User talk:TomStar81/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

---

Archives
Master Archive Page

The USN big battleship debate

Please don't take my comments as implying that the article needs to be significantly bigger than it is. All nations have debates about change and in this case the US is just a bit behind the rest of the world. A reflection of having the budget to hang onto obsolete capabilities for a very long period. I think the scope of the article is about right, although the actual content of the debate itself is potentially quite complex.

ALR (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you mentioned at the FAC page that you've had intermittent time to work on the article. If you want some help, I can do some work on the prose, specifically, the "pro-battleship" bias the article has inherited, and any other non-research tasks you might be able to think of. I just wanted to get some more specific guidance on where you are going from you before I tackle it, because it makes no sense for me to duplicate effort and/or veer too far from the path you had in mind. bahamut0013♠♣ 01:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made some comments on the page you might wish to read. Also, I was referring more to copyedit or rephrasing in my offer; while one would say that a Marine is knowledgable about naval gunfire, my experience about the aprticulars of the debate is limited to what I've read in the related articles. While my tentative position is that the Navy needs to stop dancing about and get the big guns back into play, I must admit that there is little supporting evidence to the Navy's cost arguments in the article. I think that adding some number crunching examples and references would help balance that up, but I've always been weak on the research side of article-writing, and better at the re-work of prose. Do you have any more detailed thoughts on how to best hammer out this "Pro-guns bias"?? bahamut0013♠♣ 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, you are adding meat to the "anti-guns" view. For some reason, I'd assumed you were going to want to cut some of the pro-guns. I dunno why, and I'm glad I waited before making any big changes; your way is much better. If you leave a note the next time you make a big expansion, I'll whip out the copyediting--no offense, but spelling isn't not one of your strengths. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Insignia and stuff

I imagine you'll be doing the usual with the insignia once the election is over. If so, would you mind doing the {{subst:The WikiProject Barnstar|message ~~~~}} to thank people for their last six months work? The reason is basically variety, so that people get barnstars not only awarded by me. If this is a problem, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Tom, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France

Re: Congrats!

Thank you very much! :-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also Tom, and congratulations on your re-election! Nick Dowling (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done and all the best. I've decided to step aside. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honour of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from February 2008 to September 2008, please accept this barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom and congrats on your re-election. All the best for your new term. Kyriakos (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R

There's an opening now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Various barnstars

Any chance you could award the writing contest barnstars this month? It's the WikiChevrons for Bellhalla and the Writers Barnstar for Abraham, B. S.. Bellhalla also gets the A-Class Medal, per the current nom in Awards. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the ACM has just been awarded, so one less :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

corrections to Wiki Battleship Texas BB35

Hello:

I left a posting on the talk page of the Battleship Texas for corrections that are needed, the sources supporting the corrections and my expertise regarding the ship.

There are additional changes that go all the way through 1990.

Before I make any changes, I wanted for someone to look at what I posted.

Charels Moore

— IronShipIronShip (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC support

Thank you for the helpful comments!!!! Cheers, —the_ed17— 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Block templates

There is {{Uw-ublock}} which is probably what you are looking for: it is for accounts where there is some ambiguity over their intentions, ie may not have meant to offend. You can use the |reason= parameter to include the reasoning behind why it is against the username policy. For obvious violations such as "User:Woody sucks dick" then use {{Uw-uhblock}}. For the account that you blocked, it could have been done indef under vandalism-only so no need to really worry about templates. For the comprehensice list of templates, see Template:Blocksnotice/inner. Regards. Woody (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clayton Hartwig

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at Travellingcari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arizona's guns on the Nevada (in your 14" gun article)

TOM! I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS FOR AN ENTIRE HOUR ONE DAY!!!!!!!! ("Notably, slavaged 14"/45 caliber guns from the #2 turret aboard the battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) were removed and installed aboard the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36) in the fall of 1944, and these guns would later be fired in anger against the Japanese by Nevada in 1945")

!!!!!! Thanks! [if you couldn't tell, I'm happy.] :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Psh. A dual-nom? What did I do to deserve a DYK (assuming that that becomes a DYK...!)You wrote the bloody article!!! :) Thanks though. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I added an alternate + a note...this is what I added...what do you think?

