apparently one of two situations — either (1) Fred Jane counts as the creator, so copyright expired 70 years after his death in 1986, or (2) it's counted as an anonymous work, so according to {{PD-UK-unknown}}, it's PD because it's an anonymous work published before 1940. If I'd not heard back so soon after I posted the Commons talk:Licensing help request, I would have uploaded it here for the reason you mention. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
SMS Emden (1908)
Hi, I see you're the top contributor to SMS Emden (1908). I was wandering whether you could tell me who was the the ship's second in command during her voyage in the Indian Ocean. I know his name is Captain S. Withoift, but I got this from a Sinhala book. So I'm not sure with the spellings. I'm asking this because of Henry Engelbrecht, who was accused of supplying meat to the ship and who was the first park warden of Yala National Park, an article I'm currently improving. It is due this captain's statement it proved Engelbrecht was innocent. Best--Chanaka L (talk)03:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The First Officer aboard Emden was Hellmuth von Mücke (he's mentioned repeatedly throughout this book: Hoyt, Edwin Palmer (2001). The Last Cruise of the Emden: The Amazing True WWI Story of a German-Light Cruiser and Her Courageous Crew. Globe Pequot. 9781585743827). I hope that helps! Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, that would explain the discrepancy. With two cruisers named Emden raiding in the Indian Ocean, one might confuse the two :) Glad to be of at least some help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Editorial
Hey Parsec, I've started an editorial here, then got to thinking. Did your Wikipedia writing inspire your choice of dissertation? If so, want to collab and finish that editorial with your thoughts/experience? —Ed(talk • majestic titan)21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Without a doubt it did; I had no knowledge whatsoever of the German Imperial Navy until I started editing articles here. I just got home from work and I have to get up early tomorrow, so I'll look at it sometime later. Thanks for the offer! Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, this is one type of writing I'm not as familiar with ;) I wrote up a short para here if you want to take a look at it. Feel free to play with it to make it fit with what you've already got. Or ask if you had something in mind that I didn't specifically address. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I had that problem too. :P Would you mind if I swapped the tense around to fit with the "I"'s referring to me in the editorial? And don't let me forget to add credit for you when we are done with this. ;) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)02:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to wait for you to give me the go-ahead, but I'm betting that Tom wants to get the newsletter out ASAP, so I went ahead and boldly modified your text and added it.[1] Feel free to revert. Side note: should our names be at the top or bottom? Bottom is traditional, but should we change that ("buck the trend")? ;) The signatures look awkward at the bottom. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)03:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I think the signatures look fine, but I think it might be good to make clear who the "I" is in the beginning, since there are two signatures.
Yeah, I'm planning on doing my dissertation on something related to the German navy, maybe something about the Baltic theater against the Russians (it's much more overlooked compared to the North Sea, there's only a handful of books I've seen), but I don't have anything firm in mind just yet. And this is assuming I get into grad school this year :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS (side note: there's new name for that page, "identifying reliable sources") --- "Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress are not vetted and are not regarded as published. They are not reliable sources as a rule." I would think this applies to you? —Ed(talk • majestic titan)
Help please...
I have just noticed a recent infusion of largely unformatted text with extremely poor referencing (including personal interviews) by a newbie to Jesse B. Oldendorf which also removed most of the formatting of the article. While my first instinct is to just revert it all on MOS grounds, would you mind taking a look at this and see if it can be salvaged or not. -MBK00404:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted it too, the citations were all either inappropriate sources or incorrectly formatted. I left a note on the editor's talk page, hopefully s/he'll read through the policies I linked. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately he is back at it again, this time referencing things to wikipedia articles and copying things from other articles. Since you've opened a dialogue with them, I'll leave this to you. -MBK00421:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this is going to turn out fine, we just need to point him in the right direction as far as policies and guidelines go. We'll just keep an eye on his edits and fix the problems he inadvertently creates, and then explain to him what the problem(s) is/are. He'll get the hang of it before too long. We were all newbies once, and we could always use another OMT-er, right?. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Request re-review of NPOV standards with regard to cruise book references
Thanks so much for your talk page comment directing me to the reliable sources noticeboard. All of your comments to date have been very helpful for me as a new Wikipedia contributor just learning ropes. Just wanted to let you know that your insights have been much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussrangercv4 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have received an "official" review response from the reliable sources noticeboardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Allowable_Use_of_Self-Published__Material:_NAVY_CRUISE_BOOKS_Request_Evaluation indicating that
We have discussed cruise books before... they are considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Having received this response how do I then go about re-adding the material to the page so that it is registered as approved and not removed again? --Ussrangercv4 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator of the Military history Project, March 2010—October 2010
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
The WikiProject Barnstar
In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That's really odd. I wonder how much they edited the articles. I also wonder how they've attributed us. I guess the CC license allows it, but it just seems wrong to me. We didn't write these articles for someone to throw into a book and make a quick buck. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the terms of the GDFL and CC licenses require attribution to the original authors (in this case, you, me, Sturm, and everyone else who worked on the articles), not just a blanket "these are from Wikipedia"). These books in their current form (if I correctly understand them to not attribute the authors directly) most certainly do violate the terms of use for Wikimedia content, and therefore do violate copyright. Perhaps it would be a good idea to contact Amazon. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There are something like 1700 books from them that are all copies. Do you want to draft a joint email or a Wikipedia-wide email? I'll leave these kinds of tough decisions to you. ;) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
@ Ed: Yeah, the more and more I think about it the less and less happy I am with it. Maybe it would be better if we both sent emails. The more people who complain, the more likely Amazon is to do anything about it. The squeaky wheel and all that.
