User talk:Brad101/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

HMS Calliope (1884)

The FAC was actually promoted before you opposed, which in turn led to the delegates reverting your oppose. Unfortunately now your only redress is to bring up your issues on the article's talk page since the article cannot be nominated at FAR for three to six months at a minimum per the rules there. I sympathize with you on this, in fact I was planning on reviewing the article tonight. C'est la vie... -MBK004 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware the article had been promoted before my oppose. I opposed because the issues weren't addressed. Coincidentally, two days ago I posted reasons why I hardly review articles anymore. At least they have proven me correct by their latest actions. --Brad (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, although you will most definitely see this in due time, you might want to jump on it now. Apparently your proposal with the shipwrecks folks have raised some bad feelings? This also involves the Meta project banner issue which we all know will come around again. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ships.2FShipwrecks_tagging -MBK004 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to do with bad feelings - whether the ships project or the shipwrecks project continue their separate ways or not - there is a lot of insufficient project maintenance - whichever way you go - even parsecboy wasnt thinking when trying to replace shipwreck tags this am with ship templates in the project space - SatuSuro 04:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Brad, I will be happy to discuss your concerns when I return. Your comment on the Navy site raises an interesting issue: whether a document which bears a publisher's name should be cited to that name, or the new one, and the fact that the source is online may bear on that. As to citing infoboxes, there is no consistency in ship FAs. As to citation format, there are a variety of styles and preferences. I will be happy to discuss your concerns about these matters. Regards, Kablammo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.104 (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I hope I can live up to the way I started the Australian Maritime History project - I do hope by the time I have done my bit - there will be more confidence in the shipwreck project - thanks for your comment at ships - it is appreciated SatuSuro 05:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ships table

You had asked for an assessment table for the Ships project that only lists some of the assessment classes. That table is now being updated at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Ships-1. You can transclude it from there to any other place.

The table will be updated daily, but only when it has changed since the last time it was uploaded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I installed it to {{Ships sidebar}} which appears on our project pages. The full table still resides on the assessment page. Nice to have both versions. --Brad (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
No B-class? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
eeeeep. Good catch Ed. I'll make sure it's corrected. --Brad (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
:) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I added B-Class; I omitted that from the list somehow. I updated the tables just now, and B-Class will remain in the future updates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; looks good. --Brad (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification?

Hiya. I believe that you were the one to apply the clarification tag to the sentence "Contrary to myth, the ships do not move noticeably sideways when a broadside is fired." over at Iowa class battleship; but for the life of me I can not figure out what you want me clarify. Could I trouble you to stick a note on my talk page or the article talk page or in hidden syntax in the article itself so I can figure out what you want clarified? Also, I wanted to thank you for taking such an active role in the FAR; I have trouble sometimes getting good feedback from the PR system, so naturally I am thrilled to see that the FAR is generating lots of suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to say thanks for the clarification. Also, I would like to extend an offer to join Operation Majestic Titan, we could use a outstanding editor such as yourself. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: New ship articles

Will do! Bonewah (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Constitution article

very nice article, and I plan to support. May I help you with a few of your awkward verb problems? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you were referring to USS Congress (1799) which is currently at FAC, I would appreciate the help. --Brad (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves 
By order of the coordinators of the Military history Project, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your excellent work on a sizable number of nautical articles that fall within our scope which has produced a number of high quality articles for the Military history Project and WikiProject Ships. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It is/was also awarded for your reviewing. A personal thanks from me for the times you have reviewed my articles; though we have disagreed, all of them provided good suggestions to improve the article. In particular, it was you who drove me to get Garzke and Dulin's United States Battleships in World War II for North Carolina-class battleship, which improved the article greatly. Thanks a lot, friend. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. There are often times when I don't get involved in reviews because I'm aware that I have a less than subtle way of reviewing. It's certainly understandable that an editor can become annoyed when another editor beats the crap out of an article which they have invested a lot of time working on. Likewise a reviewer can become annoyed such as I pointed out over at FAC. At least it appears by your messages that my hammer reviewing is not taken as the insult it can be misconstrued as. --Brad (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Congress

Congratulations on the FA promotion! Any chance of expanding the lead a little bit? To me, it seems a little bit short. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well..maybe.. I just finished reinstalling my computer and trying to get things back to normal. You're welcome to give it a whirl. USS President is the next FAC and I'm trying to clean that one up. --Brad (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

