User talk:Wikited

Welcome!

Hello, Wikited, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lysy^talk 17:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For creating numerous ship articles in outstanding condition! Brad (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, I was surprised that no one had given you this award yet. I do a lot of maintenance checks on Navy ship articles and I began to notice that your articles are almost perfect from the moment you post them. In fact, by sight alone, I can tell if an article is one you created 99% of the time without even checking the article history. Creating ship articles is oh, so much more than just copying them out of DANFS and waking away but you have grasped what a wiki article really means.

Please don't ever be discouraged by the complainers and rebel Bots leaving messages on your talk page about what you did wrong or didn't do, as I happen to believe that your articles are a model that everyone else should follow. --Brad (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad... my plan right now is to collect the remainder of the Civil War Union ships not listed, which is almost done... (When I started there were about 168 ships in category:Union Navy ships and now there's over 600.) I'm also cleaning up earlier ones I did. After I finish that effort, I would like to go into the already-paged Union Navy articles that have no infobox or Wikified text and improve them... and also update the text from other DANFS sources. (There are more than one DANFS source.) I hope I don't upset anyone doing that... When that total effort is complete, I would like to learn how to insert photos/illustrations, and insert DANFS photos in the Union Navy ship articles that need them. -- Thanks for your comments. It's nice to know that someone cares. Wikited (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rats, I was coming here to give you a barnstar! I'm sorry to see that someone beat me to it—but it's probably for the best, as I sure hope you already know how much I appreciate your work, and I'm glad to see someone else recognizes it too. Well done, sir! Maralia (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tomorrow's my birthday, so I'll take all this as a birthday greeting. Wikited (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New trick I learned for ship disambig pages. Instead of {{disambig}}, use the {{shipindex}}. And then you can fine tune it further by using {{shipindex|Michigan}} if you were making a page for the USS Michigan, for example. Just another hidden feature of tagging :) --Brad (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I'll give it a try. It might save me some time and effort. Thanks again. Wikited (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also a trick with the {{DANFS}} template. You can, for example use the template like this: {{DANFS|http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a7/alloway-ii.htm}} which gives you:

 This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.

So, using the template with the link inside can eliminate the need for an External Link section to point to the reference. Just another easy but not so apparent ability and the article looks cleaner as a result. --Brad (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... but what if I have two DANFS refs?Wikited (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm talking about: see USS Vanderbilt (1862)

Wikited (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a conversation about dual links at Template_talk:DANFS#Link_parameter_added but apparently the template isn't able to handle two links yet. At least I just tried to do so with USS Vanderbilt (1862) and it didn't seem to work. Or maybe it would only work with one link to the .mil site and one to hazegray? My thoughts were more like yours; to make the linking more flexible. --Brad (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are working now. I changed USS Vanderbilt (1862) as you pointed out. I'm not too sure though, if using the second link for photos is a good idea since the template text is geared toward pointing to a ships article in the DANFS itself. You can also link within the {{NVR}} template the same way for those ships not listed in the DANFS. --Brad (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we were writing the Extended Duration Orbiter article we were looking for pics of the lost EDO pallet and I found one made during STS-107 payload processing. When you added the Freestar link to the Columbia article I remembered I had seen a picture with FREESTAR when looking for EDO pictures and I could easily find it back on commons. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy - Was there a main list somewhere that you used as a reference when you were filling in articles on Civil War ships? I haven't been able to find any definitive list of ships from that era. Reason I ask is that I noticed USS Cornubia (1864) has no article but there is a DANFS listing [1]. And the Cornubia is only listed at List_of_United_States_Navy_ships,_C#Co. --Brad (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy partner -- Somebody has Cornubia listed as SS Cornubia, with a category Union Navy ships.

You can find it at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cornubia_%28ship%29

I'll go ahead and put it on my list to fix (and make it USS Cornubia (1863)) unless you have the urge to do so.