@Native Foreigner: I've seen it noted that the Foundation doesn't hold the copyright to anything, so their hands are tied legally. Since we all wrote the articles, we technically retain the copyright, despite the fact that it's been released under the CC and GDFL licenses. Therefore, we as individuals would have to pursue any legal action, and given the fact that many of us are poor college students, that isn't a problem. But, if we complain enough to the sellers of the books (as Ed and I are discussing), we might be able to persuade them pull the books. Maybe. Parsecboy (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
...oh my. Look at that link, page 1 -- they have even kept the hatnotes! See also p. 68 -- they credit us basically the same way that the "create a book" feature does. (I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same). —Ed(talk • majestic titan)21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Look at page 63; it's got a list of major contributors to the article along with the timestamp for each article. It seems they actually are complying with the copyright. Looks like there's nothing we can really do about it.
Sorry, wrong page, but you're right. :/ I think I'm going to send them an email anyway. What they are doing is completely unethically and morally wrong. I doubt that a person has even seen them; the "history of Georgia" (ie the country's history) book has a picture of Atlanta on its cover! —Ed(talk • majestic titan)23:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Kaiser Friedrich III class battleship
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you for another six months, at least. – JoeN13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
On April 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Brandenburg, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Deutschland class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wittelsbach class battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
How do I request the USS Ranger CV-4 Page be updated from a stub?
The USS Ranger CV-4 page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-4) has just been extensively improved with verifiable inline references throughout. Based on this I'd like the article to be upgraded from a stud and the red question mark box saying
"This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (September 2008)".
How would I go about requesting this and where?
Parsecboy your feedback is much appreciated. The technique cited for how to do the citations is just what the doctor ordered. I plan to do it just that way moving forward. It's a lot less work and presents a much less cluttered appearance as you noted. I'll definitely look at all of the links you provided because I'm sure they'll be super helpful. Thanks again for your assitance. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for SMS Deutschland (1904)
On April 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Deutschland (1904), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
About a week ago your were so kind to review the USS Maine (ACR-1) article for B-class. You found a few more places needing citations and were so awesome to even point them out to me! I added the refs where needed and posted on WP:MHAR if anybody could reasses, assuming the review was still open since you didn't strike through the name. That was 6 days ago and since then nobody has looked at it though. Now I was wondering whether I should consider the review ended and start a new one, or just have patience? Cheers Yoenit (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Possible hook?
Regarding your comment on Bushranger's page, I've tried to forumlate a hook for Erzherzog franz ferdinad. Here goes:
That looks good to me. Yeah, sometimes it's difficult to track down enough information to make the size requirements. I'll see what I can track down to help out with the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Oblivion Lost
I don't think you have the right to delete what you decide it's "redundant". The article was showing these vehicles ordered by gun caliber, not by something else, as the articles you mentioned! Where in this : Lists of armoured fighting vehicles you find what i did?!
"Moreover, no one ever refers to a tank or mechanized artillery as a "fully enclosed and armored breech loading ground fighting vehicle."" Whether you are aware or not, this is the right way to describe all these vehicles, and this is what i meant, ordered by gun caliber. What you or someone else call these vehicles is not necessary what they are!