USS President

Hi Brad: Roger, wilco. Just let me know when you are done as there is a little material from Winfield that I would like to add and there is some editing for style that might be appropriate.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What does Winfield have to say? --Brad (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Minor stuff re being laid up in UK. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There is another conversation about the Royal Navy career going on at ships talk. I restored some information in the captured section at the bottom relating to the subject. If you can source more of the Royal Navy career it would help a lot. --Brad (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I have Winfield at home and will add the info tonight. Mostly it would be a rewording of the stuff Rif Winfiedl put into the ships talk page. Incidentally, I would still like to see the British career, such as it was, broken out into a separate, albeit small, section labeled "Fate". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the relevent matter re 1818 was that there were certainly consideration early that year of refitting the President and she was then surveyed, only to establish that she was too far decayed to be wortth the expense. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

I wanted to take a moment and tell you good job on the work you did on this article. It looks tons better. I would dare say that it meets B class currently and I hope you or one of the other major editors intend to submit it for GA review in the near future. I think with the work you have done this article is getting close to being in FA territory and the GA review would be the first milestone. --Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

Twice I have followed your "mos" work to fix a mos problem you introduced: you have been adding non-breaking spaces where they are not needed. Have a fresh look at WP:NBSP to see if the guideline has changed relative to when you first used it to form your style. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brad101. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.
Message added 05:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You said you couldn't wait for the third nomination. Well, it's a different ship, but with these AFDs so close together... -MBK004 05:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yamato FAC

Hey, Brad, I and a few others have done some work on your concerns with the FAC for Japanese battleship Yamato. Would you mind checking back in sometime in the next couple of days? I've managed to significantly trim down the usage of combinedfleet about as much as I was able to. Cam (Chat) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright. That should be the last of them. One of your comments was somewhat confusing, so I've asked for clarification on the FAC page. Could you also re-check your objections to the article on the grounds of 1-C? Cla68 and TomStar81 are fairly sure that they've dealt with those concerns as well. Cam (Chat) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

lol

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Award for this edit summary, which made me laugh. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the weird loading, just as I hit save the power went out; guess the info did not all make it through before the computer died. MBK pointed that out to me this morning, so this was my first order of business for the day. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Cruisers

Just a quick poke. Have you been able to scan it? If you can't, don't worry, I'll just try to get it through inter-library loan this summer (or have bahamut do some grunt work ;). Thanks for your help, Brad! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should request the book yourself. Long story here which you don't want to hear anyway. It seemed like a simple thing but as usual the simplest things are the most complicated. --Brad (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that problem. :) Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

List of current ships of the United States Navy

Brad, you are listed on the maintained template for this article, yet apparently it hasn't been updated for some time because there is now a newbie clamoring for an update on the talk page as well as the reinstatement of the removed section on the recently decommissioned ships. I see in the history that you have recently edited the article with newly commissioned ships, but there might be something to the newbie's comments. -MBK004 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I had thought you went through all that a few months ago but no matter. It's updated now although I'm not one to come running because someone is clamoring. "So fix it" comes to mind. --Brad (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I may have, but I seem to remember not doing it all, and as to the so fix it, usually I would, but I figured you would also want to chime in on the discussion where the new editors are coming to a consensus to add back in a section you removed. -MBK004 03:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If you've already read this, you may want to again, I just noticed that I made a critical error in word choice in the above sentence. -MBK004 05:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
When I said "so fix it" I was referring to the talk page crowd. It seems silly to complain about something that is easily corrected. Anyway, my Navy News Service subscription must be failing to report all ship activities. I'll have to start doing regular checks. I noticed all of the additional updates you made.
As for the removed section, I've no intention of ever placing it back into the article. I've already gone around and around on that issue with that other verbose guy who likes to insult and stalk people. --Brad (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I had done it on my own. But I don't want to disturb you in your list. Additionally I was not sure if there may be a reason that these ships were still in the list. But in future I will do. First you obviously don't think that it is necessary to speak with the talk-page-crowd. And second I don't want that you have to run when some stupid newbie is clamoring something. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind what MBK says; he's a WikiCop. What you pointed out on the article talk page was helpful because it made me realize that the news service I subscribe to has been failing to inform me of all ship changes. Apparently it only tells me about some of them. In short, the page is now updated. I'm sure you noticed that the Naval Vessel Register is used for the sources. Whenever you hear or read a news report about a ship commissioning, for example, it's likely that it was a commissioning ceremony. The NVR only records the official information sent to them by the Navy. There is often a discrepancy on ship articles here because of this difference. --Brad (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Battleship Haruna

Hey, Brad, I'm giving consideration to taking Japanese battleship Haruna on an FAC run. However, with your comment about a heavy reliance on combinedfleet during my last FAC, I'm somewhat mindful of being overly-obsessive with one source. As tricky as Yamato was to find sources for, Haruna is even more difficult, with the result that it comes down to about three books used for virtually all the main references. I'm wondering: would you be able to do a sort of pre-FAC review of the article and let me know what needs improvement before a potential FAC run, if indeed you think it is capable of a successful one? Thanks. Cam (Chat) 05:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I will respond in more detail later. I'm a bit jammed at the moment. --Brad (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The fundamental problem still exists with a heavy reliance on one source. Combinedfleet is nicely referenced with a fairly extensive bibliography so it would qualify as a reliable source. But my question is why not try and find and reference some of the books that Combinedfleet has in their bibliography? Combined fleet is almost comparable to wikipedia in that they have articles based on other sources. --Brad (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Funerary art/archive1

You might want to take a look again at your oppose at the above, now that there has been further work done on the references. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Stone Frigate

Talk:Stone frigate (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I find it interesting that you both tagged and assessed "stone frigate" and then said it was not in scope a few years later... Is the first or the second an error?

