User talk:Pennsy22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hello, Pennsy22! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Icarus (Hi!) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

September 2016[edit]

Hi, I want to let you know I reverted some of your edits on John Mellencamp's albums as only the first genre in the infobox should be capitalized, see strict guidelines under genre.

Reference Errors on 21 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Lost Covered Bridges of Parke County, Indiana[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Lost Covered Bridges of Parke County, Indiana, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Category:"Lost" Covered Bridges of Parke County, Indiana. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Armiesburg Covered Bridge[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Armiesburg Covered Bridge, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Adams Covered Bridge, Indiana. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Armiesburg Covered Bridge[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Armiesburg Covered Bridge. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Adams Covered Bridge, Indiana. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Adams Covered Bridge, Indiana – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Pennsy22, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Gilliam (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


Kingsport Victory title choice[edit]

See the Talk:USNS Kingsport Victory (T-AK-239) for some issues. The title name, USNS Kingsport Victory (T-AK-239) meets neither original nor best known selection among a number of names/designations. By far the best known, the one appearing in all references to satellite work are under the name USNS Kingsport (T-AG-164). Palmeira (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New: Along the lines of our comments and your clean up efforts see Talk:USNS Captain Arlo L. Olson (T-AK-245) and my revision of the entire article. It is a good example of the danger of tagging similar commercial type hulls with Navy "class" as this ship was never in any such class. Have fun! Lots of checking and modifications to do there I suspect. Palmeira (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I really like what you did with it. I guess I was thinking along the lines that these ships had been ordered by the Navy but the MC handles the paper work, etc. until delivered to the Navy. Yes, as the war winded down and these ship were orphaned it gets confusing as to what officially happened to some of them. Some are listed as being Commissioned and Decommissioned the same day. Ugh. Thanks again. Pennsy22 (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. See what I just added at Talk:Emory S. Land. That is why the WSA "fleet" was the largest of all and the story of how the U.S. industrial might that really did win the war, even admittedly by people not so impressed with our generals or the rest, got "over there" across hostile seas. WSA controlled essentially all oceangoing commercial type ships, even many Navy and core Army fleet hulls. They were "on loan" or "bareboat chartered" to the services. So, Navy commissioned and made USS ships it actually did not "own" at all until you find that title transfer post war. It was through WSA allocation, a process closely coordinated with the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff and British Ministry of War Transport, and our own Joint Chiefs of Staff with personal access to and intervention by FDR for sticky cases that Army, Navy and others got those hulls. Somewhere behind those big transports named after generals switching about was a WSA allocation decision. Consider this from Land's report:
"The responsibility of the WSA under the Executive Order of February 7, 1942, extended to all phases of shipping including the purchase or requisition of vessels for its own use or the use of the Army, Navy, or other Government agencies; the repairing, arming, and degaussing of WSA controlled vessels and Allied vessels under lend-lease provision; conversion of vessels to troop transports, hospital ships, and for other special purposes; training and providing ship personnel, operating, loading, discharging and general control of the movement of these ships; administering and marine and war risk insurance laws and funds, and the control of terminal and port facilities, forwarding and related matters."
The other big "hidden" and "forgotten" in WW II U.S. logistics is the role of the Army Port of Embarkation (one of these days I'm going to finish that proect) system that controlled movement of men from even training and base camps far inland. Their trains, even from some Midwestern base, were under port control because that was how they got off and marched into embarkation camp barracks just vacated by a bunch just exiting the harbor on transports. Troops were under the Port Commander across the country through the port, on the ships until handed off "over there" to an overseas combat command. They also controlled all that industrial stuff for our and allied armies from industrial plant loading dock till into an overseas depot. They literally kept track of how many widgets passed through the port and there are some minor "scandals" when there weren't that many widgets overseas—minus those known to be sunk. All in the days before computers. On 3X5 cards and at best punch cards. Amazing stuff actually. Palmeira (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 21:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Pennsy22! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 07:26, Saturday, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