• • Alternate? "...that the three 14"/45 caliber guns that were originally in the USS Arizona (BB-39)'s turret 2 were removed and installed aboard the battleship USS Nevada (BB-36) and used in action against the Japanese in 1945? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A second thought. It isn't in the article, but the source says "It is often stated that USS Arizona (BB-39) never fired her guns in anger [...] These guns [that were installed on the Nevada] were then used for shore bombardments during the 1945 Pacific campaigns, so it may be technically said that Arizona's guns were fired in anger after all." If that was incorperated into the article, there could be a hook like "...that the popular statement that USS Arizona (BB-39) never fired her guns in anger" is a myth?" Nice cliffhanger, IMHO...will get people to go to the article.... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

...though it needs a link to the article in question... =/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks TomStar. Congratulations on your RfA. I think I actually saw that a little while ago, when I had come to RfA just to see if there was anything new. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard from the other editor about my corrections the the BB35 article. I am logged in but I can not get access to his talk page to leave a message.

Can I post historic documents (deck log, ship's war diary etc) that are references to the Common page where BB35 photos are posted?

–– —— —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this

"I am once again declining csd deletion; the article asserts some notaibility and is in compliance with WP:V "Verfiability, not Truth". File an afd for any future deletion, please; it may yeild better results." -- how do I file one of these? please respond on my Talk page--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I think I got it right; please check deletion tag on the article now. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my request for adminship. I appreciate your confidence. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime

Glad to be of assistance. If you ever need someone to proofread an article, just drop me a line and I'll get right on it. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Move protection

Which page is it? I took a quick glance and couldn't find it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead revision.

I changed around USS New Jersey (BB-62)'s lead, but an IP undid my edit...if you like my version more, could you change it back? Thanks. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

USS New Jersey

Don't worry, I'll be able to help. I think I've got most of the articles linked to through New Jersey already in my watchlist, so I'm already guarding them when I'm able. I'm finally getting back into the general flow after having all the projects and tests thrust upon me because of the Hurricane. Now I can finally live-up to my role as a coordinator. -MBK₀₀₄ on the iPhone (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand, as well. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the main page feature. I'll watch it also. I'm especially interested to see if anyone complains about that paragraph I added recently with information from Thompson's book. I can't find where it says in the article, but Milligan was captain of New Jersey at that time and, according to Thompson, apparently was aware that powder bags mixed under Miceli's direction ruined his ship's main gun accuracy in Lebanon. Milligan was later picked to lead the Iowa explosion investigation and apparently tried to steer the investigation, successfully at first, along with Miceli, away from any suggestion that faulty powder or powder bags could have had anything to do with the explosion. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Tom, congrats on the TFA appearance (and I'm also watching the page. I was on a rollback roll there for about three minutes). Incidentally, one new-user appeared to be semi-constructive, and thus I have a question: Is there any formal Manual of Style for referring to battleships as "she" or "it" for naval-pages? There seems to be some disagreement over it, so I'm slightly curious. Cam ^(Chat) 05:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, either is acceptable, but She is the established usage and will not be changed. I believe it is in the FAQ on the talk page of the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. thanks for the answer (and now I'm informed for the mass-collaboration with Cla68 on Yamato class & the IJN Aircraft Carriers;)Cam ^(Chat) 06:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the really nice Barnstar. I've always been a battleship fan. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! Happy Editing, RockManQ ^(talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Same from here. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 01:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fourth'd. :D Out of curiosity, isn't "Semper Fi" for the Marines and not the Navy? =) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of you are talking about (does this make me a stalker?), but Semper Fidelis is the motto of the USMC. Tell it to the Marines! --AtTheAbyss (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You can read the article Semper Fi and learn all about it. 129.108.225.143 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikichevrons, and congratulations on the TFA appearance!! Cam ^(Chat) 04:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for the barnstar, recent changes was an absolute nightmare last night — Possum (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Thanks a lot for your appreciation! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Perhaps you might have some insight into this...I understand that many US Navy ships, after completing a cruise or a deployment, print and distribute a "cruisebook" to the crew which contains a summary of the ship's actions during the cruise and pictures of the crew, kind of like a high school yearbook. Are images scanned from such a cruisebook considered public domain? Is the cruisebook's printing paid for by the US Navy, or does it come from private funds raised by the ship's crewmembers amongst themselves? Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ballistic Missile diagram

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:V-2 rocket diagram (with English labels).svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 12:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

		USS Nevada (BB-36)
		Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism and help on the successful FAC that the USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, I see that it was definitely not ready before you came along...but thanks to your help, it was passed today. :D Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944.

