User talk:Wilsbadkarma/Archive 2

Archive 2

Navy Ratings

Hey the Aircrew badge you retagged is the Officers badge not the enlisted version. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man I'm up to late and missing stuff. My Bad I dont know what in the world I'm saying never mind thanks for the help.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh no problemo, I was getting ready to head down to ask my LT about the NAC badge before I got the last message, saved me a wasted trip in the snow lol!

BTW do you have prior Navy involvement or are you just a buff? I ask cuz a friend of mine on my last ship is an IT1 who spells his first name Wil... :-)

Supersquid 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No just a buff my grandfather was in the Navy and would sit for hours and hours and tell me tons of stories. So I got my obsession honestly.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

hey do you have the insignia for the disestablished and changed ratings? I don't like how its missing the images plus I think I want it to look like the rest of the page.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have them right now, but I'm sure I can find some. They may be b/w vice the current greyscale, though. I'll look online through BuPers and see if they have older uniform regs available.

Something else I noticed that I'd like to change. I'm gonna try and find more designator badge images that have transparent background vice black background, to give them a standardized look. Either that, or edit the badges to make the background transparent, but I don't have access to Photoshop in the office.

Also looks like we're missing FMF (Fleet Marine Force) from the list. Here's a link to the listing of badges, as well [1]

Supersquid 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I already had that idea too and I'm a graphics designer and I can tell you right now with those small res pictures there is no way me or anyone else could pull the background out and them look good. as for the Black and white insignia I think the page would look better if we just left them off especially as both of the reviews I have looking at it don't like the black pictures. and ill get the FMF badge up there in a sec.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

oh one more thing I think we can find better images of the black background ones. if nothing else a white background. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 07:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me your opinion one something I think that FMF, SCW, EWS, and IUSS all need to go under a restricted warfare heading jut like the Special Warfare.--07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure I could find some better pics of the badges (we don't need no steenking badges), worse case scenario is that I pull up a back-issue of "All Hands" and scan in the pics of the pins, then edit out the black background. As for the rate insignia for the disestablished rates... yeah I agree that the black ones suck and should be left out if no greyscale ones can be found. I'll look though, maybe I'll luck out. I'll even see if the pics out of an older copy of the Bluejackets Manual are okay. As for the FMF, SCW, et. al.... I do think it's a bit redundant to have each one under it's own category, but I don't know what to call the category. Maybe "Misc Warfare Designators"? Might peeve off the corpsmen and MAs though :-)

Supersquid 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a couple (Dolphins and Air Warfare) so thats just a couple left. As for the misc. badges from what I can tell there classified under "Restricted Warfare" I'm going to do some digging but I'm gonna drop them under there for now.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 08:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man great work it looks so much better. I have a few things to do but this evening I'm gonna fix the wording and finishe the table layout and add more summary's the other thing is all the images need valid sourcing information I think it would bee better if the sourcing had it own header on the image page. It were gonna get this thing up to featured list wehave to make sure nobody can shoot holes in it. Anyway ill talk to you later this evening.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm not too sure how to do the image sourcing, what additional info do we need? Like I said I'm still relatively a WikiN00b, but I'll help in any way possible.

Another idea I had was adding some history information about the rates, stemming with the birth of the US Navy, maybe flesh this out. Also, maybe we should consider making this into an actual article vice a list... just an idea lol!

BTW I'm about 8 hours ahead (Afghanistan time zone) of you, so messages will be a bit delayed :-)

Supersquid 06:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing on List vs article; either way its probably gonna get classifed as a list by wikipedia standards. I do agree with the history though and the people that I have spoken to regarding getting the list featured also reccommended it. I think putting the history of the ratings at the beginning and then a small intro to each class is a great idea. As for sourceing I'll find a good example of what I'm talking about and get it to you. Were also lacking references on the warfare insignia and the first rule of FA-Class Articles or lists is to provided referrences for damn near everything. I hated having to put all those red links in there but we dont stand much choice getting a better rating (no pun intended) on the list if they arent there, red or not. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I update the source information for every rating and badge except for a couple that you uploaded last night I dont know where the came from they are: Surface Warface pin, Jumpwings, Combat Craft Crewman, basic parachute, Diver, Master Diver, EOD, or Sonar. Anyway so you will either have to update them or if you tell me where they came from I would be happy to do it. let me know--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will start researching sources for rating history, see what I can come up with. Might be a few days as I've got some work to do (argh). I'm still waiting for a response regarding disestablished rate insignia from BuPers. I did notice that you pulled the disestablished rate list out, is it going back in eventually? Also the example rates at the beginning looks good, gives the layman a better idea as to how the rate/rating thing works.