September 2015[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give USS Chattanooga (CL-18) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very sorry about moving the articles the wrong way, I had no idea I was doing it the wrong way. I have now submitted the moves the right way, I hope. Since the pages already exist it wasn't as easy as using the "move" tab. Thanks for your help. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't beat yourself up over it. Your editing was in good faith, even if it was wrong. You'll make many mistakes editing Wikipedia. As long as you learn from them you'll be fine. Wikipedia is a big place and it takes a while to learn all the ins and outs. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries, and you're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Galveston (CL-93) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{commons category|USS Galveston (CLG-3))}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


Early US cruiser articles[edit]

I've worked on a large number of USN ship class articles, mostly destroyers and submarines (see my user page), and I'm planning to start on the cruiser class articles. I also plan to add information to individual ship articles where that ship is the only one of their class, as is the case with most of the early USN cruisers. I noticed that you've edited many of these articles. I'd like to standardize a style that complies with the direction the Wikiproject:Ships wants to move in. Anyway, I plan to add a "Design and construction" section for each ship, using info from Friedman and other sources. I'll add a "Refits" subsection where appropriate. I've noticed that one of the project's goals is to move citations out of the infobox. I feel that, for armament, citations of Navweaps.com pages provide valuable additional information. Therefore, I plan to largely repeat what's in the infobox about armament, and add citations as appropriate. Although I've usually put Armament in its own section, I now see that it fits better as a paragraph of the "Design and construction" section. Can you recommend an article that currently conforms to the standards that the Wikiproject desires to achieve? I realize that very few articles are alike stylistically. I personally like the infobox style of USS San Francisco (C-5), but it does contain some citations, and the additional infoboxes for refits may be undesirable. RobDuch (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My edits have gone through several changes since I really got started in Spring 2015. I was adding citations to everything in the infoboxes because that was what I had seen on other pages, then I started removing all the cites, but I didn't want to lose the reference so I started adding them in the headers, again, I had seen this on a few other pages too. I love the idea of adding a "Design and construction" section and I even added them into the Omaha-class cruiser pages. It's a huge project. It was recommended to me to add the extra infoboxes for the refits by a major Wikiproject:Ships contributor. I was making notations in the infobox and it was making it look very messy. I've made mistakes but I hope I've learned from them. Check USS Omaha (CL-4), I think it is what you're looking for. I have a Navweaps.com and Historyofwar.org tab open all the time for reference but I find that most people disagree with each other. Some list as the ship was built, some list how the ship was designed and some list the ship at a certain point in time. I try to put the "as built" info in the infobox and leave refits and upgrades to additional infoboxes and the main article. I don't know if this helps, I hope it does. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool[edit]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Arkansas (BB-33) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • on}} and {{convert|1.25|in|abbr=on}}, respectively. Five of the 5-inch guns were removed and eight [[3"/50 caliber gun|3-inch/50 caliber anti-aircraft guns were installed. The mainmast was removed to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


changing to sfn format cites[edit]

Be advised that changing an existing consistent cite format to another is forbidden by WP:CITEVAR, whatever your own preferences. Strictly speaking, you should respect the format of the first cite used in the article. You can see where I've gotten myself into trouble when I standardized a mixed group of format cites into a single format that wasn't the very first one used at Talk:HMS Curacoa (D41). I suggest that you revert yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

USS Colorado[edit]

Thank you for your edits to subject article. I intentionally deleted the sentence you restored because the paragraph I added covered that Pacific cruise in greater detail. Might the reference citation you added be appropriate at some point within the subsequent paragraph to avoid the duplicate information? Thewellman (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see now! I only noticed that you deleted the sentence and noted that it wasn't referenced. I hate to see things deleted because of lack of reference when maybe someone can take the time to reference it if its noted. I unfortunatly failed to read the next paragraph where Amelia is again referenced. I will gladly move or remove the sentence. Thank you for taking the time to explain, much appreciated.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Amatasi[edit]

Hallo Amatasi is on my watch list for some reason, and I've amended a few of your recent changes:

The template {{Multihulls}} was converted to the list, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_26#Template:Multihulls, so I removed it.

MOS:ITAL says that italics in quotes should be preserved.

