Jump to content

User talk:Brad101/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Battleship articles

My apologies; that must have been seriously annoying. All three aricles are now, I believe, properly edited and I would appreciate, at your convenience, a review of their rating. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Milhist coordinator?

The military history wikiproject will soon open the September 2010 coordinator elections to determine who among us will serve on the X Tranche, the coordinator tranche beginning 28 September of this month. The current coordinators have offered up the names of a limited number of editors who we believe would make good coordinators, and your name was included in the list. Therefore, I am leaving this message on behalf of the current milhist coordinators to encourage you to run for the position of coordinator. If you have any questions or comments about the position you are welcome to ask any members of the current coordinator tranche, we would be happy to answer your questions. Note that while this message is being left to encourage you to run for the position you are under no obligation to do so, and if you decide not to run this decision will not be held against you now or at any point in the future.

On belhalf of the Military history Coordinator IX Tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Brad, I know you're more of a WP:Ships person, so I'm not expecting you to run, but I hope you will. I think your viewpoints and insight could be very beneficial to discussions over there. There's 22 hours left to sign up (link)! Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

French battleship Condorcet (1909)

Thank you for your time, and your comments. I had not fully appreciated that italics should always be used; they are now. This ship did not, in common with other French pre-dreadnoughts, have a very active career, and short of listing times when she went to sea on routine exercise it is difficult to write much else about her career. I can, I am afraid, find no spelling mistakes in the article. I have now posted HMS Superb (1907)--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this difference for an example of general things you need to be aware of. Italics for ship names only. HMS Victory and not HMS Victory. Same goes for ship classes. There are templates I used that simplify the process. Once you establish the nationality of a ship by its prefix (ie: HMS) then there is usually no need to continue using the prefix when mentioning the ship again. Disambiguation in a ship name is almost never required to be shown so HMS Shipname (1906) should only appear as HMS Shipname or simply Shipname. Anyway, the Superb article needs one more citation for a part of the last paragraph. Brad (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again. Citation will be added when I go from here. I notice, although you were generous enough not to point it out, that you found 3 or 4 typos and corrected them. I will get future submissions proof-read before going to article-space. I do not think that I personally can do anything else with the career of Condorcet; we need someone with access to French texts, which I do not have. Jane, Conway and various histories of WW I do not assign an active role to her, and she was in reserve after hostilities ended. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

HMS Collingwood (1908)

Hi there. I really belive that in this one I have corrected ALL the typos! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Friendly talkpage-stalker here. I quickly skimmed through the article and only two items caught my eye. It may only be a matter of ENGVAR, but "un-named" and "maindeck" stuck out for me. I'm used to seeing "main deck" for the noun sense and "main-deck" for an adjective sense. Cheers. HausTalk 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Assessment

I note your comment on assessment of articles, and will follow the instructions contained therein. I have almost finished the stubs I can improve, and looked at the start-class articles. OMG! It will take me months if no-one else does anything! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB is good at catching out of order refs and a lot of other MOS things. Tonight I ran it on all 35 FAC articles. Brad (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how easy/hard it is for you to do the edits, but either way it's much appreciated on my end. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

The A-Class review for Iowa class battleship is now open, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

USS Constitution Stamp

Hi Brad, Sorry about my custom formatting. Though I don't quite understand why you feel it goes against MOS I was hoping a larger image and a nicely centered caption would ad visual quality to the image. I do know however that MOS allows for a larger image when there is a good reason to do so. From MOS, Images

  • 'An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels'
  • 'Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual'

Also, there is nothing under captions that even suggests that centering of caption text is not allowed.

Since you seem to be the chief editor for the page I will go along with your consensus. However, if you are sure a larger image and a nicely centered text in the caption will not threaten the page's featured status it would be nice to see those qualities return to the page.

It would take considerably more than a change in image size to render the article as less than a featured article. My first created article, US space exploration history on US stamps, had/has numerous images with custom sizing and custom caption formatting and it was listed first on DYK on May 14th of 2010. -- btw.. Nice article!! -- Regards, GWillHickers (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia:Featured articles. Featured articles have to allow for people that browse with tools that help them read if they're blind or sight impaired. Text to audio readers and the like have to have an easy time on the page. Featured articles should also allow readers to use their default browser settings for text size and positioning plus pic sizes. You can set your wikipedia picture size in your preferences area under the heading "appearance". Uniformity is also required on a featured article. And no, changing the one pic would likely not cause the article to lose its featured status but it's a matter of not allowing the article to deteriorate over time where it will need a lot of work to return it to featured quality. Brad (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that pic's need a certain set of limits to allow for these sorts of things, while at the same time pic's often need size adjusting for a number of reasons some of which you mentioned (i.e.for the sight impaired, uniformity). As for the centering in the captions, this should not be an issue, no matter what browser one may be using. Centering has its place, esp for captions under images of stamps, paintings, portraits, etc. When it comes to pic' size I try to allow the image to be viewed as large as is practically possible, without cramping text, etc. The average reader (assuming he/she has a user page) isn't going to tinker around with preferences. A reader should not have to be forced to break away from the text to be able to view an image but have the option of viewing a smaller, but viewable, image as the reader moves along. Yes, this is not always possible, (i.e. as with large detailed maps, etc) but most of the time it is possible. Image size adjusting and text formatting is a common practice and like any other it can be used nicely or abused. I am confident that there are hundreds of featured articles whose image sizes were determined by the author(s), not by the software. The USS Constitution article is a featured article primarily because it is well written and well sourced. However, if you feel the image in question was too large, etc, I respect consensus of those who are (among) the primary builder(s) of the page. Salute! GWillHickers (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Holy image overload in your article, GW... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, discussing the history or subjects found on 'two dozen' stamps, requires 'two dozen' images. Articles about different stamps, coins, paintings, minerals, birds, etc often require move than the average amount of images for the article. GWillHickers (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Clemson and Wickes Class Destroyers

