Jump to content

User talk:TomStar81/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Misstatement?

Tom, in response to this aren't you forgetting that Parsec took the Derfflinger class through GT first before the individual articles were upgraded to FA one-by-one? -MBK004 00:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in response to your Arb question. The results are currently being certified (that involves finalizing the voter list and striking those of socks, etc.) and then they will be released at WT:ACE2009, with Jimbo ceremonially announcing the final results and appointments on 21 December. -MBK004 04:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hey TomStar, did you guys get it out yet or do you still need me? Very, very sorry for the delay. I've been completely swamped with the Fundraiser and school. Cbrown1023 talk 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lebaudy Patrie MilHist assessment

Thanks for your support on this one some time back. Unfortunately it timed out, so I re-nominated it (on 19 December). If and when you have time, could you have another look? Thanks! --TraceyR (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

From the Hotel

12.169.124.132 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

...and the airport. 65.196.126.11 (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

To all my friends in Wikipedia. After so many years I have decided to take an extended leave from the project. My continued participation in the project has become less enjoyable as I have explained here. I thank God that I became involved in the project in the first place because not only have I used it to educate others, but I have also learned a lot from friends such as yourself. Try to maintain a high standard in your contributions and make sure that the truth is always told in what you write. I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year, may God Bless you and thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Milhist of asia

I dont mind withdrawing the cfd and afd if that would be any help - I do not think the Milhist of Asia is a viable idea as a stand alone article or category in the first place - but if there is a real Milhist project re-organisation discussion that might or might not involve such ridiculously wide scoped articles and categories - please let me know! SatuSuro 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry blocks of text like that leave me wishing I was out fighting/mopping the real life bushfire that I was doing last night - I'll just withdraw the noms and hope you guys come up with something that isnt as contrary to common sense as the category and article currently exist - they are embarasments SatuSuro 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW I strongly disagree with 'Asia' as a single combining principal for anything but biological and geographical phenomenon - it is pointless and cuonter-productive to have it as an organising principal for anything involved with people - specially on wikipedia - I am confident that which I have personally observed in Singapore and Syria do not belong to anything that might have any functional necessary connection - cheers SatuSuro 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Point taken - I understand - may you and them have a safe holiday break - and I'll be back to be a nuisance in the new year :) - cheers SatuSuro 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Civilian (C&CR).JPG

⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:Civilian (C&CR).JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: csd deletion

It's not my page! I'm the one who added the delete tag ;) Why bother with the {hangon} when it's clearly non-notable and doesn't have a name that matches the content? Thparkth (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


It's all good! You've woken me out of my glassy-eyed staring at the screen and robotic clicking enough to realise that it's 4am and I need to go to bed anyway ;) Thparkth (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

CC-BY/SA image of Non-free 3D art

I saw you removed my Non-free 3D art tag and fur from the image I just uploaded.[1] However, even though the image itself is under a cc license, the doll depicted is copyrighted, which is why the image needs to be used under fair use, and I tagged it as such. I asked about this last year at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and got the reply to tag it both for the image itself, and the underlying copyrighted 3D object (see archive [2]) so I don't think your removal here was correct. Siawase (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! Yep the laws are odd alright. It's taken me a long time to wrap my head around how to deal with the copyright of toys. I just saw there's a recent case up at Media copyright questions that confirms that these types of images need double/split licensing.[3] Happy New Year to you too! Siawase (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need a bigger stop sign when editors try to comment on your talk page. Ikip 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Review comments

Would it be too much trouble for you to revisit your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Osan? The review has passed its time-deadline and is about to be closed. -MBK004 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC video spoof

This video on YouTube is hilarious. It is already being discussed at the appropriate place: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Video_spoof. Just be sure you have the captions turned-on. -MBK004 11:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA reply

  • Hi Tom, Thank you for your great faith in my abilities! I would definitely still like to be an admin, I have one question first though, I have been relatively inactive this last month and a half due to the fact that I was on holidays overseas. My question is this: Do you think this will have a significant impact on the result of an RfA? Sincerely and thanks, — OliOR Pyfan! 10:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Speedy deletion nomination of File:35wBridgecollapse.gif

A tag has been placed on File:35wBridgecollapse.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh...hehe...I have to admit I am at a loss for words on this one. Could you maybe explain this a little more for me? From where I sit the image is working just fine, and its a public domain image. Why would it be up for speedy deletion? — TomStar81 70.245.127.52 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Not the image, the image is on commons just the description page on wikipedia. A description page that contains just a cat entry [[Category:Free animated images]] the rest of the description is on commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. That makes sense. Alright then, I'm happy. Thanks for the clarification. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

TomStar81 Why did THE KIKI TWINS page get deleted and how can I reinstate it. Please advise. Thx

THE KIKI TWINS are an established, signed, published and distributed music group active since 2006. We have been written about in Paper Magazine as one of the 10 sounds of the city in NYC (see first reference below) We have been covered on numerous websites and blogs (see remaining references below). We are cited on the Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern wikipedia page which wikipedia has approved. You can simply search our name to find that.