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar, TomStar81! Happy editing to you. -FlyingToaster (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for 14"/45 caliber gun

On 18 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 14"/45 caliber gun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

North to the Yukon

This page says "accounting for roughly half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945" I don't dispute it, but I've read (& can't recall where...) the 40mm was inadequate against kamikaze because shell weight was too low, & the 5"/38's ROF was too low; it took until the 3" auto for USN to have a suitable response. Can you source & include? (I'm betting Friedman's Naval Weaps will have it, but I don't have a copy.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In case you are wondering Tom, I told Trek to come here because I stole the 40 mm and 20 mm sections for that article from your Iowa-class battleship article. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You again! ;D Yeah, great havin' good sources handy. Thanx. Not just for the page; I can use that myself, too. (If I ever get the damn book finished...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Iowa explosion article

The article is taking me longer than I thought to complete. I noticed that you wanted to have the Iowa class battleship topic nominated for Featured before the end of the calendar year. If I can get the Iowa explosion article to Good Article status, then you'll be able to nominate the topic since one or two GA-level articles within the topic are allowed. I think I can have it at GA level in a few weeks. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom

Hi Tom! Congrats on being able to walk away for a time. :) I have a sentence that may be interesting to you (it's the last sentence here):

Yet another drastic change was considered, during the "carrier panic" of early 1942. This was the point in the war where the Navy, and the President, realized that the next fleet carriers, the Essex-class aircraft carriers, had not even been laid down yet and only one (USS Hornet (CV-12)) would enter service before 1944 (USS Franklin (CV-13) was eventually commissioned on 31 January 1944). As a result, the Bureau of Ships decided to convert a few hulls that were currently under construction to aircraft carriers; however, they still had to decide which hulls would be converted. So, at different parts of 1942, they considered converting some of the Cleveland-class light cruisers, a few of the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, all six Alaska's, or even one of the Iowa-class battleships to aircraft carriers.—Friedman, Norman (1983). U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press. p. 190. ISBN 0870-2-1739-9.

Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin needs work

WP:SHIPS has identified USS Wisconsin (BB-64) as needing some work to maintain its FA star. You might want to chime in before someone decides to start a FAR. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Area 58 article

Since you AfD nominated the Area 58 article you might be interested in DCEETA, which is pretty much a rehash of the same tinfoil headgear type stuff. I'm trying to cull it down to a reasonable level, I don't think it has legs but it's probably as notable as some of the other military cruft around.

Regards

ALR (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hartwig pic

There are two black-and-white pictures of Hartwig in Thompson's book. One shows him being greeted by Moosally, apparently pier-side at Norfolk. The other shows him posing somewhere on Iowa in his duty uniform. Neither of the pictures is attibuted and I believe, but am not certain, that they were given to Thompson by Hartwig's family from Hartwig's personal effects. It could be argued that the one or both of them were likely taken by another Iowa crewmember and are therefore US Government public domain. But, that's extremely sketchy rationale for an image in an article that we plan on nominating for FA. So, I'm not sure what to do about it right now. I might try a fair use rationale for one them to see if that passes. Sometimes reviewers will allow one fair use picture in an article. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar810 (talk • contribs)

Fort Bliss

I've done a bit of work at Fort Bliss. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the note. :) Did you see the additions someone made to Iowa class battleship and (maybe, I forget) some of the ships oif the class? I didn't revert them 'cos I wasn't sure if they were helpful or not (assuming AGF with my lack of knowledge =]).... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution

Hi there, and thank you for using templates on Wikipedia. On one of your recent edits you used a template that should have been substituted but you did not subst it. Please subst templates that are meant to be substed in the future. Please take a look at Substitution to learn more about it. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you need any more help or want to reply to this please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...

...but if you get the chance can you chip in your two cents here?