As for the images I grabbed, they came from [2]. Will that be a problem, I wonder? Any other items you need me to research or elaborate on? Just let me know!

Supersquid 13:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried there is going to be a problem with the Warfare qualification section in the first place. Technically its not part of the rating structure there seperate quailifcations and since they already have their own list of Navy badges and insignia were going to run into a huge issue with whats called content forking so once it goes up for review there is a chance that they will want it removed. We need to have a good argument for it being in two places. I'm rewording the opening and writing some history now. See if you can find anything on the History of each category not the specific rating just the heading its under. That way it will have a intro to each heading. Oh and I'll fix the source information on those files.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 13:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I need a reference for this statement it doesn't have to be perfect it just need to generally be about this.

“ Also included in a sailor's rating is any "warfare qualification" earned. Obtaining such a qualification requires mastering a specified set of skills and information. For example, if Yeoman First Class Smith has earned his enlisted submarine qualification, his title would be "YN1(SS) John Smith". If Smith has multiple qualifications, they are stacked; i.e., additional qualifications in surface warfare would give him the title: "YN1(SS/SW) John Smith". While it may be possible to one day be "YN1(SS/SW/AW/NAC/SEAL/FPJ/MDV/EWS/SWCC/SCWS/IUSS/FMF) John Smith, it is highly unlikely; to date, the most designators earned by a single sailor is six. ”

Yeah I took down the unreferenced part dealing with warfare quals for now, because it is, like you said, not part of the person's rating per se. For example, I'm an ET, always have been, and (unless I can change rates to one that has better advancement percentages) always will be. I got my Surface Warfare about five years into my career while on the USS Klakring, and if I go to a carrier, I'll pick up my Air Warfare qual while there. However, one's warfare qualification can be stripped due to ineligibility (medically disqualified) or as an administrative punishment (very rarely would this happen). It is included in a person's written title (ie my title is ET1(SW)) but is almost never spoken aloud; one exception is when, on the USS Hawes, an announcement was passed almost nightly regarding ESWS training. They'd announce "ESWS training is being held on the mess decks by ET1, Surface Warfare, Eldridge." The graphics portion should be removed as well, but I'm not going to dink with that just yet; feel free to restore what I've removed, if you feel we can justify leaving them in, or remove the graphics. It would be a shame to remove all of our hard work, so perhaps it should be moved/merged into the warfare qualification article(s).

I added in some history, and included the reference; please review to ensure it's correct, and maybe do some copyediting to ensure that I've modified it enough to avoid plagiarism. I'll research the rating category intro/history as I get time.

Supersquid 10:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man looks like I finished I have got it to the point that we can submit it for featured I'm going to remove the Warfare sections since one we don't have good uncopyrighted images, two, there not really ratings, and three it's technically content forking from the Navy badges page so that will most likly make it fail. I'm going to create a Enlisted warfare insignia page or something along those lines that we wont try to get featured so we dont have to worry about forking. Oh and if you look i created articles for every rating as well, took me forever but still. anywaylet me know if you see any problems. I hope you dont mind on the warfare stuff but I have a couple of people that think it will get us a lot of greef on featured review.

Oh and below is something for you.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think of the new layout and changes?--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with removing the warfare qual section on all parts. I think what we had worked on can be the seed of a new article, or at least incorporated into existing article(s).

The page is looking great! Two thoughts to play around with; one, maybe add a bit about strikers/non-rates as listed here [3]. Another is adding a blurb regarding the flexibility of ratings. On smaller ships, some ratings will perform the jobs of others. For example, we had a Storekeeper working as our Postal Clerk for quite a while on the Hawes. Additionally, our Fire Controlmen would often work alongside the Gunner's Mates doing maintenance on the small arms. Maybe find and add a caveat stating that the ratings aren't always absolute, and that some collateral work often occurs, or something?