I'm not sure why these citations are not sufficient enough for THE KIKI TWINS page to exist. Please inform.

Regards, Lawrence Thompson

References

Assessing the Max-Hellmuth Ostermann article

Hi thanks for all your feedback on the article. Could you give some pointers as to what you think you would like to have addressed with respect to the German-English translations? I would prefer the following: German in italics with the English equivalent in brackets after the first occurrence of the German term. Would that work for you? Once we agree on a format I will make the changes. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I made the additions. Note: I deviated from this approach with respect to his Knight's Cross decoration. My assumption is that the term "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" is a fairly well established term in the English language. Please let me know if you feel differently. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

Good day to you sir, I think I corrected all of the issues you noted for the Smedley Butler article. When you get some time could you please take a look and see if I missed anything or if I need to make any more corrections?--Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I also a couple of other articles that could use reviews if you have the time. The last 2 were submitted by someone else in early december but they never returned and as a major contributor to both I just took them on. By coincidence both are from the Asian American recipients list and are from WWII.

Defend the use of USS

A relative newbie is challenging our use of USS in the title of ships who never had it legally, like in USS Illinois (BB-65), USS Kentucky (BB-66), and USS Hawaii (CB-3) on the basis of navy regulations and is of the mind that the articles should be trashed and their status' removed for that fact. If he were more experienced I would expect all three to be at FAR/GAR/ACR demote immediately. His argument is that it makes us look unprofessional and amateurish and that the Navy would never allow us to go against their Executive Orders. Your thoughts are requested: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Naming_conventions -MBK004 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

WikiProject report scope

Definitely, it extends to tasks forces, since some of them are bigger, more active and more organized than other whole families of WikiProjects.--ragesoss (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty flexible; that can pretty much be left up to the judgment of whoever is writing the report.--ragesoss (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Academy

That's good news, it'll be very useful to have some feedback from completely new editors. I've got one more little job to do (closing up the last of our housekeeping discussion), and then I plan to devote the rest of this coord term to the Academy. EyeSerenetalk 09:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with a few of these type of things before (and am currently, see WP:MRR); I've left Auntieruth a note to that effect, and will be happy to sign up :) BTW, your talk page template seems to be displaying three times in the edit view; not sure if this is a browser/cache issue? EyeSerenetalk 09:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

USS Missouri

Aloha Tom,

I know you share my enthusiasm for BB-63 so I thought you might find these pictures interesting. This album includes a number of photos I took of the Mo in drydock a couple of weeks ago (including a picture of me standing beneath one of the screws). Facebook - USS Missouri Photo Album. Best wishes and aloha, ---B- (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Talkback

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.
Message added 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You should be aware that a major change to the ship article guidelines has been proposed that would apply to all ship articles on wikipedia. -MBK004 08:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Wintherthur (1799)

Tom, would you take a look to see if I've addressed all your comments? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually recheck the articles I review after two or three days so as to give the nominators a chance to fix the problems. I had actually intended to make another pass through all the A-class reviews today and add adjust my comments accordingly, but today I wish to do this from the campus library since I am in need of material for an article of mine at FAR at the moment. Give me an hour, maybe a little more than that, and I'll look at it, I promise. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I fixed that redirect you didn't like, although I'm not sure it should have been changed. It now links to an index page, and someone needs to know more German to figure it out. But we'll see. I don't know what your other issues still are. Something ambiguous? I did found a new disambiguation link, so I fixed that too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Your external links were never problem, it was just the internal links to other articles I was worried about for disambigious purposes. According to the version I checked last, only a redirect back to the article was left; and that's all I was really concerned about. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. During the GA process, Jacky wanted to rename the article, so that was done. Did I do it wrong? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, its more likely that somewhere in the article is a link to the page Action at Winterthur (1799), but that link is unneeded since it points back to this article. Finding and removing said link should resolve the problem with the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could it have been the link in the campaign box? I've changed that now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
the only other one is the redirect link. But I don't know how to remove that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That could be it, but I will need a closer look at the article. At the moment I am getting ready to leave the university, when I get home I expect my family will be interested in eating. After diner though I'll look through the article and see if I can solve the mystery :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks. If that is it, I don't know how to fix it...although you might know. Enjoy dinner! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe you fit the nail on the head, I look through the article for 70 minutes and found no links, but after removing and readding the campaign box the tool checker says the redirect is gone. Congrats for fixing the problem when you were unsure what the cause was in the first place :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Great! so we're cool with this now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your issues are addressed now? with this article? Can you support? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it appears that your objections to the article have been resolved, but there is no note to that effect on the ACR page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your review of List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941

I believe to have addressed your concerns about citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

USS Missouri manning and organization

(Note: This is a repost of a message originally left while you were on hiatus. I haven't worked on the page lately, but it's still up in my user space.)