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Albion subclass MS carrier.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Albion subclass MS carrier.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Leave of Absence

I wish you all the best during your leave of absence. I hope you find the rest you need, and wish you the best of luck in your fall semester. All the best (as always;), Cam ^(Chat) 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel for you for the lousy treatment. Some people here just don't get it. Be well, & come back soon. We need all the good ones we can get. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your news

I was so sorry to hear your news. It has been obvious that things have been rocky for you for a while and my thoughts are with you for the future. If there's anything at all I can do to help, you have my email address. I am sorry too that you've decided to retire as a coordinator and I hope you will stand again in the next elections. When you're firing on all cylinders, I can't think of a better person to have on board. All the very best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of both your long and distinguished service as a coordinator of this project from August 2007 to October 2008, and of your exemplary contributions to articles on the vessels of the U.S. Navy. For the coordinators, Kirill ^(prof) 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom....

...remember that if you need someone to talk to, you have many friends here that are willing to talk with you; I'm one of them! Just drop one of us a line anytime...you know, from what I've seen of you on here, you are a good guy with a great sense of humor ("Operation Silent Sentry" was it? :D), so don't think down upon yourself because others are idiots. I hope that all of your RL issues work out in the best way possible....and just keep in mind that Wikipedia will be here when everything works out, all right? Whenever you feel like you are ready come back, and not a minute before....we will all be here and waiting for you, ready to be forced to spell-check everything you type. :D :D :D :P Anyway, I'll be praying for you, and I wish you good luck with all that you aim for, my friend. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget...

...that the brow on a ship works two ways. It not only is the way off the ship in port, but it's also there to lead you back to the ship when shore liberty is over. While I'm new to the project, it's to you and others like you that we newbies look for that encourgement and guidance. Please know that you will be missed and that you are in my personal prayers. I hope your issues are resolved quickly and to your satisfaction. Fair Winds and Following Seas... Cuprum17 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thompson's book

I was wondering when someone [1] would come and complain about Thompson's book being used so heavily in the article. In searching around the Internet, I found some comments (not from a reliable source) that appeared to indicate that most Iowa crewmembers from that time agree with Thompson's overall conclusions about the Hartwig cover-up, but don't necessarily agree with his portrayal of most of the officers and senior NCO's on the ship at that time as being incompetent and/or criminally negligent. Schwoebel's book, by the way, largely confirms Thompson's assertion that the US Navy botched the technical side (led by Miceli) of the investigation. Schwoebel was one of the Sandia scientists assigned to the investigation. Some of his descriptions of Miceli's antics are hilarious. Cla68 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tom

You do not know me, but I have been an avid reader of your battleship pages for some time. I was quite stunned to discover you had bolted, and in disbelief left a few messages on SandyGeorgia's talk page to see if you had let on to anyone that you were under such duress. Alas, it appears that like the battleship you care so much for your steel hull hides such concerns from the prying eyes of your peers. I am worried about you, depression is a serious matter that may require medical attention, and if you have occasion to read this I would encourage you to speak with a doctor and see what he or she thinks. In your absence I wish to assure you that others both registered and not registered will watch over the articles you brought to FA status in accordance with your wishes. I hold you to your promise to return to Wikipedia, young man, for many readers such as myself and many contributors to the site look to you for guidance. You are a part of the project on so many levels, and your absence will be felt across each of the levels in the coming weeks. Your sincerely and respectfully, 68.72.221.24 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes

I came here to let you know that I've added your article to my ever-growing copyedit list, but that's hardly important right now. All the best for your sabbatical (if I can optimistically call it that?), and I hope to see you back here, well and refreshed, when the time's right. You've earned the respect of a lot of people here, and I sincerely hope you find the light at the end of your tunnel. Nil carborundum mate ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you need someone to talk to...

...contact me (I can be reached via Wikimail). My English may be atrocious, but my intentions are genuine. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tom

Hi, you may not think you know me as I've changed my user name this summer. But your TomStar is still in pride of place on my bling page, I really enjoy reading your articles and promise if you come back to dig out my father's WWII books including "Britain's glorious navy" from the early 40s... Get your grades up, look after your Mom, and come back when you are ready. ϢereSpielChequers 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Standing watch

Tom, sorry to hear about the issues currently knotting you down (and I can empathize with the low grades ... after all, college was the best seven years of my life!). While we cannot hope to match your topical expertise or relentless dedication to pounding out quality content, your fellows at WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST will proudly stand watch until your return. Godspeed to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Another Loss

