User talk:Brad101/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Article moves

Hi Brad, I appreciate the logic behind your recent moves but they are a little problematic, given that there was no HMS Belle Poule in 1802, nor an HMS Alceste in 1805, thus creating anachronistic titles. Perhaps this could be opened up to wider discussion before you make further moves? Benea (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok; feel free to revert or I can do that too. I was always under the impression that DAB by year of launch was the standard no matter what the ship name became in later years. Brad (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I certainly agree generally, but it becomes difficult when you have ships that change or enter navies through capture or purchase say, and sometimes you can have a French ship launched in 1800 and captured in 1805 and renamed HMS 'Foo', replacing a ship named HMS 'Foo' that served between 1801-1804. The French-built 'Foo' then appears to have been an HMS 'Foo' prior to the British built HMS 'Foo', when in fact the opposite was the case, and indeed sometimes creates the impression that ships were serving in a navy concurrently under the same name. The general rule of thumb has usually been to use the date of acquisition instead. (You were certainly right about HMS Alban (1805) though, which I can only assume was at (1806) through some sort of typographical error.) Benea (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brad, actually, Winfield gives Alban's year of launch as 1806. The typo, and it was almost surely mine, then was in the shipbox, not in the title. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved the article back to 1806. Please fix the incorrect 1805 dates. Brad (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten once again that I shouldn't be playing with RN ship DABs because of the complications. My original intent was that Category:1800s ships was getting a bit full and had enough articles to start breaking into individual year categories. Of course if I'm going to change a year category on a ship article I always look for other things that might need attention. It certainly hasn't hurt the article assessments; I've reassessed several of them to B class because they've been improved. Brad (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brad, Could we move HMS Belle Poule (1802) to French frigate Belle Poule (1802)? Her year of launch is 1802, but as a FF. Her year of acquisition for the RN is 1806. So calling her Belle Poule (1802) is misleading. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused now but by all means move the article where you feel it should be. Brad (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic FAC

Thanks very much for your comments on the Featured Article nomination of Sinking of the RMS Titanic. I've replied to the issues you raised - could you please take a look and indicate whether you might now wish to support the nomination? Prioryman (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Meermin (VOC ship)

Hello Brad101, thanks for rating this new article – barely a day old, and rated B-Class already! :o) My thoughts turn to nominating this article for GA: I did my first GA successfully over the recent Christmas holiday period, and feel ready to do it again here. Do you have an opinion on how ready the Meermin (VOC ship) article is for GA? I have someone in mind who might want to review it, but I might find myself asking around. Any thoughts? Thanks for your time. Nortonius (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see it's ready to be submitted for GA. You may want to have an uninvolved editor go over the prose for copyediting. I did not see anything in the article that would be a quick-fail at GA. Make sure the photos in the article have proper licenses. Brad (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The article did have a head start, with its close relationship to an existing GA – stating the obvious, in trying not to be cocky! I'll get on it. Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships and Italian coast guard

Hi!

Let's talk about this edit. Well, are you aware that the Italian Coast Guard is the agency that investigates maritime accidents in Italian waters? See, WP:SHIPS has to include this article in its scope because the Italian coast guard is the accident investigation agency for maritime accidents. In fact, the agency will be investigating the Costa Concordia disaster which took place quite recently. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The ships project is about ships; not military organizations or accident investigations. Milhist covers the military organization part of a Coast Guard. Accident investigations could be covered by {{WikiProject Transport}} and its maritime task force or Milhist. Brad (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was treating WP:Ships as a WikiProject not merely about ships, but about all aspects of shipping, commercial or not, like with WikiProject Aviation. That project covers all aspects of aviation, commercial or not. It has subprojects, on airlines, the aircraft themselves, airports, and accident investigations. Do you think that aspects of the shipping industry should be organized in the same way?