70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The first would be an error. --Brad (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A-class review

Hi. I've replied to your oppose on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Habsburg.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also addressed your oppose at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Árpád.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

edits to Douglas MacArthur article

Hello Brad101. I really appreciate all the hard work that you and Hawkeye7 have put into this article. I would like to see it approved as a FA, and every edit I make is intended to move the article in that direction. Some of these edits will be controversial, and perhaps even entirely wrong. For that reason, I very much appreciate the checks and balances that are inherent in this Wikiproject, as well as attentive and thoughtful editors like yourself.

With respect to the edit I made a few minutes ago, which you reverted ("Malcolm died of measles in 1883."), here is why I made that edit: I do not see how this fact is in any way relevant to MacArthur's story. So what if 5-year-old Malcolm died of measles? Douglas MacArthur was 3 years old at the time, and would have had no recollection of him. Malcolm's death, while admittedly tragic, neither assisted nor hindered MacArthur's development as one of America's greatest military leaders.

I disagree with your reversion of my edit, but I do respect your opinion, so I will leave your edit intact. I look forward to collaborating with you on this and other articles in the future. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

His family members are important despite that Malcolm only lived a few short years. His entire family is mentioned in the article. But I also reverted the passage you removed about Fredrick Funston as that too is important in context of Mac A's not being awarded the MoH at Veracruz. You also need to be careful not to remove citations from the article as one citation might be backing up other passages. --Brad (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class ref

Hi there. I see you linked on of my edits to that article in your "sweeping under the rug statement". I didn't qrite any of the article's info, but tried to cite the facts already given and marked as non-reliable. If you meant that the statements I cited with my polish ref are closely paraphrased, a simple Ctrl+F on the article once linked as being paraphrased renders only the mention of the Sea Hawk and SeaKing as aircraft used on the ship. Am I missing somthing? I understand your concerns, I'd rather see this FT demoted while we perfect everything than raise it. Buggie111 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My question as to the ref is why are you using a document written in Polish to cite an article written in English? Since the Iowa class were capital ships of the US Navy there should be plenty of sources in English to cite what you need. Using this Polish source isn't allowing most readers to follow up and check the references because they can't read it. Neither can anyone easily access the document. --Brad (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies on both counts. Yes, I'll try to check Jane's and other refs that I have, but I'm not that sure. Hope to bump into you again. Buggie111 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert on this page

Firstly, change the title to Iowa ref or whatnot after this has been adressed. You seem to have the folowing text on your talk: min=4 min=1. While this might be your way of informing some people of Miosaza's edit times around this page, you already have it under your Misaza settings. Sorry if I caused any trouble. Buggie111 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer is not to mess with another editor's talk page other than using it for communication. I know the text is there and why it's there and want it to stay there. --Brad (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Action of 1 August 1801 FAR

A previously uninvlolved editor has gone through and changed around some of the prose and terminology in the areas you requested it be done in. I was wondering if you think the changes are sufficent to now warrent your support for featured article status.XavierGreen (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WT:SHIPS

I don't follow what you're saying. I'm copyediting almost all of the A-class reviews for FAC, I try to answer questions to encourage people to try for FAC (which is what that post was about), and of course I've done the updates on policy and style guidelines for almost 2 years ... and this adds up to "I have a problem with FAC"? I do quite a bit for FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well.. likewise you didn't understand what I said either and apparently Ed doesn't understand your post as well. So now we have a Mexican standoff. --Brad (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, fair enough :) I'll rewrite ... please tell me if it's better. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A Mexican standoff with no guns? How much fun is that? :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought about doing some Q & A but gave up; I think it's just going to be too hard to give people copyediting advice that will work at FAC, so I'm going to have to weigh in at FAC from time to time on articles I copyedited, which will put me in the middle. Good thing there are no guns involved, I'd get my head blown off. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I resign

I guess I lack anything needed to save the Iowa-class articles, so I resign from the effort to get the class article back to featured status. Its in your hands now, brad. All I ask is that you do a good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Z45 and others

