User talk:Brad101/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Redirect at Brad101AWB
Just a quick note, I put a redirect in at User talk:Brad101AWB so that if anyone looking at, say, a watchlist, saw an edit from User:Brad101AWB, the "Talk" link would go to the appropriate place (per the note on the Brad101AWB user page). Sorry if it caused you any trouble. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick note…
I noticed this morning that the Image namespace has been replaced by the File namespace, which breaks the auto-assessment of Template:WPSHIPS. So don't be alarmed if you see larger than usual numbers of unassessed pages until I can get the fix implemented and it trickles down through the system — Bellhalla (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
What SP for ports then?
I added WP:Ships to the Port of Vancouver WA because it's a shipping facility; i.e. to do with ships and shipping; in a sense it's like a shipping company, too, which (to me) are clearly within the scope of WP:Ships. it's not a city artlcle, obviously, though in a certain sense it's an infrastructure/structure article; I just felt the article needed some "pro" attention which it wasn't going to get via WP:Washington, and thought there must be other port-articles out there...if not, and it's still not suitable for WP:Ships, maybe there's WP:Transport or even WP:Ports? Port of Vancouver (BC) pls note also is in need of expansion in technical/historical terms; and other similar articles; Port of Seattle, Port of Los Angeles, Thamesport I think already exists maybe, and Rhineport? Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ports would fit the bill. I didn't even know that project existed. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Just wanted to express my appreciation to you for your assistance with tagging the MilHist articles. I've been whittling away at the Category:Military history articles with no associated task force for a few months now. With your help, we'll be done in no time. Thanks - Canglesea (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that a few months ago there were over 6,000 articles, so you have made a huge dent yourself. I'm not going for the most detailed assessments of task forces but at least one to bring it out of the category. Apparently most of these articles have been sitting there for two years or so based on some of the talk page histories I've seen. --Brad (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Your edit to Wildwood
Wildwood (PC-1181) was not a commissioned ship while named Wildwood, therefore did not have the USS prefix in it's official title. She was commissioned as USS PC-1181, then decommissioned, then named Wildwood before being struck from the register and sold for scrap. Fredrik Wilhelm (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ship naming convention is to apply USS regardless if a US military ship was ever commissioned or not. See WP:NC-SHIP for the details. --Brad (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I understand now, thanks for clearing that up for me. Also I wanted to say thanks for assessing several of my articles for WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. Fredrik Wilhelm (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
A-class review
I believe that I've addressed your concerns about the article [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Mistagging of Knapp's Castle?
Hi! Looks like you tagged Knapp's Castle as part of the Military history WikiProject ("Fortifications=yes"). Unless I'm missing something, this isn't accurate - it's a ruined mansion that people call a castle, never really a defensive structure. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted the tag. The article is under Category:Castle stubs which is a subcategory of Category:Military stubs. It's hard to tell if each article under that category is actually a castle. --Brad (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, makes sense - "castle" is an ambiguous term, and I'd say the error here is in the limited hierarchical structure of categories. ;) Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Brad, Thanks a ton for assessing Chola Navy for MILHIST and WP:Ships. Just wanted to know what issues you had with the referencing, and how I'd be able to improve it.... thanks. Sniperz11@CS 07:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Listas Parameter
Hi!
I am working on resolving the conflicts for those pages who are in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. Your completion of the listas parameter on Nikolay Mikhaylovich Afanasyev caused a conflict.
As far as I can tell almost all the WikiProject Templates accept the listas parameter. Many of them use it to set the DEFAULTSORT of the page. WikiProject Biography is the only project with a category for pages without the listas parameter.
WikiProject Firearms uses the listas parameter. WikiProject Russia is one of the few Country WikiProjects that does not.
The first template on the talk page is for WikiProject Firearms. As the listas parameter was not completed it set the DEFAULTSORT to the Page Name. When you completed the listas parameter on WikiProject Biography to the correct value, it conflicted with the value that was set by WikiProject Firearms. This caused a small red error message to appear on the Talk page between the Firearms and Biography templates and put the page in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts.
The latter is the good news. When I started work on resolving the conflicts The Afanasyev entry appeared in an area that should be empty. I noticed it and wondered why it appeared. I have resolved the conflict.
Note that this in neither a complaint nor a criticism. It is merely to let you know a little bit of what happens when the listas parameter is changed. All of the time it will increase the functionality of the site, i.e. Someone who is looking for this person in a list of pages in a category will find his name in the "A"s not in the "N"s. Some of the time it will not cause a conflict because a person will be in only one category.
Just a reminder that if your bot does not set the listas parameter on all the banners on a talk page the banners that follow, especially WP Greece and WP Middle Ages, will reset the listas to the PAGENAME and a conflict will be created.
Hi Brad,
I noticed that you did an assessment of this article and rated it C on the assessment scale (which I'm assuming would equate to an F in any other place of education). I've requested photos of the ship from the J. Y. Joyner Library at East Carolina University. Assuming that I'm able to get those and add them to the article, is there anything else you can suggest that would bring this up to a B-quality article?