Now, you going to revert back the deleted article as it was before. If you have objections, use the "Discussion". You don't delete, just because you don't like it! Oblivion Lost (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I certainly do; the list was redundant to both the existing lists as well as categories (for instance, List of assault guns sorts the vehicles by nationality, gun caliber, and conflict). Your title is a flagrant example of wikiality, of someone creating an article with a title they themselves made up. Find me one reliable source that refers to any of these vehicles with the title you invented, and then maybe we'll have something to talk about. The article will stay deleted, because it doesn't meet our requirements for inclusion. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, some of us actually do something in Wikipedia, create, others....just searching themselves by patrolling other people's work. Oblivion Lost (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't even know me or what I do here; I've written 50 articles that have been rated GA or higher, including 14 featured articles. If you're going to resort to baseless attacks, please do not comment here again. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
epic
The Socratic Barnstar
For brief - yet incredibly eloquent - demonstrations of your argumentative skills on the MilHist Talk Page, particularly with regard to unit capitalization, I am delighted to award you this barnstar. For all debaters everywhere, Cam(Chat)22:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Parsecboy! Erzherzog passed GA, and Zryini is approaching a nomination, I;m here to tell you that, pretty soon, a GTC for those articles will be created. You, being the dude who did half of them, should know about. (Any chance of getting one of the to an FA and helping me get Erzherzog to FA?, both for an FT and Erzherzog to help me get closer to a Four Award At DYK, as you know. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This actually occurred to me while I was at work this evening. I think the class article could easily be pushed to A-class with some light work, and then it's but a short hop to FA from there. If we can get that article along with Franz Ferdinand, we'll actually have a FT, since 50% of the articles will be featured. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about Ussrangercv4 (talk·contribs) and his edits to USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)USS Tennessee (BB-43) and other ship articles. I see that you have began some conversation with him, but his edits to add in these tables don't seem to conform to not only the MOS but also place a precedent that does not even exist in the existing FAs of battleships. This also has to do with the list of commanding officers issue we all know about. Perhaps you could ask him to enter into a discussion at WT:OMT about this since large tables like he is adding are actively discouraged at FAC and should instead form stand-alone FLs. While I welcome the enthusiasm of a new editor, and I realize I should be the one to raise these concerns, I would most likely have issues with WP:BITE and WP:OWN. -MBK00402:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'm about to go to bed, but I'll drop a line on his talk page tomorrow about it. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Were you aware that OSU has a run of this indispensable magazine? Much of it has been indexed at http://www.warship.org/wi_index_intro.htm. I'd be interested to see exactly what issues the library there has on hand as there are a ton of interesting articles from the magazine's early days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like most of them are in the book depository, so I'd have to request them through the system. There are two at one of the libraries, but unfortunately they're "use in library." Once I get finished with some of the books I've got checked out for my thesis I'll try the ones in the depository and see what I find. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi PArsecboy. I've decided to create Mediterranean Division, the article about Goeben and Breslaus division. Just one concern here: Goeben provides a wonderful description of the Mediterranean Divsion [[8]]. Problem is: do I copy and paste over to the new article or reqord it? Thanks for your help. Buggie111 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I would reword it, if only so that the text counts towards a DYK (since they don't count text that has been copied from another article). There's probably more information out there than what's currently in the article, so we'll want to incorporate that as well. Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Rollback query
Hi, I see that you granted User:Pmanderson rollback rights on 4 January 2010. Were you aware that he was blocked for edit warring only two weeks before that (although rescinded on a promise that he would keep away from the article in question)? And that he had a history of edit warring and blockings? And that his ArbCom restriction on editing the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines was re-widened on 31 August 2009 "due to continuing disruption"? And are you aware that he appears to be breaching that ArbCom restriction right now, here and here, in which he refers to another editor as a "bully"? I am filing at AE now.
I can't find any diffs of Pmanderson using rollback inappropriately, which is what really matters in this situation. For the purposes of the "should he have rollback or not" question, it's mainly irrelevant as to whether he has violated the ArbCom restriction. If he's been misusing the tool, then sure, he should lose it, but if he hasn't, removing it is an inappropriate form of punishment for an unrelated issue.
