Derek.cashman (talk | contribs) wikiproject good articles august newsletter using AWB |
→Thank You: new section |
||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/August 2008}} |
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/August 2008}} |
||
== Thank You == |
|||
{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WikiChevrons.png|80px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[WP:MILHIST#AWARDS|WikiChevrons]]'''''  |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | For contributing to the Iowa class battleship FAR and helping the article maintain its bronze star I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks for your help, I apreciate it. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 00:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 00:23, 20 August 2008
User Page |
Talk Page |
About Me |
Userboxes |
Battleships |
Sandbox |
Userspace |
Contributions |
Please feel free to leave a message (or email), but if you post here you I ask that you observe the following requests:
|
| |||
USS Texas (BB-35) copyedit
I gave a pretty thorough copyediting pass to USS Texas (BB-35). I have some thoughts, observations, and questions.
Note #13 "BATTLESHIP TEXAS (BB-35)" is a dead link. From the web address, I would surmise that it might not have been considered an RS for eventual FA consideration, but it is the cite for several items in the D-Day sections.#26 "The Sand Pebbles" link might be rejected as a non-RS, also.- In note #12, the phrase "German Luftwaffe" is redundant (arguably, at least).
- In the last paragraph of the "World War I" section, is the 40-mile figure nautical miles, as one would expect? The hard-coded conversion previously in the text treated it as statute miles, so I left it as that.
- In the "Rehearsal" section and the "D-Day" sections there are two somewhat overlapping lists of ships. I wasn't clear if they were two distinct units with overlapping and/or changing membership (heat-of-battle type shifts) or descriptions of the same unit from, perhaps, two different sources.
- Also, in the 2nd paragraph of the "D-Day" section, it seems like a similar situation about targets on Omaha beach. Like maybe the same actions are described, again, perhaps, from two different sources.
- doncram (talk · contribs), at my invitation, added the National Historic Landmark (NHL) information to the article. The NHL infobox he added is somewhat compatible with the ship infobox, so depending on how you want to go with it, it could be incorporated into the ship box, as well.
- For A-class and FAC, the lead section for the article should probably be expanded to four paragraphs. I might structure it as follows: the first paragraph could be fleshed out with some info on builder (who, where, when); a second paragraph to summarize up through WWI; a third for Interwar and WWII; and then keep the current final paragraph as the fourth and final paragraph of a new lead.
- I linked to a couple of men mentioned in the article, each of whom later had a USN ship named for them (Grant and McDonnell), even though both are redlinked now.
- I'm not sure of the significance of the "by hull number" in the last sentence. Is Texas merely the lowest numbered battleship that was made a museum ship, or was she the first (and coincidentally the lowest numbered) made a museum ship. If the former, I honestly don't think thats all that significant; if it's the latter—as seems to be currently indicated in the lead—it need to be reworded for clarity.
- Unless you have deep-seated reasons for retaining the current reference setup at the end of the article, it would certainly make for a cleaner notes section if the full details of books were listed in a "Reference" section with a citation of something along the lines of "Smith, p. 25." in a "Notes" section. (See USS Siboney (ID-2999), for example, of one way of doing that.)
