Jump to content

User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

SMS Pommern

I have explicitly added "HMS Onslaught or HMS Faulknor" for this article. This, at least a few parts below, is one of the examples that show Faulknor becoming the likely culprit in the sinking of the pre-dreadnought. But I do agree with you, that with the sources available, Onslaught is the most likely destroyer to have sank her. I have also caught other sources on Google that shows the same thing, but these are mostly forum posts. Not trying to do WP:COI or WP:3RR here, just to clarify. hmssolent\Let's convene 08:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. There are no reliable sources that I've encountered that support the idea that Faulknor sank Pommern. The website you linked to is A: not a reliable source, and B: plagiarized from the Wikipedia article on Schleswig-Holstein that I wrote (it's not a word for word copy, but there are significant blocks of text that are worded far too closely to what I wrote to be coincidence). John Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, which is more or less the gold standard on accounts of the battle, credits Onslaught with destroying Pommern (specifically, stating "but at 0210 the Onslaught's first [torpedo] hit the Pommern, and after a series of explosions in rapid succession, her hull broke in two...", p. 300) According to Campbell, Faulknor had fired a pair of torpedoes (both of which missed) at a couple of the German dreadnoughts, not the pre-dreadnoughts. Parsecboy (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey Parsec. A German navy squadron visited Brazil in mid-February 1914. Would you happen to know what ships were involved? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Would've been Kaiser, König Albert, and Strassburg - it was a "show the flag"/"test the reliability of turbine engines" expedition. See the first two for accounts of the voyage (if you're interested, or need a cite or two). Parsecboy (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Mel Gussow

Thanks for the help. Given the persistence of these editors I'll be surprised if this latest one doesn't switch it back on you again - but if they don't, then you'll have been right and my hat's off to you! JohnInDC (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I see that Diannaa has blocked the account doing most of the reverts - if they pop up again let me know and I'll take care of them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think she blocked anyone - at least not on this recent go-round - but no matter. If the article stays quiet then it's all the same. And a couple of extra eyes watching it for the (sporadic but inevitable) attempts to muck it up are always welcome! JohnInDC (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, Diannaa and I were sort of tag-teaming another situation last night and I mixed them up here. Regardless, I'll be here if you need me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
And here we are. I've blocked his account for 24 hours and told him to use the talk page to discuss the issue. Hopefully he'll follow the advice. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Typically, the anon editors would abandon a particular address for editing altogether after it had been blocked and then pick up again with a new one a few days later. I am betting that the same thing happens here, only with a bit of delay built in for autoconfirmation for a new user account. It'll be easy enough to file a sockpuppet report if and when that happens. In the meantime we'll see how it plays out this go-round. Thanks again for the help. JohnInDC (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Are the IPs that are being used traceable to the same location/ISP? If so, we might be able to make a complaint to the ISP, of if it's an organization (like a school or business), to the organization directly. Regardless, if the activity resumes, a sock report is a good idea, as it provides a highly visible place to report each return of the editor which will ensure a fast block. Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The IPs were all Verizon, all Manhattan. There were - I dunno, maybe 8 or 10. I reported a few to AIV, and MaterialScientist blocked two or three on his own initiative. I've assumed they were just dynamically-assigned residential service addresses but that was only ever surmise. I'm happy to follow the sock route next time. This editor is pretty monomaniacal and the puppetry would be obvious, I think, even without a Checkuser. JohnInDC (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the duck test would be more than sufficient in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reinhold von Werner

I found a bit of info in volume 3 page 108 Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1990) (in German). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Biographien - ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart. (10 Bände). Mundus Verlag. I added birth date, death place and corrected death date. Not much I have to say MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for what you could add. I see he commanded SMS Renown - does Hildebrand et. al. say when he commanded the ship? Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
commander Kronprinz April 1870 – January 1872; commander Renown April 1872 – August 1872. According to Hildebrand ... he also commanded Gefion (April 1863 – November 1863 and again June 1865 – March 1866) Hildeband volume 3 page 187, Arcona prior to Nymphe; If you read about Arcona in Hildebrand volume 1 pages 235 to 244 you can only assume the Von Werner must have held command sometime in 1859. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Furst Bismarck