I've started working on the US Destroyer Class articles given that so many of them are in flat out horrible condition. I've got by count one referrence book here at the house. If you have the time/inclination I can use a hand on working through them. We've collaborated before without much friction so I thought I might as you and see if I can get Tomstar to join us.Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm having difficulty keeping up with the daily chores that SHIPS needs. If I do find extra time it will be devoted to finishing the last 4 articles I need for a featured topic. Brad (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

USS Europa

Hi, I notice you created the USS Europa page. There is info on that page which could be used on the SS Europa (1928) (USS Europa AP-177) page. Do you have a ref for the dates quoted? If so, would you add the dates to the ship article. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The ref was from DANFS. Looking at things further, USS Europa (AP-177) should be merged into SS Europa (1928). There is hardly any reason for two articles on the same ship. Brad (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, hadn't spotted that there were two articles. Given the short service as USS Europa, I'd agree that a merge was in order. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

USS Congress (1799)

Hi, Brad. While working on Theodorick Bland (judge), I stumbled upon a reference and factoid that might be useful for your work on USS Congress (1799). According to that reference, William Baldwin (botanist) sailed on the Congress and was an integral part of the South American Commission of 1817-1818 (which is alluded to, but not specifically named, in USS Congress (1799)#Later career). Here is the formatted/linked reference for your convenience:

Rasmussen, Wayne D. (2006). "Diplomats and Plant Collectors: The South American Commission, 1817-1818". In Gerber, James; Lei Guang (eds.). Agriculture and Rural Connections in the Pacific, 1500-1900. The Pacific World: Lands, Peoples and History of the Pacific, 1500–1900. Vol. 13. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company. pp. 53–62. ISBN 0754639789, 9780754639787. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |month=, |trans_chapter=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Cheers! - Location (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference I had also mentioned Baldwin but I either had to cut down the list of names on the voyage or I couldn't determine at the time which William Baldwin on Wikipedia was the correct one. Thanks. Brad (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I impose on you for a favor?

I've been waiting for you to add your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Iowa class battleship, I rewrote the whole article but I know that some of your issues (like the citations to the veterans websites) still need to be addressed. I would rather have your input here at the PR than have you attack the article during the as yet to occur ACR and FAC so that I have the time to fix the remaining problems. You've been a driving force behind the rewrite I created, and you are one of the few people I know of that can tell it like it is, so I would ask you: will you pen a few words at the PR so I can address the remaining issues and the new ones that have surely popped up since the newer version went up? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the article was at PR. MBK usually cross-posts all that stuff at the ships project. If you're telling me that the article is still using veterans websites for references then it should be plain to see that those need to be corrected. I don't actually see a reason why I should review the article again when I've already left plenty of comments during past reviews. When those are taken care of then it will be worth another look. I did scan over the article and it looks much improved so far. The references need cleaning up for conformity. Brad (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
MBK's been gone since November. :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply; I'll add referencing conformity to the list of things still do then. I like to think that the article as it is now is at least worthy of the GA-class rating it holds. I'll get back to you when the rest of the outstanding things you listed earlier are properly addressed. One question for clarification: how would you edit the references for conformity? Would you stick with author and page number scheme and then add the full references in the bibliography section, or would you do something else? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

RE: Cleanup: HMS Khartoum (F45)

Thanks for the clean-up on HMS Khartoum (F45)! That was my first page so it turned out to be somewhat scrappy. Do you have any tips regarding spell-checking? Andage01 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For spelling I rely on the Firefox browser. It has a built in spell-check option. Errors are underlined in red but not everything underlined is necessarily misspelled; you have to watch carefully. Brad (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Ships project banner

