User talk:MBK004

edit count | edit summary usage

User Page	Talk Page	About Me	Userboxes	Battleships	Sandbox	Userspace	Contributions

Leave a message, sign your posts, get a reply. New topics go at the bottom! Image by Mailer Diablo.
Please feel free to leave a message (or email), but if you post here you I ask that you observe the following requests: Due to IP vandalism with regards to automatic archiving, this talk page is semi-protected, if you wish to leave me a message, please create an account and wait for autoconfirmation. Place new messages at the bottom of the page, not at the top. This preserves the chronological order for the page. Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header== and Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Please indent your posts with : if replying to an existing topic (or :: if replying to a reply). If you are looking for a prior conversation, I usually archive conversations after one month of inactivity.	Archives Archive 1 (July 2007-January 2008) Archive 2 (January 2008-April 2008) Archive 3 (April 2008-September 2008) Archive 4 (September 2008-)

USS Texas (BB-35) copyedit

I gave a pretty thorough copyediting pass to USS Texas (BB-35). I have some thoughts, observations, and questions.

• Note #13 "BATTLESHIP TEXAS (BB-35)" is a dead link. From the web address, I would surmise that it might not have been considered an RS for eventual FA consideration, but it is the cite for several items in the D-Day sections. #26 "The Sand Pebbles" link might be rejected as a non-RS, also.
• In note #12, the phrase "German Luftwaffe" is redundant (arguably, at least).
• In the last paragraph of the "World War I" section, is the 40-mile figure nautical miles, as one would expect? The hard-coded conversion previously in the text treated it as statute miles, so I left it as that.
• In the "Rehearsal" section and the "D-Day" sections there are two somewhat overlapping lists of ships. I wasn't clear if they were two distinct units with overlapping and/or changing membership (heat-of-battle type shifts) or descriptions of the same unit from, perhaps, two different sources.
• Also, in the 2nd paragraph of the "D-Day" section, it seems like a similar situation about targets on Omaha beach. Like maybe the same actions are described, again, perhaps, from two different sources.
• doncram (talk · contribs), at my invitation, added the National Historic Landmark (NHL) information to the article. The NHL infobox he added is somewhat compatible with the ship infobox, so depending on how you want to go with it, it could be incorporated into the ship box, as well.
• For A-class and FAC, the lead section for the article should probably be expanded to four paragraphs. I might structure it as follows: the first paragraph could be fleshed out with some info on builder (who, where, when); a second paragraph to summarize up through WWI; a third for Interwar and WWII; and then keep the current final paragraph as the fourth and final paragraph of a new lead.
• I linked to a couple of men mentioned in the article, each of whom later had a USN ship named for them (Grant and McDonnell), even though both are redlinked now.
• I'm not sure of the significance of the "by hull number" in the last sentence. Is Texas merely the lowest numbered battleship that was made a museum ship, or was she the first (and coincidentally the lowest numbered) made a museum ship. If the former, I honestly don't think thats all that significant; if it's the latter—as seems to be currently indicated in the lead—it need to be reworded for clarity.
• Unless you have deep-seated reasons for retaining the current reference setup at the end of the article, it would certainly make for a cleaner notes section if the full details of books were listed in a "Reference" section with a citation of something along the lines of "Smith, p. 25." in a "Notes" section. (See USS Siboney (ID-2999), for example, of one way of doing that.)

Any questions – or complaints ;) – just let me know... — Bellhalla (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'll leave it to you to strike – or not ;) – from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics — Bellhalla (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that I can help you with some of these issues. I'll be back on in a few hours, right now I need a nap (18-hour days are exhausting :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I located the missing cite #13, it can still be accessed through the internet archive. Here is the working link, you can check the info out if you want or simply readd it to the article. The rest I will look more conclusively into tomorrow, time permitting. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the archive link to the ref, and after poking around the archived site, it would qualify as an RS (for me, at least). — Bellhalla (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be done with school by then, and hopefully will be back in full force (assuming I don't die first). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having officially nominated the Montana class for GA status I have finished my current project, so I am starting on this checklist next. I added a copy to my sandbox a couple of days ago, and will be crossing off items there as they are dealt with. Thought you might like to know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, A-class will follow for the Montana's just as soon as GA-class is cleared. Also, above copy of the list in my sandbox has more items crossed off at the moment; you may want to check to see if you concur with the items I've crossed off and update the list accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