The next few days look pretty chock full of busy, lot of missions lined up, so I may not get much time to work on the article. I'll keep tabs on it and my talk page; if you need something, just let me know.

Oh and thanks for the Barnstar!!! My first one... <sniff> I don't really deserve it, but thanks all the same!  :-)

Supersquid 12:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rating, rate, rank naming conventions

Hmm. I would think that these would be considered formal titles (as, say, Privy Councillor, etc.), and would therefore be capitalized all the way through. In any case, if you're looking to set up an overall naming convention, feel free to start a discussion on WT:MILHIST. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. Looking at the discussion, it doesn't seem that people are necessarily objecting to the capitalization; they just want to know why it's done the way it is. Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

United States Navy enlisted rate insignia

Hey man, I know the page United States Navy enlisted rate insignia bugged the crap out of you so I figured you would like the changes. I made all those rate patches and change out the collar devices to newer hier res ones. let me know what you think.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The layout and the hi-res illustrations look pretty good, but there's two problems. First, is the horizontal layout necessitates one to scroll over to see the whole table. How can that be fixed without splitting the table up? Second, is the anchor for SCPO has the star on the stock of the anchor vice on the ring. I'm going to see if I can find hi-res images that will work to replace 'em. Other than that, it looks MUCH better, thanks!

Supersquid 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NICE!

Thanks! I will change over the Image! Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

laud

Did you really make this image (Image:CPO NOGC.png)? It's really nice. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needing some attention and Portal help requested

A new editor has put up HM-15 for peer review. Thought you may want to have a chop at it. Could use some major work.

On another note, love the work you have done with the 3 Portals. Was wondering if you could help us in sprucing up the design of the USMC portal a bit. Starting with the adding a background color on the main page and then the subpages with tabs to the rear. I am not to great with code so any help you could provide would be great. Cheers and thanks--Looper5920 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Feature picture posting predicament

Well, there are really two images to consider:

1. Image:1944 NormandyLST.jpg - this is the local copy of the Commons image, kept so that we can mark it as an FP; everything good so far.
2. Image:NormandyLST.jpeg - this is apparently an old duplicate of the image.

Basically, what needs to (eventually) happen is for all the links to image #2 to be changed to link to image #1 instead; then, image #2 can be deleted. Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Colors of red

In my examples of colors for the USMC portal, the top box (#ff3300) seems to have more of an orange hue to it than the lower box (#ff0000). The portal currently has #ff3300. Would you mind changing the mockup on your workpage to the navy border and the #ff0000 for an easy comparison at full size? Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. So, if you go back and forth between your workpage (#ff0000) and the current USMC Portal (#ff3300), which red do you prefer? I think I've lost the ability to discriminate ;-) — ERcheck (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to compare the general red color with the Portal layout and also the match to the red in the seal. — ERcheck (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for another set of eyes and all of your help. I've made the change to the portal — it now has a #ff0000 red. — ERcheck (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Dentistry

I wanted to thank you personally for all your help suggesting ideas on how to improve the portal. There was very little I knew on how to construct a portal, and now after only a couple of days of work I think the portal looks pretty good. Especially helpful was the information on how to improve the Associated Wikimedia section. I really appreciate the time you took to help out. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiChevrons award

		The Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award
		This WikiChevrons award goes to Wilsbadkarma for his leadership and perseverance in bringing the List of United States Navy ratings up to featured list status. Rfrisbietalk 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!!!

		The Original Barnstar
		Without your hard work, the List of United States Navy ratings would have lingered in the mists of mediocrity; instead it is now a featured list!

Sorry I've been away, I've been out in the field. I'm currently leaching off a T-nothing out in the middle of Afghanistan. Oh joy. But, at least I *do* have connectivity, thank goodness for small favors, eh? And I'm not getting shot at <knock on wood>!

So got any other projects I can assist in? Just let me know!