Hi. I saw your recent edit to the Talk:List of Mexico – United States border crossings and noted that your edit summary mentioned: "not in wpships scope / not a specific ship". I placed that banner on the page since it currently lists two separate ferries that operate over the border, I am hopeful that someone within the Ships wikiproject might be able to expand the list of ferries, and since I saw that both the BC Ferries and the United States Navy articles also are in the Ships project. Is it the case that BC Ferries and United States Navy should not be in the Ships project, since they are about a Ferry operating company and a country's Naval military force and neither of those others articles are about any specific ship? I note that at the top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships page the second sentence currently reads: "The project scope spans both naval and civilian ships, and articles on individual ships, ship classes, and other ship related topics are welcome." Does the Ships project scope statement need to be modified to state explicitly that only articles on specific ships are within its scope and that articles on ship classes, and other ship related topics are no longer welcome as they fall outside the scope of the project? Also, do you suppose that the List of Mexico – United States border crossings article be more welcome within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force project than the Ships project? Thank you for clarifying the scope of the Ships project and helping to make the List article better. 69.126.127.193 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noted another problem with the assertion that only articles about specific ships may be put into the Ships wikiproject. It is mentioned over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment that the class parameter of the {{WikiProject Ships}} banner is capable of taking both a list value and an FL value. I think the problem comes when trying to imagine how a list or featured list article could only be about a specific ship. Nevertheless, I note that Category:List-Class Ships articles currently has 1,028 articles in it. I've looked at a few (by no means all) and I cannot find any article whose content or title implies that the article is about only one specific ship. I note also that the Category:FL-Class Ships articles currently lists 7 articles, and none of them has a title that implies the article's subject matter is only one specific ship. My expectation for the List of Mexico – United States border crossings article is that it will eventually attain list class and that it might do that in more than one applicable wikiproject. Since it lists specific ships it certainly seemed that it could be in the Ships wikiproject to me when I placed the banner on the talk page.
I have some recollection that Cornelius Vanderbilt operated regularly scheduled ferry services from the Eastern United States, to a Mexican overland route, then met a separate ferry at the Pacific Ocean for a trip to California. I suspect some of those ships, or at least Vanderbilt's elaborate transport scheme, could also be mentioned within the List of Mexico – United States border crossings for its historic value (the article currently also lists road crossings and rail crossings that are now closed and of only historic interest). I think it would be helpful for a Ships afficionado to expand that article's coverage of ships, even if that means that the article is not about a specific ship and even if it contains lists of modes of transport other than ferries. 69.126.127.193 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I find it really amazing that removing a project banner from an article that doesn't meet the project scope would be worth all this verbosity. The article isn't about a ship or a group of ships and it's not even ship related. Brad (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed the message

Replying to our old conversation... hope Toll and hte other book has kindled the fire! ;-) Bellhalla shot me a couple emails at different times with good sources, including some on Brazilian battleship Sao Paulo that I still need to get around to using. Definitely did not realize Benea has been gone so long. Damn shame, he was a prolific writer. Hope he returns soon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering :) Brad (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship Peer Review

The Iowa class battleship Peer Review will be closing in the next few days. If you have any additional comments, questions, suggestions, complaints, or advise on how to improve the article, or if you wish to strike any comments you believe to have been addressed, please do so now before the review closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

When you say missing publisher information, are you referring to the citations made in the article body or to the master bibliography section? Or is it that both sections lack publisher info? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to citations in the article body. Brad (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. The Kestrel Steam Ferry--SPhilbrickT 14:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with DYK for Sunny South (clipper)

Hi Brad! Gosh, finally gotten an article up to B class, thanks. Do you have access to "The Search for Speed Under Sail" by Chappelle to confirm a DYK fact? Djembayz (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a copy at hand. Brad (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. Djembayz (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with FA review

Might want to pop over here and help with the review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente/archive1 Thanks! Kirk (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

USS Constellation v. Insurgente Review

Hello, you had stated that the account of the battle in toll differs from the account is in the article. What differences are there in Toll? Do you know if he used French sources in writing his work?XavierGreen (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Constellation v L'Insurgente

Hello. I believe i have addressed your remaining concerns with the page and was wondering if you support the promotion of the article to FAC.XavierGreen (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

USCGC Bertholf

You removed the milestone portion of the USCGC Bertholf wikipedia page where I received credit for being the first person in the United States to fire the 57mm Bofors aboard a US vessel. I am inquiring as to why. MMagaro (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC) ET1 Matthew A. Magaro USCG

Normally a mention of that sort needs some reference if one is available. Was there any news coverage or a press release? Brad (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pentagon Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/USCGImagery#p/search/2/tcjRzByQ-9A Matthew A. Magaro (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the mention again with the reference but not in its own section this time. Brad (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

USCGC Ossipee (WPR-50)