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In the past I have tried to bring together some sort of project that would cover all aspects of shipping, mostly for the civilian part. I was fought every step of the way by a few and a lack of comments from most everyone else. I gave up on trying. After that I had some comment on a Project Scope and that's where things are now. Brad (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

It may be almost a month since you (with The Ed17) chased Bish from the Project, and too late to do anything about it, but this is a request on your talk page, reiterating what I posted to WT:FAR,[1] to refrain from such posts in the future, and to improve your tone and nomination statements at FAR.

Timeline:

1. 22:41, December 5, 2011 Brad responds to a FAR post with TLDR
2. 13:04, January 1, 2012 Brad references "drones"
3. 17:45, January 1, 2012 Bish queries "drones"
4. 19:01, January 1, 2012 Nikkimaria warns (but note that Brad never struck)
5. 19:31, January 1, 2012 The ed17-- an admin-- defends Brad
6. 01:52, January 2, 2012 Bish mentions placating belligerant reviewer
7. 07:11, January 2, 2012 Brad refers to Wicked Witch of the West and her Monkeys, The ed17 placates
8. 08:56, 3 January 2012 Brad blames other editors for his outburst, refuses to strike (Are people really being told to "fuck off" at FAR, as well? This is getting worse and worse. Why is that Bishonen's problem?)
9. 22:00, January 3, 2012 Brad refers to Bish as "Bitchonandon" and Nikkimaria "drinking the kool-aid"
10. 23:52, January 3, 2012 Bish hibernates
11. 01:00, January 4, 2012 Appallingly, but at this point not surprisingly, The Ed17 redacts and covers up the "bitch", with narry[sic] a warning, and then a statement that Brad shouldn't "stoop to that level", when Bish never went there. Love the deferential edit summary there.
12. 20:27, January 4, 2012 Bish turns in bits, hasn't been back except one brief post
13. 07:00, January 5, 2012 Not to be outdone, and even more disgustingly, Brad next changes The Ed's redaction from his earlier Bitchanondon to Bishonen BACK to Bishonenon and still receives no warning-- allowed to call her names even after he's chased her from the Project.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Nazi" attack removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From this point forward anything you post here will be reverted. Brad (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that no matter how many times I refute Sandy's claims, she continues to post the same summary all over the place. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well... since our conversation is "being monitored or recorded for quality control purposes" I can't really blast the horn in the manner I'd prefer. Some fact checking would reveal that I'm not a member of the Milhist project and our paths have only crossed when there's been project overlap. Since we both happen to write about ships it must mean we're thick as thieves or swapping spit or something. With the hostile takeover of FAR in progress I can now "go play somewhere else" which is fine in this instance; it's win-win. Brad (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good thing, lest you get blocked by another admin. If you wanted to get back into the original frigates, I'm not sure many people would mind... ;-) Also, my email's open any time if you need to vent. Better there than here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm lulz a poppin. Brad (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. (bottom) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that already. Somewhere else recently was another "bish got chased off WP" comment. I'm not into recording diffs just so I can throw them up in peoples faces months or years later. Brad (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

using military navigation directly

I would appreciate your input on whether or not you prefer using military navigation directly or a succession template in USS Wichita (CA-45). Examples of both cases appear here and here. contrary to what may be assumed from the edit history of this article, I really don't care which method is used, I would just like to make sure we are consistent. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any centralized discussion on this so I comment here. I would go with your second link...a succession template. Brad (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

okay, I opened a thread on the talk page. it would be great if you could comment there. I will also inform Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a DICK