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
 Issue XXXIV (December 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured topics: New A-Class articles: |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Brad101, you suggested that navy ships should have a country or country code in the article name. For British and US ships this is quite obvious. In Europe it is less common to distinguish between navy ships and civil ships in this way. Do you have any references for this ? I prefer the article to start with the name of the ship. A compromise could be Furor (Spanish navy). Inwind (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- The guideline for this is @ WP:NC-SHIP. Of course a redirect on the other titles can be done. --Brad (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:FS1037C talk and Template:FS1037C MS188 talk have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 03:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback, User:Knowzilla/New Rollbacks School and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. -MBK004 22:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I sent you an email. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured topics: New A-Class articles:
| ||
| |||
| |||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Article and scope overlap
I think we have an overlap with regards to scope: List of current ships of the United States Navy and United States Navy ships. -MBK004 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that several months ago. Part of the United States Navy ships article can be kept as it is linked to the disambig for USS. The listing of ships in that article I will clean up and get rid of etc. --Brad (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Nathan F. Cobb
Hey Brad, I noticed you gave the Nathan F. Cobb article a C class rating and a rated it of level mid importance. I was curious as to why you did this, being that the coverage and accuracy were unchecked when you rated it against the B-class criteria. Also was the mid importance rating just an arbitrary estimate on your behalf? If so, then how could you be so certain about the importance level, being that you hadn't even checked the coverage and accuracy of the article? If you know any un-cited or unused sources that can be included, I encourage you to share them, if not then I hope you will give more "fair and balanced" critiques in your future reviews. Be easy!Sammyknoxg (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I rated the article back in October 2008 so it was rated according to what I saw at the time. After that you changed it to an A rating which was reverted by Belhalla. B2 was likely left blank because I saw there was a lot of recent editing going on and didn't know if the article was complete or not. The class rating of the article has no bearing on the importance rating of the article. You can visit the assessment page for the ships project for more information. Particularly FAQ #7 which explains why we can't always leave detailed comments on our assessments. I assess hundreds of articles a week in most cases. --Brad (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
West Point (1847)
Hi Brad. You left two banners on the talk-page of my first article. Thanks for trying to help me to improve it. It seems I should have used another infobox. I went to the linked page, but there are different codes. Which one should I use? And if you have other comments or ideas how I could make the article better... dont hesitate to write me. --Rectilinium (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured pictures:
New featured topics: New A-Class articles:
| ||
| |||
| |||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Disney Cruise Line articles
Hey there. Thanks for your reassessment of the articles for the two new Disney Cruise Line ships. Going forward, what suggestions do you have to keep advancing them up the scale towards GA-class, or even FA-class? There's lots of time for that, of course, since they've only just had the first steel cut for the first ship. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only thing holding back either article from being rated any higher is the amount of the content. Since these are new ships I doubt there is very much more you could add. My opinion would be that the content should increase about 150% from where it is now to go any farther. --Brad (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's good we've already attracted the attention of the Ships WikiProject, so we'll have some expert guidance as these articles evolve. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Coordinator Elections
As a person running for Coordinator, it is always great to see members of the WikiProject getting involved. Keep Up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 12:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"Guayas" rating
Hi, I just noted the rating for the Guayas (ship) resulted in a low-importance label. I checked on similar articles concerning similar tall ships (such as the Dar Młodzieży and Cisne Branco) and they were given mid-importance labels. I am not interested to argue whether these articles are low- or mid-important, but only like to suggest that consistency should be a cornerstone of such assessments. Ekem (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I can satisfy the community's expectations for me. – Joe N 01:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
|
I seem to have drawn a crowd of support! |
I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |
| A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921. |
: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
| |||
The big news of course was the seventh project coordinator election covering the period ending 30 September. The quality of the candidates was extremely high, with some of the project's top content builders running alongside highly experienced backroom people. Of the eighteen candidates, sixteen were finally appointed, giving us probably the most rounded coordination team so far. Those elected were: Abraham, B.S., Bellhalla, Cam, Eurocopter, EyeSerene, Ian Rose, Jackyd101, Joe N, Lordoliver, Maralia, MBK004, Nick-D, Roger Davies (lead), Skinny87, The ed17 and TomStar81. Kirill Lokshin continues in his role as coordinator emeritus. Thanks must go to the departing coordinators – Bedford, JonCatalán and Woody – for helping make the project what it is today The C-class referendum, held at the same time, produced a slight majority of votes for introduction, but was insufficient to demonstrate a clear consensus. So, for the time being at least, therefore, the project will continue without C-class. Otherwise, focus is likely be on the Academy and the development of courses to develop reviewing, copy-editing and article-building skills. Some review of our task forces is also probable, perhaps consolidating some of the smaller, quieter, ones. As ever, input from everyone is not only welcomed but positively encouraged. The coordinators' gratitude goes not only to those who participated in the election and referenda but also to everyone who works quietly and conscientiously away to make participation in this project rewarding, successful and productive. Milhist is very fortunate in its membership! Thank you all, Roger Davies talk 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures: New A-Class articles:
| ||
| |||
| |||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)