Brad, mind explaining why you demoted USCGC Ossipee (WPR-50)? It seems like a pretty comprehensive article to me. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The biggest issue to me looks like the lack of citations, i agree with Brad that it is start class.XavierGreen (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
How was the article demoted? It was start class before the checklist and start class afterward. Brad (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, demoted was the wrong word. "Confirmed" would have been more appropriate, but basically I would just like to know your reasoning in assessing it as C-class. The article is a straight cut-and-paste from the USCG website - as in our DANFS articles, there doesn't seem much point in providing cites when the article has only one source. If the article looks as if it has multiple sources, I can fix that if you think it's leading to confusion. I'm not sure why you assessed it as having no structure though. Gatoclass (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The article fails B3 for structure because the lead section consists of only once sentence. Sometimes I let an article slide on B3 but not one as skimpy as that. For an article that size there should be at least one healthy sized paragraph that sums up the entire article. Maybe you should look at the quality scale and the B-class FAQ. Brad (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay, missed that, thanks for pointing that out :) I'll try to fix it in the next day or two, and drop you a note when I've done so. Gatoclass (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

AWB Bug

You may want to file a bug report on AWB, it's caused two references to be placed in the wrong order twice: [1], [2]
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. AWB is usually very good at placing refs in numerical order. Brad (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
In case you're interested I received an answer as to why the refs were being sorted out of order. Brad (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:USS Chesapeake (1799)

Hi

I have finished the copyedit on USS Chesapeake (1799). There are some notes on the talk page which may need addressing.

I am asking for a more experienced copy editor to give my edits a going over though as I am only just tackling A class and above and want some feedback to make sure I have done it correctly. I will inform you when this has been done if that is ok?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. In the meantime some other "copyeditor" went through the War of 1812 section like a bull in a china shop. Brad (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I am assuming you mean Acad and Shem? I did notice those ones. I asked one of the GOCE co-ordinators to look at it and check my edits, Diannaa. I do hope it is at least a little better than it was and we haven't ruined it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability of ships/shipwrecks

Hi,

I noticed that you prodded Akra Aktion (which is in terrible shape), which I recently added a couple of wikiproject tags to. Just wanted to know if there is any sort of guideline/policy for notability of ships/shipwrecks or if we should just follow the WP:GNG. Would save you some time in future if I knew, as I could have already prodded it as non-notable? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability can be difficult to prove for some ships. Generally the wp:ships scope allows ships like Akira Aktion but I prodded only because of the condition the article is in. However, Akira Aktion might be merged to Empire Strength depending on what another editor who has worked extensively on Empire ships decides what can be done with it. I left a message on his talk page. Brad (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, my source does not say that she was renamed Akira Aktion. The source in that article (link 1) gives an IMO of 5340912 for Akira Aktion, whereas the New Zealand Maritime Index gives an IMO of 5291381 for Empire Strength (but this would have been under a later name), so it would appear that they are separate ships.
We have two choices here, either allow the deletion without prejudict to recreation later, or we bash the article into a shape resembling a ship. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Empire Strength was built in Belfast in 1942. She became E Evangelica in 1965 and ran aground in 1968. Akra Aktion was built in 1957 in Amsterdam as Steven and was later renamed Akra Aktion. She ran aground in 1981. So they cannot be the same ship. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

RN Cesare Rossarol

Hi Brad, I am trying to expand the text on RN Cesare Rossarol so that this reading may flow well, but I am Brazilian. Could you take a look and make the appropriate changes if you see fit ?
Thanks, learning is nice ! Krenakarore (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles Martel class battleship (1883)

Brad, thanks for your assessment of the article on the Charles Martel class battleship (1883). In your assessment you said that it met all the B class criteria except structure. Please you suggest a structure here that you think would enable to article to become B class.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Basic structure for an article is a lead section that summarizes the entire article and then sections below it which contain all of the information. See WP:LEAD. Brad (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles/A-Class Review

I corrected the references that were double wikilinked, but other than a couple, I couldn't see where they were "a mess". Perhaps you could show me what I am missing, so I get clean it up right quick. I have also left you a response on the A-Class review discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the A-Class review and see what else needs to be done? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You participated in the Frank Buckles A-Class review. If you have any further comments on the article or are satisfied with the article as it is, please post on the A-Class review page. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, what's bothering you on the article? I have to say, you haven't been very forthcoming with information, suggestions or anything really. This is my third post to your talk page and the only one that actually recieved a response. I want to clear this up, but at present, you aren't being really helpful. Let me know what is bothering you on the article, hell, even edit the thing if you want. But give me some information to work on, not just "Overlinked article per MoS", because that doesn't tell me anything. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Trying to expand on what he said, what else needs to be unlinked, then? Could you give some examples? –MuZemike 01:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. The article is overlinked. You were given suggestions by another editor who responded to your call for more comments about overlinking but you didn't act on those suggested. In response to each of the concerns I had (references and overlinking) you chose to argue about them rather than act on them. If you're going to nominate an article for A-class then you should be prepared to listen to those who have been there and done that. I have other things to do besides engage in arguments over articles that I've spent time reviewing. I oppose the promotion to A-class and I won't be back to look at it again. You have your three supports so be satisfied with those. End of conversation. Brad (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Final time: Exactly what are you concerned about, what needs delinking? I need examples, because "Overlinked article per MoS" doesn't tell me anything. Please look at the review page if you need examples on how people are responding. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the SS Edmund Fitzgerald images at the FAC