As the article as already appeared at DYK, I've opened a discussion at WT:DYK on this subject. Maybe you should consider going for GA status instead? Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
do not disturb me anymore, you are wrong [10]. This is Original Research because you are ascertaining by yourself which name is allegedly widely used. The original name was completely different. The readers of wikipedia must read right information documented by best sources like the Encyclopaedia of Islam and not allegedly widely used wrong information by bad sources like Britannica which are not qualified to write good articles about the orient. --Kulumpu (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
So much articles are wrong in the English wikipedia. It is because of admins like you. You are only threatening me but you do not care for quality of our articles. Today I have corrected a misinformation for which you did not care for years [11], it was a selective citation concealing or denying the massacres of Turks. Then I corrected the Istanbul misinformation. The name Istanbul is found in early Byzantine and Saljuk sources. You do not like this name, I think so, in spite of your defence, however this does not change anything. The usage of the name Istanbul is documented in very early sources. You have to read the Istanbul article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. --Kulumpu (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I asked a question on ed's talk page regarding the article listed above and whether or not he had more sources. He said that, for the improvment of the article, two issues of Warship International. "The Riachuelo (Brazilian battleship)". Alan Vanterpool. N2/69:140. §N3/70:205 would be nice. Sturm then later suggested you. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have just finished evaluating the article on Reinhard Scheer as a Good Article, and now will be the first to congratulate you for an excellent job. Cheers, PKKloeppel (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I'll add my name there now. Hopefully we can get this through FAC (I plan on taking the class article through ACR next once Deutschland-class battleship gets done) so we can work on making it a featured topic. Parsecboy (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually planning to make some additions using the Greger book. I don't always do everything all at once. I guess I might as well ask you is there's a cite for Baden and Bayern being designed with diesels in mind. I thought it was only Sachsen.
As for moving a cite in the Seydlitz article, that was inadvertent. Sorry.
Thought to inform you of this. I've got a draft of Baden off-wiki, so I'd like to be able to expand it and take credit for it. Buggie111 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
@Orpy: Oh, no problem then. I wasn't sure what you were doing with the Greger book, go ahead and re-add it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
@Buggie: Oh, I was hoping to do all of the German ships more or less by myself (it's been a project of mine running long before OMT ever hit the slipway), but I guess I don't own anything. I've got the Admiralty report from the Baden tests and I was planning on working on that article sometime soon. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't have the admiralty reports. I wasn't really that far into the draft, and please don't percieve this as an annoyance. I'll just check for another one, and leave it at that. Buggie111 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, you're not an annoyance. I was just planning on doing all of the German ships myself. I don't want to be too territorial, but I've been working on this for a very long time (actually, today is 3 years from my first edit to a German BB article), and would really prefer to do it all myself. Would you mind working on articles from other nations please? Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite responses. Sure, I will, but I've got a lot of refs for German ships, if needed. I'll stick with American ones. Buggie111 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate it. I've been waiting on the second volume from Gary Staff's German Battleships series to get into the later dreadnoughts (it will be released in June and I've already got it pre-ordered ;) What sources do you have for German ships? I've got Groner's, which is pretty excellent for technical stuff and Staff's books on the BBs and BCs which are useful for service histories.
The American articles are actually in a pretty rough shape for the vast majority of them, and could use your hard work :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Their e-books, which I can't get a hold of right now. Ospery is a publisher of two of them, mostly about Bismarck. Buggie111 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's good to know. The Bismarck articles (the ship and class article mainly, I don't see Tirpitz being much of a problem) are fairly contentious, especially when it comes to assessing their armor/guns/effectiveness/etc. I'll be sure to drop you a line when it comes time to work on those two. It'll be useful to have another editor who can help deal with the both the fanboys/haters. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've got one by R. A. Burt, basically each ship from 1897 onwards, two by Gordan Williamson (one's on pocket battleships), Conways, Jane's, and one overall book by Peter Hore. Hope this helps, and sorry for the orange banner. Buggie111 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've got the Burt book lying around here somewhere. I have two of Williamson's books as well, the Battleships 1939-45 and Heavy Cruisers 1939-45 books. Which Hore book is it? If it's the Battleships of World War II book, that's good, because I have his The Ironclads and Battleships of World War I. And no worries about the orange banner :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a note, Gröner (or an editor) seems to have gotten the builders of Sachsen and Württemberg mixed up. So say Grießmer, Preston, the Royal Navy's Naval Intelligence Division, &c.. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, Grießmer says the same as Gröner: Sachsen at Germaniawerft and Württemberg at AG Vulcan (look at the Tabelle 8 at the end of the book, it has the ships organized chronologically by builder). I'd be more inclined to trust the German sources over the English, especially wartime intelligence. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't actually say that in the Bayern class battleship article though. It says "Sachsen was laid down at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Hamburg ... Württemberg was built by Germaniawerft in Kiel." And it references Gröner for this revelation. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, in that case, it's a copying error on my part; it seems Gröner is in agreement with everyone else. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to thank you. Yesterday, for some bizarre reason, I read through all of your German battlecruiser articles before I went to sleep. I wrote the first two parts of my History IB Exam today, and question #1 on the second part was "compare the significance of naval warfare in two twentieth century wars". WWII has been my pet obsession since fourth grade, so that was easy. Having read all of your battlecruiser stuff helped significantly; keep up the excellent work! Cam(Chat)23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Rofl, that is an awesome question, one I wish I had on one of my AP exams. However, I am curious as to what the "bizarre reason" was. ;) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)06:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oblivion Lost
Did you missed the point, again. Yep, you did. And please don't talk to me like you talk to the punks in your hood : "You need to watch your tone". My tone is pretty fine, but yours.....Keep in mind that being an administrator doesn't provide you protection when you deside to force the "law" on the rest of the users unjustly!