Supersquid 14:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was getting a little worried. I hadn't heard from you in a while but I didn't want to jinx it with a "are you ok" message. I'm working on a couple of things List of United States Navy staff corps, United States Navy enlisted rate insignia, and List of United States Navy Carrier air wings. I'm just really starting on them but I would like to get them to Featured list status. Keep your head down.— WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 15:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well luckily I'm in a fairly safe part of the country right now. Most dangerous part of the mission is driving through Solang Pass (spelling?), which is about 11,000 feet above sea level, meaning that it don't get above freezing around this time of the year. Add that to the fact that it's been snowing a lot in the higher elevations, and the fact that there's little to no public works infrastructure in the area... makes for a VERY interesting drive. No danger of falling asleep behind the wheel, believe you me, even after 8 hours behind the wheel!  :-)

Hell even when I was in Kandahar, the worst thing that happened was that some snotnose kids would get a wild hair up their you-know-what and throw rocks at our Humvee. They were around the ages of ten or so, so they missed hitting the vehicle by several feet. Hopefully that will be the only thing that happens. Wonder if you get a Purple Heart if you get hit by a rock thrown by a prepubescent kid while in a war zone? lol!

I can definitely help out with the Enlisted Rate Insignia stuff; I'd already did quite a bit, text wise, a while back. Wouldn't be too much help with the carrier air wings or staff corps, except for review and so forth; not my forte. But again if you're in specific need for something, and think I can help, let me know!

Supersquid 16:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) <keeping head down>

United States Navy enlisted rate insignia

Good evening, I'm in need of reference material for noncom responsibilities and by the way I have looked everywhere for reference to the whole First Class and Chiefs mess paragraphs and can't find anything plus I see where ERCheck couldn't find anything either and I know him he's as good as I am at finding obscure info, so we need to make a decision if we don't turn up anything soon as to whether or not we leave it in.— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Responsibilities of Petty Officers, eh? Hmmm it's pretty diverse. Pretty much on small ships (except for deck department) a PO3 is just as much of a worker-bee as the Seamen. PO3s (in deck and on larger ships) are marginal supervisors (they still do the work but they are in charge of the work detail). PO2s are usually in more of a supervisory position, usually in charge of a couple of work details Often times they are workcenter supervisors, the person who manages the maintenance and repair schedules/taskings for the workcenter they are in. PO1s are mostly admin/front-line supervisors, especially if the PO1 is the Leading Petty Officer (LPO) of the division. They do the daily brunt of the paperwork, manage work taskings, responsible for the smooth workings of the division's enlisted personnel. A Chief is usually middle management, doing more paperwork, sending messages, training junior officers, managing duty sections, etc etc. Keep in mind, though, that oftentimes, a person is working above or below their paygrade. For instance, of a division of about 15 people, with four PO1s, there can be only one LPO </end "Highlander" reference>. With three left... guess they take some workcenter supervisor duties, or manage the divisional training program, or other, traditionally PO2 jobs. Now, in a LARGE division, the opposite is true, especially if there's a lack of PO1s... I've seen a PO2 be the LPO due to no available PO1s to fill the roll. Plus, the Cheif's duties might be filled by a PO1 (with "guidance" from CPOs outside the division, which is not a good thing lol!). Now to find actual references for all this lol! :-)

As for the First Class mess and Chief's Mess... I will look. May have to dig deep for this one!

Supersquid 13:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you finished editing for awhile now. I was doing some copyediting and found I myself in and "edit conflict" with your updates. I want to wait until you are finished for this session and I'll give it another review. — ERcheck (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed and made some edits to the citations. With the addition of the Chief of Naval Personnel article, all looks good. — ERcheck (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

United States Navy enlisted rate insignia comments

Here are my United States Navy enlisted rate insignia comments. It's definitely an article, and it looks pretty good to me. I would put it up for peer review next. Rfrisbie^talk 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Should United States Navy enlisted rates match the article name?
• Tables: Should "Sleeve Insignia" be "Sleeve insignia"?
• Uniforms: Remove parentheses?
• E-1 to E-3: Okay?
• Coloration of petty officer rating badges: Okay?
• E-4 to E-6: Okay?
• E-7 to E-9: Okay?
• Command Master Chief: Okay?
• Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy: Make page for Chief of Naval Personnel.
• See also: Okay?
• References: Okay?

B-class assessment

Hi. On Talk:USS Abbot (DD-629), you rated the article as "|B-Class-5=no". The standards page says "...5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams." The article has an infobox with a picture, links to the text source, a footer... What more should it have?
—wwoods 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how does "1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited." apply to articles like this? The text was originally copied from DANFS, and — aside from being wikified — hasn't been changed much since then. (And it isn't likely to be.) What's the appropriate way to cite it?