The information from the Library of Congress does not support the caption. [1] The vessel apparently did visit the Phillipines and Samoa, but where is the source for the claim on Commons that it visited the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.208.203 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell you, I didn't upload the image. What I can tell you is that captions don't require citations. Parsecboy (talk)
I realize someone else unloaded it, and apparently made some assumptions. The caption here does more than just identify the ship, it makes an unsupported claim where it is. Given where the ship served, and the history given in the German wiki article, it would be best not to repeat the same assumption, which is likely erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.208.203 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A number of German vessels visited the United States, including ships stationed in Asia - SMS Dresden was in San Francisco at the outbreak of World War I, for instance. If you want to remove the mention of the ship's location, go ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I checked NYTimes archive, which does not mention a visit, and the LOC apparently does not know where or when the picture was taken. I will try to look further, as PD claim for the photo also seems to be weak (or at least the basis claimed for the particular form of PD is weak). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.208.203 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The copyright status is not in question; it's from the Bain News Service, which donated the image (and scores if not hundreds of others), which included a transfer of the rights to the Library of Congress. It's therefore PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, the Bain News Service only took pictures in the US... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, yes, but “The photographs Bain produced and gathered for distribution through his news service were worldwide in their coverage . . . “ [2]
As for rights, there are no known restrictions, but it doesn't look like the LOC goes beyond that statement. 24.197.208.203 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I know Bain images have been discussed at a FAC or two I've done a couple years back, and the understanding is that Bain transferred the rights to the LoC. If I can find the discussion, I'll link it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, here it is: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nassau class battleship. Specifically, the comment made by Carl Lindberg where he stated "No known restrictions" is LoC-speak for public domain (it just reflects the fact that copyright and other law is extremely complex and it is impossible to predict future court decisions which may unexpectedly create new rights). The Library of Congress purchased the Bain collection (and thus the copyrights) in 1948 and placed them in the public domain, so it does not matter when the photographs were made or if they were published...The LoC only is putting up the photos where they own the negative (i.e. proving that it was authored and owned by the Bain company) rather than any of their prints." Parsecboy (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. The discussion mentions a specific template for the Bain collection, which I have now substituted for the US-PD one. 24.197.208.203 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Library in regards to Bismarck

Hey Parsec! (or Nate, if preferred). Nice to see you have the German BB GT nearly under your belt. I've glanced at your library, andI seem to have a few books that might help with Bismarck:

  • Conway's Anatomy of a ship: Bismarck
  • Warships Fotofax German Battleships 1896-1945, R. A. Burt
  • Ships and Battles, the Warships of Germany: 1939-1945 (in Russian)
  • The World's Worst Warships Anthony Preston

I also have a few "jack-of-all-trades" books like Conway's Battleships 1922-Present, and etc. If you think you need any of these, give me a ping. Buggie111 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have Anatomy of a Ship and 1897–1945 too, but as PDFs. I ... uh ... found them online for free. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I have most of those (Burt's fotofax, Preston's Worst Warships, Conways, etc.). And Ed, I got some of them after they...uh...fell off the back of a truck. Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I'm not alone then! Buggie111 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we've all done it at least once or twice. And Buggie, nice to see you around again. Have you got any new projects in the works with the Austro-Hungarians done? Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sevastopol, other things floating around my Userspace, Portal:Moscow and other miscellany. Buggie111 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing

We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a place this is being discussed? I might be able to add a thing or two. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm copying all the responses now to this page. I'll add a pointer at WT:MHC#Editorial on reviewing for FAC in a minute. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

tirpitz

Well if we gona take your principle as you say,then all war ships image should change because they dont illustrate the topic. So pls let the picture like it is ,and dont change it with an american drawing sketch,because if i go and put an german ww2 drawing pictures on any ww2 british ships ,i have 0 chance. The reader need real photos,and Tirpitz deserve that ,dont put at the height of the page a drawing shit And about displesment ,again are official number ,which 2 americans site use it too: Displacement: standard 43,900 mt, full load max. 53,500 mt.(1944) both kbismarck.com and bismarck-class.com use it at speed same official numbers :30,8 knots

Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

I think it's time the merge discussion here be closed. B-Machine (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Reinhold von Werner

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Reinhold von Werner/GA1

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Italian Moltke's battlecruisers

Hi, I've translate it:SMS Moltke, it:SMS Goeben and it:Classe Moltke. I've find the Battlecruisers of Germany series very interesting and accurate, and so I decided to translate those in my language. I only didn't get the question about the fuel consumption of the Moltke-class. Do you think there's a book that may talk about it, apart from Erich Gröner, German Warships: 1815–1945 ? --Demostene119 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I put a lot of work into those articles. As to your question, Axel Grießmer's Die Große Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906–1918 (ISBN: 3763759468) may have an answer, if you can read German. As far as English-language sources go, there isn't much on these ships from the technical perspective. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to get it, Thanks. German is difficult for me, but I can read technical books. Saluti. --Demostene119 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SS California (1907).JPG

Thank you for uploading File:SS California (1907).JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unit cohesion

Hi. I created the article above, but maybe I haven't done a good job on it so far. Someone tried to replace it with a redirect to Teamwork and - when I reverted that - immediately nominated the article for deletion.

What's the best way to ensure this article survives this onslaught? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Sumter problem

Hi. Just wanted to flag somebody with regard to a vandalism issue with Battle of Fort Sumter. Somebody's put a phrase in the beginning of the lead that apparently cannot be edited. Will take someone with better technical knowledge than me to fix it. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Someone vandalized the {{Events leading to US Civil War}} template, which was what was showing the text (and interfering with the table of contents). If there's text showing up on the page without it being visible in the editing window, it's probable that it's actually being transcluded from a template. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for High Seas Fleet

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 The WikiChevrons 
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Parsecboy for their great efforts in the April 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 46 points from 6 articles. Well done! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 The Military history A-Class medal with swords 
For outstanding work on SMS Markgraf, List of armored cruisers of Germany and SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), which were promoted to A-Class between February and April 2011, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Swords. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Military history project ACRs for closure

Hi, sorry to bother you. We are currently having trouble finding an uninvolved co-ordinator to close a few ACRs. If you get a free moment, could you please take a look at the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#ACRs for closure and close one if you are uninvolved? Cheers! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Zitronella

Hello Nate
I’ve just had a run-in with an editor operating in the manner of User:Jonas Poole, with whom you had some dealings a while ago. What’s the position, here, do you know? Is it the same person? Or just someone with the same interests? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certain he's the same editor. I've blocked the account accordingly. Let me know if he pops up again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks for that; I didn't know if I was being paranoid...Xyl 54 (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're going to be interested...

...in Nick-D's third post here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Foundation for the Development of Ukraine

Dear Parsecboy, kindly provide me with a copy of the Foundation of the Development of Ukraine page, as it has been speedy deleted, so that it is rewritten. Many thanks in advance, --Orekhova (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Tikiwont already provided you with the deleted material. Best of luck with it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 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 June 26, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 26, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. 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™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 05:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Baden, with her main battery trained to port

SMS Baden was a Bayern class dreadnought battleship of the German Imperial Navy built during World War I. Launched in October 1915 and completed in March 1917, she was the last battleship completed for use in the war. The ship mounted eight 38-centimeter (15 in) guns in four twin turrets, displaced 32,200 metric tons (31,700 long tons; 35,500 short tons) at full combat load, and had a top speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph). Along with her sister Bayern, Baden was the largest and most powerfully armed battleship built by the Imperial Navy. Upon commissioning into the High Seas Fleet, Baden was made the fleet flagship, replacing Friedrich der Grosse. Baden saw little action during her short career; the only major sortie in April 1918 ended without any combat. Following the German collapse in November 1918, Baden was interned with the majority of the High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow by the British Royal Navy. On 21 June 1919, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter ordered the scuttling of the fleet. However, British sailors in the harbor managed to board Baden and beach her to prevent her sinking. The ship was re-floated, thoroughly examined, and eventually sunk in extensive gunnery testing by the Royal Navy in 1921. (more...)