The "How to cite this" in the encyclopedia included the author's name etc - I've reworked the ref.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Happy Editing. PamD 07:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


Chevrolet Corvette (C1)[edit]

Please read Chevrolet straight-6 engine#235. While the engine was originally used the the light-duty Chevrolet trucks, it had been used in their passenger car application with the Powerglide transmission since 1950. When the Corvette was developed, they used this application as the basis for the Corvette as the trucks were not available with the Powerglide transmission. They also used as much of the other mechanicals from the passenger cars as possible to keep the development costs as low as possible. In fact, the part and part number for the front suspension cross member was the same as used in the passenger cars from '49-'54 and in the C1's all the way until 1962. You could literally unbolt the front supension from a '49 sedan and bolt it into a 1962 Corvette. (Although there WAS a small difference in the spindle drop). I am a fan of SuperChevy magazine and have subscribed to it off and on for almost 40 years. However, as a reliable source, I would limit using it. The particular article you link does not seem to be that well written and does not contain any sources itself. The section discussing the origin of the engine says The Powerglide six was a solid, passenger-car version of the 235ci Chevy truck engine but omits the year that they started using it in passenger cars, thus seeming to imply that the Corvette was the first passenger car application for the engine, which is not the case. Nyth63 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the version used in the Corvette was the higher compression engine with the truck camshaft that was used in the Chevy trucks. I thought I had a book at home that talked about it but am unable to find it. I know that the 235 was used in passenger cars, but the engine used in the Corvette was from the truck line. Maybe I'm not wording it to your liking but the 53 Vettes engine was basicly a truck engine, maybe you just don't want to believe that, but it's true.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catlin Covered Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Hur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Potential 6"/50 caliber USN gun article[edit]

I've noticed that you've produced a good series of articles on pre-WWI US Navy gun types, and I'm sure you've noticed that I've added coast defense information where appropriate. Are you planning an article on 6"/50 caliber guns? A number of these (Navy guns in addition to Army guns) were used for coast defense in WWII, and some of these (mostly Mark 6 or Mark 8) survive. RobDuch (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know how I missed it. Yes, I will hopefully write it up tonight and please feel free to add whatever you want. I just thought that this was an area that was very lacking and I just hope I've helped. I thank you for the additions that you've made also, coast defense is very interesting to me, I live in Florida near Fort Desoto, which is a Spanish-American War era fort and I hope to maybe be able to contribute to this area some day.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Abele (AN-58), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages North Vancouver and Fort William. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Adder (SS-3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Nixon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]

50k Challenge poster.jpg You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Pennsy22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

It would be helpful if, instead of edit-warring, you took your concerns to the article talk page. There is absolutely no reason to switch {{convert}} to your pet template when the changes are transparent to the reader. Nor is there reason to remove valid links, or to change the citation style for no purpose. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If switching the conversions is no big deal then why do you keep undoing my edits? I didn't remove valid links, I removed repeated links. I didn't change the citation style, I corrected it. You are the one that started this. I did take the verifications to the talk page, I guess you couldn't be bothered by that.Pennsy22 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Because you removed valid links (it is perfectly acceptable to link something in the lead and the body, especially in longer articles), added spurious citation needed tags, and changed the citation style (there is no "correct" style, by the way) - it's much easier to revert the transparent changes, since they are irrelevant, than to go through and fix everything by hand.
I started nothing - you boldly made a change, and I reverted it. You failed to discuss. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Pennsy22. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! MusikAnimal talk 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships[edit]

Hi, when you add {{WikiProject Ships}} to the talk page of a template, such as Template talk:Boulder cargo beam, there's no need to include |class=Template|importance=NA as well. The first of these is detected automatically, as shown at Template:WikiProject Ships#Usage, second bullet. The |importance= parameter is ignored entirely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know, I actually just copied it from another template because I wasn't sure. Does this mess anything up? Do I need to go through and change them?Pennsy22 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
No, they're harmless as they stand. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

USS Mifflin[edit]