Thanks for noticing that ... Wikited (talk)

You should be able to find a complete list by looking at the category.Wikited (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Category:Union Navy ships Wikited (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I see you moved it where it should be. I should have thought to do a word search on Cornubia to find the article. --Brad (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone pointed out the all new infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Tables for you? Seems that word isn't getting out very well. They're extremely flexible for those instances where you have a ship with a long history. --Brad (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad... I've been using the newer light blue one for a while, although originally I started out with the dark blue one. Now, when I see one of the older shipinfoboxes, I replace it with a new one, such as USS Sciota (1861) which the author did with the dark blue box. Is that what you are taling about? Am I missing something here? Wikited (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whew.. tough question. There are many old boxes we aren't using anymore. The dark blue ones are very old and are being selected for replacement by looking at [2] . The light blue one you seem to be using is also old (but not as old as the dark blue ones) and is listed here: Template:Infobox Ship. The most recent infobox is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Tables and while it may appear similar to Template:Infobox Ship, it is very different in how it works. Compare the text of the boxes to see the differences. As I said above, word isn't traveling very well on what box should or should not be used.

Also, if you look at [3] you will find articles that have no infobox at all; additionally I've seen more Civil War era ships in that category that you aren't aware of because they haven't been given a Civil War ship category. I hope this hasn't confused you even more but by all the conversations I've seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, the infobox to be used is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Tables. --Brad (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't confused me... Let me study the situation... As for the Civil War ships you mention that don't have an infobox, every Civil War Union ship is listed in the Category:Union Navy ships - there should be no absentees in that category, except for maybe a couple of stone ships. If you can, let me know about the ships in question. Thanks. Wikited (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad... I'm looking at the newest template you mentioned, and I see I've used it once or twice. I'll go ahead and put that template in use. It seems there are only a couple of additions on the newest template, and those newest additions are ones I don't use anyway for the ships I'm working on. By the way, I've done most of the Civil War ships. The category originally had about 160 ships when I started and now you can see it contains now almost 800. So I've been busy in that area.Wikited (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. There isn't any need to go and replace the ones you've already put down with old style boxes. Here is a few of the ships I was questioning USS Ammonoosuc (1864), USS Antietam (1864), USS Chattanooga (1864) and others marked for needing infoboxes at [4] and I'm not sure if those ships qualify as Civil War ones. --Brad (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not Civil War ships as they were too late to make the cut, but I'll see what I can do about getting them infoboxes and more text when I get back on line tomorrow. Thanks for calling them out, also any others you run across in your travels, just send them my way. Ted Wikited (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonoosuc is absolutely stunning! Nice painting you found too. Thanks. I was calling them Civil War ships but I guess that Civil War era would have made more sense since they launched during the war. Whenever you're bored just look at [5] or [6] and there's always something to work on. I've been trying to do 5 a day to get the lists pared down to reasonable levels. --Brad (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad... Big difference on Ammonoosuc, huh? I enjoy making text like that look good. Anyway, take a look at USS Antietam (1864). I couldn't do much with that page, but it looks much better now. I couldn't find a photo of the ship for the infobox, but I found one of midshipmen looking at a model of her, which I put down in the text. As for five a day, that sounds about right. I still have a lot of Civil War ships to smooth out. As for the category of Union ships, I kind of agree with you and will probably go back and make them that category. Thanks again. Ted Wikited (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice you've been using the {{DANFS}} template to link to the NHC's image library. That isn't exactly part of DANFS, and having two links that claim to link to DANFS may be confusing. What to do... Well, we don't have a specialized template to the history.navy.mil/photos/ pages, but you can use generic citation templates, e.g.

*{{cite web  | url= http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-civil/civsh-s/satellit.htm  | title= USS ''Satellite'' (SP-1012)<!-- Typo corrected. -->  | date= 30 March 2003 | work= Online Image Library | publisher= [[Naval Historical Center]]  | accessdate= 2008-01-30 }} 

to produce

• "USS Satellite (SP-1012)". Online Image Library. Naval Historical Center. 30 March 2003. Retrieved 2008-01-30.