She will. We can use the Montana FAC as a starting point to anticipate what sort of problems we are going to get and address them before they evolve into problems at FAC. Have faith in the battleship and the work we have both done, each of us has a reputation for getting the job done, and we can play to that strength at FAC when this article goes up. Trust me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When you get a moment, could you take a look at this link and tell me what you opinions on the matter are? I, like you, would like to see this go FA before the end of the year, so I have been working on the points for a few days now, but could use a second opinion on what still needs done. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point we may be at a point where we could feesably nominate Texas for A-class and see if the community thinks the ship is there yet. This would also be a good way to get info on any last second changes that need to be implemented proir to an FAC. If she clears ACR with no compliants than all that will remain is bellahalla's suggestions for improvement, and we pretty much have those checked off. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to think that the D-Day section may benifit from the inclusion of a map to better ID points like "Point-D" and areas like "Point du Hoc". What do think? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I found two that could serve the article well: this one and this one. We also have Image:Omaha 1944 Initial assault.jpg on site, although I have to say I like the other two better. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Both come from the servers at Westpoint, thus they are PD. I found the link over at the logistics department. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin help: POV edits to USMC article

I'm sure you noticed that an editor has been constantly changing the wording of the United States Marine Corps article, specifically the subsection of addressing veterans, to be more POV toward those who have had a dishonorable discharge. Specifically, Wrestleforpizza & 71.123.16.83 have made identical changes (example: [1] & [2]). Wrestleforpizza has been warned once for this (User_talk:Wrestleforpizza), and the anonymous IP has been warned 3 times and blocked by yourself (User talk:71.123.16.83)... if you look at the history, you'll see that once the IP was blocked (03:49, 7 September), the person logged in and continued the same edits (16:59, 7 September 2008). I think it's safe to say that not only did the editor not get the hint, but that he has a single purpose account as well, and I would speculate that this individual has recieved a dishonorable discharge as well. I've also left this message at User talk:ERcheck. bahamut0013♠♣ 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Featured Topic

Seems that way. Assuming that Bellhalla doesn;t beat us to it we ought to have the first ship FT on wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SS Normandie again

Hi MBK004, hope you are weathering the hurricane alright. Just to mention, the merge suggestion has been on there for five months now. Perhaps some action can be taken to merge the page histories, etc. as suggested, or the merge suggestion removed for later? Regards. SynergyStar (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you urgently help Milhist please?

We've had a rather large bombshell dropped on us. The Wikipedia editorial team are aiming to release a version of Wikipedia on CD/DVD in time for the end of year holiday season. They've provided us with a list of 1333 Milhist articles they intend including.

The problem is that the quality of these articles varies considerably.

We've put together review page listing all the articles, in twenty-five article worklists. I'm hoping that 15-20 trusted editors can work through the list, weedying out problem articles and identifying suitable versions for release. The work is as far away from a tagging and assessing drive as you can imagine though, for convenience and ease of use, we've closely followed the traditional Milhist drive format.

This is, at the moment, an invitation-only review. The reason is that time is short and we can't afford too many mistakes. I'm only contacting experienced editors who performed very well indeed in the last two Milhist drives. I guess that working through a worklist of twenty-five articles will take between one and three hours to do. We're aiming to get the preliminary work done by next Sunday, so it's urgent too.

I do hope you can help but – if it's not too much trouble – if you are unable to participate at the moment, would you please let me know on my talk page? Thank you for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Welcome Back

Yeah, I finally managed to think about the deletion and not go into a rant immedately afterward, so I think I can handle being back again. Unfurtenly, though, I have a lot of schoolwork to see to, so my collage/busy template is going to start seeing exercise. Good to back though. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we include Clayton Hartwig in the push for FT status? I can see the basis of the arguments both for and against, he was on the Iowa and was accused of caused the explosion in the turret, although later cleared of the charges. I hadn;t planned on including him originally, but I am interested to know what you think. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but opted for a second opinion since I did not want to appear to be acting entirely on my own. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Box