Since I doubt seriously anyone else will do it I just wanted to drop a note and let you know that I think you comments at the Bot requests page were extremely innapropriate.[sic] If you didn't like me or the bot thats[sic] on you. But making comments like that violates half a dozen different policies as well as showing just what kind of editor you really are. So I am going to give you the same kind of advice that others have been giving me the last week or so. If you don't have any worthwhile comments, then keep them to yourself. --Kumioko (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well "inappropriate" use of AWB is a policy violation too. They can arrest us both. BTW, for someone who reduced their work on WP you sure do post a lot. Take a look at WP:DIVA while I read WP:DICK. Brad (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to stoop to your level and keep doing this trollish behavior that you seem to like so much. To you, ten or so edits to discussions a day may seem like a lot. But for me its not since I was doing between 500 and 1000 per day on average and some days a lot more....Thats[sic] not even including how many my bot did (50, 000 plus a month for the 2 months it was running). I bet I did more edits in any 3 day period last month than you did the whole month. Its been my expereince[sic] those editors who talk the most trash are usually the least useful. You seem to be an odd exception. I have seen your edits and for the most part, most of the time you do good work. Why don't you just do that instead of pestering me! --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just in awe of your edit count and feel so inferior. At least I know that 98% of my edits are valuable ones. I think you run at about 25%. Brad (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone who did their first edit yesterday and who has only talked with one user, Headbomb, I have to say that your manners on here are terrible. In the past 2 days I have seen several editors react poorly (including Kumioko above) but your comments are simply shameful. You seem to represent the opposite in nearly every aspect of Wikipedia:Civility and are portraying a very negative image of what can be expected from a Wikipedia editor and its this sort of comment that I have seen over and over from multiple editors that keeps new ones like me away. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you come from the Navy Network Information Center are you sucking up my tax dollars while you caterwaul around WP? Just wondering. Brad (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If your trying to provoke a response from me as you seem prone to do, don't bother. You cannot anger me. BTW, I believe that if you are going choose a vocal communication sound that mimics my discussion patterns it would be more of a banter than a caterwaul! As well as Encyclopedias there are a couple of other useful manuals that are good references too, there called dictionaries and thesaurus'. You might want to check those out before you use terms out of context because you don't understand their meaning! 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed that 138.162.8.58 is Kumioko socking (and lying). Brad (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW

Comments like this serve no purpose but to pour oil on the fire. You're happy about it? I don't care, but please keep it to yourself in the future. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask if anyone cared I was happy but I've worn out my dancing shoes the past couple of days. I've also been playing Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead at full volume. Brad (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Eventually Brad the rest of Wikipedia will see you for what you really are. And when that day comes this place will be a lot better off. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• IP: 71.163.243.232
• Hostname:pool-71-163-243-232.washdc.fios.verizon.net
• ISP: Verizon Internet Services

Hmmmm Navy Network Information Center / Wash. DC / Kumioko stop sucking down my tax dollars while you work vandalize WP articles. Now really, I know children with more maturity than you. Hopefully the anger will subside one day. I shouldn't have started up in the first place but hindsight is 20/20. It's time to shut this down. Brad (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Think what you want but that IP ain't me. In fact I only edited tonight because my daughter needed help with her homework and I saw a couple comments on my old talk page. If you new anything outside of ships and having a bad attitude you would now that the Navy and Marine Corps are on one big network and use one IP as a proxy. That editor could be in DC or Houston. But don't kid yourself, you can't help but to make comments, you have a history of making poor and insulting comments and as I said its only a matter of time before the community finally tires of you insults and taunts. As for the tax comment I will rebut with a comment that you might say...lets see, your probably on Welfare or living off your parents anyway so at least I have a job. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a little funny you tried to make that IP look like me. All you have to do is click on it to see its in Virginia Beach, that's 4 hours from where I live. A bit more than a casual commute. Even still it could be anyone in the Navy or Marine Corps. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

USS Constitution

So just wondering, why did you revert my edits this time? You seem to be displaying an innappropriate[sic] amount of ownership over that article. Might I suggest editing something else for a while! Perhaps something fluffy and calming like Kittens.--Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Type C6 ship

This new article was rated Start Class. Assessment was not reqested as it is specifically tagged that it is under construction. How is rating it at this stage contributing to is in a constructive manner? Mariepr (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The article can always be reassessed later on when you believe it is complete. Brad (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Up to an unusual request?