And maybe stick the {{NHC}} attribution tag in somewhere. But maybe that's redundant.
—WWoods (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.... The problem is known and has been discussed before and, you are right, something has to be done about it, so I'll use your recommendation as a possible solution.Wikited (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that on the other USS Satellite and it worked nicely. See USS Satellite (1854). Thanks for the help.Wikited (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Polish Wikipedia there is an infobox for Ethnic Group, which would also be useful in the U.S. Wiki for subjects like Appalachians, Polish-Americans, African-Americans, Southerners, Indian tribes, and so on. In Polish the infobox is as follows;

{{grupa etniczna infobox |ojczysta =Puszczaki<br>Kurpé |godło = |polska =Kurpie |populacja = |rejon =[[Kurpiowszczyzna]] |kraj =[[Polska]] |język =[[język polski|polski]], [[gwara kurpiowska]] |religia =[[rzymskokatolicyzm]] |grupa =[[Polacy]] |mapa = }}

Is there an English infobox for cultural groups, and, if not, can the Polish excample be used to create an English one? If so, How???

There is one here: {{Infobox Ethnic group}}. Let me know if you have any trouble figuring it out :) Maralia (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! That's very helpful.... How do you know all this stuff?? I'm amazed.Wikited (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Hendrick Hudson (1859), I found a duplicate article at Hendrick Hudson (1859) and have suggested a merge. Likely a simple redirect will solve this but I thought you might want to decide what is best. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me verify the texts and make sure all contain verifiable info, and will then redirect one or the other... Wikited (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They contained the same info from DANFS, so I redirected the one page to the other. Thanks again. Wikited (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I redirected the talk page as well because there were assessment tags on the article. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurpie stamp 02.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "List of image copyright tags" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another.. USS Frolic (1862) and USS Advance (1862) are articles on the same ship. Advance seems to be the older of the two but is written a bit differently than Frolic. Merge or maybe shorten each article to the respective name? --Brad (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad... I'll check it out based on DANFS sources and see which is the more popular name and then merge into one page. Also will check for verified content. As you may have noted, I've been working on some Polish articles (Kurpie being one of them) and now I think I need to go back and clean up some more of the Civil War ships, including getting some pix for more of them. Ted Wikited (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure this mess out at the DANFS level ... should have it complete probably by tonight or tomorrow morning. Ted Wikited (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no hurry. I saw another CW ship the other day that had no infobox but I've forgotten which one :) I should have left a message here when I saw it. --Brad (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.... USS Advance (1862) looks ok now (significantly expanded from DANFS and Wikified) and USS Frolic (1862) is redirected. Thanks. Let me know if you find any others that need drastic help. I'll continue sampling Civil War ships that need improvement, pix, etc. TedWikited (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. I keep finding articles that have languished for several years in various states of disarray. I've also been finding some ships listed in danfs that were used for the Stone Fleet but that article didn't list them as part of the fleet. Couldn't find a definitive list of Stone Fleet ships anywhere around. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard from you in a bit; hope all is well with you. I wanted to let you know about a general wiki meetup in DC that's being planned for May. I live in Northern Virginia and will probably make it (presuming I can offload my kid on someone for the day!). User:TomTheHand is going to try to make it up from NC. We're talking about trying to get over to the Navy Museum, too (unfortunately the NHC offices & library are closed on weekends). Interested? The planning page is at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4. Maralia (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. Let me check out the details, plus my schedule which includes a ship reunion in Annapolis about that time, plus my teaching schedule. Thanks for the heads up.Wikited (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ted! I noticed that you just created USS Awatobi (YTB-264), and I had a couple of suggestions and requests. First, in the infobox, the "Ship class=" field displays as "Class and type:", so instead of filling in both "Ship class" and "Ship type" it's better to just put "Cahto-class district harbor tug" into "Ship class=". Second, when you add categories to a new article, please place them in the most specific categories possible. Category:World War II ships really shouldn't have many articles directly in it; Awatobi would be better categorized in something like Category:World War II auxiliary ships of the United States. Thanks! TomTheHand (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... I didn't notice that and didn't realize we had that category of World War II auxiliary ships of the United States. Do we have one for World War I auxiliary ships as I'm working on some of them too... I'll take care of it right after lunch, unless you want to make the changes for me. Thanks. Wikited (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix on Awatobi. I found the cat for Category:World War I auxiliary ships of the United States and am changing cats on those World War I auxiliaries.Wikited (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your images, but have two comments. You should use a infobox and geotag the images; and they should go to the commons! :-) --evrik ^(talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were going to the Commons. But I don't understand what a geotag is. Can you direct me to an image where all this is properly done so I can better understand the process. Thanks.Wikited (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article MineRon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Vianello (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating articles about Polish forests. Don't forget to add relevant interwikis ([7], [8], and so on). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do...Wikited (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ted. When you create a ship article that uses an ID number like (ID 1234) you need to remember to use the dash so that (ID-1234) is in the article title. I had to move several of your most recent articles. --Brad (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad.... I was not sure which way it went...Wikited (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated USS Imperator (ID-4080), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 12, where you can improve it if you see fit.