John J. Pershing's stars

I saw your comment at the coordinator referendum on Kirill's position just now, and wanted to bring this to your attention since I was the one who first started awarding the five and six star images for coordinators: I intend to award award Kirill the star ensignia created by General John J. Pershing in recognition of his new title of Coordinator Emeritus(?). Pershings star design is unique in that the design uses gold stars rather than silver and served as the first star ensignia for the rank of General of the Armies. Since both of your templates - lead and corrdinator - employ the five and six star pattern I originally used I thought you might like to know ahead of time what I was planning to use in case you wanted to create a userbox with the same image. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting that vandalism on my user page...lol, I love it when I see stupid stuff like that! Cheers, —the_ed17— 04:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Constitution

Sorry about making a mess you had to clean up. I didn't even think about why the "topic" didn't match the topic I placed the article under. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Shenzhou 7

Hey, thanks for leaving me a message about vandalism warnings. I do in fact have a link to those templates (I saved it on my userpage so I can find it easily); I just wasn't sure if the edit I was reverting was really vandalism or just stupidity. (Although I think they have a template for that, too...). Anyway, I will post a warning at that IP address' talk page, unless you've already gotten around to doing it. Thanks again! —Politizer^{( talk | contribs )} 04:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you already got it done. Thanks, —Politizer^{( talk | contribs )} 05:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Userbox: Coordinator emeritus

You mentioned you were going to make one ... May I suggest using the Golden wiki as the graphic? I'm going to give one to Kirill at midnight (UTC) and it might be nice to reflect it in the user box. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....perhaps take the star-emblem of the coordinators and superimpose it over the golden wiki? Just a thought...Cam (Chat) 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Kirill doesn't use userboxes, this is a non-issue until we appoint another coordinator emertius. We can deal with it then, I guess...-MBK₀₀₄ 06:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you

File:Lorrette Cemetary.JPG		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your much appreciated support in the recently concluded September 2008 Military History Wikiproject Coordinator Elections. I was thoroughly surprised to walk away with a position of Coordinator. Thank-you for your support, and I assure you that I will do my best to serve this spectacular project well. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 01:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Notre Dame de Lorrette Cemetary - Arras, France

Congrats!

Coordinator of the
Military history Wikiproject,
October 2008 — March 2009

Congratulations on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well; welcome to the club! ;-)

(If you haven't come across them before, incidentally, we have several essays that contain some useful—in my opinion, anyways—advice for new coordinators.) Kirill ^(prof) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

About my removing mass content from term Shenzhou 8

I have paid attention to that you have restored my edit on term Shenzhou 8, and have left a message about this on my talk page. First, I must appreciate and thank your reminder and direction. But I also want to delare that, according to a declaration by Zhang Jianqi from CNSA at 29 Sept 2008 (i.e. two days ago), the 8-ton vehicle that was said to be Shenzhou 8 will actually be Tiangong 1, and Shenzhou 8 itself (whose information in details are in fact still unrevealed) will be another vehicle to dock with Tiangong 1. So, the information on the last version of Shenzhou 8 was mostly wrong, that is the reason why I remove them.

I have now edited the term again, and this time I managed to keep the references in the last version, and left the explanations for removing mass content, as you have kindly directed.

I appreciate and thank your reminder and direction again.

Greeneese (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Homely Features

Hey...I wasn't trying to have a conversation with him...I only made one edit and was trying to clarify his statement that seemed to say he would just come back after 24 hours and make the same edits... --Smashville^talk 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Aaron Sorkin

Yeah, I'm sorry about that...I realized afterwards that something like that might have been the case. My apology. madkayaker (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Oh no, there's no need to apologise at all. I just don't think it is notable or noteworthy at all. I was a bit worried that if it was on signpost some people might think it was a deliberate political move or whatever, but I don't think it is. Although with all the nonsense that happens on Wikipedia in lots of places, I don;t blame anyone if they do think that. See my talk page for more details. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I had made some changes to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which were found to be not constructive. I had added the fact that van Roosevelt came from Tholen,Province of Zeeland,The Netherlands. Why did I think that that change was relevant? Because the capital of Zeeland, Middelburg houses the Roosevelt Study Center ( on American Political History) since 1986 and the Roosevelt University (a college of the University of Utrecht) since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Wijntjes (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add my name to the last message on Roosevelt. Best regards, Bert Wijntjes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Wijntjes (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo

Hello. I'm looking for some input regarding the Yahoo#Yahoo.21_International section of this article. I found your user name in the list of participants at Wikipedia:WGA#Participants. As you can see, the article is still growing and has been rated B-Class by five of six of the Wikiprojects that it falls under. The Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area has rated it Start class. I would like to know what your thoughts are regarding this section. I don't think it is helping the article because it's a simple list of items with little prose of value. I placed an external link cleanup tag there two weeks or so ago. I am a major contributor to the article. I've worked specifically on the references. Before I started that process they were a mix of properly formatted refs with some as plain url's. So, would you mind helping me properly asses this section before I chime in on that articles talk page? Thanks! E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

4 star rank

I gather you know what an "AOG" rank is? I don't. Can you enlighten me? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's pretty much what I found too, but like you, I had assumed it was a non-trivial edit and I was puzzled. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cannon-class Destroyer Escorts

You sent me a message regarding recent edits to the Cannon-class destroyer escort page. While I appreciate the template, I simply regularized the format on the page; I wasn't about to go through all thirty-odd cites to add ' markers. Similarly, the documentation for the transfers to Uruguay are on the linked pages for the original ships. Further, there's no other documentation for other transfers and consistency would involve finding and adding those as well.

If you have free time, you're welcome to do all that; or script a bot that could correct all incorrectly unitalicized ship names throughout Wiki.

I was simply improving the article in the course of my work on the Uruguayan armed forces. If that's actually a reason for you to remove the information (hard to fathom why; it's not the bio of a currently living person & it's an improvement to the article), do add the information to the Talk:Cannon class destroyer escort page so that later editors will know it's there and to look for further information. -LlywelynII (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Taskforces

Hey there MBK, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, have been quite busy. In terms of the taskforces, I signed up for maritime because it is one of the ones that I actively monitor anyway and it is the area in which I have the most interest. It was Andrew Browne Cunningham's article that got me onto this encyclopedia in the first place! ;) So, at the moment I would prefer to stay as one of the coordinators for that taskforce. Of course it doesn't preclude from doing anything there, so I hope it is not a big deal? Regards. Woody (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh

Yeah I Know, i was about to do that. Thanks for reminding me? And Honestly, I think that page should be protected or the make that user blocked. II MusLiM HyBRiD II 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Milhist members category

I wrote a message about the milhist members category on the link that you sent me, thanks. --Banime (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

Thanks for the quick note earlier today. However, I have an unrelated request for rollback rights. However, I am not familiar with exactly what is required to attain them, so I'll just give my case and see. I have over 1200 edits and am a member of a number of projects and the counter vandalism unit. Although I do not spend the majority of my time fighting vandalism (I mainly work on articles, GA reviews, and AfDs) whenever I do I always feel like rollback rights would help out immensely. Is the rollback feature mainly needs based? Because I guess frankly I do not need the feature, it just would help and take away some of the hassle with reverting vandalism. I would not abuse the feature and know that if I am ever in doubt of when to use it, then I should not use it. If it is a question of my experience then that is fine as well. Thanks for your time! --Banime (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read them now. --Banime (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still interested in the feature if you deem my contribs/experience acceptable. However, if you also make the decision based on need, then since I do not spend the majority of my time reverting vandalism I suppose you shouldn't give it to me. It is just a hassle when I do fight vandalism to not have the feature as it makes it tedious. Thanks again for your consideration. --Banime (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration, if I contribute more heavily later and find it is still a big hassle to undo vandalism then I'll reapply in the future. --Banime (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Chosen Help

I added a section on USS Chosin (CG-65) "Ship Name" & added REF for ship name but it was deleted twice, I do not want a 3RR violation, but would like to know what I can do to fix the page so that I can edit it properly, and not get it reverted. I did site a reference and posted it.

