User talk:TomStar81/Archive 6

---

Archives
Master Archive Page

Hi

Check your (e)mail, Tom. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Milhist reviews March-May 2008

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the period March-May 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

American Empire (Ghost in the Shell)

My apologies; you're correct, I didn't notice that that article already has a 'references' section. I've replaced the template with {{Primarysources}}, which expresses better the concern I have with the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Terraxos (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Your co-noms are complete, and your RFA is ready. You now need to answer the three questions and accept the nomination (you can just sign or make a short statement, it's up to you). Afterwards, you or I need to complete steps 8 through 11 listed here to go live, if you'd like me, just let me know. Good luck! -MBK₀₀₄ 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: I just left you an optional question at your RFA. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Coord stuff

Can you comment here please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things

1. Don't worry about Kmweber.
2. I had to remove the cquote code from the Socrates quote you added. Unfortunately, there was no way for there to be cquote without it messing up the count for the oppose section. Initially, it was counting yours as an oppose, because you didn't use #:. I fixed that, but it still was causing opposes after it to restart at 1, so I removed the cquote, used regular quote, and signed and timestamped your post. Regards, Enigma ^message 07:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Awarded for a witty and clever response to an RFA oppose at this RFA. Good luck btw. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Dhatfield (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and remember: "All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them."Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You made my week and I think that maybe my time is better spent editing Milhist than getting grief on wp:FPC. Good luck with the RfA, although I doubt you'll need it with your credentials :) Cheers. Dhatfield (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with adminship!

I don't know you that well, but I think just about anyone who can swallow their pride to pacify tension and has a genuine wiki-commitment should become an admin.

I specifically write in regard to your answer as far as trimming answers go. I understand the importance of trimming answers but I also believe it may be pertinent to leave up the parts that people have already responded to. I was told by a more senior editor that the best way to accomplish both goals is to del or s obsolete parts and ins or u new parts, so this is what I follow.

I wonder if anyone has made a nice wiki-spellchecker. My family has a lot of dyslexia and I think anti-dyslexics discourage many bright sparks who would love to volunteer helpful information. I often keep a Wiktionary tab running to check my spelling on problem words or to find ways clear to all dialects of English and I usually work on one section at a time so that I can run previews below to double-check. As long as you type clearly for people with poor English backgrounds (e.g., those with a different mother tongue), I don't see your mistakes as grounds to obstruct your RFA.

BTW, sometimes my word choice seems unintentionally harsh to strangers. Please note the emoticon → :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to add your name to the category:Administrators willing to make difficult unblocks. There is a good reason for this category and it's being discussed on WP:AN. Voxtel (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I'm taking this opportunity to thank you for the Barnstar for my contributions to the HMS Ledbury (L90) Article....I did not thank you earlier because of a nasty set of examinations - however, I really really appreciate it; I wish you best of luck for your RFA, and I must admit I'm quite certain that you do deserve it!

Reuv (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

i are teh bad spellerr two

But then I got the freeware browser extension ieSpell [1], and make it do all the spelling work for me. You might consider checking it out! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Texas checklist

I'd say the map may be a good idea as well. Find something that could work and we'll see... -MBK₀₀₄ 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer this one because it shows the whole area of operations and can tie in not only the landings, but also the later action off Cherbourg (location wise). Is this freely licensed? Remember no fair use at FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We were soldiers

Yes, Maj. Crandall's nickname was Snakeshit. He explains when he first meets Mel Gibson that the name is because he flies lower than snakeshit. Further, you can see it written on his flight helmet. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Fixed my !vote. Sorry it didn't work out. Like I said, though, I can see you becoming better quickly and (if this RfA doesn't result in "promoted") perhaps next time you will succeed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 08:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats the successful RfA! Well deserved. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done sir. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA! All you get is a mop and this crappy t-shirt :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Kirill ^(prof) 11:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gratz Tom, consider taking a look at {{admin dashboard}}, it should help you settle into your new duties. –xenocidic (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Tom - xeno's right...the admin dashboard is very useful. Don't forget to get some sleep.  Frank  |  talk  12:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. America69 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, if you need any assistance with the buttons, don't hesitate to ask (though not in the next two weeks as I'm away ;-). Woody (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

←Belated congrats. I tried to stay up for the closing, but the 'crats were too late for me. I also made a ass of myself on WT:RFA right about the end, so I apologize. Take in the moment, because now you need to get to work! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats.--Bedford ^Pray 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tom, I'm not sure whether you'd be happy to hear from me or not, but no matter the feelings I had about your RfA, you are an admin now and deserve all the mopping you can reasonably do :-P. I'd like to point out there are no hard feelings (never have been) and clear WP:CONSENSUS won out. I wish you the best of luck with your newly acquired privileges and responsibilities. If there's ever anything I can do, please don't hesitate to drop me a line! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Tom! - it's well deserved. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Congrats Tom! - I know that you will be one of the best admins. Semper Fi! Tony the Marine (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations , Tom.. Wish you all the best -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Congrats! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. If I could, I'd sppuort every candidate. :) Rudget (logs) 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey:-) Congrats on getting the tools:-D I hope you put them to good use;-) Have a nice day!--SJP _Chat 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. America69 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats mate. Orderinchaos 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Sorry I wasn't there for your RfA. Started being active on wikipedia like yesterday and stumbled across a thank you message you left on a user's talk page. From working with you in the past, I know that you will be an excellent admin and I do look forward to your vandalism fighting. Congratulations again. =) Jumping cheese 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on passing! Enigma ^message 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was on vacation during the time period of your RfA or else I would have added my full support. Congratulations! Cla68 (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Resp to my talk page