Concerning you undo of my edit and then citing it did not meet Wiki standards MOS:HEADINGS. The Checkbox at the very top of that page states that Wikipedia expects editors to use "common sense". Further on it gets to what you are citing but not quite. It states that Wikipedia prefers that Headings not be links but it does not outright say "not permissible." Which leaves open the possablity of exceptions. Your heading "Invasion of Iwo Jima" is directly followed by the link " Battle of Iwo Jima". That is redundant writing. You repeat this again with the "Invasion of Okinawa" and the link "Battle of Okinawa". This is equally redundant. This style of writing reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

It appears that user 184.97.155.158 also thought these were redundent. But, you not only undid their edit of this article you went looking to see what else that user had edited and undid those other edits too. The undo of the SEABEES/ANTARCTICA edit is particulary odd. Looking into it, I believe that entire article was a College Wiki Project. The student's understanding of the subject was reasonably limited. User 184.97.155.158 made edits to make the article more accurate which you undid. That user is a former Seabee, that I happen to know, who was in Antarctica. He also worked on the ice runway mentioned in the edit. There are limited few on this planet qualified to edit that Seabee/Antarctica article user 184.97.155.158 being one of them. Your reverting the article to a state of inaccuracy begs the question why? Then right after that you did those undos that user's entire edit history was deleted from his page. mcb133aco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.155.158 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

First off, I didn't write the rules as far as the heading rule goes. Second, it would appear that user:mcb133aco (Mobile Construction Battalion 133) and user:184.97.155.158, and user:184.97.245.52 are all the same person? Looking back over the undo, it was mainly because the conversion was removed from the original article, but I don't see where any info was lost, it was just reworded from the original. I'm not sure which edit history you're talking about, I can see all 6 of your edits. Five made to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133 and one to my talk page. Now I can see where you edited your comments. Please don't edit others talk pages. Third, the reason I checked and other edits is because people with IP addresses tend to be Vandals and checking on their recent edits can turn this up. I hope this helps answer some of your questions. Also, please see Wikipedia:No original research to help answer questions about personal knowledge not being allowed, it must come from reliable, published sources.Pennsy22 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Nosy busybody showing up here because of this note. This disagreement seems to centre around our manual of style for headings. @Mcb133aco: Although linking in section headings is not recommended, it isn't strictly prohibited. However, it should only be done under extraordinary circumstances and would need a justification. Having said that, I agree with mcb133aco that the further information links looks a little redundant. A better solution would be to integrate the links directly in the article text. For example, something like:
Mifflin was responsible for transporting the 2nd Battalion 23rd Marines during the [[Battle of Iwo Jima|invasion of Iwo Jima]]. On 19 February, her boats landed the 2nd Battalion 23rd Marines and their Shore Party, B Co 133 NCB—4th Marine Division on beach "Yellow 2", Iwo Jima. etc... This drectly integrates the link into the paragraph and eliminate the need for the further information link or linking in the heading itself. Thoughts? -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Mcb133aco:, no problem. I'm sorry he feels I'm being vindictive, first off, I felt like his edit to USS Mifflin (APA-207) didn't help the article, he removed links and a citation template, second, while the rule doesn't ban the use of links in section headings I again feel that adding the {{further}} template seems reasonable, third, his edit to Seabees removed a conversion and made claims without citing sources. I thought that I explained why I had reverted these edits. I have not deleted or removed anything from his account, I do not have those abilities, I only wanted to bring it up that these accounts seem a little strange, as you can see on my talk page he refers to himself as a "friend of his", which is what prompted the Sockpuppet question. While I thank him for any service he provided to his country that doesn't give him permission to add material to articles without proper sourcing. I appreciate you taking the time to help resolve this issue.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I am on Wikipedia is the NMCB133 article. What was posted was fiction. I had made some effort to get the Navy to correct the "History" to no avail. When I learned about Wikipedia it was Ah ha!!!!! If I posted one fact after the next it would be very hard to dismiss facts with footnotes that the whole world could read. The 133rd still exists and has a facebook page. It had links to several sites regarding it's History. Since I have posted those facts, Wikipedia is now really the primary source for 133 History online. The Naval History & Heritage Command link is now a 404 error. The same thing happens for 133 at the Seabee Archives. The only reason I ran into you is the USS Mifflin is linked to the 133 article. My only other edits are on linked articles. I thank you for the offer but I am really very close to done with what I plan to do. Whatever issues there are with the 133 article I will address so you are welcome to point them out. I think that Bare URLs tag can be removed- I think. Strange, but I never thought about the lead until today.(I had history to correct) I think it meets the bare minunum now. What remains now is for the Awards Division at USMC Headquarters to review what I submitted regarding the award issue mentioned in the article. One of the men that drove a D-8 cat onto yellow beach 1 at 0935 D-day asked me "to get it done". The Wiki article is an offshoot of that effort. The facts are exactly what they are. I am hoping the Marines give me something to add to all this. Now if I could write an article about ineptitude at the Board of Corrections for the Naval Record, Wikipedia would get another article out of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.155.158 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 184.97.155.158 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)mcb133aco184.97.155.158 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Seabee[edit]