Source: http://www.chosin.navy.mil/Site%20Pages/About.aspx Bossman00 (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

If you get a chance I could use an extra set of eyes here; to reduce the battleship bias in the article I had to add three new subsection that are not exactly well cited, and I was hoping that perhaps you would be able to add a few citations to the article from your own sources. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

About edits in 'Astronaut'

Then delete page 'Indian human spaceflight program' as this is also false as you say...User:TUSHANT JHA 18:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not at all trying to do unnecessary things but only trying to convince you all of India's space program by adding more and more resources.
If you are deleting on stand that it is local translation then :
1. 'naut' in 'gaganaut' is not sanskrit 2. Delete spationaut as ESA also doesn't has indigenous spaceflights 3. Delete Angkaswan and Taikonaut on same grounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by TUSHANT JHA (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

hiya mate, i understand you work on the yuri gagarin page. if you are intersted in him, i would like to discuss him with you, if thats okay? im the guy who made the entry about yuri hanging out with the wehrmacht during the war. would you care to see the "evidence"?

cheers mate

karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

hiya mate, i understand you work on the yuri gagarin page. if you are intersted in him, i would like to discuss him with you, if thats okay? im the guy who made the entry about yuri hanging out with the wehrmacht during the war. would you care to see the "evidence"?

cheers mate

karl

oh i forgot, would you please contact me with [email protected]#

ta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

USS New Jersey (BB-62)

After New Jersey leaves the mainpage it will be nessicary for us to check all the article linked to USS New Jersey and ensure that no subtle vandalism crept into them by means of the USS New Jersey article. Are you willing to help? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

response on User talk:Politizer#Speedy at USS Samar (PG-41)‎

I have responded to your comments at my own talk page, just in case Benea has any more comments. Thanks for your input, —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Cheers mate, be sure i'll make good use of it. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Response on eliminating the pronoun "she" from Coast Guard related vessel pages

You left me a message stating that I shouldn't change the pronouns on articles about Coast Guard ships without discussing it first. I did not think that was necessary to discuss as the Coast Guard themselves document that it is improper to refer to Coast Guard vessels as "she". See http://www.uscg.mil/mag/style.asp, Interestingly, the U.S. Navy is still OK with it -- just not the U.S. Coast Guard. I have only been writing and editing the Coast Guard Articles. If you want, I could bring it up on the WikProject Ships talk page, but there really isn't anything to talk about. The Coast Guard says referring to their ships as "she" is improper. Pmarkham (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the question to the WikiProject Ships page as you suggested. I'll be interested in the response. Pmarkham (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Middim13 is wondering if this editor is biased or simply "misguided".

Just stating the facts as they are truely known to be. Information on Royal Navy Submarines is accurate/correct and factual. SEE: John Philip Holland/Arthur Leopold Busch articles etc. etc. etc. Recent information is unearthed/and has resurfaced to accurately reflect on this information about Royal Navy Submarines. Do you hvae some sort of problem with the "nature" of this subject? I am not here to be biased or politically (in)correct in anyway. I have a certain amount of good character with integrity. Others do not. Only here to share information that is sourced and documented. Please don't rush to your judgements. Thanks for your unbiased understanding as you keep these things "Kosher". Of course, the truth cannot always be so. With understanding and all good wishes I am --Middim13 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with what is known to be true (in shipbuilding circles) than you are indeed doing this system of shared information a great disservice. I hope that I am wrong about your true character and that you are not so slanted in your approach to having integrity.--Middim13 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Understanding is certainly appreciated here. I am done "with ships".

Just letting you know that the information you edited from the Royal Navy site (first submarines) is accurate, correct and ideed true! Why you can't find a way to simply come to this "neutral" agreement I'll never understand! You may as well butcher the information about this (very same) subject that I contributed on the History of the Royal Navy page also. It's too bad that the honest truth will be suppressed many times by "specially priviledged" groups for all the wrong reasons! Please behave yourself as I will certainly do the same.--Middim13 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The WikiChevrons
		For service above and beyond the call of duty as part of Operation Silent Sentry, the October 15, 2008, effort to keep the mainpage article USS New Jersey (BB-62) vandal free and address any talkpage related question, I herby present you with The WikiChevrons. Semper Fi! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)