I am aware that you were in good spirits today while supporting McCain, and it is my hope that this latest loss will not further discourage you to remain off wikipedia, although judging by your attitude and behavior in the library I'm guessing that this is not going to help your mental state any. Just remember that not all Democrats are bad, and that Republicans did carry Texas. Sorry, amigo...I guess this just has not been your year. 75.39.199.124 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I Wish You The Best

Hi, Tom. This is Miranda, a.k.a. KiaraFan13. I recently read that you're on a leave of absence due to some problems or something and I wanted to wish you the best during your leave of absence. I know it may take a long time for us to talk to each other, but I wanted to tell you that I'm in the 9th grade as a freshman and it's going really well for me. If you want to talk, you can go to my discussion page. I'll talk to you, later. Bye, Tom.

KiaraFan13 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes

Wherever you may be. Deletion discussions are pitiful, I agree. —Ceran^{(sing / see)} 14:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

Similar thoughts as the others here. You were/are a tremendous asset to the encyclopedia I am sorry I opposed your RfA, in hindsight it was a mistake. Best wishes in real life, good to see you have your priorities strait anyways. Hope to see you back someday :) Icewedge (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Just in case no one else has told you this, but your contributions and efforts, especially with improving the Iowa-class battleship articles, is much appreciated and valuable. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kurd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RX-78GP01fb Gundam Zephyranthes Full Vernian (Gundam 0083).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RX-78GP01fb Gundam Zephyranthes Full Vernian (Gundam 0083).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Merry Christmas...to you!

And a Merry Christmas to you too, Mr. IP! :)

...and an early Merry Christmas to Tom. Hope RL is treating you well, pal. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!! And Happy New Year!!!! (And for god's sake come back soon. We are missing you immensely.) 75.41.166.27 (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Really miss you

Tom, I believe that I am not alone when I tell you that you are missed here. You have been a great contributor and friend. 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi from Blackash

Thanks for the Hi and for the advice. I have already left a note on the talk page of ClockworkSoul so hopefully they make things clearer.Blackash (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

	Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Man I've missed inter-acting with you here. How you been? I'm sorry for the late greeting, but my wife is hospitalized and that is where I spent my Christmas. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well

Just to keep you updated, USS Iowa turret explosion passed its ACR without any objections, and is looking ready to pass its FAC the same way. Hope you're doing well in RL. Cam ^(Chat) 18:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, Tom

And a very Happy New Year to you. From what you say, 2009 is going a whole heap better than 2008! Oh, and well done on the grades :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as you remain outside the stock market. Cam ^(Chat) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TOM!

Welcome back, pal! It's nice to hear from you again on your actual account. :P Cheers and Happy New Year! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, you emerged just ten minutes after I went to bed! Good job on the grades and do remember to enjoy yourself here. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. I'm glad to hear that you have managed to get RL back in order (and especially congratulations on the grades—well done!;), and look forward to having you at the helm of the Iowa FT drive again. Cam ^(Chat) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I like your redesigned userpage, but noticed that your awards are missing. Especially those Oak Leaves we gave you after you left. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That did it, I'm such an idiot since you probably lifted that from me and Kirill. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One tweak, you didn't resign +sysop, just coordinator. Also, I was just as blind-sided as you were, I wasn't expecting it at all, plus I received it immediately after my failed run at coordinator in February 2008. As for it being rare, absolutely, and while you were gone I've even seen the regular Chevrons described as a rare award that someone we jointly awarded it to stated that they never expected to receive them: Wikipedia_talk:MHCOORD#are_we_being_spammed.2C_or_is_it_just_me.3F -MBK₀₀₄ 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Very happy to see you back. I was disappointed when I checked your contributions last week and discovered you weren't relenting about the wikibreak. Enigma^msg 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In any event, your FAs need you. Enigma^msg 09:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Navweaps

There is a question here about navwaeps.com, asking if it is an RS. Now, if I remember right, you said that it passed through the RS noticeboard...but do you remember where? Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

USS Iowa turret explosion

I see the article just got bumped to FA. Well done. Hopefully USS Iowa (BB-61) will encounter favorable conditions as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thompson's book gives a lot of good detail, not all of it negative, about Iowa's history after it was taken out of mothballs to when it was decomissioned again. I'll try to add more material to those sections as well as the turret explosion section over the next couple of weeks. What was your timeline for submitting the article for FA? Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see you've already nominated it. I'll check the explosion section but otherwise let it be for now. Cla68 (talk)

RE: Yamato Class

Be my guest. We'll need all the help we can get in finding sources for some of the more difficult information (particularly with the construction and design processes).