I've been thinking about it kinda off & on. I wouldn't expect you would want to, but if you do, wanna nominate me? I think it would be quite amusing if someone I opposed turned around nominated me, don't you? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure...wow. I didn't really expect you to actually do it, but yeah. I'm in. I've seen a few ways to do it, specifically, I think it would be best to draft it up & review the entire thing before listing it. Agreed? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes? I don't make mistakes! Your sandbox will be fine. We can work on it after Friday. Speaking of which I need some sleep so I can be awake to study tomorrow! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

←Well, at least it didn't negatively affect anything, and as you've read I've already given myself a trout. The interesting thing is that WJBscribe has closed both RfAs that I've co-nomed as well as my own. (User:MBK004/RfA#Nominations and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MBK004) -MBK₀₀₄ 05:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MBK004, you interested in getting involved on this one too? Your experience could be helpful. I think it is of the utmost importance that people be able to express their opinions openly and honestly without having to tiptoe around the issues gingerly (especially at an RfA). Tom's RfA is the perfect example of the way things should run. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably and but still abide by WP:CONSENSUS at the end of the day with no malice in the aftermath; Wikipedia is better for it!

Maybe I should get a few trout and place them on my user page with an invitation to use them as necessary on myself or others. Hmmm... — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That response was in reply to this. I was just too lazy to start a new heading. Since Tom is exploring a nom for you, I'll go ahead and vette you once again, but I won't promise anything. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't expect anything less. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

I'm done playing in the kitty litter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AFRL B-class Review

Hi, would you mind expanding for me where I should add citations in the United States Air Force Research Laboratory? Thanks! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the homework thing. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks! Nigelbeameniii (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi TomStar. I sent you an email! VLarc (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for American Palestine Line

I posted a note on WT:SHIPS about the A-class review for American Palestine Line. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it if you could review the article and offer your opinions. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		TomStar81, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image wanted

Hi. I noticed you commented on this engine image. You may like to comment on the planned new image here Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, just so you know I'm in a hurry, or I would put a better thank you for you. So anyways, great rating and giving advice to me, thanks a lot, I extremly appreciated!--67.180.225.250 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

hi again

hi, just so you know, im busy again right now, i was wondering if you upload the image from the link that is the campaignbox# in the Battle of Hyrba section, which im not sure how to do right now, if you can just do this one for me, i promise i wont ask any favors on it anymore, and the please copy paste this as text under the image,(Nearest area to the unknown location of Hyrba today). Thank you so much!--Ariobarza (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

and again

Actually please postpone the uploading of the image, because i asked a wikimedia commons user to upload it with more details that you dont have right now, but if he fails, i ask you to resume the task with more info, thank you again.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Wikipedians behaving oddly

I had a think about what you said Tom. There come times when one has to question one's sanity when others, many others, seem to disagree. I think this is one of those times, so please humour me as a run through a brief sanity checklist.

• An article in a reference work is named with a fictitious name for years and no one questions it.
• References that are attached to the article which only mention the name on the cover are therefore not actually read.
• I come along and say, hang on, this is the wrong name!
• I am questioned.
• I provide a statement from the author of the original substantiating my claim.
• I am almost told I lie.
• Eventually the fact is admitted that I am not a liar.
• I change the name with no opposition given the sources are in the article
• Immediately on the article being renamed with correct name, a user (a single user from millions) decides that the real name is "lousy"
• After years of the article being in a reference work, as soon as the correct name goes up, there is a poll to change it to something that "sounds better"

When I went to university, I was told not to succumb to the lure of authority, or peer pressure, and do my own research or check that of others. Make no assumptions.

When I started editing on Wikipedia, almost the first thing I saw mentioned was the prohibition of unsourced statements as original research.

And yet, I see this going on.

I know I'm sane--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

hi

I copy pasted this question i wrote on the wikimedia foundation website, i made account there too, for 2 days now i got no responses back, so this is what i wrote, if you dont feel like doing the favor i ask below, you are welcomed to tell me how to fix the problem myself, or just say that you cant help me now. thanks buddy.