Brad, before I go insane, could you please asses Z45 and the others of her class for a MilHist B? I'm in the contest, and the way you put the B on for ships, well, it brought my hopes up . I won't be on after 5:00, so I won't be able to fix any future problems. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Brad? Buggie111 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no; I stopped doing milhist assessments over a year ago for reasons I'd rather not go into. --Brad (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. Have a nice day! Buggie111 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Hello Brad101. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Ships and wanted to let you know that per the request on the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost, I have decided to feature the project on July 5. I will post interview questions here and look forward to your replies. Thank you, monosock 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please pass this note on to another WP:SHIPS member.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I was a bit confused by this edit [1]. That section is purely a lead/summary of the next section, and is therefore entirely reliant on the sources there. Do I really need to copy them all again, even as this is not necessary for the main lead section? Fourth ventricle (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen an article with a lead section other than at the top of the article. All I saw was a paragraph without a citation. --Brad (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted it then. Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me what I need to do to pass the FAC. I think I've done everything you requested. Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. Do yourself the favor of going through a Milhist A-Class review. A couple of people at the FAC mentioned that you should have done so and I agree. That will hopefully find any other problems. A-class is supposed to be a preparatory step to FAC. Brad (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Talk page

Sorry about that logic was added to the bannershell to always collapse (unless told otherwise) by default so normally there is no need to have it. The FAQ logic does not include it however and in this case the entire shell is collapsed (which I don't like because it hides the wikiprojects from view causing inexperienced editors to not know they are there). I will try and add some logic to my edit to compensate for that and I will watch that article to make sure I don't do it again. Thanks and let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry - I must have been rather confused, or in a rush - not my normal style at all. Yours, Shem (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

B-class check?

Hey Brad, when you get a moment, could you pop over to flag of convenience and check the 2 remaining b-class criteria? I'm mulling over running it through the GA process. Thanks. HausTalk 02:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! HausTalk 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Surry (ship)

Hi, I have done a lot more work on the Surry (ship), how does it rate now? AWHS (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a B. You only need Surry in the lead section. The rest of the instances of Surry should be Surry without bold text. Brad (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, my first B.AWHS (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Xenobot Mk V

Hey Brad. This bot has been around for a year and I've never heard of it. Long story short: it does some auto tagging & assessing. Thought it might be of interest to you. I haven't really formed an opinion on it yet. Cheers. HausTalk 22:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My experience with bots and project tagging hasn't gone well in the past. It's difficult to come up with every possible scenario where the bot might screw something up and I've had it happen. But besides that I'm fairly confident I've covered ships tagging to at least 90% of the articles that may fall under the scope. But even my eagerness has tagged articles that don't belong in the ships scope as I mentioned before. I'm still finding articles like that. Brad (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Armament of the Iowa class battleship

RE: unreliable source. 1; Gun length is 68 feet (muzzle to breech). http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/AMMUNITION/NAVORD-OP-769-CHAPTER-3-GUN-ASSEMBLIES-PAGE-1.html

2; Weight's. Gun, with screw box liner, lb 239,156 

             Gun, with recoiling parts, lb   292,000
             Yoke weight, lb                  38,500

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/AMMUNITION/NAVORD-OP-769-CHAPTER-3-GUN-ASSEMBLIES-PAGE-1.html

Brad, I did not check the source contained in the article, this I found on my own. As for correcting the page, I am not familiar enough to do it on my own. I would more than likely mess it up. Also, it might be a nice thing to ask Mr Slover for permission to cite his reference. As I understand it band with is not free. I do not have a user or talk page, so I hope you are able to make corrections. If it is necessary to contact me, I can be reached at Yahoo. Daddio478 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Daddio478

Necker Nymph

Hello, I was wondering why Necker Nymph wasn't in scope of WP:SHIPS... as other submarines in the personal subs category have WPSHIPS banners?

76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The last conversations at WPSHIPS decided that personal watercraft under 100' in length were not going to be covered by the project. There are exceptions of course but Necker Nymph was described as a recreational craft for tourism or personal use. There may very well be project tags in the personal sub category but that doesn't mean they're correct. Categorization is not always a good way to identify what does or does not belong to a particular project. Articles are often miscategorized. Brad (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment?

Hey Brad. Could you take another look at the assessment for MV Mariam? I fleshed it out in response to the AfD, and it would probably be unseemly for me to assess it higher than start-class. Thanks! HausTalk 17:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It made B class really easy. Nice work! Brad (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Honestly I was on the fence about B2 — I wish I could find out more about the machinery and a picture. But you're undoubtedly the assessment master, and I can't complain about the outcome. :) Thanks again. HausTalk 13:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Likely it wouldn't make GA in its present form but B-class allows for a lot of leeway; considering how far it came from the original stub. Brad (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jul-Dec 2009

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariam (ship)

I saw your work on Mariam (ship), I hope that you will help me edit a similar article on the ship Avrazya.AMuseo (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brad101/Archive_5&oldid=1136203835"