Hey Brad. I've always wanted to add a bi or tri-monthly section to the Bugle that would include an argumentative essay... in my view, an academic paper that had its growth stunted, but it can go in any direction. Basically I'd be looking for you to come up with an argument (e.g. the original six frigates were/were not integral to the War of 1812 because...") and try to convince others of that through evidence. It'd be a change from normal WP writing, at least. So, cutting to the chase, would you like to write one for the April edition of the newsletter (you'd have about a month)? Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I can say right off that the six were not integral as a group although Constitution had an exceptional record. Two were captured, one was blockaded for the entire war; and two others had dismal records. With the one exception, they were overall failures. They were however, very integral with to the Barbary wars. Let me think about how this essay might roll. Brad (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't think I'm limiting you to that! Pick whatever topic would interest you the most. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ed. Nothing going on with this. Brad (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.15 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chennai FAR

Hi! The FAR for Chennai (review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chennai/archive2) has been ongoing for a while, and could use some comments to help wrap it up. Would you mind revisiting your comments on the page, and perhaps entering an opinion as to whether the article should be kept or delisted? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I'll have to pass. FAR has forever soured me. Brad (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Official number

Hi Brad, I was wondering why you redirected "Official number" to IMO ship identification number, when this is a completely different ship identification system, that preceded IMO numbers? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought that since the article was so very short it was better to explain 'official number' in the IMO number article. Would the 'official number' article ever expand to more than just three sentences? Brad (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to expand after finding some resources. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect. I should also point out that there are no incoming links to the article.. it's orphaned. Brad (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with SMS Emden

Hey I am trying to increase the page ranking from the WWI German cruiser Emdem is there a way you could help me with this project? That ship is kind of a personal passion and it is clear you have a lot of experience with editing these pages and I want to make the Emden one of the featured articles if not atleast a Good one. SMS Emden (1908) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuhmz (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at other GA class ship articles Category:GA-Class Ships articles to get an idea of what's needed. You might also ask Parsecboy (talk · contribs) who has worked on a lot of German ship articles. Brad (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Roberts (diplomat)

I'd appreciate comments on the Talk page for Edmund Roberts (diplomat). --Pawyilee (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

HMS Polecat (1782)

Hi Brad, Sorry about that. Sometimes these minor vessels turn out to have interesting histories, and sometimes they don't. That said, I am uncomfortable giving any kind of rating to any article I have prepared and so appreciate your efforts. On a related note, there are many vessels that served the Royal Navy that have even less info than Polecat, but that are the only one of their name. When the vessel is one of several, I can park some/all of the limited info available on the disambig page, together with the source, and hope that eventually more will be available. However, do you have any suggestions about what I could do about singletons such as HMS Oronoque, when these have too little info even to qualify as a stub? Any good ideas about some sort of an annotated list page? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Oronoque part of any ship class? If it was then placing the information in the class article is the way to go. If not, maybe it should be added to a "List of ships" article? Brad (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI closed

Hi Brad! I have closed the ANI report about Emerson7 after Emerson7 did this edit. I am not an admin. Feel free to revert me if you disagree with me. Arcandam (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Placentia class sloop

Hi Brad: Many thanks for the cleanup on the templates, categories, etc. I was working on it last night and got into such a muddle I gave up. As for pre and post sloop classes, there just weren't any. These two vessels were just a one-off aberration for the Newfoundland station. They didn't come from any predecessors in the role or type and didn't give rise to any successors. Again thanks for the help, Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

USS Leahy Question

Hi Brad! Looks like you removed my list of USS Leahy COs and XOs. Should I add a reference to a source page or is this information too specific? Relbats (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relbats (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you added the information so recently else I would have posted on your talk page before removing it. Anyway, lists of CO's etc aren't very helpful to the overall article unless a particular CO was involved with an important incident. Even then, the CO should be mentioned within the text of the article in the proper area. Brad (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

USS_America_(ID-3006)

While researching Willy Stöwer I came across an interesting color postcard of USS America, and uploaded a decent quality image to a web album (don't have WP upload access). You are welcome to use it (artist is deceased 70+ years). From here: http://www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,87767745,var,ILLUSTRATOR-WILLY-STOWER-AMERICA-UNITED-STATES-LINE-GOVERNMENT-SHIP,language,E.html ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

TFA reminder

President

• USS President (1800) for TFA 16 May 2011 Little Belt Affair. Place pending on 16 February 2011. Points: age=1; timing=6; Contributor history=1.