—wwoods 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism on my user page

Thanks for the revert! I may return the favor. :) --EarthPerson 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging

Thanks for your help.--Boris Allen 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out at the help desk.

One comment if I may. When replying, please use ":" in front of your answer to indent it from the question. Please keep helping us out! Xiner (talk, email) 02:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 03:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Is this right now? Lord I hate not knowing how to do something, but learning is certainly fun Boston24 17:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to {{helpme}}

Hey, I'm wondering. How do you respond so fast to {{helpme}} messages? Is there any way to know that someone need help? 'Cause I notice you came to Boston24's aid with lightning speed! :-O – PeaceNT 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thank you – PeaceNT 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Help with Userpage Navigation

It was successful. Thank you so much for your help! --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Extranet, award Wilsbadkarma this Barnstar of Diligence for such kind and thankful community service and help. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dental article ratings

That is awesome! So I would not have to do anything? For real?! That would be awesome. Thanks man, seriously, for all your help. I can handle the dental content, but it is this exact stuff that I must depend on others. - Dozenist talk 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Still confused.

I don't get how to create disambiguation pages. Maybe someone else can create the page.Thylacine lover 00:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

S-3 Viking

Sweet, thanks for the answer here. What about the soon to be retired S-3 Viking squadrons (out by 2009)? Btw, they are VS-__ squadrons, which stand for "Sea Control." --ProdigySportsman 04:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:World War I

Hey, it was suggested both at the peer review and at FP that the various "selected" boxes might be reorganized to put "Read more," "Suggest" and "More selected whatever" all in-line at the bottom of the boxes - is this possible with the "selected whatever with nominate template"? Or will it require some changes? And if so, can you give me some pointers on how that might be accomplished? Sorry for so many questions, and thanks in advance for any help you can give. Carom 16:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool - there's no rush. Carom 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem - if it can't be done, it can't be done. Personally, I'm not bothered about the locations of the links relative to one another - if it becomes a major sticking point at FP, I'll worry about moving the links around manually, otherwise, I'll just leave it as is. Thanks for checking it out, though. Carom 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Antonieto Cabajog

Thank you for the help with the infobox. I searched and searched for that in vain. The page looks wonderful now, for just a stub! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again...BTW, Msgr. Yiet is so pleased with the page. His exact word/s or phrase were "Thank you for the nice workmanship!"--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Eskayan

Hey, Perhaps you can check on the infobox of Eskayan? This is suggested in the peer review, but has been a source of headache for me...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are so kind! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Philippine Barnstar
		I award you this Philippine Barnstar for your incredible efforts in contributing to Wikipedia's Philippine-related articles, particularly on Portal:Bohol In the same note, I, as people of Bohol, hereby also declare you ADOPTED SON OF BOHOL, Philippines . --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The ribbon is such a wonderful idea...I got two Philippine barnstars, do i get two ribbons too? hehehehe--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 02:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Help Request - Thank You!

Thanks for the quick response to my help request! I thought you might like a cookie.

Help

It seems as though someone did it for me already. Thank you so much for your attempt to assist me. I appreciate it and hope that I'm actually using these talk pages appropriately now although something leads me to believe I'm still not doing it right

Hi

How do you start a new page? I'm confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Favor

As one of the editors I put great faith in I was hoping you could do me a favor and take a read through List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons. You may have noticed that it has been my pet project for awhile. I am still working on the intro but I was hoping you could just go through and copyedit. Right now I still need to add the Post WWII info and edit some of the earlier stuff. It needs a fresh set of eyes to make sure it is on the right track. When it is complete one of these days I am hoping to put it up for WP:FLC. Anyway, if you have a few spare moments please give it the once over. Cheers.--Looper5920 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Hi

Thanks for your message... I thought I would ask because, there is already someone that is a potential 2032 presidential candidate. Hopefully, you can help me and lead me thru wikipedia, if I make a mistake. Thanks... Tony16 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing, is there anything that I should add to the Asher Heimermann article? Tony16 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the userbox. I'll put it on my page right now. Xiner (talk, email) 14:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Bohol