Wikited, one more thing: years are usually not wikilinked when alone. Guidelines recommend not to wikilink years when they are alone, without specific context and rationale for linking to them. Hence it's "1912", not "1912". On the other hand, full dates should always be wikilinked so as to ensure the date will be rendered as formatted according to the reader's date preferences; hence, it's "July 12, 1912", not "July 12, 1912". Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksWikited (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• USS Major (DE-796)
• USS Laning (DE-159) --Brad (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to laugh when I looked at them! I'll put them on the to-do list. Not a problem.Wikited (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• USS Beaufort (ATS-2) and danfs is here --Brad (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• USS Periwinkle (1864) I suggested a merge if you've the time. --Brad (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I'll check it out...Wikited (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged... Polaris had some good Wiki links... moved them and merged...Wikited (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikited, I have started a discussion regarding the necessity and naming style of a series of newly created categories that you created, of the form Category:United States Navy ships built in STATE for 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The discussion may be found here. Your thoughts and inputs are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With your permission, I'd like to nominate all the "United States Navy ships built in STATE" for upmerging into "Ships built in STATE" at WP:CFD. That way all of your categorization work would be preserved and all the articles you've categorized will be moved into the appropriate "Ships built in STATE" category. Let me know if this is OK or not. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Many thanks for helping to solve this problem. Much appreciated.Wikited (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominations are here if you wish to comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, Category:Ships built in Germany doesn't need to be added to articles that are in Category:Barbarossa class ocean liners because the former category is a parent category of the latter. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... thanks... I notice the same applies to Scottish ships built by Clyde...Wikited (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you're usiing a script or something automated or not, but these all showed up with the Category:Ships built in Germany on them again. I've removed it since Category:Barbarossa class ocean liners is a sub-category of Category:Ships built in Germany — Bellhalla (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be a little more careful. Thanks for keeping an eye on things.Wikited (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to think about. Submarines are not considered ships, but boats. So I've not put any under "Ships built in..."... Any ideas? Wikited (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see transports of the General G. O. Squier class (AP–130 to -159) are all in Category:General G. O. Squier class transport ships which is a subcat of Category:Richmond, California ships which is in turn a subcat of Category:Ships built in California. I'll go through and remove these. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since in most cases adding the location built is a non-controversial addition to the article, can you mark the edits as "minor". That way people can filter out minor changes from their watchlists to make sure they don't miss any vandalism or other changes to articles? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance based on your experience which is more than I have. I think I'll forget about adding any more and let it occur naturally. Any answer on the submarine classification, or do you think it's not necessary? Wikited (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Missed the part about the subs. I don't have any problem including submarines in the "Ships built in…" categories. I think if they fit within the definition of ship for WikiProject Ships, then they should fit for the category. If you're still unsure, bring it up on WT:SHIPS to see what others may think. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ted - When you start a new article could you begin placing the following tags on the talk page:

1. {{WikiProject Ships|class=|importance=}}
2. {{WPMILHIST|class=|Maritime=yes|US=yes}} - assuming its a US Navy ship
3. {{DANFS talk}} - assuming it contains danfs text