Tom: In response to an earlier request on the Iowa class battleship talk page, I have been working on a new article which is a snapshot of the manning and organization of a recommissioned Iowa class battleship. I have the page to the point where it is ready for review and fine-tuning. Friendly edits are welcome; go to User:Ehbowen/Iowa class battleship manning. I look forward to hearing what you (and others) have to contribute.Ehbowen (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

FAR

You are correct that your withdrawing would only hurt the situation, not help it. Frankly, I thought we had maintained it well also, but I did silently question the trip to FAR instead of PR. It is my opinion that one should not have put the article's status up in the air unless you absolutely had to, the PR would have given some if not all of the commentary from the FAR without the pressure of loosing the status. That being said, we are now in this position and unfortunately I won't be of much help since I've got to start work on two research projects plus I've got three exams over the next week and a half to prepare for.

Another thing, if the article does loose status we would only have three months to salvage the article or else the featured topic would be lost as well. As to your faith in maintaining the article, some of the fault for its current situation is probably because of all of our wikibreaks, and while that is not an excuse we have all forgotten to do things we meant to after being away for an amount of time, and we all know people who would like nothing better than to gut our life's work. Now they smell blood in the water and are going in for the kill. -MBK004 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum, I just realized that the article would only need to be GA to keep the topic featured since we've got so many FAs in it already, GA should be an easier target for the article even if it doesn't pass FAR, plus you'd get an additional ACR review out of the build-up back to FA (and that is also another article that would count towards an ACM). -MBK004 04:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict) I disagree that there are people "going in for the kill". Most, if not all, of the reviewers raised valid points that needed to be addressed. I wish that we had rewritten it before a FAR, as I noticed the large blocks of unsourced text, but but it's a little late now, eh? :) A thought: the article is up for FAR, and it's in trouble. So what if it is delisted? We'll fix it up on our own time, nominate it at FAC, and have one of the stronger FAs on Wikipedia as a result. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are you worring so much? It's not going to be cut off anytime soon as long as work is going ahead, some others are just spluttering along for 3 months, as long as it doesn't go completely dead for 2 weeks, or someone adopts a deliberate strategy of copyediting one sentence every week, then there's nothing to worry about, and at the moment, there's hardly any overcorwding on FAR. There's only 26, but four of them need Raul to close them as an abandoned delist as I've started them, but they are effectively already closed, and another two are about to drop off next week. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"or someone adopts a deliberate strategy of copyediting once sentence every week" <-- LOL. Hey, that might not be a bad idea. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you get busy for a couple of weeks or even a month, you can just say you're going on a break for RL and need an extension or whatever. Unless some guy does it over and over and never bothers to fix the article as means of stalling, then nobody will begrudge it. And I know you're serious not someone who wants to corner-cut so you can have heaps of time; I mean there was this other guy with stacks of 2005 era FAs with no refs, but he also had one 2008 FA, so he knew what the modern rules were. But when his articles got dragged to FAR he just added a webcite here and there and pretended to not know what the rules were and kept going "anything else" and pretending to not see the 60%+ that was still unsourced. Or sometimes asked for extensions and did other stuff and hoped that someone else from the wikiproject would step in. There's no need to panic. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh thank god. I was really worried that I was going to lose an article, but if the community is going to give me some time I should be able to address the concerns over the article. I may have to order some books for this effort though, most of what I have is general and not specific, and what were going to need here is lots and lots of specific. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought you guys would have noticed that some FARs last ages including some on the MILHIST template because you maintain it and there are lots of FARs on there. Maybe I was the only cynical guy who keeps a list of all the FA vote-stacking cabals and corner-cutters in the back of my head then. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Nguyen Van Nhung

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.
Message added 05:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

<sarcasm>Just what I wanted to see when I logged on after a long day at school!</sarcasm> -MBK004 05:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients

I left a comment on the review page. To be honest, I think that the tool is wrong. Please have a close look at the articles history and you will see that it was I who shaped the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I made some change and left even more comments MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF

Thanks for your great comments in this ACR Tom - I really appreciate them. You clearly read through the article in some detail and your suggestions were very constructive. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

fyi

FYI ... this was the article. If you have a thought, you can leave it here, and I will keep your pg watchlisted for a couple of days.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel

I have some questions on your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel - could you look at the project page again please? Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words

Thank you for the kind words about my work on Portal:Biological warfare. I must say, WP:MILHIST stuff is kinda fun! Next up will hopefully be Portal:Terrorism, still got a tad bit more stuff to flesh out on that one. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Daly

I wanted to let you know that I cannot find the majority of the information on the Michael Daly article thats currently in A class review. Due to this I certainly understand if you want to fail it due to not meeting the criteria. I will keep looking for the info and maybe at some point in the future I will find it, but at this time I don't.--Kumioko (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division (United States)

Hello. You supported the 45th Infantry Division's A-class review last fall, but the ACR was closed with no consensus due to a sourcing issue. I have since addressed that issue and have opened a new one. Please do come back to give your input. Thank you! —Ed!(talk) 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable commanders

Are we sure we want to take this approach? I would have thought it would make more sense to orient the field towards people who were notable because they commanded the unit in question, not for people who were notable for other reasons and happened to command it. Certainly, the conventional usage in articles seems to list important commanders regardless of whether they had notability outside that context. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Re Milhist AOB

You left a call for any outstanding business on the coords page, but I didn't want to drop this there as it might get lost in the clutter. One outstanding issue from the recent TF reorganisation was the merger of the Aus & NZ task forces (approved in principle but no consensus as to new name & scope). This will probably be something we'll want to get back to as a project at some point. EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. Thanks Tom :) EyeSerenetalk 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

John S. Loisel ACR

Operation Majestic Titan

Which is correct? Operation Majestic Titan, Operation Majestic Titan, or Operation "Majestic Titan"? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To be brutally honest I am not sure. I started out with "Operation Majestic Titan", then that got changed along the way to "Operation Majestic Titan", and then came the "Operation Majestic Titan" variant, which I suppose was an attempt at uniformity for the title. Until you left the message I had just assumed that you or MBK had shifted the title to the second option, so if you're asking me about the name variants then the next question would naturally be whose is behind the name game? :)
As a practical matter, I personally prefer "Operation Majestic Titan", without the italics, as it seems to me to look more professional that way. Perhaps opening up a dialog on the OMT talk page would be a good idea so we can decide on which of the three its going to be and stick with that for the duration of the operation. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh, lovely. :) For real-life operations, I've always used the form Operation "Majestic Titan", but I've never done that for OMT, and it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not sure if this is important enough to bother with a discussion, but if you want to start one go for it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig review

Hi, could you please have a second look at the article? I tried to address everything but some questions remain unanswered (I couldn't find the answers) MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

coordinator elections

Tom, thank you for thinking of me. I'm trying to finish my dissertation right now. I'm also teaching a writing intensive course. I'll have to decline for this round. After graduation in May, I could be coopted into helping with the project, for short bursts (my niece and nephew are expecting this summer, and I'll also be traveling to Germany), and in September I will have more time. Although I realize it's possible to do this and be a student, I'm finding WP is a serious enough distraction from the dissertation without adding an additional responsibility. I do appreciate the confidence you've shown in my abilities, and look forward to contributing at that level later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the trust. I will definitely consider this. Do you have some more information above an beyond Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators so I can better understand what it actually means, what the rules and tools are? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Le Van Duyet

Thanks again, I've replied YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, I've responded YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AMBASSADORS OF MORROCO

Hi, I just created the Ambassadors of Morroco's article and would like to know why you decided to flag the page for speedy deletion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guileman (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

It's easy to get frustrated, and for a while, I was, as a few of my comments made it known. Like I said to Looper, it's hard for me to imagine why people volunteer to go under that kind of pressure to become an admin or other public role. The constant flow of criticism even when you do the right thing (because not everyone can do the right thing or even agree what it is) is tough, and this is one of the few times the heat has really been turned on me in the almost four years I've been editing seriously.

Your encouragement is duly appreciated. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly cannot say that OMT isn't ambitious! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Congratulations!

TomStar, I just want to congratulate you for blocking User:DIREKTOR and User:FkpCascais for 48 hours. Their behavior on the page Draža Mihailović was really gruesome! They were totally disrespectful for the rules of Wikipedia. I must congratulate you again for this, but I think that 48 hours is really short block for their behavior; I'm sure they'll start all over again when block expire. I must strongly suggest you to block them for indefinite time, and to remove them from Wikipedia for good! Cheers, Tom! --Иван Богданов (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"this article is not among the best work in the encyclopedia"

How is that not a valid reason to initiate a review? That is the only reason; the FA criteria are just heuristics for measuring whether an article is good work.