Thanks for reviewing the SS Edmund Fitzgerald images at the FAC. I'm assuming that included the one that was added since the previous FAC ([3]) but wasn't sure if you wanted your comments to reflect that. Sincerely, 09:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

All the pics are fine; no need to change my comments. Brad (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 16, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 16, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of the battle between Little Belt and the President, by Edward Orme

USS President was a 44-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy. She was one of the original six frigates whose construction was authorized by the Naval Act of 1794. Launched on 10 April 1800, she was the last to be completed. Her first duties with the newly formed United States Navy were to provide protection for American merchant shipping during the Quasi-War with France and to defeat the Barbary pirates in the First Barbary War. On 16 May 1811 President was at the center of the Little Belt Affair, when her crew mistakenly identified HMS Little Belt as HMS Guerriere, which was sought after for impressing an American seaman. The ships exchanged cannon fire for several minutes; Little Belt was heavily damaged. Subsequent U.S. and Royal Navy investigations placed responsibility for the attack on each other with no resolution. The incident contributed to tensions between the U.S. and Great Britain that led to the War of 1812. (more...)

HMS Brazen (1808)

A year ago you assessed HMS Brazen (1808) and noted that it failed B classification because the referencing and citation criteria were not met. Since then it has been expanded significantly and sources and citations have been added, Would you be willing to revisit the article and give guidance on improvements still needed? Apuldram (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to B-class. Brad (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oldest Commissioned Navel Vessil

The article on the USS Constitution states "she is the world's oldest floating commissioned naval vessel.[Note 1] Launched in 1797" however, the British ship HMS Victory (Still in Commission) was commisioned in 1778, 19 years earlier, a link to the wiki page is below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory and the original source http://www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=70 Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Char7es (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you had followed [Note 1] by clicking on it you would have seen the explanation that Victory is in drydock. Constitution is still afloat. Therefore "she is the world's oldest floating commissioned naval vessel.[Note 1] Launched in 1797" is correct. Brad (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delinking of place names

Brad, I think you should stop doing this, as you did with this article for example. Many people will have little if any idea of where these places are and may well want to check the link in order to comprehend the article. I know that I myself have frequently had to carefully research localities mentioned in ship references in order to fully understand a ship's movements and to be able to write coherently about the topic. It is doing a disservice to the readership IMO to remove such links. Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:link disagrees with linking basic geographical locations and repeated linking. New London CT was repeated several times. Brad (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, for the overlinking, fine (although I think a link in both the intro and the relevant section is okay). As far as wp:link though, it also says one should link relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. There is no question that linking place names is important to understanding of a ship's movements and actions. You might get away with delinking of names of well-known countries, but states should also be left linked IMO because non-Americans are often going to have no idea where the individual states are - also, lesser known countries should be linked as well. In fact to be perfectly frank, I think that particular clause of wp:link is really not helpful and should probably be struck - who decides what a "major geographical feature" is and who is likely to be familiar with it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

moving a page

Hey Brad, and thanks for your help with +972. I would appreciate if you could help again: Any chance you can move the page to +972 (Magazine)? I don't have an account with the Eng Wikipedia (I usually write for the Hebrew one), so I can't do it. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.133.167 (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln FAN

Thanks for all your work on this; the article is much improved despite no promotion. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Mosquito fleet list

First off, thanks for all your help on the Mosquito fleet boats. I wonder if you could help with something else. I've made a big list of all the Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet boats, and it's helpful because you can sort by year, place built, ship size, etc. Here's the link: User:Mtsmallwood/Sandbox. But it's a long list, and it loads slow. Do you have any ideas for making it more speedy? I was thinking about giving steam tugs their own separate list, of course, what was a tug and what was a freighter or passenger ship was not so clear 120 years ago, and in any case, vessels were often converted from one form to another. But I also want people to be able to readily add to and edit the list, and with its large size, this becomes difficult. What do you think?Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Large lists are always slow loading and there is little that can be done about it except to make the list smaller. Maybe you could split the list up alphabetically into several smaller lists.
  • When you start a new article please place {{WikiProject Ships|class=|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}} on the talk page. You don't have to assess the article if you don't care to. Placing the tag helps to find new articles.
  • {{Mosquito Fleet}} is rather out of control as far as templates go. It's too confusing and packed with other templates and has a carnival of contrasting colors. I don't think it's doing readers any service. Brad (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to see what I can do. I have not been very happy with {{Mosquito Fleet}} because there were getting to be too many articles and the box would have become huge if they were all listed in a single one. I was trying to get something more like {{Armia Krajowa}}, but perhaps I went over the top. Use of links to the proposed list or lists might help.Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You could model "Mosquito Fleet" after {{US Navy navbox}} but it should be set to collapse by default. I've never been very pleased with that Navy box because sometimes it's larger than the article it's placed in. Otherwise it's informative for a reader looking for other US Navy things. "Armia Krajowa" imo is also a bit stuffed with other templates. I think that the more templates a reader has to expand the less patience they will have going through it. I would also suggest changing the box colors to the usual default light blue color that's in wide use all over WP. Brad (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Iowa class ACR