Maybe you are really a God-send to me, right after working on Bishop Cabajog! Or perhaps Christmas came early this year? hehehehe. Well, Portal:Bohol is a project that I started but cannot let fly! Got stuck somehow...let me know if you can help, or give me ideas...Thanks for coming into my wiki life...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Whaaaaattttt????? That was sooooo fast! how did you do that???? oh my goodness! This is so wonderful! how exciting? When are we launching? The governor and congressmen of Bohol as well as we the people will be very proud! You can be an adopted son of Bohol! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will make an announcement in WT:PINOY as well as in emails to the Bohol congressmen, gov, notable people, etc. Perhaps a newspaper release is also in order for the local weekly this Sunday. Thank you sooooo much! Let us keep in touch. I will send you a copy of the launch announcement via email. Again, thank you for the people of Bohol...--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thank you for the help in making the Portal:Bohol - with sincerest gratitude from: User:Pinay06

(reset indent) BTW, there are/were some edits made on Portal:Bohol which I have kept reverted to your last version. I have requested User:23prootie to stop her edits for now since I want the people of Bohol to savor this for now that it has been launched! thoughts? suggestions? semi protect? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I do not know how to thank you enough! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Another Filipino wiki brought to my attention that the links on the top most portion of the Bohol Portal link to Portuguese stuff. Please check. Thanks! How is your Saturday? hehehehehe--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, this is the best...BTW, somebody posted in WT:PINOY re portals and wikiprojects. Please check it out...My response centered on the idea that it is like a table of contents, while wiki projects are much winder in scope...am I correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinay06 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello. I am wondering if Template Bohol will sit well with Bohol Portal? or not, as a quick link to the municipalities of Bohol....--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

thankyou

Thanks for you for your 'help me' response and the welcome/advice. Steve3849 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on List of United States Navy ratings

Congratulations on the Featured List!

I was looking over your references and saw that you used "freedictionary" as a reference for "fouled anchor". I think that there are more authoritative references. Perhaps:

• LTC Daniel D. Smith, Sr. "Navy Historical Facts and Trivia". The State Guard Association of the United States, Inc.
• References noted on this page [4].

— ERcheck (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks but I don't get it: what list and what red link?Editorwikipedia 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I think I get it now. The "red link in the list" is the red title of the article in the list of articles posted that day. I clicked it, pasted the same text that was there and, apparently, the article is now created. Thanks. It was not an obvious step. Much of Wikipedia procedure is such unstated detail.Editorwikipedia 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Two articles I came across that you may be interested in cleaning up

Wils, I cam across a User:Bondoa6 who seems to be a naval aviator of some type. Anyway, his two big contributions .... Attack Squadron 42 (U.S. Navy) and Attack Squadron 65 (U.S. Navy) could use a lot of clean up if you are interested. Don't know about you but I am not a big fan of listing every COs name also. I'll drop him a line when iIget a chance. Have to run to work now. Cheers--Looper5920 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Please go through and start assessing some of those Navy articles.--Looper5920 10:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tagging redirects

No problem; and thanks for taking the time to do the tagging in the first place! Kirill Lokshin 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006

I assert to being the same user as commons:User:Wilsbadkarma Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 08:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference for U.S. Navy officer bios

I'm having a hard time finding official bios for U.S. Navy officers involved in the Pacific Theater of World War II. The U.S. Navy historical site appears to only have the bios for O-8 ("two-star") and above even many of those are missing, like John S. McCain, Sr.. Do you know of a resource, publication, or website where I could find the historical bios for O-6 or O-7 and above U.S. Navy officers? Cla68 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. The U.S. Marines and Air Force both have extensive online biography libraries of their senior and notable leaders throughout their histories. Of course, I've heard that the Marines and Air Force have been noted for being more profficient in their PR efforts than the other two services. It would make it easier on us amateur historians if the Army and Navy made an effort to make that information more available. In the meantime, I'll keep searching. Cla68 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar

Just wanted to say thank you for the barnstar. It is always nice to open the talk page and see one of them. Cheers and look forward to working with you in the future.--Looper5920 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Helpme Request on Article

On Amanda Wilkinson, Here is a assignment:please put this under the info box:

Height = 5' 1"

Thanks alot!Very Warm Regards,(User:Trampton 05:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)).

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)