HI, i have a problem uploading an image for a battle article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hyrba, i followed all the possible rules, and it still says you must provide a worthy source and license, i dont get it, here is were i got the image from (http://www.geocities.com/indo_european_geography/) and this this the source filename, i think (this is the pic)(http://www.geocities.com/indo_european_geography/kurd.jpg). If you can upload this image for the battle in the top of page of the article over were it says date, and put the text for the battle which is (en:Nearest place to the unknown location of Hyrba), under the pic, Category:Battle of Hyrba, and the name of the article on wikimedia commons ,or this place, is File:Battle of Hyrba.jpg. I would AMAZINGLY APPRECIATE IT! THANK YOU SOO MUCH!!!--Ariobarza (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Re: Military sociology review

Thank you for such a prompt and extensive review. I knew I can count on WPMILHIST for extensive help; it's a shame that none of the other WikiProjects I've contacted shows any signs of interest in reviewing the four other articles the students are editing (related to sociology/economics/psychology, but unfortunately, not to military).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I just want to thank you for uploading the image, I went through a whole other process to make the image. But that is why I made it to hard for myself, when it was not. So thanks to you I think I have learned to make images (me thinks), from now on, much appreciats. Goodbye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.250 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice on the pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2120 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates

Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

followup at wt:plagiarism

Thanks for pointing out that followup there would be helpful. Done.

Also, i wanted to ask if you would be amenable to revisiting any one of the New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Kentucky articles, which you noted "all pull from DANFS in a 'copy and paste' sense" and doing some low-key revising towards removing the need for the general DANFS disclaimer. I could try using the automated tool i referred to, which should work pretty well in identifying specific overlaps of text in these cases. I would expect to work in 2 steps: identifying overlaps by putting quotes around them, and then editing some to avoid necessity of quoting. I thought that reviewing PD usage made sense in the FAR process, but perhaps there is advantage to trying out tools and process in a lower profile situation. Let me know if you would be amenable. Either way, thanks for being constructive in the recent discussion and for your editing of the Iowa class battleship article. doncram (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Recently, there has been a series of edit wars in reference to the order of precedence when listing the service branches of the United States Military on the Military of the United States article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_of_the_United_States&action=history Furthermore, I've tried to address this issue with the user Sp 8503 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sp_8503 I've tried to consolidate this discussion on his talk page but it can be moved to another location to accomodate further discussion and input from other users. Your thoughts? -Signaleer (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: edit war

I will look into it more today or tomorrow, at the moment I have finals and am thus limiting my time here. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This matter is already being handled by several Wiki admins, but thank you for your response. -Signaleer (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Iowa ships

hi there. Can you fix the missing refs and get some better refs for some of the self-styled websites. I've started on the ref formatting and and will finish it. The MOS is mostly fine already with teh dashes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

cricket deletion

Any cricketer that has played First class or List A cricket is notable having played professional sport. I hope that you will withdraw the deletion. thanks.02blythed (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Andy Bull Redirect

I'm not sure why this was deleted? Can you please let me know what's happened to the page? Thanks Getmusic (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So you don't get a chance to re-do the page? I didn't use the same copy at all. I spent a lot of time re-writing it.

How do I a) get my copy back and b) re-create it without it immediately deleting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getmusic (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgent cry for help from newbie serenityweb1

Hello Mr. TomStar81. Thanks again for the welcome. Can you explain your a recent message I received from Herbythyme: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Serenityweb1 I'm a newcomer here and didn't fully understand it. Don't know what he's referring to. Serenityweb1 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenityweb1 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Religare

Re your message: Yeah, I was being nice, of sorts, about the deletion reason. When the article hits multiple CSD reasons like this one (G11, G12, borderline A7), I usually randomly pick one of the applicable reasons. I selected G11 in this case because of the account name used and my subsequent block matched up. In the "old" days of hand entering the deletion reasons, I used to list all of the reasons for the deletion. But these new fangled pop-up menus make multiple reasons harder to do. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Salting

Nope, doesn't need to go through XFD for a salting. It is applied at the administrators discretion. So, use your discretion, if you think it should be salted, then salt it. I would only go for a short time if it is being protected for CSDs, about a month, depending on the circumstances. I've had Nathan Delfouneso on a 6 month protection for a while now but that has been through multiple AFDs and I still get asked to unprotect it. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I reduced the Salting length on Ruman Farooq to 1 week. That should be long enough to deter the user from recreating it. There is no need for an indefinite protection of it: you never know, someone might be notable with that name. If the user continues to recreate it after a week, then it could be extended, or the user warned and blocked. Either way, we will see after a week! Hope you are well, regards. Woody (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Always happy to help, as ever, if you have any questions, always happy to help! Regards. Woody (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Tom, as a person whose opinion I regard very highly and a none involved party, I would like for you to give your opinion in a very simple matter involving the "Result" section of the infobox in the Puerto Rico Campaign article. You can find the discussion here: Puerto Rican Campaign, Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Tom, for your valued opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

resp

I can't type that fast!!! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

It gives me great pleasure to award these imperial triple crown jewels to TomStar81 in thanks for substantial contributions to Wikipedia's marine military coverage. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Iowa class expansion