The review was closed before I had time to respond, but I think you misunderstood me. My point was that History of United States Naval Operations in World War II was written before significant pieces of the picture were declassified, not that all old history is bad. Morison certainly did not have access to Magic or Ultra, for instance, which would lead to a flawed picture of the Battle of Midway. This is why the book is a poor choice for academic writing, not simply its age. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of "Stern" article

Brad101 - I noticed you've been doing some of the Assessment Scaling of the article on sterns and that your last review was a "C class" based on flaws in 1.) referencing and citations, and 2.) accuracy and coverage. I've spent the past week or two conducting a major overhaul of the article, and am wondering if you'd consider re-assessing?? I think you will find that it meets all the criteria now... and then some. But I have never conducted an "assessment", and defer to your greater familiarity with the process. Please let me know (and if you have any suggestions or comments on the revision I have created, I'd very much like to have those as well). Thanks! KDS4444Talk 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to reduce the size of the diagrams in the article as they were too overwhelming at 570px. Normally text throughout the article should not be in bold unless really necessary. The last section on "history" needs a couple of citations. You did expand the article nicely regardless. With the last citations it will make B-class. Brad (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Critique well taken and much appreciated all around (the "history" section is one of few parts of the article I did NOT revise and I have considered removing altogether as it is, as you noted, completely unsourced and doesn't cohere or say much anyway-- but your thoughts?). I will remove the unnecessary bolds and see how it still reads. KDS4444Talk 19:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have attempted a literature review for the sections regarding the location of dining rooms aboard modern cruise ships and for the use of the stern on modern warships, to no avail-- while both paragraphs may be true, I did not compose either of them and I could not find verifiable evidence of their content in any of the relevant literature. Given that your upgrade to a Class B depends on providing citations to this section, and seeing as there do not appear to be any, I have removed both sections entirely. I think the article still stands as a whole piece without them, and hope that you will consider giving it an upgrade to B-Class status. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for your willingness to consider a review. KDS4444Talk 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I changed the article to B-class. I also agree that the history section was superficial to the subject. A stern is a stern and it's irrelevant what might be located in one. Brad (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Good point. These items did seem like tacked-on trivia ("BoatPartz for 400" "The dining hall of modern cruise ships is located here, as is the helipad on aircraft carriers. Yes?" "What is a stern?" "Correct, 'What is a stern?'") and I am glad you agreed with my decision to remove them. Much thanks for the article quality upgrade-- always feels nice when efforts get some kind of payoff. KDS4444Talk 12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles FAC

I just have to ask, what does the "commanding officer" and the "causalities" of the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment have to do with Frank Buckles? The article isn't about the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment, it is about Frank Buckles. That would just be adding unnecessary information to an article and be adding more wiki-links which you continously claim are overused on this article (which I honestly don't see where). Please explain this as it is kind of contradictory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your expert guidance and help at the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article which just achieved Featured Article. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That was a nice surprise; thanks. This may sound silly now but a few weeks back I had decided that I was going to award the Ships barnstar to you and Watchdog once the article passed FAC. I wasn't fast enough apparently before you gave me this one. Expect a barnstar from me shortly. Brad (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance

The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you for your encouragement and guidance during the process of achieving FA status for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

List of current ships of us navy

Thank you for letting me know that I was incorrect on the subject of the John Murtha. I am not as good with recognizing when ships are awarded or laid down. However, I have more skill on Launching, commissioning, and decommissioning. Jarrett was decommissioned according to its Wikipedia article on April 21st, 2011. Navsource has it set for decommissioning eighteen days from now. As well, I found that the NVR is not always the most reliable source. It still lists both USS Memphis and USS Philadelphia as currently commissioned. I know for a fact that both have been decommissioned. Could you please go back and check other sources? I will keep Jarrett on the list until we figure this out.