Anyway, I have replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)/archive1. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mk 8 Landing Craft Tank

I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings. My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively. I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about. I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval. Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it. My public e-mail address is Med.croft@virgin.net.Medcroft (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Draza Mihailovic

I ask you to delete a nonsense on the Draza Mihailovic page which says this man is considered as "World War II collaborator". I will tell you that Britannica claims he was "Yugoslav resistance leader" and that "altough a U.S. commision of inquiry cleared Mihailovic and thouse under his immediate command of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoDu (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor lists

Thank you for taking the time to comment on those lists. The FLC process has been getting a little bottlenecked so I wanted to try and usher some interest in their direction. In regards to your comments about putting the reference for each line. I can do that, however I placed the reference in the column header of the Notes column in order to save some bytes. By placing it in the row it adds a lot of extra bytes to the list and IMO adds a lot of unneeded clutter. Also in the case of the Vietnam list, it is already getting very big and doing that may put it into critical mass territory. --Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough thanks.--Kumioko (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Good Afternoon, I was wondering if you had given any more thought to these lists. I have a couple more I want to start working on (Namesly the Spanish American war list) and I would like to wrap these two up before I submit it.Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

General of the Armies

This page does still need to watched, the new thing is now that Pershing wasn't "really" a General of the Armies with statements made that there are no records of his promotion (I already found two sources). There was also an attempted to redo the article sections so that Washington was first, in a sense in reverse chronological order. The seven star general thing appears to be over with, but there are still some very heavy POV and OR edits being attempted here. Your help with this is greatly appreciated. -OberRanks (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article was just protected due to Corwin's massive changes as well as a personal attack on the talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the time change at all. The only reason I used an indef is because at the time I wasn't sure how things would proceed. Now that the RFC is underway I think your change is fine. Also, I'll not argue with you about the page revision. When I protect I do not try and decide what is the best revision to move to because that inserts me into the discussion in a way that makes me uncomfortable. I have found that it's best to protect the page in place and let the two sides work it out. While this is a content conflict there have been flaring tempers. I hope that the protection causes them to discuss their differences. The RFC is an excellent method to work this out whether all come to the table or not. Cheers! JodyB talk 10:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the rollback. I do mind when I make phone calls and do research and then OberRanks ignores the research and deletes my cites. I'm not constantly in front of my computer, so I can't constantly monitor the discussion. But my frustration came out when I couldn't even get OberRanks to engage in a discussion - while I wrote on the items' talk page my reasons for my edits. OberRanks has treated that page as if it belongs to him. The issue I consider to be the most important is that George Washington belongs at the top of that page and I couldn't even get OberRanks to engage in that discussion, except that he thought that putting Washington at the top was "confusing". If I can't get OberRanks to engage in a discussion before any changes are made, and if he insists on treating the article as if any disagreement with him is automatically wrong, and if his cites are completely missing, what are my options here? I never wrote that Washington was GOA during the Revolutionary war, yet he accused me of this. There is no historical record that President Wilson ever officially promoted Pershing, yet he quickly removes those facts. If he is a biographer for Pershing, then he should admit it, but I find him dismissive, and his discussion posts cold and impersonal. Maybe I'm upset, but I can't stand him ignoring facts he does not like and treating users like objects to be ignored. Corwin8 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to add - today, the Wilson Presidential Library told me that there are no records indicating Wilson formally promoted Pershing as GOA. The press at the time reported the senate's authorization for the promotion, yet there is no evidence Wilson ever promoted. Lastly, the Army has no record of Pershing's promotion from Wilson. OberRanks has ignored this, except to excuse it by guessing that maybe it was lost in a fire. There is no direct evidence that Pershing was promoted to GOA. Corwin8 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

TomStar, could we possible move the above post to the RFC on Talk:General of the Armies? Corwin8 has yet to respond to the RFC anywhere but here. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on the Iowas

I've noticed that in many images of the Iowa-class battleships, the #2 and sometimes aft main turret(s) have odd-looking projections coming from the sides of the rear of the gun house. Are these related to fire-control or something similar? If so, why does the #1 always lack these? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's best visible in File:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg; turrets 2 and 3 but not 1. They look like teeth, almost. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Those are optical rangefinders. -MBK004 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Mmm.. OK, thanks. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion/archive1

Hi, can you revisit this FLC and strike your weak oppose, if you are in fact supporting? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Iowa battleship

Hi Tom. What's the plan/schedule of work here? Since Feb 21 there have only been a couple of removals of unwanted stuff, a couple of typo fixes and a bit of link tweaking? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Milhist co-ordinator election

Hi, Tom. Just thought I'd let you know I've thrown my hat into the ring, so to speak. I have had a bit of a think about it since our conversation. I am very busy at the moment, but I think if I work hard (and late!) I shall be able to make a meanngful contribution. If successful, I may need someone to ask for help/advice though, so I may end up sending you a few queries, if you don't mind. Anyway, have a good one, cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

glad you're back!