Hey Tom, guess what I just bought: this book. I should have it in about a week. It seems to be perfect for better sourcing/expansion on USS Kentucky (BB-66) and the class page. They've also got one on USS Montana (BB-67), but I have to wait until next month to buy it. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The book arrived yesterday. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but glancing through it, there is far more than I thought there would be. I'm guessing that I could double the article on Kentucky and about the same amount to the class page. I'm thinking another fork of the class article may be in order after I assess what I've got. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say that Kentucky and Illinois could be doubled and the class page expanded a bit, but not to the same level (by virtue of summary style). What I've got is quite impressive, but the only article fork I'm thinking about is just of the proposed conversions. It doesn't have much on the radar/ECM, but the sheer number of proposals and the variations that came true on the cruisers is, in my opinion enough for at least a GA. Coupled with the specific books on the class I've got and the online sources, I'll probably get to work on that instead of Texas. The article would have lots of overlap potential with the early guided missile cruisers and converted light and heavy cruisers in the content matter which would also help those articles. Also a bit with the Independence CVLs and Midway CVBs. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting story

Tom, I know how much you love history, therefore without any further due let me introduce you to my latest article: Hector Feliciano. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could u please review the higly improved article

Helwan HA-300 is an article that has improved a lot but needs someone experienced like yourself to suggest things to do before getting a good article assesment. Could u please review this article.Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks a lot for reviewing the article.Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:CSD

Ah, that is a less straight forward question. Once again, it is down to judgement: housekeeping ones, plain vandalism, or plain notability ones (My name is Jack, I am ten and I am great) can be deleted of course. The more harder notability ones where it could be unclear, should, in my opinion be offered for a second-opinion. That is not to say that it is forbidden, my personal preference is to wait, though I have deleted them anyway in the past. I remember reading that it is considered good-practice to nominate the harder ones. (If you do delete, remember to still notify the creator about the avenues for redress). So, not a straight answer, as there is no official policy as far as I am aware. Hope this helps, regards. Woody (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Daníel Böðvarsson CSD

Thanks for getting in touch with me, Tom. I appreciate you getting back to me. Technically, I should not be editing right now, since I am drunk - however, as a former citizen of Iceland, I am aware of the works of many of the musicians Danni has worked with, and they are suitably notable to allow this article to be kept (with, as I said, wikifying, cleanup and an infobox) and made encyclopedic. I am not questioning your judgement, anyone presented with a page full of Icelandic names and no decent sources would probably have done the same thing! I will work on the article later today once I am 100% sober as a judge! Thanks and regards. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

David Aspin

Just wanted to let you know: David Aspin, far from being a speedy candidate, is quite notable as an Olympian, by WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Islamic conquests

I was surprised to find that despite my understanding of the conquests to have spanned two centuries, this category includes all centuries past the 8th. I really do not want to get into another argument, so decided to just bring it to someone's attention on the MilHist Project--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the WikiChevrons award. Patience, patience, patience is the name of the game at the FA review. Good work improving the article. Marskell (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for admin back up on SU-122

Hi. :) I'm an admin who volunteers most of her time at the copyright problems board. I've spent a good bit of time today looking at SU-122, an article on a WWII Soviet howitzer which was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 August 13/Articles. I probably could have spent less time if the article were more lay-friendly, but I have no background in howitzers, Soviet or otherwise. Some of the copyright concerns were addressed in the article before I arrived. I found only minor additional infringement, which I revised. However, one of the major contributors to that article self-professes to have "taken a few shortcuts a few times when adding information from an English source", and the editor who tagged the concerns initially is concerned there may be more. I'm hoping to find an uninvolved editor familiar with the topic, preferably another administrator, who might be able to look at it and more easily identify concerns. Might you be able to lend a hand with that? If the monsoon or other factors make this not possible, please let me know, and I'll look for someone else who might be available. I figure this must be easier for somebody who can better follow the text. Thanks for reading either way. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your kind and ready assistance to a fellow-editor in need, examining copyright concerns at SU-122. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help here. Ordinarily I find articles much easer to compare, but in this was was severely hampered by my lack of familiarity with the subject. (I didn't know what a howitzer was when I first read the article, although I had the notion it was somehow gun-related. Actually, I'm still not entirely sure what a howitzer is!) In any event, I do very much appreciate your assistance. It's that kind of spirit of collaboration that makes this project work. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Songs From The Blue House

Tom

It's extremely rude just to delete an article without giving reasonable warning. As I said, the band own the copyright to the text, not the record company - I can send you written proof if you like. Now I have to recreate the article which took me an hour to create as I am not an experienced user, just a fan and friend of the band who noticed that they did not have a page. I would be grateful if you could reinstate the article and give me reasonable time to edit it, if you are not willing to take my (or the band themselves) word for it.

Look at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Songs-from-the-Blue-House/10850758972 for the original text.

Keith

Farnishk (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but I still have to spend ages recreating the page. Can you send me the Wiki code from the deleted page so I don't explode. You must admit, it was pretty rude to delete something without more than a couple of second's warning; you are human, and so am I.

Keith

Farnishk (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Wikipedia is a very harsh environment for the new user, I hope it doesn't make the site (and thus the information) too dominated by a few people - that would be very sad.

Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farnishk (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force

Thank you for assessing the article. Could you post on its talk what additional supporting materials are needed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Ramadi assessment

Hi, I notice that you assessed Battle of Ramadi (2006). Could you please mention what areas of the article need to be improved (either on my talk page or the article's)? Lawrencema (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Lalah Sune (Gundam).jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Lalah Sune (Gundam).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Gihren Zabi (Gundam).jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Gihren Zabi (Gundam).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Dozle Zabi (Gundam).jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Dozle Zabi (Gundam).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Garma Zabi (Gundam).jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Garma Zabi (Gundam).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Bright Noah (Gundam).jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bright Noah (Gundam).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:General Revil (Gundam).jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:General Revil (Gundam).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking-in

I'm sure you've noticed the notices on my userpage. School has been tough this week and now I've got to contend with the possibility of a hurricane next week. I'm going to try to get back into the groove of things, including reviewing Iowa, but the main thing I'm going to be working on is Iowa class battleship conversion proposals, and that will probably be done offline for a few days. Hopefully I can get this written and up to GA before you're done with Iowa and the explosion for Featured Topic. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask (email is a better way to get in touch with me at present). -MBK₀₀₄ 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSN

You said that I should take a reference on the article Air Combat Group RAAF to the noticeboard, what do I do when I have taken it there? CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your help with improving future Milhist drives at the 2008 Tag & Assess workshop, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray

Hi, I would just like to thank you for your supporting the promotion of the article Harry Murray to A-Class status. I addressed the issue you raised and will now attempt to take the article to featured status. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Chevron thanks

[2] Thanks for the comment. Gimmetrow 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 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) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with Muslim commanders

Ciao! Maybe you can help me with my new additions for two notable Turk commanders of the early crusades, Toghtekin and Mawdud. Consider: I'm Italian, and I translated them to English from French... Maybe they'll need some copyedit for language. Thanks and good work. --Attilios (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Time permitting, I'll try to add or improve similar articles in the future, as I've noticed Arab Crusade commanders' entries are pretty good in the French version. Ciao and good work. --Attilios (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class Review

I responded to your comments that you left here...thanks for taking the time to leave some! Cheers, the_ed17 03:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the refs

Tom....you used the "Spitfire" reference link in the USS Texas article!!! (Ref #16) =D ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested name change (one that's forbidden)

I need administrator help to change the name of the article "Battle of Hurtgen Forest" to "Battle of Hürtgen Forest." The locale and the battle are written correctly throughout most of the article, but the title leaves the umlaut off the u. The refusal of the original author to accept an umlauted vowel because it is not English is the source of the trouble, as the correct form had to have a redirect that now cannot be overwritten by us peasants. And that is why I have to come to you. Thank you in advance for your attention. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Iowa (BB-61)

Alrighty, the technical copyedit is complete. Apologies for the slight delays. Regards, Cam (Chat) 04:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion requested

Hello Tom my friend, you know that I'm not a big fan of FA's and GA's anymore, but an article that I have done a lot of work in has been nominated for "GA". The article is "Puerto Rican Campaign". The reviewer sated the following:

"There are a lot of images in this article. In several spots, text is sandwiched between images (which is discouraged by MOS), and the general prevalence of images makes the article not flow as well. If the number of images could be cut down a bit it would be great. One option would be to make sure there's a link to the Commons category that contains all of these pictures, so that readers know where to go to see them."

Since I'm pro visual image, I was wondering if you could look at the article as an independent and tell me which of the images you would delete or remove if it were your article. What would you do without doing the "link to the Commons category that contains all of these pictures thing" which I know I will mees up? You know that I respect your opinion and that is why I come to you. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• When you look at the article, do you see any text that is sandwiched between the images? I couldn't see it nor could user CaribbeanHQ and we were wondering if the problem was the resolution of the reviewers computer. What do you think?Tony the Marine (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I recieved your message. Someone modified the px's and I eliminated about 4 images. Let me know how it looks when you have the time. Those storms are breaking havoc. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Rooseveltinwheelchair.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Rooseveltinwheelchair.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Rooseveltinwheelchair.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Rooseveltinwheelchair.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition of external links to animations of key Civil War battles?

Hello Tom,

I am the author of the animations at http://civilwaranimated.com/

I have spent 200-250 hours building each animation and invite you to take a quick look. This is a completely non-commercial site and I have made literally no money off it (I have a minimal google add just to ensure that google looks at the site I will remove it if it is objectionable - just one mouse click).

For the last couple of years, I have had links to the battles in the external links page of the specific battles. Once I had enough of the battles done, I thought it might be useful to add a link under a specific general which would enable someone to see all the battles for a general (see wiki for Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example).

But once I did this, a Wiki editor decided I was spamming and began deleting all of the links. He received a response from another wiki editor when he deleted the Forrest link "Hi, Donald. I'm not sure why you think the animated history links are spam, but I restored the one on General Forrest after checking the link. I think it's an excellent link for anyone interested in Forrest's military history. JD Lambert(T|C) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"

I ask you to look at the link to civilwaranimated.com, validate its value and relevance, and make a note here if you believe that the links should be allowed for Civil War battles. I can then use your opinion to speak to the Wiki editor.