I am back to take you up on your offer to help. I wrote the leade to the Seabees article a while ago and someone added an edit that they were "Combat Engineers'. That edit was the last line of the paragraph and I it ride. However, recently a new edit was done redoing the entire thing. This time The Leade opened with "Combat Engineers' which is so egregiously wrong I went back and did a rewrite. Now someone like you has checked it and the paragraph itself was acceptable. I had two additional sentances following that they said were nonsense. I was not surprised by the first sentance being an issue for some one. But, I reposted the second as I believe it is fact. It was deleted again. "unsourced bad pov" It reads; "The Navy and Marine Corps Full service General Contractor" is a close description for todays Seabees." My pov is biased with regards to the branch but the description is nearly accurate in the application. A 100% accurate description can probably not be done in a single sentance. But, to come with "unsourced bad pov' after you have read the paragraph makes me want to question the IQ. So, when you have a moment would you read and share your opinion with me. Thank you.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

My gosh! It was not my intent for you to do a pile of research on a subject that you may have no interest in.(And you were quite thourgh about it too!) So, I am here to thank for your time and effort. Also thought I would say; I looked at that Battleship article, and another My Gosh!, looks completely daunting to me from the editing pov.

WikiProject Ships Barnstar![edit]

Patina Barnstar with Helm.png WikiProject Ships Barnstar
For your outstanding cleanup of the Iowa-class battleship article you are hereby awarded this WikiProject Ships Barnstar. Congratulations! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Another Question[edit]

Wkikpedia issue that I think exists. In working on my project I ran across Wikipedia articles that should be sub-sections of a related main article: i.e. Seabees and Seabees in WWII, Iwo Jima and Battle of Iwo Jima, and lastly, Okinawa and Battle of Okinawa. The proper thing to do is to consolidate each. However, if the Battle of Iwo Jima is imbeded in the larger article it disappears from basic internet searches and can not be directly linked as a topic in Wikipedia. Do you have access to the Wikipedia software Dept. to recommend say three [[[ before aand after a heading ]]] to allow the subtopic to be searchable and linkable. It would be a good tool for organizing the Wikipedia better. Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing last night how the two articles should be merged, though I can see a benefit to having them separate and just linked to each other. The Seabee article can be an overview with the WWII article going into more specifics, otherwise the Seabee article may become too large.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Thrasher (AMS-203), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Seabee[edit]