USS President was a nominally rated 44-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy. President was one of the original six frigates whose construction the Naval Act of 1794 had authorized, and she was the last to be completed. Her first duties with the newly formed United States Navy were to provide protection for American merchant shipping during the Quasi War with France and to defeat the Barbary pirates in the First Barbary War. On 16 May 1811, President was at the center of the Little Belt Affair when her crew mistakenly identified HMS Little Belt as HMS Guerriere, which was sought after for impressing an American seaman. The ships exchanged cannon fire for several minutes resulting in Little Belt suffering great damage. Subsequent U.S. and Royal Navy investigations placed responsibility for the attack on the other ship. The incident contributed to tensions between the U.S. and Great Britain that led to the War of 1812. (more...)

• USS Constitution TFA for 19 August 2012-
• USS United States (1797) TFA 25 October 2012-
• USS Chesapeake for 1 June 2013 -Capture
• Original six 27 March 2014 - 220th
• Brad (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: USS Tripoli (LHA-7)

Already enough information online to justify article: Reuters Navy contract DoD namingNavy naming Northrup-Grumman. Dru of Id (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for review

Thank you for reviewing my new article on the submersible Deep Diver and removing the "new article" template. I have now divided the article into sections -- does that make it eligible for B-Class status? Once again, thanks. :-) Gildir (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it to B-class. Brad (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks again! :-) Gildir (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

In this edit you moved Radium Queen (ship, 1937) to Radium Queen (ship) -- asserting the original disambiguation was "excessive and unneeded disambig".

Perhaps you didn't bother to go to the disambiguation page, and didn't notice the entry to Radium Queen (sternwheeler) -- described in Steamboats of the upper Columbia and Kootenay Rivers. This other vessel is also, technically, a "ship", so listing the date of commissioning was not excessive.

On the other hand your move of Radium King to Radium King (ship) -- what was that about? Geo Swan (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Having a year and an identifier is unnecessary. In the case of Radium Queen they should be dabbed by year. Radium Queen (year) for each one. Relative to the naming convention I was mistaken in my changes but (year, ship) should not be used. Brad (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• (year, ship) is what is used on the commons. Geo Swan (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

en.wikipedia is not commons. Your disagreement with this convention and the ship class template below should be discussed with the ships project as a whole. In the meantime, what should be done with the Radium Queen naming? Do you have launch years for both ships? Brad (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

a request

Th {{sclass}} template you introduced here seems to be broken.

Clicking on it takes one to Cutter (boat), not Sentinel class cutter.

If you wrote this template yourself would you please either fix it or revert it? Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I just checked. You didn't write {{sclass}}. And, no offense, it looks like you didn't read the documentation thoroughly enough. It says

  This template is for ship classes that are named after the lead ship. For ship classes that are named for a common theme, such as the Flower-class corvette, use instead.

The Sentinel class is an example of this second class. And I see that the reason it directed to cutter (boat) is that you explicitly sent it there.

Frankly, I don't see how providing two links, as this template does, is of value. Geo Swan (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!

Thanks for the B-Class upgrade to the quality assessment of the Marion Dufresne (1995) article, my first significant article. I'm glad somebody who knows what they're doing seems to think it came out all right. --Atani (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

MV Gwendoline Steers

Why did you eliminate 50% of my uploaded photos. Who is to judge how many photos is appropriate? I would think that most readers would want more information, not less. Hixguy1 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)hixguy1

The amount of images in the article far exceeded what would be considered appropriate for a wikipedia article. You can see those guidelines here. There's now a link to commons in the article where the rest of the pics can be seen. Of course you're welcome to change the pics to ones that you think are more informative while keeping in mind the guidelines. Brad (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

LCM (2)