If you don't care to assess the article that's ok but adding the tags would help reduce my growing workload these days. --Brad (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do... if there is anything I can do to help the effort, let me know. Thanks.Wikited (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been rating them too which is good. Your articles are without exception a C-Class rating for WPSHIPs but MILHIST doesn't use the C-Class system so that's why it shows as start. The SHIPS template requires that criteria 3-5 are met to warrant a C-Class rating otherwise it would also be a start. --Brad (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of new at all this rating business, Brad. Let me know if I do anything wrong in that regard. As far as the articles, my attitude is not to take ownership, but just to start them for others. That is why I am adding stub to some of them when I know there are people around who can provide more information. This especially applies to the "missile ship" articles, which I'm working on now.Wikited (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the milhist banner you need to watch how you use the periods and conflicts rating as |WWII=yes is for ships that participated in WWII. The other periods are:

|Classical= |Medieval= |Muslim= |Crusades= |Early-Modern= |ARW= (American Revolutionary War) |Napoleonic= |ACW= (American Civil War) |WWI= |WWII=

If a particular ship doesn't fall into one of these periods then it doesn't need a rating in that respect. --Brad (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean... thanks, will watch it in the future.Wikited (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you created the page for the Orinoka Mills, and are also interested in military history. I was told that in the 1940s there was a wartime production training facility/operation going on at the property on Ruth St, which may have been coordinated and run by Mastbaum (the vo tech school). I've contacted the Mastbaum alumni association, as well as the old orinoka historical person at the lantal company, but they were not able to provide much of any data on this. Might you know if there are any ways to find out more about these war and military related productions/trainings and/or government purchases from Orinoka/this property from any government or military sources of info? If so, how does one find or retrieve that information? Thanks Centerone (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It was difficult getting information for the Orinoka Mills page. I am sure there is more information on the Mills and also on other activities in the area, but many of the Government records are still not on the internet. You might want to look at the following web site to see if it can give you any leads:

• World WAr II Pennsylvania

Wikited (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with YMS wrecks, or know anyone who is? I have some photos of one wrecked off Long Beach, that I am trying to identify. Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... but I would suggest sending an email with photo(s) attached to