Last time I contacted you, you turned it into a project. Once again will say thanks for that. I did not see it the last time I visited your page, but the help template and info you have posted above I should use instead of bothering you but I am here now. You have done the Wkipedia much longer than I so I expect you know exactly what vandalism is as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So, when you have a moment I am asking that you review an article: United States Marine Corps. In the "WWII history" section I added 3 lines concerning the Seabees. A tag was then posted {citations needed}. I posted two. This was OK but same editor left note the some rewrite was needed in addition. Did that too, plus linked 4 USMC Regiments that are in Wikipedia.(which a different editor then reverted entirely as possible vandalism)(see 17th, 18th, 19th & 20th Marines) I had also added two lines in the "Navy /Marine interaction" section, further in the article. There was absolutely nothing in this section regarding the Seabees and Marines. Which indicates the author had a limited knowledge base to work with and is neither excusable or acceptable. I wrote the the Seabees will respond to any USMC tasking as they have historically and that the impossible will take a little longer. I expect that the editor found this un-encylopedic. My response is that is first class ignorance. For the Seabees this is a statement of fact, no citation needed and the "impossible taking longer is part of the Seabee saying.(already posted in Wikipedia) If the Marines say: "they will get it done or semper fi" does Wikipedia need a citation to prove it? My pov on this is that these reverts are vandalism and you will inform me how I have it wrong. Thanks Mcb133aco (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I added your links to the Marine regiments back in using a "note". Hopefully this won't upset the other editor. I personally didn't see a problem and I liked the references that you added, very interesting read. I think for most people, myself included, the Seabees are hard to understand, they are assigned to Marine regiments, but aren't Marines, etc. Anyway, we'll see what happens and I'll look at adding the "impossible taking longer" next week. We'll squeeze it in there somehow. :-) Pennsy22 (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I know you have some understanding of the military from all the naval articles you have done. LOL to the "understanding" comment. Had the Navy let the Marines absorb the the CBs into the Corps there would not be what is. As a Naval component it is odd as can be, as there will never be amphibious operations again like WWII, most operations are land based and CBs still mostly go where the Marines go.(still wear the fatiques and get miliary training too) My draft number was 3 and you could get drafted into the Marines then, so I enlisted in the CBs. Went through naval boot. Joined my Battalion and there was a gunny there to ensure our "proper military training", courtesy of the United States Marine Corps. There's an LOL for you.

Have never seen a note like you posted. Way cool!

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune[edit]

Once again I return to you with my issues. An archivist at the Seabee Museum archives sent me the attached document.(IT IS NOT POSTED ONLINE- SO YOU EITHER HAVE TO GO THE ARCHIVE OF HAVE IT MAILED) I used that information to make an edit to the article on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. My edit was deleted stating my "edit was done in good faith but the (seabee) Museum (archives) were not a reliable source. I do not know, but I believe that the (TW) was done in anticipation that the edit would be reverted. In any case, I would very much like to get you imput. Thank you once again.Mcb133aco (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Seabee Archives have said that they will post this online so I can link it. ThanksMcb133aco (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Training~with~Marines000
That's good, I hope that will satisfy some people, although someone will probably still argue it. I'm sure there might be a rule that we could use but I wasn't having much luck finding it. Pennsy22 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Omaha (CL-4)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Omaha (CL-4) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

WWII tanks navbox[edit]

I see what you are trying for, but it adds too much complexity to a navbox which already has lots of entries. If the box was - by default - in the bottom of the article and used in wide mode, then I think there would be more room to work with But on the whole it's tucked up under the infobox. I think some reconsideration of individual entries and their positions can be looked at but needs more involvement from rest of editors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into that to be completely reverted. There are a lot of wrong entries, sorry I missed the T-35, but the whole Assault and Super Tank Cats are just wrong. If you prefer it just be the Major Armies then we can leave out a few. What pages is it tucked under the infobox? It isn't on the M4 Sherman page. Please consider unreverting an fixing. Pennsy22 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to give impression it was all wrong - but a massive change is harder to review - and I think addition of notes is definitely a retrograde step. I favour changes being made in steps which makes it easier to follow but that's just my view. On specifics, What makes the assault tank category wrong?, the super-heavies are all very heavy tank designs - and conveniently all prototype or design only. The navbox isn't under every template, but of three I picked at random (Panzer IV, Tiger II, KV) it was. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I personally think the whole "Super-heavy" cat should be made into a separate template. Where is the template supposed to be? Under the info box or at the bottom of the page? I prefer the bottom of the page. That's one thing that needs sorted out because it's in different places on different pages. There are Assault guns and while they are Armored fighting vehicle are they tanks? We need to define what is a tank. Do we include Tank destroyers and Assault guns? That would make the list huge. That's not what I want. But do we also want a list that isn't complete? Please see the templates talk page for more. We can continue the discussion there. Thanks for your feedback. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

USS Oglala (CM-4)‎[edit]

Before you revert me again at USS Oglala (CM-4)‎, please note that I did give some explanation for my original revert on the talk page. It was not some random act of vandalism or anything like that. That massive copy/paste etc you made earlier in the year was not an encyclopaedic addition. I'm sure if can be fixed but I'm also sure that it should be fixed before reinstatement due to concerns regarding neutrality etc. IT might be better to work on it in a sandbox, given the size of the thing.