Welcome back, Hope you're rested and ready to go! Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Betty King; confusing

I'm a little confused here. It seems as though you tagged Betty King for A7, then quickly deleted it for G12. If you were capable of deleting the page the whole time, why did you tag it for A7 first? If you didn't tag it for A7 but someone else did, my mistake, I didn't get a chance to see the actual history of the article. I'm just going by the messages on Lawwatcher's talk page. —LedgendGamer 08:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Question

Hey TomStar81,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote my time to the WikiProject. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton (SSRN-586) A-Class Review Status

Hello, TomStar81!

I have been busy working on the A-Class review for the USS Triton article. I have addressed many of this issues, revised the article content, and created a The Way Forward section to aid in the process. I also have several issues which I may need some guidnace. Again, thank you for your support and the project's, too.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom - What is the status of the A-Class review for the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article? I posted a request, under End game, for a final landry list of issues and question to be resolved, but ther has not been any follow-up. Could you clarify? Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Marc, if there hasn't been any more that is a good thing in this context. Assuming the reviewers have revisited and changed their opposes or comments to support the article will be promoted soon. In fact, I'll go have a look and see if I can promote it right now. -MBK004 00:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help and support. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton (SSRN-586) FAC Review Status

I have nominated this article for Feature Article consideration, with May 11 being the optimum date. Thanks again and any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81 - Could you look over the FAC review and provides some insights about moving this process forward. May 11 is coming up fast. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
TomStar81 - Many thnaks on your advice oncontacting Raul645. I left the following message on his talk page. Thanks for your help and support! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Raul645! May 11, 1960 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the return of the nuclear submarine USS Triton following the completion of its maiden voyage, which included the first submerge circumnavigation of the world. Triton was commanded by the late Captain Edward L. Beach, a highly-decorated naval officer from World War Two and author of the novel Run Silent, Run Deep. I have worked hard to improve the Triton article from its original B-rating, and it has been upgraded to A-Class status, and it is currently undergoing a FAC review. Can you offer any assistance on moving the FAC process forward so that the Triton article can be considered as the TFA for May 11, 2010? Thank you for your time and consideration. This is an important anniversary for me and those who have helped me on this matter. All the best!

Operation Sandblast A-Class Review

TomStar81 - What is the status on the A-Class review of this article? Other than myself, there has been no activiity there. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow-up regarding the status of the A-Class review on Operation Sandblast. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dürenstein

You left comments at the ACR review for this article. I think I've addressed them. Would you take a look and add support/oppose as you see fit? thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg at FAC

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg is slowly moving down the list on FAC, but hasn't had reviews (except for dabs, images, etc.). It could use some commentary, if you have a chance. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Its official

Oh I know isn't it scary! I have some family members who are doctors, and they are seriously thinking about getting out of the business all together. Obama's arrogance is ridiculous! He will not listen to the American People. Well at least Texas's Attorney General Greg Abbott is preparing to sue for the unconstitutionality of the bill. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 12:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on a few things here (my apologies in advance my friend, I'm in debate mode at the moment, so you'll have to bear with me). First, I agree that there are flaws in the bill, but likely for the opposite reasons (given that we view it from somewhat opposite sides of the political spectrum). My issue comes with the fact that the methods of penalizing insurance companies are essentially a slap on the wrist rather than tough penalties, and the fact that it is essentially a massive contract for the insurance companies who put the United States in this mess in the first place. I do have to disagree, however, that it is "socialism". I assure you, as someone who has reaped the benefits of a universal healthcare system for nearly eighteen years, that the bill passed on Sunday evening(of which I watched 9+ mind numbing hours of debate) is not socialism. more left than the status-quo? Definitely, but that isn't saying much. The difficulty is that it's bleeding obvious that universal healthcare is far superior to the U.S. system (look at France, look at Norway, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and the thirty other countries ahead of the States in the world healthcare rankings), but health insurance and healthcare are such a massive part of the American economy that shifting to a full single-payer system at this point in time simply isn't feasible. In other words, you've got a bit of a pickle on your hands, at least that's the way I see it from up north. Best of luck in sorting it out. Cam (Chat) 05:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - the fact that we disagree politically - in my mind - does nothing to change the fact that we can, have, and will continue to work together on the 'pedia.
Cam, do you have a Facebook? I'm currently in debates with literally four people on there about health care (I'm for it, they're against), and you might like to join in and have some fun. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Think nothing of it Cam; it was for this reason that I made a conscience decision to omit all relevant information concerning my religion and my political affiliations off Wikipedia. It was not so much for personal reasons, it was on account of the fact that unto my experience people tend to apply what I like to call "assumption bias" to those upon who they have incomplete information. In this manner, I figured that omitting political and religious information would result in people assuming that I held the same political and religious beliefs as they do, and its work more or less so far.