"The copyright notice on the Ukrainian Wiki is wrong." All right, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't know that. You should have started with that. By the way, if it's so wrong, why is it still there, a?
About this : "You're walking on thin ice, friend. Keep up your attitude and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a block.". Keep up with these threats and you may end up in the footsteps of this user : User:Wuhwuzdat. He was cocky and rude with everybody who had "lower rank" than him. Take a good look at him now. Oblivion Lost (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll note that I was one of the people who took action against him (including removing his access to rollback), and I can say that Parsec is nothing like him. Now both of you, focus on the damn image and leave the extra stuff out.
With regards to "why is it still there," if I were an admin on Commons, I'd bet that there are thousands of pictures I could go through and delete simply because they are copyvios. 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! That looks really interesting. The closest copy is in Ball State, but I can request it through OSU's interlibrary loan system. Unfortunately, the system won't accept my university ID number, and the office I have to call to get it straightened out isn't open for another 2 and a half hours. This stupid ID card has given me more problems than it's worth... Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Turns out my ID number wasn't associated with my name in the library system, so they had to put it in my file, then wait until the server updated so I could make the request. Hopefully I'll have it soon. Thanks again for letting me know about it! Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You might want to leave ANI notices around, on your talk page, for at least a little while, if not for the duration of the ANI discussion. Since users making ANI reports without notification has been a prominent problem that ANI regulars are trying to "crack down" on, it would make things easier if you left evidence that the reporting party did notify you, just as a courtesy to everyone looking. It would save us from possibly attempting to contact you again, along with reprimanding the reporting party for something they actually didn't neglect to do. Thanks. Equazcion(talk)01:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Parsecboy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Parsecboy's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Parsecboy!
I look forward to supporting another Good Topic for OMT since all of the article of the Bayern class are now GA or above... -MBK00407:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Then could you please tell me why on the official US Navy web site it is using Short tons for the Nimitz class carriers? The link I have just given shows displacement in both short tons and tonnes (metric tons).
If you also take a look at other classes of ships in the US Navy, such as the Burke class DDGs, the unit used is Long tons. Can you explain this? Recon.Army (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Recon.Army, Parsecboy:
I tried to contact navy.mil several months ago but my message would not go through. I did get a message through today and will post any reply, or the gist of it, on the Nimitz class talk page. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A German warship Bremen...
...that isn't SMS Bremen. This NYT article refers to a commerce-raiding Bremen which I cannot find online and HMS Glasgow (1909), which I can find but was apparently in the Adriatic in 1917? Help would be appreciated before Bahia hits the main page tomorrow. :-) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)09:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was on 6 August 1914, not '17. I'd bet my hat it's a mis-identification of SMS Dresden; the ship was in the area at the time and ultimately did butt heads with Glasgow, twice. Visually they were similar (both 3-stackers and close in size). Parsecboy (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Take this excerpt from Halpern's A Naval History of World War I:
The Dresden was on her way home from the east coast of Mexico when war came, and she was ordered to work her way down the coast of South America and attack trade off the Plate. The Dresden had sunk only two ships when the Admiralstab on 8 September ordered her into the Pacific...