We make it far too easy, in my opinion, for people to copy/paste crap from "official" sources etc. And we're far too tolerant of US bias. - Sitush (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I showed you the "consensus" in my explanation for undoing you revert. And for your information I agree with some of your statements and I'm editing it right now. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Omaha (CL-4)[edit]

The article USS Omaha (CL-4) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:USS Omaha (CL-4) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for USS Omaha (CL-4)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article USS Omaha (CL-4), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that USS Omaha (CL-4) was the last United States Navy ship to be awarded prize money? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS Omaha (CL-4). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, USS Omaha (CL-4)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 12:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Seabee[edit]

Back for your thoughts again. Since you made your edit I have expanded the article some. Have had a couple of editors read it with a lot of stars on their pages. But, a new one showed up that said there were 103 bare references. Tell me what I do not know please. There is probably the same issue with the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133 article too. Another editor questioned the article's length. I have been working on reducing the number of bytes and now this editor added another 11,294. I think the inactive units section can be deleted but that got me a note for section blanking. So, when you have a moment would you share your thoughts. Thanks Mcb133aco (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let me help answer a couple of your questions. While you were adding references in they were only meeting the bare minimum of what a reference should be. Here is a link Link Rot that may help shed some light on it. When only putting a url link for a reference in the future they may go dead, that is move, get renamed, or other things that will break the link, but if you add other information, website it was found at, author, date, these types of things, there is a better chance of fixing the dead or broken link. That is what the other author meant by "bare references". Don't worry, with my first articles I did the same thing. Then there may be a problem with the length of the article, this can be pretty subjective but there is good cause to not have an article be too long, the reading may become bored or there may be a lot included that might have significance to you but the general reading doesn't care about. When you blank a section you need to have really good cause to remove things from an article, with some authors it's hard to add things, with others it can be hard to remove. If you think that there is a section or sections that could be removed and made into a separate article then that would be one way to go. Create the new article and then link it back to the Seabee article. Decide what you want the core Seabee article to be about and make it that, is there a Seabees in WWII article already? If not maybe some of the Seabee article can be made into one. That kind of thing. You want this article to be about the Seabees, their history (creation), their duties, their structure, etc. You also need to make sure it is written in a neutral form, write it like you're not a Marine Vet but a neutral party. That means you have to leave out positive, and negative, words about their work and duty, act like you could care less about their exploits and history, I know, it isn't easy sometimes. Transfer the Units and Inactive units to a List and link it, that way the information isn't being lost just moved and the reading can reference it if they want. I know this is a lot, and I hope I've helped. Just remember, this isn't a blog so some things just don't or won't belong here, not that they aren't important, just not the right venue.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. So did that other editor take the time to actually research each reference that those 11,000 bytes got added or is there a tab to click that will search the web and fill in the information? Mcb133aco (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Cincinnati (CL-6)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Cincinnati (CL-6) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Cincinnati (CL-6)[edit]

The article USS Cincinnati (CL-6) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Cincinnati (CL-6) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Portal-template location[edit]

Hello Pennsy22. I noticed that you started adding this template in articles such as USS Liscome Bay and USS LST-475. You place the portal-template above the navboxes. This goes against guidelines and common practice. The guideline page (WP:PORTAL) actually says "Links to portals are often found in the "See also" section of relevant articles.". Most editors either place it there (in the 'see also' section) or below the navboxes (another common practice); see Casablanca-class_escort_carrier#External_links. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, it does say it can be place in the "See also" section, it also says it can be in the "External links" section. I have been told that it belongs in the "External links" section by other editors so this is where I've been placing it. It is my understanding from what I've been told is that when it is placed just before the navboxes it doesn't get lost, it's hard to see in the "See also" section. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this one page, thank you for not moving it on the LST-475 page. I will take this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships talk page and try to reach a consensus as to where it should be place on ship pages. I hope this is an acceptable solution. Thank you. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Cheers! --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Cincinnati (CL-6)[edit]