[email protected] <[email protected]>Wikited (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Fischer catalog, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer catalog page has been generated in response to it being listed under "List of stamp catalogues" in another Wikipedia page. If Fischer catalog is to be deleted then all the other catalogs of stamp collecting under that Wiki page should be deleted under the philosophy stated in the request for deletion. To attempt to delete Fischer catalog, when it provides the ONLY detailed information on Polish stamps, is completely inappropriate and ill advised. I suggest the person who placed the request for delete look at List of stamp catalogues and reconsider the request. I firmly believe the page should stay as shown.Wikited (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:John Britt - Hollywood Stamp Club.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean.... I took the photo myself. I should have indicated that.Wikited (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:USNTC Bainbridge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed your recent, rather prolific contributions to the philatelic biographies, mainly recipients of the Lichtenstein Medal which incidentally, I have suggested be merged with the Collectors Club of New York article. It is great to see some new blood here doing some new philatelic work. I do however have some concerns about the way these article are composed. Not to be overly critical or to offend you, but by way of constructive comment, they are not really very encyclopaedic in their layout. You make several section headings and each section has at most one or two short sentences, or is composed of bullet points. It would, in my opinion, be better to write some prose combining these thought under one heading because it is all rather disjointed. You also, as yet, don't seem to grasp the method for doing references. Let me help you in that by referring you to the citation templates that are used to verify statements made, and the "See also" section should be used to link to articles of interest that are not already linked in the article itself. If I get some time, I will try to copyedit one of them into what I think would be a better form. I do have a question for you. Why are you using the "Engineer infobox" instead of a more usual {{Infobox Person}} infobox template? One last thing, are you aware that we have a Philately WikiProject and you nay wish to join us in forwarding philately on this wiki. We also have a Philately Portal that show visitors some of the interesting philately articles. You can leave me a {{talkback}} note on my page or I will just watch this page for a while as I really detest having disjointed discussions. Thanks again for your work. ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a stub on USNS Howard O. Lorenzen (T-AGM-25) and some links to both the MRIS and OI pages. (came across it while searching for other ships that a friend and his wife used to work on in the 70's-80's). Since you seem to be the "Subject Matter Expert", I thought you might want to take a look. Beachgrinch (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your note about creating categories on Sebjarod talk page. BTW by adding the category link to the post, you have actually listed him as an Category:Italian philatelists. You need to use the <noinclude></noinclude> tags to avoid this. Anyway, regarding some philatelic categories, some time ago, I don't remember how long, all the subcategories of a parent category, I think it was "Stamp designers" were nominated for deletion because they were so few article being populated by very few articles and all sub-category articles were included only in the parent category at that time. The idea of sub-categories is to use them when there are sufficient articles to warrant a sub-category, not just a handful. So if I may suggest that you only create subcategories where they are necessary and will have at least five or more entries. With all the new philatelist articles recently written there is certainly a need for some new sub-categories. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... thanks.Wikited (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you mind joining our club? :) --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... I specialize in Brazil and Poland, stamps and postal history. Just attended the BOPEX stamp exhibition in Bowie, Maryland.Wikited (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, please feel free to add your name on the participants' list. --Michael Romanov (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you joined, so welcome to the Philately WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added Billig to the category American Philatelists. I thought that Billig was Austrian or German. I know he had to flee Austria to escape the Nazis. Do you have any evidence that he became an American? I would also like to echo a comment above that the links to the APS Hall of Fame or similar should really be under External links not Reference. I know a web site can be a reference for an article but as I understand Wikipedia policies, ideally an article would have a References (plural) section with multiple sources and a separate section for external web site links. Keep up the good work. Regards, Maidonian (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. As for Billig I assumed he was both an American and Austrian philtelist, and I would have put down Austrian philatelist also, but I don't think there is such a catergory yet. However, if you want to change it back to simply Philatelist, I have no qualms about that. As for the APS Hall of Fame philatelists, I can ref them uner the "external links" instead of "reference." Not a problem. The problem I'm having is that when I have a link to, for example, an obituary or the APS Hall of Fame listing, this is not satisfactory as a source. This is a problem since it is very difficult for find an additional source. I would like to add more philatelists from such sources, but, if it is not right, perhaps I should stop. The other alternative is to cite the source as an external link as you mention, and then list the page as a stub. What do you think?Wikited (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I have always thought Billig was in exile, in common with many others that fled their homelands around that time. I would assume that the term American would refer to nationality, not residence and as there is no evidence about his nationality I think we should leave it unstated until there is and remove him from the American philatelists catgeory (he probably was an Austrian national but there is no evidence for it, he could have been German or Hungarian for all we know). Regarding the biographical articles, please don't stop! I know how difficult it is to find reliable sources in this area and I find Google an invaluable aid, particularly pdfs of society journals, library catalogues etc. Obituaries that appear in philatelic society journals can be good. One tends to find a lot of stuff about awards and collections but little about the subject's profession, family, nationality etc which make a more rounded bio. When you can find this information it can be surprising, for instance Hans Reiche whose entry to Canada was facilitated by Albert Einstein. I think the philatelic bios on Wikipedia could be a bit more rounded. I acknowledge your difficulty where there is only one source and it is a website. I think the answer is to try to find more than one then you can put the written sources in references and the web site in external links, or perhaps you should just keep doing what you are doing and let someone else add the references as it would be a shame to lose your input. Good luck. Maidonian (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are appreciated and thought provoking. From what you are indicating, my inputs up to this point are simply stubs and probably should be marked that way. If I can find only one source, I'll indicate it as an