On May 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Baden (1915), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Rheinland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks Parsec! I was wondering where thos last 500 so characters would come from. I'm gonna write about each of the ships now, in order to get a DYK. Buggie111 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem! I saw you ask WS for help, and thought there might be another mention of the ships in Halpern somewhere. You might be able to pull some useful info from here. You could also use this to beef up the last para in the service history section. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It's looking pretty good. I'd say the lead needs to be sourced (you might be able to get by, considering a good deal of it will be sourced in the body, but I prefer to be safe than sorry). One big problem is all of the images (except the one for the Habsburgs and the Radetzkys) don't have suitable copyright information for them to be used here. They need sources that state the date of publication (for images published before 1978, it's date of publication +95 years in US copyright law). Parsecboy (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm done now. Just need to add in what books I used and souce the lead. As for the images, I am terrible with stuff like that. Do you mind attempting to fix the issue(s) for me? Thanks a ton.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I've merged the page and am looking into the photos. We're going to end up using this photo for the Erzherzog Karls because I found the same photo in an old book I've got. It's The European War: The Powers, which was published in 1914 in the US. The only question is whether it's also PD in Europe, which will determine whether the photo remains on Commons or is moved to en.wiki. I posted a question here on the specifics of Austrian copyright law. As for the rest, the book also has some good replacement photos that I can scan and upload; there's a photo of the fleet on maneuvers that looks to me to have been taken at the same time, as well as some nice photos of several individual battleships. The only problem is because they're so old they're not the best quality. I'll let you know when I've got them here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. I'd strongly recommend taking it through a MILHIST ACR first though, that will help you pass FLC with greater ease. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, realistically speaking, neither of those are going to pass, so you might as well just wait for them to be closed or withdraw them. I didn't take a close look at the prose other than to fix obvious typos, but it more than likely can use a thorough copyedit, something Dank is quite good at doing. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to know that some people appreciate my efforts :) You're right though, there are far too many people who are either unaware of copyright restrictions or don't care enough to stop using copyrighted material, as this instance glaringly illustrates. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The book listed in the Erzherzog Karl discussion above happened to mention Franz Ferdinand, so I got thrown into the dilema again of whther or not to send it off to FAC. If it passes, I'd get a WP:FOUR and a large step closer to WP:GOLDENW. OTOH, the state of the Habsburg's has left me wondering if ant AH ship would become an FA. Help with the thinking process here? Buggie111 (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, I've uploaded a picture of the Erzherzog from the Magyar wiki at File:Erzherzog_franz_ferdinand_001.jpg, but would like you to abuse your admin rights and see if the picture, whose author is unknown, is all right. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid Ed's right. I've gone and deleted the image. As for voting in the FAC, I wrote a good chunk of that article, so that wouldn't be quite right ;) Speaking of that, would you mind if I add my name to the nomination? I'll be able to help out when you go on your trip. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Your assistence is already needed at the FAC. I'll be away for most of the day (and week) so you two will need to get to work. I've fixed up the images and made the citations consistent ect but we need a copy edit and some more info for thecitations.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Power abuse
Althpugh I think your are watching the FAC, File:Flag of Italy (1861-1946) crowned.svg needs to list why cc-by-sa-3.0 is applicable. Buggie111 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Ruth got the copyedit, great. I've got a lot on my plate, so as long as she's handling any objections that come up, I'll work on other articles. If things get stuck bad, give me a shout, please. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate all the work you've done on a number of my recent articles at ACR and FAC. I'll let you know if anything comes up. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup. You might want to keep an eye on that thread on Commons; I've got class tomorrow morning and afternoon, and might not be able to act on any replies if they come then. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you look up a few threads, it only took about 9 hours for a reply to my last question. And any Italian editors on Commons will more than likely be up soon (given the time difference). Parsecboy (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Flanker has confirmed it was his interpretation, so the CC license is valid. Should be good to go on images now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Westfalen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks, I think I've addressed your first and third point. I explained your second point on the review page and wonder if you have any ideas how it could be made clear in the article. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SMS Posen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
For your incredible improvements to German warship articles, including the German battlecruiser featured topic and your work with that country's battleships, the members of Operation Majestic Titan hereby award you the Titan's Cross in Bronze. Keep up the great work!
I'm not a coordinator, but there has been no ruling as to whose job it is to give these awards out once consensus has been reached. However, a quick glance at the nominations page of the Titan's Cross award section will show that consensus has indeed formed. As a result, I gave it to you on behalf of the members of OMT. (Man we need to designate who hands these things out but I hope that you all were not too mad) Good job and keep up the wonderfull work!--White Shadowsyou're breaking up23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.
I appreciate the offer, but between real life, my battleships, and the other things I do here, I don't think I have the time to take on any more projects :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
.png)