If you find that it would help for something to be changed in how the links are applied or how the animations are displayed, I would be quite cooperative.

I asked Hal Jespersen his opinion and he responded: "It is not possible to give "permission" in Wikipedia because people can always edit away things others find satisfactory. I have no objection to this link (other than that I don't like the word The capitalized). There are people and robots around, however, who object to mass additions of links, so you need to be judicious. For example, adding links to all the generals' bio pages was rather over the top. One link per battle or campaign seems fine to me. But that's just my opinion. B Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

I promise to be very judicious from this point forward and strictly follow what Hal has suggested. One link per battle or campaign. Your opinion would help greatly as well.

Please assist me in this,

James Cagney Jcagney (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Historyanimated.com

Additional documentation for 'Recipients of Combat Infantry Badge

http://sjcook.com/army/jclicker2.5/template2/images/rvn/670621.jpg

From my webpages. Further info if requested.

Samuel J. Cook army@sjcook.com 71.28.144.138 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

PR Campaign

Don't worry Tom, it made "GA". Your buddy Tony the Marine (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Iowa turret explosion

I'll be starting "full-time" work on this article soon, hopefully next week, and it should take a month or two to get it finished. I've already read through most of the sources that will be used, including the Diehl, Schwoebel, and Thompson books. I'm afraid that the article won't make the top leadership of the US Navy at that time look very swell. It's a fascinating subject though, and I've been looking forward to getting started on it once the Guadalcanal Campaign main article was completed. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news! Also, I've also finished the research for Iowa class battleship conversion proposals, and I will be writing the article this weekend as long as I don't loose power due to the hurricane. Featured Topic by the end of 2008? -MBK₀₀₄ 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the explosions in those two ships are discussed in Thompson's and Schoebel's books. Outside critics of the Navy's investigation into the explosion tried to bring up these other two incidents to the Navy, but the Navy flatly refused to consider that they might be related. I'll be mentioning that in the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Hey Tom.I just noticed that all the Iowa articles are in day-month-year date format (except USS Iowa turret explosion, which has a mishmash of DMY and MDY). I don't really care overmuch, but it strikes me as odd to see American ships with dmy format; is it intentional? I also note that Iowa class battleship still has linked dates; can we do away with those?

Incidentally, I came across this because I'm giving a rough copyedit to some ship articles that were selected for the WP:V0.7 release on DVD. I'm not putting any significant effort into checking articles that are already FA (since there are other ship-related articles ranging down to Start-class on the list), but I thought you might like to know that these articles are among those selected (at least provisionally) for the DVD:

• USS Missouri (BB-63)
• Iowa class battleship
• USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
• USS New Jersey (BB-62)
• Montana class battleship
• Battle of Midway
• Able Archer 83

Let me know what you think about the dates; no rush. Maralia (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was unware that so many of the battleship pages I and others have worked on were under consideration for the 0.7 release, I guess in part becuase I figured that if selected they would be tagged as such (Wisconin and Iowa class battleship already are), although I suppose that as a provisional list this is being treated as unofficial for now. On the issue of the dates: It seems to be DANFS preference to use the d/m/y format common to Europe rather than the m/d/y format common to the rest of the states, and I didn't feel the need to go through and alter every instance of the appearance in the articles becuase that would entail the addition of a lot of commas which might increase the page size, which in all cases is learge enough without the extras. The exception, USS Iowa Turret Explosion, was created a few monthes back from indepedent sources, and the odd fix of dates will likely be corrected in the coming monthes as Cla68 is preparing to rewrite the article ahaed of an FT push for the Iowas. Lastly, on the issue of delink dates: According to my watchlist, Tony1 has recently been using some sort of automated process to unlink the dates from the battleship articles. Although I have no proof of this, I would assume he does intend to get around to the class articles, if not, then you might consider dropping a line on his talk page to request he use his auto-thingy to delink the dates. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, the date format doesn't bother me; was just curious. I think I got so used to date preferences that I didn't even notice DANFS date formats - I always just pasted dates in and slapped brackets around them and they looked okay :) I'll get the dates taken care of on the Iowas article. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic

Hi. I was looking for some potential topics that may become featured and I stomped onto the Iowa-class battleships. I figured out that they form a potential featured topic and listed them at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleship. I also noticed that you have actually featured most of the articles in the topic, practically making you the main contributor. I don't know weather you were planning to going for the wp:FT or not, or weather you care at all, so I was wondering if it is ok with you if I try to go ahead and work on the topic. Thanks, and let me know what you think. Nergaal (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom is back at school, and can't always respond quickly, so I hope you'll both excuse me stepping in here. I happen to know that Tom is planning on going for FT on the Iowas (in fact, he mentioned it in the paragraph directly above this one, albeit circumspectly). This is a goal he has been working toward for a long time, and I respectfully request that you remove your FT nomination in order to let him proceed when he is ready to do so. At least one article in the series (USS Iowa turret explosion) is definitely not ready; a nomination now would be premature. Thanks for noticing his work, though—they have turned out nicely, haven't they. Maralia (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you called me 'Malaria'! Thanks, I needed a laugh :) From Plutarch to infectious disease in one fell swoop of the fingers! Maralia (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did not nominate it. I just created the page and checked if the main contributor is looking at it. Anyways, the way the nomination was created could not have passed (A-classes are not accepted for FTs, be they from the wp:Military history). The reason I asked in the first place was not to step on anybody's toes and I did not notice the discussion above (not my job to check others' discussion). I won't try to intervene in your plans since you guys clearly know better how to expand the topic. However, if you need my help with c/e-ing and stuff drop me a note. Ah, and two more things: (1) the last two articles can still be GAs at the time of the nomination; (2) the initial nomination might not need to include them, but they can be added to the topic once they are ready. Nergaal (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the article I'm writing that is directly linked to the topic. I'm also going to go ahead and brag that I was the one who initially proposed a FT run on this topic to Tom quite a while ago. It's nice to see this come to fruition. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation of categories

I am confused, unable to decide how to promote a couple of really good articles I have come across. The problem in my mind is to distinguish between A-class and GA-class articles. I read the criteria, and all I get is that GA articles meet all the B-class criteria, but we mean it this time; and A-class are the same, but this time we really mean it. My point is that I don't see any way, other than a coin flip, to decide which is better. (The two articles have to do with the American Civil War: Battle of Fort Henry and Battle of Fort Donelson, there is a reason for tying them together, they are good enough that I would not be ashamed to see them as Featured Articles, and no, I have not had any part in creating or editing them.) Any guidance you can give me will be appreciated. Or pass along my request to another administrator. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

With thanks

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your help improving Military history articles through the Military history review process in June, July and August 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Obama Sex Tape

Re your message: It was totally unsourced and since it was a WP:BLP issue, it was going to get deleted. But just on the really slim chance it was true (really slim), I looked around a bit. Didn't find anything and out it went. As you can see, I left a warning for the editor, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Bah, I knew starting a sentence with digits was a bad idea, and I did it anyway. :( - Mark 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:O'niel Cylinder.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:O'niel Cylinder.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wild Dog (Time Crisis)

I have nominated Wild Dog (Time Crisis), an article 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/Wild Dog (Time Crisis). 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. TTN (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tratos (C&CTS).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tratos (C&CTS).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) 05:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I apologize for not giving you that courtesy. My track record for that is bad. But then, I don't canvass either. I just nominate articles for deletion, put in my two cents, and defer to the wisdom of the consensus. That's just how things go on a volunteer encyclopedia.

Something to keep in mind, there was already an AFD on this article from early this year, which evidently you saw and participated in. That AFD was closed as keep, but on the basis that people believed in good faith that the article could be improved. After a few months, most Wikipedians concluded that the article was simply impossible to improve, and the article would never meet our guidelines. So there was a consensus to delete.

I respect that you put a lot of work into the article, but I'm not sure there's anything you could have done to prevent it from being deleted. Still, if you could actually find the reliable third-party sources required to address the reason for deletion, I'm sure an administrator would be happy to re-create the article for you, and I doubt anyone would object. I certainly wouldn't. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Randomran, I'm concerned that Wikipedia may have lost a valuable contributor over the lack of notice on your part. Whether or not TomStar81's opinions at an AFD would have "saved" it is relatively unimportant, but it would seem that to get a true consensus on this or any other article, it would be nice to hear the opinions of someone who is an advocate of the article in question. You would also do well to keep in mind that there is no deadline for articles such as these. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to say, as I already apologized. I suggested that he take it to deletion review if he has reason to believe that the consensus for deletion was false. I didn't intend him to take it personally. I know sometimes there's a consensus for things that piss me off too, so I sympathize. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, in this case, that will not work. Deletion review is intended as a extra pair of eyes to oversee the afds that were controversial to some greater or lesser extent, but this one was not really controversial. Additionally, you have deprived Tom not only of a chance to participate in the afd, but of the chance he may have had to put forth alternatives, or worse, to upload something for the page that he may have been working on offline. If you look at his afds, Tom here was the one largely responsible for articles as they currently are (which as a C&C fan I was thrilled to see), and he took the loss of several of these articles in 2005 very personally. I am quite certain that given his article development track record he may have had some idea of how to improve or carve up the article to save relevent information. At the very least, I am sure he would have appreciated a chance to participate in the afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.247.244 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