Any questions – or complaints ;) – just let me know... — Bellhalla (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I'll leave it to you to strike – or not ;) – from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics — Bellhalla (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I located the missing cite #13, it can still be accessed through the internet archive. Here is the working link, you can check the info out if you want or simply readd it to the article. The rest I will look more conclusively into tomorrow, time permitting. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll be done with school by then, and hopefully will be back in full force (assuming I don't die first). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Having officially nominated the Montana class for GA status I have finished my current project, so I am starting on this checklist next. I added a copy to my sandbox a couple of days ago, and will be crossing off items there as they are dealt with. Thought you might like to know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, A-class will follow for the Montana's just as soon as GA-class is cleared. Also, above copy of the list in my sandbox has more items crossed off at the moment; you may want to check to see if you concur with the items I've crossed off and update the list accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- She will. We can use the Montana FAC as a starting point to anticipate what sort of problems we are going to get and address them before they evolve into problems at FAC. Have faith in the battleship and the work we have both done, each of us has a reputation for getting the job done, and we can play to that strength at FAC when this article goes up. Trust me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
When you get a moment, could you take a look at this link and tell me what you opinions on the matter are? I, like you, would like to see this go FA before the end of the year, so I have been working on the points for a few days now, but could use a second opinion on what still needs done. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think at this point we may be at a point where we could feesably nominate Texas for A-class and see if the community thinks the ship is there yet. This would also be a good way to get info on any last second changes that need to be implemented proir to an FAC. If she clears ACR with no compliants than all that will remain is bellahalla's suggestions for improvement, and we pretty much have those checked off. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I found two that could serve the article well: this one and this one. We also have Image:Omaha 1944 Initial assault.jpg on site, although I have to say I like the other two better. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Birmingham, Alabama
FYI, Hoar Construction is an actual company in Birmingham, and has been since the 1940s.[1] This edit by Trotterl (talk · contribs) wasn't vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hoar Construction, per your suggestion. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanx
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | ||
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that MBK004 has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Talk:Iowa class battleship/FAQ, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
Iowa class battleship FAR
Iowa class battleship has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
SS Normandie merge
Greetings, would you be willing to merge the USS Lafayette (AP-53) article into the SS Normandie one as stated on the talk page? It's been two months now since that message. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information
I want people to find out about the events scheduled for the commissioning of the ussny. The best way I could think to do that was show the link to the official commissioning site. Not to mention the fact that all funds raised by the commissioning event go to the families and crew of the ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwilson0501 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk page archiving vandal
Thanks for catching that. I saw the comment and had replied to it (not that I suspect the editor will ever see the response since it's an AOL IP) but didn't notice that the archiving had been changed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
RfB Thank You spam
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The latest newsletter is here! View it at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter archives/2008 7. Banjeboi 14:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Military of the United States
I don't know if you are a outsider looking in or a friend of the user Signaleer, nor do I really care! You changed the subject of Military of the United States, with out hearing both sides. So here's my arguments:
If you go by the oldest service. Then it would go the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard & then Air Force. The USMC was created on 10 November 1775, but the USN was created on October 13, 1775. Now you tell me which is older!? Read the USMC seal, it clearly says the Department of the Navy & United States Marine Corps, but the Air Force is it's own department. I can show you a Army, Navy or Air Force Medal of Honor or Army, Navy or Air Force Service Cross. Show me a Marine Medal of Honor or Marine Cross? Why can't you, is because it's part of the Navy. People may not like it or even say yes but technically it dose it's own thing. It still doesn't change any thing the United States Armed Forces may have five branches. But only three Departments. That's how almost all of us in the military, except those in the USMC & it's supports see it. Who say well we are older then you. Put it this way you could be a 15 year E-6 in the Army and I'm a 12 year E-7 in the Air Force, I still out rank you because of the grade not the time in service or what service your in.
You say If I continue I may be blocked from editing! Who care I can just get a new username! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp 8503 (talk • contribs) 02:10, Jul 31, 2008
With thanks
Military history service award | ||
By order of the coordinators, for your good work tagging and assessing military history articles in Tag & Assess 2008, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to the drive. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been tweaking the section to better adress the concerns of the reviewers, but could use a set of eyes to check and see if the section is still facutally accurate, NPOV compliant, and free of spelling errors. Also, happy one year anniversery on the wiki! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 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) 02:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I was searching for those ships in Greek categories and didn't find anything. I totally missed the section in the Adams class article. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The break out :-)
United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate has been created to consolidate the argument on a single page and (hopefully) allow for a reduction in the size of the Iowa class battleship article. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that MBK004 has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning The Copyeditor's Barnstar and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC) |
My RfA
Fair enough, but I think your support would go a long way here. Passionate disagreement is one thing, but abuse of rights is quite another. At no time have I ever misused Rollback to exact revenge or would I ever use admin rights to do such a thing. If I can clarify any of my actions, please let me know. — BQZip01 — talk 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
An Article I created
Hi. I was hoping that You can delete an article that does not reach the criteria of nobility on wikipedia. Window Boy. It was tagged a long time ago. And it still hasn't reached nobility standards.--Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Your new book
By my primitive mathamatical standards your new book should be coming in any day now, and I look forward to seeing it used as a source in the articles shortly. On a related note, Iowa class battleship is just about to complete its pass through FAR and with any luck will be reinstated to the FA list without passing through FARC.