Dear Brad101, Thanks for taking an interest in this article. Could you please help me with a problem? The infobox flags for the Navy and Coast Guard are different dimensions, for a reason beyond my comprehension. Do you know how to mend this? Could you please point me in the right direction to get help? On another subject - I have worked on a number of landing craft articles - making an unfortunate and basic mistake; title inconsistency. I know that the LCPL article ought to have been entitled LCP (L); the LCM 1 should be titled LCM (1). This would make everything conform to the most basic reference in this area: ONI 226, 1944. Is there any hope of changing them? Thanks much, AmesJussellR (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Flag size was changed this way. As far as the titles of articles go, I'm wondering if the whole plan should be reevaluated. Some of the other titles are a mix and match of styles: Landing Craft Mechanized, Landing ship, infantry, LCVP, LCM (2), Landing Vehicle Tracked, Landing Ship, Tank, Landing Craft Assault, and LCVP (Australia) just to name a few. There needs to be consistency. Brad (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As ONI 226, 1944, gives a consistent designation to everything in use in early 1944, that would be my vote for a standard. Unfortunately, I am not the one to take this on - I have no competence with the computer side of things. AmesJussellR (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Coast guard boats

Just curious - I noticed you removed the WPSHIPS tags from the Cutter Boat OTH and Defender class boats. While they certainly don't meet the 100/100 project Mendoza line, I thought all military boats regardless of size qualified? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know why I pulled the tag. I was dealing with so many "not in scope" articles yesterday that I was getting blind. I don't think the removal of the tag on those articles is of any consequence. Brad (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty. Yeah, they're pretty minor. Was just curious, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Port au Prince

Hi Brad, you will find that the blog actually copied its content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. The Wikipedia article was meant as a starting point for others to work on. If Wikipedia is now in the business of simply deleting content and not allowing for it to be improved then that is very sad thing and the bad situation within wikipedia has become even worse than I thought with more administrators than editors.

Once again the Wikipedia content was written first. The original content in the William Mariner (writer) article was written 10 April 2010 by user "Mrbheagney". The blog posting which had this content was created on 4 September 2011.

The approach to this whole issue by administrators has been clumsy, heavy handed and over zealous and there is now no detailed information available about the voyage of the Port au Prince which is rather like Nazis burning books to be quite honest and this is really sad and surely counter to the whole point of wikipedia which should be to act as a repository of information rather than just a platform for pedantry and meanness. Articles start and articles evolve and improve. Sadly this can not be the case with this article now it has been killed.

So as I said, the William Mariner article was written first. The blog then copied from wikipedia, second. I then copied from the same wikipedia, third, and foolishly referenced the blog, but I did that only because it provided additional information about the wreck site and the people who found it not for the historic content which I had said in the edit write up was from the other wikipedia article, which you acknowledge. The historical information about the journey was written by the other editor whom I previously mentioned.

This is all so TEDIOUS and so very, very depressing. I don't have the time for it. Editors no longer have time for it. There are too many chiefs and not enough indians. When is Wikipedia going to learn to be proactive again and not just destructive?? Why not re-word the article sufficiently so it is different rather than simply press "delete". It is just wrong and totally against the spirit of the project.

I request that you restore the pages or provide me with what was deleted so this can be taken in stages. Aetheling1125 10:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes you're correct. I missed the whole year difference and got stuck on 10 and 11 April in 2010 and 2011. It would be a matter of courtesy if the blog owner would place a credit to WP for the contents as it is requested that people do in those cases. There's a good chance this will happen again if the blog doesn't make the credit. Nothing is lost and I will proceed in closing the copyvio notices. Brad (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind putting a comment here [2] to that effect. Aetheling1125 16:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB question

Hey Brad, is it possible to use AWB to change Caliber#Caliber_as_measurement_of_length to Caliber (artillery) in all ship articles? I've never used it, but I believe you have, so you get this question. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's doable but the trick is to identify exactly which articles contain the passage that needs changing. Otherwise it would require that I scan the entire ship hierarchy from Category:Ships all the way through to find them. That's like 20,000+ articles. Another question is should any ship article that links to Caliber be changed to Caliber (artillery)? Brad (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Wooden warships with cannons would need to stay linked to caliber; it was only with modern guns that we transitioned to caliber (artillery)-style measurements. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Found this tool but it's reporting very few articles with that sort of redirect. Let me work on this for a bit and I'll see what I can turn up. Brad (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that only finds article redirects – we're looking for piped links in articles, unfortunately. Thanks Brad! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ellen Southard