Whoo! Congrats Parsec! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ed! I'm pretty excited :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, I was looking at File:Seydlitz in port.jpg and found a duplicate entry on Commons. According to the source website (and here), to the best of their knowledge, all their images are in the public domain, but of course, this doesn't specify worldwide or US-only. I'm not familiar with image copyrights to understand this fully; should the duplicate in Commons be removed, or can the images be combined? Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Keraunoscopia. The problem with hosting the image on Commons is the requirement for images to be in the public domain in the US and the country of origin. I can't recall where these were discussed, but the conclusion was that M L Carstens (the author) did not die more than 70 years ago, so they're still copyrighted in Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks for the explanation. I'll update the few articles using the Commons version to the en.wiki version and nom the Commons image for deletion. I'll also do a quick hunt for that conversation in several places. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 12:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I know it was discussed at a FAC (I checked the SMS Seydlitz FAC and there is some discussion there, but not the one I was thinking of. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I found the FAC discussion, but unfortunately, I wasn't able to locate the discussion regarding the living/dead situation of the photographer, M.L. Carstens. I did nominate the image at Commons for deletion, and the discussion is at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Seydlitz_in_port.jpg. I'm hoping I did everything okay, so we'll see. And deletion discussions over there can take an extremely long time, so we'll see what happens :) Thanks for your help! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

?

Hi please explain the reasonable reasons about this edits and this. Where did you find sentence A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city. ? Do you have sources ? I cannot think the sentence you tried to defend is so important and encyclopedic. But the sentence during the visit of the American battleship USS Missouri in 1946. is more importan and we can find sources easily ? Why do you behave such like this ? Takabeg (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:ALTTEXT - those sentences are used by blind readers to get a sense of what the image is conveying. I don't need sources to describe what an image looks like. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The sample in WP:ALTTEXT alt=Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte |The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries by Jacques-Louis David is reasonable and meaningful sentence but unfortunately A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city. is ambiguous and meaningless. There is no reason to put this sentence and to remove historical facts. Takabeg (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Alt text is not a caption. Please read the page a little more carefully. It is used by screen readers to describe the image to blind readers. If you have a problem with alt text, take it up there, not on an individual article.
As for the reference to USS Missouri, I wasn't the one who initially removed it, someone else did. I don't care either way, but you don't need to remove the alt text (and break the image while you were at it) to insert this information. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You also remove. Do you have any reasons ? I removed the sentence A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city. with reason of with reason of its unencyclopedicness. Takabeg (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The reason I reverted your edit was because you removed the alt text and broke the image in the process. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't ask you why you reverted my edit. I ask wheather you have reason to insist on keeping meaningless sentence and to remove historical facts. Takabeg (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I ask one more question. Do you think the sentence A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city is encyclopedic ? Takabeg (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You are not paying attention to what I am telling you. The sentence does not need to be encyclopedic. It needs to adequately describe the image textually so a blind person can understand what the image is conveying. Nothing more, nothing less. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This is second time for you to abuse Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (First time: you can see here,). With this edit, you denied and neglected historical facts. The Ottoman Navy and Turkish Navy are different. But if you cannot understand and accept our historical approaches, we have no time to deliver a lecture　for you. I'll consult to militarist (specialist) users. Bye. Takabeg (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:ALT has been broken/off since 2010. I think it started with this discussion but my memory could be off! TL;DR alt text like "warships at rest in harbor" was found to be not helpful for those with screen readers. I don't really have an opinion on whether the Missouri bit ought to be there, although I think I'm the one who added the image and caption in the first place... I think it's fine either way. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rcbutcher. Please stop moving the Commons links in articles from the first non-prose subsection to an empty external links section like you did here. This is incorrect, per this guideline, specifically the line "If no such section exists and you are using a large, graphical template, then the links should be placed in the last section of the page..." The Commons link only goes in an external links section if there already is one. We've gone round in circles on this a number of times, and I figured I should mention it to you. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Parsecboy, I suggest you discuss this with MIESIANIACAL : refer to his instructions to me of 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC). He states I should put the Commons link in the External links section if it exists, or the last section if not. I complied with this, but also added an External links section where it didn't exist, to provide an anchor and on the assumption that it would eventually be needed anyway. I really don't care what the standard is so long as we have one so readers can have a consistent structure to navigate and stuff like links appear in consistent locations. I would suggest that users expect Commons links at the end of the article as that's where it appears in the vast majority of articles. If we put them in say References section, and references grow and multiple sections than appear after this, we end up with Commons link far above the end of the arcticle, as is now the case with the Bayern class article regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
My experience (mainly at FAC and with the MOS experts there) has been that they should be placed as I have been doing. Wouldn't if be nice if everybody could settle on a single, simple standard the rest of us could use? Guess that's asking too much, right? Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with the flow on this... is there actually any "official" statement e.g. in Manaual of Style ? or is that still something that has to be hammered out ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The MoS has this section, which states that the inter-project links should only go in the external links section, and does not say anything about where they should go in the absence of it. So we have the MoS, which says one thing, and then points to a guideline that somewhat contradicts it. I tried to find the FAC where this was discussed, but have so far had no luck. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just read that section in MOS, and they way I understand it is that Commons links only go as the first entry in External links section - that seems to imply that I create an External links section if it doesn't already exist, otherwise I can't comply with the directive. Which is what I've been doing. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help on a military history