I find it fitting that you will have worked on the pages for the two largest battleship classes of the war—which never met one another in combat (mind you, it would have probably been the most vicious surface battle in history had they met;) Cam ^(Chat) 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically enough, I've been using you're Iowa page layout as the general framework for the Yamato-class article. Cam ^(Chat) 07:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

New idea for acid reflux

We had a talk a while back on the Ref Desk about our respective cases of acid reflux disease. I've since started a new homemade "treatment" for myself, which has helped. I don't know if it will help you or not, but will just point out what I do:

1) I mix a tiny amount of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) with lemon juice, which then foams up. I use excess lemon juice, from a bottle, to make sure that all the baking soda reacts. That is, there should be lemon juice at the bottom of the glass once it's done fizzing. Do this over the sink in case it fizzes over.

2) I then add water, to fill up the container, and drink it. If it has a bitter aftertaste, at the back of the tongue, then you have too much baking soda, so add a bit more lemon juice to react with it.

3) You can also add sugar, once all the baking soda has reacted, to create lemon-aid with the excess lemon. I don't do this myself, though, as I'm trying to watch my weight and don't need the extra calories. I've also added liquid Stevia, which is a natural calorie-free sweetener without any nasty carcinogenic chemicals (as in other sugar substitutes). I normally prefer to drink it without any sweeteners at all, though.

4) I drink this all the time, not just when I feel burning in my throat. My feeling is that damage has already been done if you wait that long.

5) One caution, this does add a fair amount of sodium to your diet, so don't do this if you're on a salt restricted diet.

6) Note that this is roughly equivalent to taking Alka-Seltzer, or some equivalent, with every drink. However, many of those concoctions also include unwanted headache meds, too, and they may also be prohibitively expensive when consumed in such quantities as I do. If you prefer a commercial preparation, though, I recommend Brioski, which lacks the headache meds that so many others feel it necessary to add.

I hope this helps you, as it has helped me. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo upload request

Could you upload this photo [2] (source: [3]) into Commons and add it to the Iowa category? I'd like to use the image in the Fred Moosally article but my current connection times out on large image files. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! [4] Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bronze wiki

		2008 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "extensive contributions to the excellent Iowa class battleship article series", I award you this Bronze Wiki. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

math problems

Thanks for the reply to my question over at the math project. I apreciate your assistance in resolving the matter. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You're quite welcome, I'm just happy to see any problems on the math project I can solve…--fvw* 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Iowa class battleship series

Of course I'd be happy to help where needed. I'm currently copyediting two other articles, but I'll try to squeeze in what I can. Great to see you back btw ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nixon's Resignation Letter

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Letter of Resignation of Richard M. Nixon, 1974.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Wronkiew (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: USS Iowa (BB-61)#Reserve Fleet and Museum Ship (from 1990)

Tom, can you recheck your sources here? I am not finding the information of the last paragraph in the sources given. Jappalang (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Per my edit summaries,[5] it is more likely the quotes and information came from 109-452, not 109-163. As that is a year's difference (2007 compared to 2006 as referred in the article), I refrained from substituting the references and tagged them to let you address them. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Miscellaneous factions of Command & Conquer

I have nominated Miscellaneous factions of Command & Conquer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miscellaneous factions of Command & Conquer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. _ZXCVBNM 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Texas Peer Review

You know, over the Christmas holidays I was thinking that the article was probably pretty close to A-Class. There have been some changes to the prose and references, done by BB35 Restorer (talk · contribs), who is as the name suggests, involved with the ship (he has e-mail enabled). If you could go-through those changes for me that would be great. Since the article is still a GA, I was thinking we might skip PR and go to ACR as a tune-up for FAC. Remember that I had the article go through a technical copyedit when the logistics department first got up to speed and I think most of those things have been dealt with unless the MOS has changed since then. By the way Tom, you should put the nom for ACR up since you only need one more to get an A-class medal and the majority of the prose with the exception of the construction and museum ship sections is yours. If you insist, I'll put up the nom for FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can probably see, I asked The_Ed17 to help out, and his TPS'ers and himself have already helped out quite a bit. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed left some hidden comments in the infobox, a little help please? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it. USS Texas (BB-35) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