Hello Brad - I was wondering after this edit if you possibly had access to a source that I don't, as I've not seen the ship's date of building anywhere. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you have a date of launch now it's an 1863 ship. Brad (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

USS Peacock (1828)

Having read your accolades, I sure would like to see you show up at Talk:USS_Peacock_(1813) with comments on the article, and to help wikify the article. The 1813 version did heroic service in the War of 1812, even if her last battle was after the war was over. She survived a battle with a whale, and as re-built in 1829, survived an encounter with what may have been a rogue wave; and went on to encounter the ship she had mistakenly attacked. In reading the article, I ask that you pay particular attention to:

• Her chronometers proving useless, she threads the Sunda Strait by dead reckoning.
• On 8 February, she weighs anchor for the gulf of Siam; the 18th she anchors about 15 miles from the mouth of the river Menam in latitude 13° 26' N. and longitude 100° 33' E. as was ascertained by frequent lunar observations and by four chronometers.
• Roberts omits the particulars of each day, but states that they serve to show the absolute necessity of having first-rate chronometers, or the lunar observations carefully attended to; and never omitted to be taken when practicable.

She had a fascinating history and deserves better than she's got. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

HMS Cleopatra (1835)

Sorry about the cross over on the edits. I'll hold off for an hour or so. Let me know when you've finished on the article, as I still have info to add NealeFamily (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm finished. Thanks for understanding. Brad (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

advice on a major edit

Hi Brad, I'm interested in the provenance of the frigate Constellation that resides in my hometown, Baltimore Maryland. I'd like to make a major edit to the current article and contribute the verifiable sources that I feel are missing. Thereby strengthening the article. Given the contentious history of its provenance, I'd like to work within your guidelines and wikipedia etiquette as I edit. I believe with your able assistance we can get these verifiable sources on the record. How is the best way to proceed? Maxwell404 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

advice on a minor edit

Hi Brad,

do you know why {{Italic title prefixed}} doesn't work in Chilean ship O'Higgins? Do you know how to fix it?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

USN Burton Island

FYI, a long ago asked question on Talk:Burton Island has been answered.Sammy D III (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ship article naming conventions

Hi Brad, I am working on the 18-19th Century HEIC vessels called Ocean, and have discovered three vessels with that name, at least two of which were launched in 1800. Two are possibly the same vessel, though one of them does not have a launch year that I have as yet found, but one is clearly a different vessel, so at a minimum I have two Ocean (1800)s. What has the ship task force decided one should do in this case, or do you have any suggestions? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious

historic ships
Thank you, Brad, "fountain of useless information", for starting articles such as Oakland County Child Killer and Dieter Hildebrandt, for improving historic ships to featured quality, such as Constitution, and helping other editors through the process (SS Edmund Fitzgerald), for dealing with Bulgarian/English translations and assessments for project ship ("few new or recently edited articles seem to escape your scrutiny"), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1129 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Break

Enjoy your break, my friend. You deserve it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of Architect on Jefferson page

Hi Brad, are you coming back soon? We are still discussing whether or not to include 'Architect' in the infobox and moreover, whether we should cover this better in the article itself with a subsection, so we need more informed opinions from people who have been involved with the page. -- Gwillhickers 18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested

In expressing opinion at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#TedderBot_replacement. If enough people comment there, maybe something will finally happen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Patsy Randolph as TJ's hostess

Hi! I assume Dabney was mistaken, but I've added a note at TJ talk page about his assertion that Patsy played hostess for her father at the White House. I mention this only because it's interesting to me and I thought it might be to you--no quibbles or desire to restore the claim to the article! Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)