As for disagreeing, its part of life, and its healthy as well. In this case, my disagreement with the reform stems from the fact that I feel it went completely in the wrong direction: IMO, it should have started with doctors and hospitals and health care providers to streamline the system, then a wait to see how those changes effected the system, then laws concerning the private health care providers ability to provide/deny coverage, then see how that worked, then conclude the reform by extending coverage to the remaining Americans who could not afford it. This opinion of mine was formed on my own based on my understanding of the bill and from the information my dad, a doctor and surgeon, provided on its impact with regards to my family. I should note for disclosure here that we are up to our eyeballs in debt, and we are dangerously close to losing the house because HMOs pay nothing towards the overhead cost of clinic operations. I should also note that I understand that everyone's situation is going to be different, so you experience with the bill and its effects will not be the same as mine, although we may agree on a few points. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A MILHIST coord in full-cry, agreeing with Bedford. Amazing :P YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It most certainly exhausts Obama's political capital. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 00:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
First I would like to say that I respect everyone's views on this subject, and that this discussion will in no way affect my opinion of any of you. First to Cam, you are Awesome, but I am going to have to disagree with you. Socialism is any economic and/or political theory that represents governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods of any sort. By this government control of Health Care, we have moved closer to Socialist countries. This is definitely not to say that we have not been taking steps towards Socialism for the past few hundred years, in some way or another. And as Tom said also, my opinion is partially based on the fact that numerous members of my family or in the Medical profession, and they will be greatly affected by this bill. I have also created my opinion from my own experiences. At age 5, I was in an accident where I fell onto a stick. The stick pierced through my large intestines, and was only stopped from going through my entire body, by my inner tissue. Now noone really knew what had happened, but they knew that I was bleeding badly. I was taken to the hospital and received emergency care that saved my life. Had I not received care within a few hours after the incident I would have died, but before I was examined by doctors at the hospital it was thought that I had just scraped my skin very badly. Had we not had the Health Care system that we had at the time I would not be here today. Now I am not saying that this should change your views, but what I am saying is that I do have reasons for opposing this bill. First I would like to say that I respect everyone's views on this subject, and that this discussion will in no way affect my opinion of any of you. Wikipedia is an Amazing place where diversity bounds. All of you guys are awesome! Never forget it! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 01:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly. I've had 3 open heart surgeries, am going in for a cardiac cath on friday, and two back surgeries in the US. What I can say is that health care needs reform. Canada's system fails, because my medical care would take way longer to get. (It would take weeks to get an MRI I scheduled in three days). The system is wrong and a pain, one shouldn't have to be rejected because of pre-existing conditions. However, how it is being run is pitiful. The thing I don't get is now the Republicans are pushing to add a few needed amendments. The democrats are afraid if they amend it they will lose the votes, and so are shooting down worthwhile amendments. Anyways, enough venting. In regards to Cam, although I respect your position, I really don't understand your thinking. (I think it's on my end.) Mind elaborating here or on my talk page? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 02:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, this bill isn't going to emulate Canada's system. For the most part, it reforms health care insurance rather then health care itself. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh certainly. I know that. Requiring insurance, though a good thing, will probably have a similar affect at the start (but that's fine). I don't like the dems that say 'we need gov't option', but again, this is mostly personal experience more than what's best for the people. Maybe I'll read and improve the article... NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing NativeForeigner. At heart, I'm a progressive leftwing idealist, which is a fancy way of saying that I'm of the belief that universal healthcare is the only system that fundamentally works the best for everyone (provided it's properly funded, which is the main problem with Canada's - and especially my province Alberta's - healthcare system at the moment). At the same time, however, I'm also a pragmatist. I recognize that because HMOs are such a large part of the economy of the United States at the moment, you're never going to have the widespread radical reform that we saw in Canada in the 1960's or Britain in the late 1940's. Any reform has to be done incrementally. @Tom, I'd agree with your approach if it could be done slightly faster than the timeframe than it seems to imply. The reality is that the American healthcare system is running out of time to fix itself, and the window that your very well-thought-out and astute proposal would require doesn't seem to be there at the moment. I could be wrong though :P. As to the debt, I feel for you! My prayers are with you. It's one of the sad realities of the American system that the HMOs tend to get away scott free and foot everyone but them with the bill. I think we can move beyond left and right and simply agree that that - in and of itself - is wrong. We've all been affected by it. If I had been born in the United States, I guarantee my parents would have just finished paying the medical bills, and I wouldn't have had coverage for the entirety of my youth life (born 8 weeks premature, underwent experimental treatment, would have cost a fortune had I not been in Canada). Either way, I think the system of HMOs with no accountability is fundamentally flawed (antitrust legislation wouldn't hurt) and needs to be fixed. How we do that is a matter of debate. Cam (Chat) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So weird that we have been talking about this, as my History class is currently in a Chapter about Mass Society and Democracy. Part of this chapter was about the rise of Marxist Socialism. We took the test over it on Monday, and we recieved our scores back today. We all had the grade of 71. When we asked my teacher why we all had a 71 he told us that even though some of us had worked very hard on the test, it wasn't fair that other people made lower grades. So he had averaged our grades together, and then took some more points away for administrative costs. He then gave us a sheet of paper that had our true grades on (To my relief I made an A+, but for others they wanted to go back to the originial grade) He then talked about how this was basically what socialism was. I just thought that it was sort of a coincidence. Hope Everyone is Having A Wonderful Day, and if not Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at Makeemlighter's talk page.
Message added 06:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Makeemlighter (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