←Was looking at some links to replace the dead link and came up with this: [6]. If you scroll down to the Texas, you can see just how bad parts of the ship are. I've actually stood where those pictures were taken. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Questions

I answered your questions, but I had a question for you... your first question was a two parter, but I wasn't sure what you were asking in the second part. Could you clarify?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Tom,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Eichmann trial news story.ogg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 21, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-21. howcheng {chat} 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask a favor....

Could you go through the "Design and service" and cut out everything that isn't needed? I don't want it to be a carbon copy of the same section in Alaska-class cruiser, but I can't decide what is important and what isn't. :( Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, TomStar81. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tom, the "Design and Service" section. Not the "Construction, conversion proposals and eventual fate" section! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

...but if you are too busy to work on Hawaii, don't feel bad! I'm not going to be nomming that for GA, A, or FA anytime soon, so it can wait... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

range

At Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)#Dubious an issue concerning whether the article uses nautical or statue miles has been raised. While researching for the turret explosion, did you find any info that the standard range for the 16in guns was in statue miles, 'cause I was under the impression that all figures given were in nautical mile form. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to answer. It appears that naval gun ranges are always in nautical miles. I've never seen anything to indicated that statute miles are used unless it is clearly stated that it is statute miles that are being given. The default appears to be nautical miles. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More info on the Iowas as CV's...

...can be seen here. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at this

Looks like someone had an idea after reading Armament of the Iowa class battleship, and created a spin-off article: Ship Gun Fire Control Systems. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I left some comments for you...

...here. I think that the prose is good, but my concerns may need some attention. Also, you may want to archive your TP... :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied...

...at WT:TFA. I was working on the article, so I missed that on my watchlist. :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied, and I must be tired....that was just a stupid reply. :)

Anyway, you get to notify Raul/Sandy/both because you are Mr. Respected FA writer. :P I'll talk to ya tomorrow night :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So I just wanted to know that I owned you. Who commented on the disambig first? :D Anyways, I'll leave the link checker to you on all A-class noms now if you want... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So I'm at the library...

...and I stumbled across this/these: [7] and/or [8]. (are they the same?) Didn't know if it/they would help ya at all. :) Cheers! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 23:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I just noticed that your USS Iowa (BB-61) article made it to FA - terrific! NancyHeise ^talk 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured topic nomination

I was thinking of nominating USS Iowa turret explosion for featured topic with sub-topics of: Armament of the Iowa class battleship, USS Iowa (BB-61), Fred Moosally, and A Glimpse of Hell (book). Since you were the primary editor on the Armament and Iowa articles, I wanted to list you as co-nominator. If you have any objections, please let me know and I'll consider them carefully, because that's fine if you don't think it's a good idea. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. No problem. Again, if you all are uncomfortable with it or otherwise don't think it's a good idea I have no problem at all with shelving the idea. Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've weighed in on Cla's talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Per MBK on Cla's page, sub-FT would be best. But does that really mean that you have to wait? You can't nom now, then make it into a sub-topic later? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have the solution. I know that we are waiting until we put the old articles through FARs, but I don't see why that is a deal-stopper. If an article in an FT is demoted, we would have a three month grace period to regain featured status on the demoted article. Why don't we go ahead and nom the topic? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Go Now?

MBK has a point. All in favor of going now, list support below:

• Neutral - it's your call, Mr. Primary Author of Most of the Articles. :P And, I've done like nothing. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support as nom -MBK₀₀₄ 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Cam ^(Chat) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• ...And I make majority Support. Ok people, let me send off one message and we will officially open the Iowa class battleship FT nom. I have faith that this will pass, but it will only happen if we all work togather. In words of Admiral Nelson, "England expects that every man will do his duty." TomStar81 (Talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have asked Cla to lend his support as a formality. Let's wait for him. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the nom box per the FTC instructions. The style used at User:TomStar81/Iowa class battleships has been deprecated in favor of a new one. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the box in the place I just linked to with the new version. Got an image for the topic? See where to put it in... -MBK₀₀₄ 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the ayes officially have it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation: Trailblazer