Thank you. 174.89.46.53 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The NVR is the official register of ships for the US Navy. The NVR only updates an entry when officially informed of changes by the US Navy. The NVR does not rely on news stories of ceremonies for their information. I suggest reading around the NVR site and paying attention to their disclaimers and methods of information. As for Memphis and Philadelphia they're both still in commission; one of them in stand down status. I had noted the status of their commissions in the notes section of the list article but you kept removing them and I got tired of reverting your edits. Even the US Navy news articles on those submarines mentioned they would be in stand down status for an undetermined period of time. Do not use media stories as a basis for changes to the list article regardless of what another editor has done to the individual ship's article. Brad (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I wish to disagree. My dad is in the USN, and as far as he knows, Philadelphia has been decommed. And, according to the official website of the USN, Memphis was decommissioned. The ceremony was held on April 1, 2011. The official website also says that Philadelphia's decommissioning ceremony was held on June 25, 2010. Come to think of it, the official website says that Jarrett was decommed on April 21, 2011. Philadelphia is already either being scrapped, or cannibalized. Memphis was being cannibalized before the decommissioning ceremony. I wish to suggest that there are other reliable sources out there, and that in future, these sources should be considered as well before accepting the information on one of them. Thank you. Dinojesse (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You still fail to understand the difference between a ceremony and the actual date of decommissioning. Holding a ceremony has no bearing on the eventual and actual date. Many ships are given ceremonies before or after the actual date of their commissioning or decommissioning. Again, please read around the NVR site to understand how it works. Brad (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

work on navy subjects

Perhaps in the future, we could work together. I would be happy to work with someone who seems at least as knowledgeable and interested in ships as I am. Please consider this as an option. Dinojesse (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

NVR

Okay. I'll read through the NVR again. I would like to note that Philadelphia, although perpetually still in commission, is almost definitely being cannibalized, if not scrapped, as is Memphis. My offer of working together still stands. Thank you. Dinojesse (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand how it works now. However, if that is true, then there are a couple ships in the MSC list on the current ships page listed as disposed of by the NVR. Shouldn't we check that out?

What two ships are you referring to? I'll check them out. Brad (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As well, although I realize now that the NVR is probably the most reliable source for large amounts of time, I still think we should use the official website and Navsource as sources also. The NVR is only updated weekly, and the official website, at least, is updated just about every day.

Thank you for showing me what the NVR really is and how it works.

Dinojesse (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The NVR also says that the William P. Lawrence and the Spruance are in commission; William P. Lawrence on February 23, and Spruance on April 15, both this year.

Thank you.

Dinojesse (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. In each entry right underneath the Age (since delivery): there is a space for the commissioning date which is blank. Right now both ships have been delivered to the navy but they have not been commissioned yet. Likely that will take place some time this year. Please try and keep your responses and new posts about this subject under the same subject header. There is an edit link next each header where you can insert your new messages. Brad (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the destroyers aren't commissioned. That's why I was pointing it out. The two ships on the MSC list are William H. Pitsenbarger and Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr., both of which I saw as in service according to a source I can't remember. I remember now that the Hauge was on the list as head of the class, and that the Pitsenbarger is not on the list at all. For some reason I thought they were. Nevermind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinojesse (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Both commission dates are blank.

Thanks.

Dinojesse (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

list of current ships of us navy

Hasn't USS Anchorage been launched already? The wikipedia page says it was launched on February 12, and I remember that until just a couple of days ago, the launch date was there. I checked and I realize that the NVR says it wasn't launched, but I also don't see how the ceremony could be separate from the official launch. She's also supposed to be christened tomorrow, and I know that she will be commissioning soon after that.

If you didn't do that or don't already know why it was taken off and why the NVR doesn't have it, could you look into it please? If you do, could you explain to me how the ceremony can be separate or if there is another reason the NVR doesn't have a registered launch date for her? Thanks. Dinojesse (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The marinelink article that claims a 12 Feb launch date cannot be considered accurate in retrospect. The navy just released a story about the ship's christening. In my experience christenings are always done before or simultaneously with launching. The NVR agrees that no launch has occurred. Likely Anchorage will be christened and then launched later. No telling where marinelink got their information from. And yes, I did remove the launch date from the list article. Brad (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.

Dinojesse (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The NVR page for Anchorage is out of date ("Last updated 10/19/2010").
The ship really was launched in February.[4] When ships are launched via dry dock, there doesn't seem to be any tight relationship between the physical launching and the formal naming ceremony, so both can be scheduled when convenient. For instance, USS North Carolina (SSN-777) was christened on the dock in April '07,[5] and launched a couple of weeks later. Conversely, USS New Hampshire (SSN-778) was launched in February '08, but not christened until June.
—WWoods (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And here's Arlington (LPD-24): launched in November '10 but not christened until March '11.[6] Again, NVR was "Last updated 10/19/2010".
—WWoods (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This couldn't be more complicated if we tried. If there's a US Navy source saying that a ship was launched, I'm much more willing to believe it than I would a third party like Marinelink. The NVR is only updated when the US Navy officially informs them of changes; apparently they haven't done so. I rolled back the current list article because Dinojesse had messed up the table formatting and there were too many intermediate changes. I'll replace the launch date for Anchorage shortly but when changes are made to the list there should be references given. Brad (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I got all my information from the NVR. I just checked it again, and it says that Anchorage hasn't been launched. There's no launch date. I will try to add sources next time, but I'm using the site you said I should use. Could you please check Anchorage's page on the NVR? Because I just checked it, and unless I'm blind, there's no launch date.