external link ans stub it. On the other hand, I'll see if I can find other sources. I agree with you that pages for philatelists are somewhat unbalanced as they show only the philatelic activity as the primary reason for the page. It would be nice to find personal information as to family life, other interests, and so on.Wikited (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bowie Stamp Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Porturology (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful page that I am surprised did not already exist. I wonder, however, whether the list of exhibitions might not be better on its own page in simple list form? Then the article could be just about the history and organisation of philatelic exhibitions, judging etc. I am also concerned that as it stands it does not represent a worldwide view. What do you think? Maidonian (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very observant and probably right. I had some doubts about the page when I submitted it. The page could refer to a "List of Philatelic Exhibitions" and the list could be by country. Also, it would be nice if the list would provide some information about each of the exhibitions; for example, the club/society sponsor, where it is usually held, how often, level (international, regional, local, etc.) within the country, when first started and so on. That way, it would have a worldview and also provide some detail on each exhibition. Each of the major exhibitions has a great history. What's your feeling about this more detailed proposal? And how to do it?Wikited (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the list to a separate page with country listings so that it has a worldview. The list now needs some filler of societies from other countries. I'm looking for some, hope others can help.Wikited (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. I anticipate that separate pages for each exhibition will now be created linked off the list. I will have a go at a few shortly.Maidonian (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages for each exhibition!!!! That's going to create a lot of work, but then that's what we're here for... Great idea...Wikited (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages for each exhibition!!!! Do you really think it is possible each of these would be notable enough to withstand deletion nomination. Some of your article have already been deleted for this reason and while you are a hard worker many of the article are very marginal in their notability indeed. Lacking in references and reliable 3rd-party sources. One good general article with a worldview would serve this wiki much better imho than a load of stubs. ww2censor (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little harsh Ww2censor. (I assume your comments are directed at Wikited). What I meant when I made the suggestion was just that if we are going to have a list, which does no harm, inevitably someone will create some articles linking off them. The notable ones are likely to be mainly the internationals, not every exhibition ever held. I agree a stub for every one would be just clutter. I am thinking of for instance The London Festival of Stamps 2010 which has yet to be held, and London 1980, both of which I think would stand up on notability. (I have not visited non-UK ones) Maidonian (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London 2010 is going to be interesting. Cheers.Wikited (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you think I was too harsh, sorry, it was not meant to come across that way. I think there are better ways to spend our time than creating a separate listing of several relatively non-notable philatelic exhibitions. I would just make a short representative list of national and international shows in the main Philatelic exhibition article but only if they are referenced using reliable sources. One of the problems seems to be that one should think of the bigger encyclopaedic picture which in my mind is creating or improving philatelic articles that people actually read. If you use the "Traffic stats" button you will be surprised to see how few visitors many of the article get, so it seems better to direct our efforts onto those pages that get decent traffic, not at the expense of new articles, but as a preference from a time point of view. Just my 2¢. ww2censor (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Understood (sorry to hijack your page Wikited). Maidonian (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken... glad to hear opinions and viewpoints as it helps promote understanding of a common objective. Feel free to advise/comment this page. Cheers. Wikited (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you linked a date or two at Edith Margaret Faulstich. This practice is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I did not know the practice was deprecated. Appreciate the comment. I'll go back and unlink them.Wikited (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article. Please consider adding inline citations, than you can add it to T:TDYK for front page exposure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Severin Louis Rombach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Saebjorn! 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag, as Rombach evidently meets WP:N, having received the Navy Cross and had a USN ship named after him. Maralia (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no hear from you... I see you are still doing a lot of good work on Wiki. Thanks. I'll remove the hangon I put on the page. Wikited (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kurpie stamp 01.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kurpie stamp 02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kurpie stamp 03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kurpie stamp 04.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As your stamp image was tagged as being unacceptable, you might like to offer an opinion about changing their guidelines for stamps such as yours which would be considered commemorative stamps. Any opinions on this issue could be very helpful: It's discussed here.]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A speedy deletion tag has been added to this page, per {db-disambig}. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USS Jackson 1860.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. File:USS Bienville 1860.jpg and File:USS Harvest Moon 66973.jpg have also been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. The same problem applies to all of the artworks by Erik Heyl which have been, in my view incorrectly, claimed as public domain, whether here or on commons. --Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration is shown in the U.S. Navy website as shown in the information related to the photo. I would assume that it is no longer under any copyright protection if it is shown on that site.Wikited (talk)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Albert William Tweedy, Jr.. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert William Tweedy, Jr.. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this article, which you created - as a Danish merchant ship, further info may be found via this website. Depends how good you are at working out Danish though! Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the site, and it has an English language version. I placed Rita Maersk in its search directory, but it replied it could find no corresponding data. Thanks. Wikited (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Rajzel Żychlińsky, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hannah Kahn was a close friend of mine, and she would be pleased to see Rajzel getting the recognition she deserves. Wikited (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rajzel Żychlińsky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the USS Ruddy entering Pearl Harbor in 1955. Photo taken by Wikited from the starboard side of the USS Redstart during early morning.