Operation Trailblazer is now commencing. Best of luck everyone! Cam ^(Chat) 06:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

_{PS, speaking of topic noms, would anyone have time to review the GAN for Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano? It's the only one in the set that is necessary now for a GT-nom}

Insomnia. Thankfully I only have Tuesday and Thursday classes. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I matched it to what you titled it (The FTC nom). We'll see what the final outcome is, easily changed if need be. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't start saying that. I have an hour commute one way in the morning and evening. Plus I spend over 12 hours on-campus on those two days. I get exhausted at the end of the day and sleep until noon on Wednesday and Friday. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is where we differ. I have the ability to do my work at home so I only stay on campus as long as absolutely necessary for classes. That being said, I do have a 6 hour period when I do not have classes on one of those two days which allows me to either work on assignments or surf the net and edit. You may ask why that gap, two morning classes and a night class each (Tue and Thu) plus a lab on one day. That's weird, talking about school is making me tired. G'night. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: After thinking it over...

Already seen (and added); thanks for putting it together! :-) Kirill ^[pf] 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Maybe, but I'm working on something else right now. Once it's complete I'll get back to you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The military history A-Class medal
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal for prolific work on three articles: United States Naval Gunfire Support debate, USS Iowa (BB-61) and USS Texas (BB-35), which were all promoted to A-Class between August 2008 and February 2009. Thanks for your hard work, friend! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Time to update yours, with 14"/45 caliber gun (DYK), USS Iowa (BB-61) (GA), Iowa class battleship (FA). WP:CROWN/NOM; Also, the project is now eligible for the WikiProject Crown: Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Crowning_the_project -MBK₀₀₄ 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'll do it myself, Ed already asked me to do his. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nom complete -MBK₀₀₄ 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Durova/Triple_crown_winner's_circle

I see you are already listed and previously received the Imperial triple crown. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you need to get two more GAs and ? DYKs for the next upgrade at 5 crown eligibility. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do it on your own time at your own pace, the project is more than qualified for the wikiproject triple crown. Also, ed finally did something non-US warship related: Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais -MBK₀₀₄ 05:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I have a soft spot for the New York-class, there is probably more relevance and page views for the Bismarck-class. Parsecboy (talk · contribs) could probably help you on those. I most likely won't be ready for FA on Texas until May, but if you want to bring the class article and New York to GA a GT could be created in the interim. As to the operation page, I've been tracking the status of some in my sandbox for some time: User:MBK004/Sandbox#Featured_Topic_Checklists. Also, Parsecboy has a message for you on my talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, focus on school above all else, that is why I'm not dealing with some issues from the ACR on Texas, just helping out Rlevse with a FL and dealing with project administration at this time. As for BB versus CV, I'd stick with the battleships for now, just thinking about working towards FT on the Essex-class gives me indigestion and a headache. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to help, I don't have much in the way of sourcing or time (Junior year and 400-level classes). As an added bonus, if I don't help I could give an extremely thorough review at ACR and FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gentleman, Feast your Eyes!

Thank you very much for the award, and for your kind words! :-) Kirill ^[pf] 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Texas

Hello

In USS Texas (BB-35) there is information the first to receive a commercial radar in the U.S. Navy. What exactly means commercial in that sentence ? Nonexperimental ? Can you write me something about this ?

There is also She is also noteworthy for being one of only two remaining ships to have served in both World War I and World War II. - Drazki and Aurora also was in both wars, and now are museum ships. And also Giorgios Averoff.

I am asking because i get now that article on pl.wiki to GA.

I was asking User_talk:MBK004 but he doesn`t answer. PMG (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was asking Tom off-wiki because he wrote the verbiage that you are questioning. I'm sorry if I didn't respond with that. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Danton

Looks like a promising article. My only thing is that the new lead is about as long as the rest of the text in the article. Hopefully that is only temporary, especially with the discovery? I'm thinking this isn't a candidate for FA or ACR but a good terminal-level GA article. As for helping out, I don't really have any sources that are suited for that era (pre-dreadnought) in foreign navies. Plus, I've taken on a huge conversion project outside of MILHIST: Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Timeline Status. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

---