Dinojesse (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Arlington's launch date is also nonexistent according to the NVR. I took off launch dates that were not listed in the NVR.

Dinojesse (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem that Wwoods has brought up. Waiting on more discussion so for right now I won't make any further changes. Brad (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

hi

Hello Brad, I dont want to offend but you seems to be using a repeated edit summary which is extreamly provoking, though I'm sure it was not intended that way. Think passive aggressive x 5000, and thats where you are with MOS and or Typo fixes for all current FACs. Disagree? Just revert. No need for drama., typos fixed. I know you are well intentioned, but....thats so presumptious, please think. Ceoil 01:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And if I used an edit summary that was all cherry-roses someone would complain about that. WP= Your internet complaint department. Brad (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We R Who We R/archive2

You have a response. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mosquito fleet navbox and a question

Hello again, I reworked {{Mosquito Fleet}} per your suggestions and I would be curious to see what you think. Also, there seems to be a way to put italics in an article title for ship names. I can't quite figure out what the procedure is.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I meant to respond to this earlier and forgot. The template is organized a lot better. I'm still not crazy about the color though. Placing {{Italic title}} will italicize the title but there are directions to follow on the template so that it only italicizes what you want it to. You'd want West Seattle (steam ferry) and not West Seattle (steam ferry) for example. Brad (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Coincidentally there is a thread about italicizing titles here. Apparently there are several templates you can choose from. Brad (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Gw RfC

Sure, I'll be glad to summarize the Harrison imbroglio. I probably need to do it tonight or tomorrow, since my business hours editing is all by cell phone -- not the best tool for that kind of lengthy edit. I'll take a crack at it when I get home. Do you want me to edit your user subpage directly?

I was thinking it would come to this pretty soon. I read WP:Tendentious editing yesterday, and it was as though it was written based on him. Enough is enough. You might also check the talk page of US Presidents on US postage stamps, where he endlessly disputed fair use and free image rules with three editors who clearly knew better than he. --Coemgenus 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit the subpage directly as it's the best place to gather information. I really wish this didn't have to happen but after looking at his past behavior on other articles besides AL this has to stop. At first everyone tries to help and point out policies etc but it soon becomes apparent he has an agenda of disruption. Brad (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I've summarized that Harrison business. --Coemgenus 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
And you did so quite nicely. I'm currently waiting on people from the Thomas Jefferson article to respond. Brad (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll respond, Brad, on the Thomas Jefferson article, on what I know, as was not involved in the whole thing. Need to review the guidelines again. It's my understanding that a summary is ok? As you noticed, the "discussions" went on forever. It's useful that you're doing this; I should have rather than wasting time trying to deal with him on the Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
At the draft page you will see how the other persons that responded have laid out their sections. You need to show where editors tried to work with Gwillickers. It seems that the dispute over Jefferson is still going on. Most of this problem is one of being wp:pointy which is disruptive behavior. It wouldn't be a big deal if it only happened on one article but Lincoln made the 4th time. Brad (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It's actually the 5th time. He edit-warred at Alexander Graham Bell over stamps and Bell's nationality (the latter is seemingly a long-running dispute there). The talk page is archived in user space, for some reason. GWilly's comments start here. Adding this to the RfC might seem excessive, but it does reinforce his pattern of edit-warring. --Coemgenus 16:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sighhh the fun just never ends. I'll see if I can contact anyone that was involved in that dispute. But yeah, this is a long term problem which seems to have begun with Bell over a year ago. Brad (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
He added two stamps to the Thomas Jefferson article. I don't think I can take on this issue after having spent literally weeks on the Hemings controversy (and have still not finished the separate article.) Just checked again - it's down to one stamp image in the article. Parkwells (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to interrupt, but I removed some stamps from the Jefferson article a few months ago (totally out of context stuff they were). I never coud understand why they or some of the other material was added in the first place. I'm going to try and find the original agregator, but I suspect it is the same person.Ebanony (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User complaint page

I have just been notified of this page today, and have already certified it being true. I was unaware of it, otherwise I'd have written additional information. Being that some time has elapsed, is it possible to add an addendum to the main charges against said user? If not, I will add further points about his personal attacks, fringe theories, etc. I gave up editing on Wikipedia because he kept attacking me in the talk page for months, and kept arguing/changing things in the Jefferson article.Ebanony (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I regret now that I didn't contact you when the initial draft was put together. For the TJ article I looked for the most actively involved editors and contacted Parkwells and Stephan Shultz. I noticed that you hadn't edited since March so I decided not to contact you. Anyhow, please add to the page whatever you feel is relevant to the complaint. What I've seen so far is helpful. Brad (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brad101/Archive_6&oldid=1144607109"