A discussion has begun about whether the article Richard S. Baron, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard S. Baron until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome Wikited! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments: 1) another Wikipedia cannot be used as a source 2) please link other language versions with interwiki 3) if you reference your articles properly, you can nominate them at T:TDYK for front-page exposure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do...Wikited (talk)

Hello! Your submission of Zygmunt Padlewski at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zygmunt Padlewski, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the aftermath of the unsuccessful January Uprising, Polish insurgent Zygmunt Padlewski was captured and executed by the Russian authorities? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Wikited (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikited (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparks, New hand here, name is TJ Lynn Jr. I want to tell you how much I enjoy your articles. Thank you for preserving the history of the US Naval Service. I wish you fair winds and following seas.Tjlynnjr (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have read your many pages on naval ships and am amazed at your in-depth knowledge as a ship historian. I do have a question regarding one of the ships and wanted to run it by you before doing more research. Would you be willing to discuss it with me? I'm very new to Wikipedia, so let me know how we could talk (email? user talk? etc?) and if I'm not following proper protocol/etiquette by asking to speak with you before making edits. Thank you. (Mjiafe (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'll be glad to help if I can...Wikited (talk)

OK. I'll ask my question here if that's okay with you. In your page on the USS Gull (AMS-16), you noted that it "was launched as YMS-324 by the Al Larson Boat Shop, Terminal Island, California, 14 October 1943." Do you have any idea where you found this information? I'm just trying to figure out who built the USS Gull, and I'm not sure that it was Al Larson Boat Shop. Any information that you can provide would help. Thanks! (Mjiafe (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Go to the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships published by the U.S. Navy. It is on line at

[9]

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/g9-list.htm Wikited (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For additional history: See also:

[10] http://www.navsource.org/archives/11/05016.htm 01:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will continue my search there. You have been a great help! (Mjiafe (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Gull was the name assigned to AM-399, to be built by the Defoe Shipbuilding Co., Bay City, Mich., in 1945. The contract was cancelled 16 May 1945.

Wikited (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy galleys, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy row galleys, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy gasoline tankers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Eucharistic Congress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article John H. Steinway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article about John H. Steinway contains nothing else than a redirect to an article about John H. Steinway's father, Theodore E. Steinway.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 84.238.38.27 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John H. Steinway. Since you had some involvement with the John H. Steinway redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if, as the original creator of the article, you would know how best to insert into

On 17 April [1942] she embarked British troops on Iceland, then carried them to Gourock, Scotland. After another such voyage, she returned to Boston, Massachusetts, 27 June...

the information -- to be found in the New York Passenger Lists 1820-1957 -- that she transported Royal Navy personnel from Glasgow (Gourock) to New York (Brooklyn) 1-11 May 1942, on their way to join RN vessels. I.e. I'm not sure whether or not this was the "other such voyage" already mentioned. Many thanks if you can help. -- Picapica (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:AUTEC from the air.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Percy Gray Doane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Gray Doane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikited! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article McCoy Reynolds is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McCoy Reynolds until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikited, interesting career you had,
I saw Project Dominic mentioned on your userpage and noted we don't have a page on it, yet. This link: Technical Nuclear Safety Study of Project Dominic: B-52 Airdrops, from "26 FEB 1962" in PDF format, a declassified report on it may be of interest. 220 of ^Borg 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. Thi