...and it would also seem that you have deprived the military history project of a badly needed coordinator for important 0.7 related work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.247.244 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

mhm....we're going to seriously miss you're extremely valuable skills in the next few weeks. I wish you the best of luck in overcoming your wikistress, and hope that you are able to return to the 'pedia as soon as you can. All the best, Cam (Chat) 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I still apologize, because I never wanted this to become personal. But I think there needs to be a reality check here. I have virtually no power on Wikipedia. I can nominate an article for AFD, but that's about it. I can't delete an article by myself. And even if I could, I couldn't make it so uncontroversial so as to avoid deletion review. I can't stop people from participating at an AFD. I can't stop people from improving an article to save it, and nor would I want to. I can't form a one-man consensus and I can't stonewall a large consensus to keep or delete an article. I can't stop anyone from re-creating an improved version of the article, or stop them from userfying the article in the meantime. I can't deprive a WikiProject of a much needed editor. And I can't bring anybody back if they want to leave, although I wish I could. I can't do much to upset the balance of Wikipedia by myself. If anger will bring TomStar81 back, I encourage him to be angry at me and make it his Wikipedia mission to prove that I'm a buffoon. If peace with me will bring him pack, I let him know that this isn't personal, and I wish him the best. I'd advise him to ask for userfication of the deleted article, fix the issues, and recreate it when it's ready. Maybe take a deep breath, count to ten. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But you can use this as a lesson as to why it's important for notification of AFDs to be made in the future. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Tom has e-mail enabled, so you could e-mail him a peace offering if you so choose. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I ever declared war on Tom, but what do you think would be an appropriate way offer peace? Should I re-state my recommendation that he userfy the article and address the issues, or take it to DRV? Randomran (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How about promising that next time you'll remember to leave the creator of the article the message informing him or her of the afd nom? Its just a simple thing, but it can make all the difference, so try to remember from now on, ok? It will help prevent a repeat of this occurance in the future, and it will definatly be apreciated :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Between checking articles that might not meet policy, and trying to find sources that might help an article meet policy, I'm not sure I have time to go above and beyond what our policies and guidelines require. But I'll see what I can do. Glad to have you back, and good luck with whatever you decide is the best way to bring the article back and help it meet our policies. Randomran (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Powder bag picture

The Iowa turret explosion article really needs a picture of the 16-inch gun powder bags that were used to fire the big guns. Have you seen any free license pictures of powder bags anywhere? Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dual Freq provided a picture. Cla68 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Military land vehicles task force award

Hey, I made this award today, although it's been in the planning for a while. Since you're the task force's coordinator I thought it would be best to ask you any questions I had. Specifically, I'm looking forward to making this the "official" award of the task force, and it could be awarded by anybody to anybody. Is there anything special I have to do? Hold a vote? Or could I just start awarding it? I want to award it to Michael Z. for his work on the T-34 article and Dhatfield for his work on Tank and continued support for the articles I've put through peer review or A-class. Thanks for any help! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In Tom's absence (see banner), the straight answer is you can just start using it immediately and award it to whomever you wish: there is no official procedure to go through. And very nice it is too :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for showing me how to do create that template; I was actually wondering how to do that! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

De nada! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Hope your self-imposed exile did what you accomplished. My not-so self-imposed exile due to Hurricane Ike has produced some results: User:MBK004/Sandbox#Iowa class battleship conversion proposals. Right now it is just stuff that I've taken from the other articles, but I'm about to put in the new stuff this weekend. Also, I discovered this: User:TomStar81/Iowa class battleship featured topic work group. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea with regards to those stars (I had forgotten about Pershing), but I don't think that would work with the userbox. Reason being that an oblong image won't display like the others. I'll give it a try, so the project will have it available for use, but I'm not sure if Kirill will even use it after taking a look at his userpage. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include that article. It is not a crucial part of the entire class history, even though it is related to an event which is. Besides, a biographical article doesn't fit with the rest of the articles in the topic in terms of the type and style. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD

		Civility Award
		For showing Wikipedians that fairness can win more supporters than bickering. For handling our disagreement with class: taking a step back, and finding a productive way to express and resolve your frustrations. Your spirit is admirable! Randomran (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(PS: Thanks for the barnstar too, but you earned this regardless of me.) Randomran (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

re Area 58

please reconsider

• yes virgina there is an area 58:

"The first SDS satellites were placed into highly elliptical "Molniya" orbits to send images from KH-11 electro-optical reconnaissance satellites back to the DCEETA/Area 58 ground station at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia (38d44m10s N, 77d09m30s W). It is possible that some later SDS satellites were placed in geosynchronous orbits and may serve as relays for other NRO satellites, such as Lacrosse." [[3]]

or the google books "large windowless two-story building officiallt know as the Defence Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity DCEETA, and also known as Area 58. While initially Fort Belvoir site was the only downlink.." [[4]] therefore, a published book mentions area 58. it's in my library how about yours?

how unoriginal could i get? Dogue (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC) as to notability, is Menwith Hill notable? is area 51 notable? are the means and methods used to transmit satint to the ground notable?

the concept of Area 58 is falsifiable. is there any source that denies the existance of area 58? is the explanation reasonable?

Deletion review for Area 58

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Area 58. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dogue (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

year of ten victories assessment

Hi. A couple of weeks ago, you gave the article year of ten victories a start-class assessment, saying that you wished to see more sources added to the article. I have added two more references and many more inline citations since then, and would greatly appreciate it if you took another look at it to see if it now meets the B-class criteria. Joe (Talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

---