The article USS Cincinnati (CL-6) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:USS Cincinnati (CL-6) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Pennsy22. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

SS James A. Wetmore referencing[edit]

I didn't change the referencing style out of personal preference, it's that I don't think this style works well with these type of references. If you look at the article, you just can't tell which reference is from which source with the exception of "Davies 2004". This is the only one with an author/date that you can use to positively tie the reference to the bibliography. If they were all like that I wouldn't have changed it. If you don't like my way, I still suggest you improve it somehow. MB 15:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If you click on the reference it will take you to the article in the bibliography. Like I said, I appreciate the heads up on this alternative and I will consider it, just not sure if it's necessary. And thank you for being civil, it's a dying art.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
On another note, would you like me to change the ref style in the James A. Wetmore, I was just copy/pasting the same thing into all the ship namesake articles, so I can change it to match if you want.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't like having to click on a reference to find it, I think it should be intuitive from just reading the article. As I said, this style would work fine if the sources all had an author/date, but most of the sources here have neither. See the following quote from WP:Parenthetical referencing#Disadvantages: "Rules can be complicated or unclear for non-academic references, particularly those where the personal author is unknown, such as government-issued documents and standards." If you use this style because you don't like the references being in the source of the article as is normally done (which I find very distracting when editing) - my version used list-defined references which also minimized the amount of text in the source.
I've changed James A. Wetmore for consistency within that article. Thank's for adding that, I put everything I could find about Wetmore into that article but didn't know about the ship. MB 16:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seabee[edit]

Question for you. An editor added their "Dad" to the Notable Seabee section and I can find nothing to support this. If this is vandalism would you take care of it.

Thank you.Mcb133aco (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2017[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
As nominated by your peers as part of the 2017 Military History Newcomer of the Year Award process, you have been highlighted as an editor who has contributed significantly to the Military history project in 2017. As such, I hereby award you these Wikichevrons. Thank you for your efforts in 2017. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Seabee[edit]

Sorry to trouble you again. I was asked by Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 11 to write their Wiki page. That is a request you do not receive everyday and said would be glad to, but I had a lot of reading to do because I knew next to nothing about the battalion. I submitted it to Wikipedia and was accepted. It has now been tagged COI for a "major contributor". If you have a moment would you read and edit what you think to remove that tag. Thank you Mcb133aco (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Will add: that the posting of that COI tag is particularly irksome.  The Command of NMCB 11 had attempted to do their own Wiki article but had it rejected because of Wikipedia's COI policy.  They reviewed what else was on Wikipedia and requested that I do their article from what they saw I had done.  To them it solved the COI issue in that I had no affiliation or history with the unit and knew absolutely nothing about them.  You can read their "Special Request" on my talk page.    Wikipedia expects "good faith" but, my opinion is that in the ignorance of how this article came to be,  the posting of that tag was conjecture and speculation on the part of the editor(and then insinuates that the entire article may have COI issues but does not cite any).  I also object to the editing that was done.  Rather than edit word choice they deleted content.  Really want to read your thoughts,  Thanks
The COI tag has been removed. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I started a new job last January and have not had as much time as I used to for editing Wikipedia.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Categorization[edit]

Please do not make category redlinks. Per WP:REDNOT= "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists." Thank you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say![edit]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

Is there a reason you reverted my edits? A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

All you needed to do was edit the template, that's why it's there, not all the article pages. Did you even look at what you changed and what I changed?Pennsy22 (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Ahh ok I got ya, thanks for the explanation Face-smile.svg A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
A 10 fireplane, you're welcome, it wasn't anything personal. You're initial edit was good, as far as needing MPH added, you just went about it the wrong way is all.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well I'm glad you cought my mistake and correct it, happy editing Face-smile.svg A 10 fireplane (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Pennsy22. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards[edit]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MARCOM ships St. John's River SB Co.[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:MARCOM ships St. John's River SB Co. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards[edit]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]