Lastly, I asked Tony1 to have a look at the US Naval Gunfire Support Debate article, and he left a bunch of hidden notes for improvement in advance of an FAC, if you would like to look at them. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Double huh? That would be awesome, especial since the enigineering and armor sections are weak. If the book is as good as you say then we may also be able to create a new section/article for the radar and electronic countermeasure equipment the ships have/had installed on them. I've been trying for a while now to get a page like that up, but so far haven;t had any luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
USS Asheville and other things
YOU DO NOT NEED A CITATION FOR EVERY LITTLE DETAIL LIKE THE CURRENT CHIEF OF THE BOAT. SHOW ME A WRITTEN RULE THAT SAYS THE INFO BOX MUST CONFORM TO YOUR STANDARDS. WHAT MAKE THIS ARTICLE A GREAT ARTICLE IS THE FACT IT IS UNIQUE AND NOT LIKE EVERY OTHER SHIP ARTICLE. PLEASE SHOW ME A WRITTEN RULE THAT SAYS IT MUST BE LIKE EVERY OTHER SHIP ARTICLE. THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR OVER A YEAR AND NOBODY HAS COMPLAINED.
AND UNDERSEA WARFARE IS THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE FOR ANYTHING REALATED TO THE UNITED STATES SUBMARINE FORCE.--Subman758 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually That Image does belong in lead, concidering this the last line in the lead, which you conveniently left in place after moving the picture. "HST was authorized as USS United States but her name was changed before the keel laying."
Oh I am still waiting for you written rules that say the articles must conform to your standards. And I will take matter up with Higher up admin's Subman758 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Block Me I don't care. You are the one trying make everything conform to your personal standards. By the way I've got like ten accounts. Blocking the I.P. Address won't help you either, I'll switch to a different Modem. The reason Wikipedia is Laughed at, is Admins like you. You nit pick left and right. I don't suppose a Polar Bear Certificate would good enough to document a swim call in Behm Canal. By the way oh and this I am very picky about Whats the deal with you guys putting the diving depth and ship max speed greater the what has officially released by the Navy. That would be you guys publishing Classified Information, A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE --Subman758 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
One Other thing: There is a reason you will not fine many sources for Submarines. IT IS SECRET. And that is the Reason The United States Has not lost a single Submarine since World War Two, due to Enemy Action. Though we have lost two via accidents. Sure you may not like the fact that we have these secrets, but the we do have them, have many submariners including myself alive.--Subman758 (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I see you have not bastardized the USS Topeka Article. You didn't change the infobox. You didn't add all those unnecessary maintenance tags. And so on that just goes to shoe you are absolutely bias. This just my opinion, and we all know about opinions, their like assholes, we all got them, and they all stink. But people who have not served in the military, really have no business writing about it.--Subman758 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I've courtesy blanked the post to my user talk and left a note to Subman. He hasn't posted since then, so suggest treating this as water under the bridge. If problems continue, suggest opening the matter at a noticeboard for independent review. Please notify me if that becomes necessary, and I hope it won't be. Hoping things settle down, DurovaCharge! 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
USS Kearsarge posting
Thank you for the message related to unreliable sources for a recent posting I made to the USS Kearsarge page. However, the information I posted came from the ship's website (which is already linked on the wikipedia page; the specific link is http://www.kearsarge.navy.mil/site%20pages/History.aspx. I did not feel it appropriate to create another reference or link. Therefore, unless you can point me to a wikipedia article that makes your suggestion more right, I believe it was inappropriate to remove the current I provided. It would have been more appopriate to add a citation needed marker than removing the content? --djharrity (talk) Djharrity (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
USS Wasp (CV-7)