War of the Bavarian succession

I found a decent description of the burning of one of the Silesian villages, so I added it. War of the Bavarian Succession. No one else has reviewed it though. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

FPC speedy closes

Hi. I just closed a few more noms per WP:SNOW and wanted to show you this. How does that look? I only plan to use it with newer nominators who may not be familiar with the FP criteria. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Question...

I saw your response to my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Coordinator emiratus. Where could I bring up a proposal to the WikiProject on that? Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/March 2010.
Message added 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just so you see it when you get back... -MBK004 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead coord!

Lead coordinator of the
Military history Project,
March 2010—October 2010

Congratulations on your election as lead coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Barnstar
In gratitude of your service as lead coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you very much for the barnstar! I'll still be around, and if you need anything of me wiki-wise know that I'm more than willing to help! Cam (Chat) 01:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congratulations on be re-elected as Lead Coordinator! Good luck on Tranche IX! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 01:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote Sulu, Ooooohhhhhhh My! Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Good job! Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations TomStar81, I look forward to another well led 6 months. Thank you also for your support at the election and the 5 stars (although crossed swords and a crown might be more appropriate for us Brits!). See you around the Milhist pages, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My condolences

Iowa class battleship was just delisted (the bot has not even ran yet)[4][5]. Now we have three months to get the article to GA to save the featured topic. -MBK004 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well let this be a lesson, never nominate an article at FAR again unless it is absolutely necessary. If I remember correctly you nominated it in lieu of a peer review since you thought there would not be a major problem. Getting the article to GA in three months is going to be ambitious since it is going to be demoted down to Start and you stripped a big amount of content that is necessary for the comprehensiveness requirements. -MBK004 03:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The retention period is now official: Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria#Retention. We now have until 28 June 2010 to attain GA for the article or the topic loose its featured status. -MBK004 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's upsetting. Do you think you might be able to restore it soon (to at least GA or A-class), or should I redirect it for the moment? On the same token, are there any resources I might gather to help you? You cited referencing issues, and the librarian is still wrapped around my finger like a string. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, don't beat yourself up too much; after all, it wouldn't have been demoted if it wasn't FA-class anymore. But you're right, textual sources are probably a key. There was a specific text you were looking for, right? Do you have an ISBN for it? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I can certainly help on it, if there are any copyediting or formatting issues. I can also check my local library. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 01:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm. That may have been confusing. I mistook you for Ed regarding the incident where I whored myself out for the project for a book. My apologies. Ed, Tom, Bob... all we need is a John and we can start a start a sitcom. I will see if I can dig up the title you mentioned. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation

TomStar81: I spun this into a separate article that had formerly been part of the Operation Sandblast article. Following the review by the Military History Wiki Project, 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation was given a Start status. Beyond the fact that it is highly unlikely that additional public sources will be found for this rather obscure event, I belive that I have fulfilled all of the requirements nededed to make this article a B-grade entry. Certainly I did not encounter this problem when I added the article on the UGM-89 Perseus missile system previously which was alo an equally obscure topic. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

battle of chawinda

hi, thanks for your reply, i have posted some queries plz answer them. regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

yamato

hey, Tom, when you have a minute, would you be able to review the FAC for Japanese battleship Yamato? Cam (Chat) 05:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible source for United States Naval Gunfire Support debate?

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA367903 —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. Congratulations on your reelection as lead; I look forward to working with you for the next term. – Joe N 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

MonoBook

Re: Your note on Signpost, you will be able to select MonoBook under Preferences > Appearance. --Stephen 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TomStar81/Archive_10&oldid=1242052680"