Could you please help me with an article I created, William L. Brandon. I contacted you since your the lead coordinator of the WikiProject Military History. A user leftquite a few comments when I nominated the article for DYK here. I really would appreciate your help. Sincerely, --ceradon 05:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some edits to the article and fixed most of the things the reviewer brought up, though there are a couple of things you'll need to look at. I commented at the DYK nomination. Good luck with the article! Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

I haunt a military forum made up of servicemen/women from around the world and since you were in the military I thought you might be interested.[3] Happy Editing and hope to see you at WAB. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tirpitz ACR

Thanks for reminding me! Yes I am good for now. I would like to see Ilse von Hassell mentioned, some minor tweaks on the radar section before you move on to FAC. Nicely done! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Ambassadorship

Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

SMS Preussen/Preußen

Hi
I was fixing the links on this ship index page, but when I came to move it (to SMS Preussen, matching the content) the move wasn't possible (SMS Preussen has been moved all over the place, apparently). Should I take this through an RM, or is this something a friendly neighbourhood admin can (or would) do? Xyl 54 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. I knew there was a reason we gave you the mop ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, gents, Xyl 54 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I do occasionally use my powers for good reasons. (you're welcome Xyl) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Outside comment: which name do you think was painted on those ships? "Preußen"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. The only point to consider is what English-languages sources use, which is almost universally Preussen. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I came back to ask the same favour again (moving SMS Großer Kurfürst), but I've just noticed the outside comment above; is this going to cause a problem? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem - this is a textbook case where WP:UE applies - we only grant exceptions to policy in exceptional cases, and these are not. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, again for that (sorry for the lateness of this note, I've not been around this past week; real life intruding!) Xyl 54 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I know all about real life intrusions :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Germany

List_of_battlecruisers_of_Germany#Derfflinger_class - Displacement looks strange. Is SMS "Lützow" was really 5000 t. smaller? Its about 1/6 part of ship. In description on first look there is no info that, for example, they cut him one turret. It`s Yorktown/Wasp case or somebody put incorrect data?

Also User_talk:The_ed17#List_of_battlecruisers_of_Germany. PMG (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what that number was, apart from being a typo. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

German battleship Bismarck GA review

Hi just in case you missed it I have started the GA review here Talk:German battleship Bismarck/GA1. It may take you some time to fix all the problems (joke) but drop me a line when you are finished. Its a good read and being such a famous ship, I was a bit surprised it was not already at FA Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The sfn template

I think I might agree with the sockpuppet about sfn, and I didn't get the point about Harvard referencing, it looks like it can do anything I want it to. For instance:

Refs

  1. ^ a b Staff, p. 25.
  2. ^ Staff, pp. 26–27.
... and now I don't have to assign a name to exactly one of each reference and refer to that name in the other refs with the same page number, sfn keeps track of all that, and provides consistent ref formatting, too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it does. I guess I just stopped reading after I saw all of the Harvard references stuff. I suppose I could start using it (though I am a cranky old man set in my ways). Maybe I'll give it a shot on the next article I write (I don't think the benefits outweigh the cost in time it would take to redo an entire article). Parsecboy (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops. I didn't mean "You should do this" ... I know how it is, it's hard to retrain my fingers once they get used to something ... I meant "I'm wondering if there's a problem that you know of that I'm not seeing." Sounds like it looks okay to you. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Yeah, my fingers are pretty well trained to type out the <ref></ref> tags by now. We'll see how easy it is to use and go from there I suppose. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You could also {{anchor}} the bibliographic refs and type out [[#Author|Author]], p. 1 :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaiser class ironclad

Hi, I've left comments on this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. regards Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hi, I've noticed that you've got a few articles at GAN. I've got a few myself, so, why don't we cross-review each other's work? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I won't be able to start some reviews until Monday or so though. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I had a bit of time today, after all. I have reviewed the XF-104 article (here) - there's only one real issue. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ping! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I did see your review, that's why I responded to Nimbus's comment on the pictures. I pinged you to see if you have any other comments about it. By the way, your article is really good – makes an outsider thinks that I'm not reviewing hard enough ;) Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like non-RS to me. I've removed it, since there is a back up reference. If you do want to reinstate the ref, please say so, and I'll respond to your question posted on my talk page. Cheers Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh goodie. I like your article as well, very good. Nicely written. Great effort. What a surprise you also reviewed YF-22. Thanks :) Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) a Feature Article! Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to comment on another Featured article candidate... or perhaps review one of the Good Article nominees. (Though I see you're way ahead of me here.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Quadell! I'll probably head over to GAN after I finish up here. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

Congratulations!
You did it again! Thanks for all the work you did in making SMS Preussen (1873) a certified "Good Article". Your work is much appreciated.

All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Bismarck photo

watch entire photo during battle of denmark strate http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/gallery/gallbismdenmarkstrait.html 12 photo posted there is that on bismarck wiki.and that cannot be before battle because was to dark ,and prinz eugen was leading ship it could have taken only from back ,and link with the bow you posted ,you will find that was taken at the same ungle with that on wikipedia from prinz eugen Udisblizbadjoke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC). And if that photo is taken before the battle tell my why the forward turrets are pointed towards prinz eugen ,and the aft turrets are pointed opposite ? Why Anton and Bruno are pointed towards prinz eugen and not like the Caesar and Dora towards enemy ships ?Who will give order to point two turrets in opposite side of the enemy ?And the photo posted on my talk is taked long after the battle with that bow ,the photo on bismarck wiki is posted shortly after the battle when the water didnt flushed in ...Udisblizbadjoke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

And you will see on other wiki the description of the photo is correct http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operacja_przeciw_pancernikowi_Bismarck http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941 http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operasjon_Rhein%C3%BCbung http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caccia_alla_Bismarck Udisblizbadjoke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

German battleship Bismarck

Hi just a note Bismarck is on my watchlist I can keep an eye on it when your not on line.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentle 3RR reminder

Instead of violating the three-revert rule, why not take it to the talk page? In addition to avoiding an edit war, it would be nice to have the discussion properly recorded. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss it with the user on his talk page but he has so far proved reluctant to engage with me. Thanks anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parsecboy/Archive_24&oldid=1144598433"