I see that you have just reverted my last edit to this article using a tool designed for handling vandalism. It must be perfectly clear to you that this is no such thing. The edits I made include a disambiguation of "Betty" to "Mitsubishi G4M", the correction of "Virginia capes" to "Virginia Capes", the corection of D-day to D-Day in line with the article title, the conversion of several ship names to use the USS template, the removal of several superfluous line breaks, the unlinking of common geographic names per WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked and the unlinking of dates, since these are useless and a distraction to >90% of readers (see WP:CONTEXT#Dates). Which of these do you object to? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're telling me that fixing a lot of small problems with this article, and hundreds like it, and removing date formatting, all in line with the MoS, changes I've been making for weeks and to which virtually no-one has objected, is "gaming the system"? Thanks for your kind appreciation for all my hard work. Yes, date formatting is optional - that means it's OK for me to remove it, and it's OK for you to prefer to keep it. The guidance in the MoS has changed - it used to encourage autoformatting, now it's neutral to negative "Careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.". If you think date formatting is so important that you want to forego all the other changes, or make them yourself, that's fine, I'm not going to argue with you. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- MBK004—I should come clean at the start and say that I'm entirely biased towards the removal of low-value links, including the ridiculous (single years, dictionary terms) and the now deprecated (date autoformatting). There are at least six reasons for dispensing with DA, and they mostly have to do with the improvement of articles such as this, and all of the other ship articles (which tend to be already quite heavily endowed with high-value links). It's precisely because I value the wikilinking system that I've been pursuing a policy of disciplined linking, i.e., of minimising the dilution of the the links we might want our readers to follow, and of reducing colour-clutter. Perhaps as a reading psychologist I'm hyper-aware of the slight impediments to the reading experience that unnecessary bright-blue links represent.
- Have you really compared the before and after in this article? I'm keen to receive your feedback on my talk page, where you'll find an entry towards the bottom explaining the background to and advantages of the move to dispense with DA. You may also wish to peruse this consensus page. Tony (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh
It appeared as though he had been unblocked. : DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Block evasion
from 66.123.206.93, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi MBK,
- I noticed Ncmvocalist's removal of the IP's message on ANI, and I wanted to stop by and ask you to reconsider your block. While you seem to spend a great deal of time fighting vandalism, from my point of view it looks like you blocked someone you essentially had a content disagreement with--this is certainly not vandalism. I also looked through your contributions and noticed you've been using the rollback tool to revert good-faith (if somewhat misguided) contributions such as [2]], [3], and [4]. To be perfectly blunt, if I saw that a rollbacker had performed these reversions, I would have removed their rights.
- I'm not trying to attack you or downplay the huge volume of good work you contribute to the project--I'm just suggesting that the extensive time you put in dealing with vandals and trolls may be starting to negatively affect how you handle apparent good faith contributors. And of course, I could have missed something entirely in all of these cases, in which case I'd appreciate if you would point it out so I can start tucking into my black-feathered fowl. Thanks! --jonny-mt 06:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Request 3rd Party
Recently, there has been an issue in reference to the article China Burma India Theater of World War II. The user Philip Baird Shearer believes that the CBI was just a theater and not a theater of operations. I disagree. I would like a third party to please review this disagreement and feed their input. I would like a group of mediators to approach this matter. Please respond on this page, I will be watching it. I've also added this discussion at the Wikipedia Requested moves page. -Signaleer (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
---|
Thank You
The WikiChevrons | ||
For contributing to the Iowa class battleship FAR and helping the article maintain its bronze star I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks for your help, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |