Jump to content

User talk:Brad101/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

HADAG Seetouristik und Fährdienst

Hi there, thanks for rating the HADAG Seetouristik und Fährdienst article. May I ask, what write to meet the B2 criteria (Coverage and accuracy)? Thanks for your help. (Please answer here, I'll watch your talk.) Greetings -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Coverage would be the missing requirement. As old as that company is, there isn't very much history given in the article. Expanding the article by 150% would likely allow it to meet criteria 2 but keep in mind that it would still require inline citations. --Brad (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so it's simply the lenght? *smile* I'll try my very best later. Thanks for responding so fast. -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

USS Chesapeake

Please see http://www.theusschesapeake.com for my recent book putting the history of the Chesapeake into the context of 200 years of US/UK/Canada history up to the present day and into the future. The Chesapeake Mill in Wickham is still standing, it's timbers unaltered and as they were when taken uncutfrom USS Chesapeake in 1819 Portsmouth, England. We ask a reasonable question: is there more of the original USS Chesapeake in Wickham,England than there is original USS Constitution in Boston harbor. I would be willing to add some new information from the book into the listing, but I don't want to appear to be promoting my book as much as adding to information and thinking about the the ship's role in American history; seen as "the runt of the litter" of the six frigates, it played a catalytic role in history in a few respects, and may be the most still "alive" of the six. I'm open to advice on how to add valuable material to the Wiki article. Website can lead back to me through the Author's Guild listing reached when clicking my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.18.179 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked my Library Network and your book is not available there. In the bibliography section of the article, the listed books are the ones I have access to. I was going strong on the Chesapeake article last December but after the holidays I never got back to serious editing. I would like to see another perspective of the ship, likely the Canadian or British reports of the encounter which may help to even out any bias from the books I have access to. You would be correct however, that an author adding information from their own book is usually frowned upon in wikiland. Eventually the Chesapeake article will work its way up the ratings scale until it's a Featured Article much like I did with Constitution. The long term goal is to have all six frigates and the class article up to Featured Article by the time we enter the 200th anniversary for the War of 1812. --Brad (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks Brad. Excellent resource for this is http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=BfYavosFYLkC&dq=pbv+broke+brighton&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=0Ma1tqXvRJ&sig=JHBDjLfc1dZMbRIryYmBcyvogjU&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

the biography of PBV Broke by a british clergyman c. 1860 with an extensive account of the battle from that perspective. Also see http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E4D9143FE633A25752C0A9609C946296D6CF

And if you enter The enduring journey of the uss chesapeake in Google books you can go to find in a library, though it is only in 16 listed.

I am part of group working toward working toward a W1812 bicentennial event, meeting at Oxford U next month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.18.179 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the book link. I always try to use books that are now in the public domain so that it would cost a reader nothing to download it if they wish. The main article for the details on the battle with Shannon will be covered in Capture of USS Chesapeake rather than the ship article itself. The article on Chesapeake will have an abbreviated version likely to be 2 or 3 paragraphs in length. --Brad (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

SS Arlington

Thanks for noticing this new article. I'm not a ships-n-boats kind of guy, so I've done all I can with the limited resources (one book and one website) and limited knowledge I have. I hope someone else will advance the article further. Brain Rodeo (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

USS Spitfire

Thanks for the input; I'll add those citations right away. Hollingsworth (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

USS Remlick/USS Remlik

Thanks for your catch on USS Remlick/USS Remlik. Doing some additional investigation, I find that your are right that DANFS calls the ship Remlick, but the Naval Historical Center Online Library of Selected Images (at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-r/sp157.htm) states that her name was Remlik, as does NavSource Online (at http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/170157.htm).

Generally, the Naval Historical Center has engaged in a very slow but steady effort to improve the DANFS articles, many of which are considered to be of low quality, and the Online Library of Selected Images often represents an update which corrects mistakes made in DANFS. NavSource Online appears to know this, and blends DANFS and Online Library of Selected Images information with that in mind -- including probably in this case, as NavSource Online agrees with the Online Library of Selected Images rather than with DANFS on the spelling.

Whoever wrote the Remlick article did not consult the other sources, and I looked for Remlik rather than Remlick and never found the Remlick article. I note that the John MacKenzie (sailor) article -- he won the Medal of Honor aboard the ship -- uses the Remlik spelling.

I think that the Remlik article is the more complete and more researched article and has more in it than the other, and that the name Remlik also appears to be the preferred spelling. How would you like to handle this situation? Mdnavman (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)mdnavman

In that case it seems the two for Remlik over one for Remlick should take precedence. I would salvage anything from Remlick that could be used in Remlik and then redirect Remlick to Remlik. In the article for Remlik you would need to explain the name controversy accordingly including a statement in the lead section. --Brad (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but… looking at the Miramar Ship Index, there's no ship (in their fairly complete records) named Remlick, but there is exactly one Remlik. I've found the the Online Photo Library pages are often more up-to-date than DANFS pages (some of which were written over 50 years ago). One thing to remember, though, is that the articles shouldn't be combined by just doing a copy, paste, and redirect: To preserve the GFDL licensing of the text all revisions need to be in the edit history, so the edit history needs to be merged, which is a job for an admin. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Good thing you butted in. I had forgotten about preserving the edit histories. mdnavman: once you have determined that Remlick has no further use, post a message @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and ask an admin to merge the two articles. --Brad (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Brad:Will do in the next few days. I'll look for anything in Remlick that is not in Remlik, add it to Remlik, then make the request. Bellhalla: Thanks for the tip on the Miramar ship index. I was unaware of it and will use it as a source from here on in. Mdnavman (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)mdnavman

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry Eckford (1824)

You're not rating my ship articles anymore? :) I was kind of hoping you'd rate that one - I'm not sure whether it's a C or B myself... Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

USS Remlik/USS Remlick follow-up

Brad, a month or two ago you found that I had inadvetantly created a second article for USS Remlik because someone else had inadvertantly created an article with a misspelled title USS Remlick, carryoing forward a misspelling perpetrated by DANFS. You, Belladonna (I think), and I considered the matter and concluded that the Remlik article should be retained (correct spelling, more complete, more wikified]] and the Remlick article redirected to it, but Belladonna pointed out that GFDL requirements (which I still don't fully understand, but there is no need to get into all of that if you don't want to) mean that an admin has to do some kind of merge that goes well beyond my level of Wiki competence and, frankly, administrative interest in the inner workings of Wikipedia. I said I would look into the matter soon, but issues related to home improvements I am dealing with have delayed "soon" until now. And now I can't find our discussion of what to do and how to do it on your talk page or its archives section any more, although I remember that it used to be there. Can you walk me through it again, or has it already been taken care of in the meantime, or do you just want to do it because you know what you are talking about, or....? Let me know here or at my talk page, and I'll take whatever action you recommend this time. Sorry to make you have to return to this matter, and thanks in advance. Mdnavman (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)mdnavman

I had them merged a couple weeks ago. It wasn't that difficult to do. --Brad (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

World Discoverer

I got your message concerning the progress I have made on the World Discoverer and would like to join the club and also add the banner to the World Discoverer page however, I am very new at this and might need a hand. I am currently trying to get some of the photos that I have put up ok'd from the copyrights. Keep in touch. (talk)

What banner are you referring to? --Brad (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

HMRC 42m Customs Cutter

Brad
Please see my comments at Talk:HMRC 42m Customs Cutter. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deadend tags

Just curious as to why you removed {{deadend}} from Japanese destroyer Momo? There are no bluelinks in the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page so I didn't think it was all that important. There are many disambig pages that have redlinks. You can revert the change if you'd like. I don't feel that strongly either way about it. --Brad (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem isn't that it has redlinks, but that it has no bluelinks. I'll restore the tag.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 12:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of current ships of the United States Navy

I've noticed that almost half of the ships which are forward deployed have a listed homeport (e.g. Sasebo, Yokosuka, Guam) which contravenes the FAQ on the talk page. What should be done about those? -MBK004 22:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those are still left over from a year ago when the list was revamped. I never got around to fixing them because the work is extremely tedious. You have to check each NVR entry to make sure they're correct. Some ships have changed homeports etc. The forward deployed ships should not have Guam etc listed and most of the other ones need to be changed to reflect the particular Naval Base and not the city they're homeported to. --Brad (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I figured on something like that since I did not see anons adding it in recently. Are you planning to go back and fix this soon or is it something that I could fix in bits and pieces as I have the time as well? -MBK004 23:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Watching the discussion: I might -- *might* -- have a way to run an automated process to download at least all of the pages linked at http://www.nvr.navy.mil/quick/active.htm and then search each page for the line that begins "Homeport:", pull that line and create a list of all those ships. Let me know if that would be helpful. Then, if I find I can do this I'll respond later this evening with an update. Sswonk (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you guys want to do is fine with me. Picking away slowly at the commissioned ships list would be less stressful. I currently have my sites set on bringing Chesapeake up through the ranks. --Brad (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I put what I could find at Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy/NVR-20July2009. It isn't formatted, all caps, not much of a help I'm afraid, but it is the list as presented by the Navy I reset in a single printable table, which should make it easier to update the list than hitting each web page one by one. If a ship isn't listed, the homeport is not listed by the Navy. Should they be left blank? I am not planning on editing the List of current ships of the United States Navy tonight, MBK004 let me know if that is what you want me to do later in the week or if you will be doing it. Sswonk (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I just hit the pages one by one to assemble a spreadsheet I could use when updating. I discovered that there was a decommissioning that we missed: USS Juneau (LPD-10) last year. Since the ports need to be linked to the associated naval base article, I'll take care of them tonight. As for the ships that do not have a homeport listed, those are forward deployed and the space is left blank per the article's FAQ. -MBK004 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the response - I thought of formatting the bases as links via spreadsheet but wanted to hear from you first. So the page I created can be deleted? Sswonk (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I just completed the update: diff, and then deleted the page since it is not needed. -MBK004 05:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

USS President (1812)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of USS President (1812), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://members.cox.net/tdshiflett/ships/data/sow/president_sow.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

French frigate Armide (1804)

Could I ask you to look again at this article. Since your classification I have added material to the article that definitely removes it from the stub class, and may increase its significance. Should you reply, could you do so to my talk page. Thanks & regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Congress (1799)

Hi, Brad. I've reviewed the article for GA, the review can be found here. There are only a couple of little things I'd like to see fixed before I'll pass the article. Excellent work on a somewhat obscure ship! Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfinished assessment

Hello- I believe you assessed the Lady Elizabeth (1869) & Lady Elizabeth (1879) but did not assess the importance scale. is it possible you could do that for me? I would appreciate it. also let me know of any improvements you see that could work. Thank you. Lukeduk1980 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The importance ratings for the ships project are going to be disabled in the next week or two. There isn't much sense in rating those articles at this point. --Brad (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexandria (schooner)

The sources I put there are NOT primary sources. Why do you put the "primary sources" box there? GS3 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That was like two weeks ago. I do not recall why I put the tag there. Remove it if you disagree. --Brad (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Ship collision. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia? How new do you think I am? Since June you've apparently become an expert already. --Brad (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Princess Sophia

If you have time, can you have a look at SS Princess Sophia, and suggest what might be necessary to bump it up to GA status? Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is glaring at me first off, the article is a bit unfocused in that it goes off topic explaining other wrecks and shipping operations in that area. The article has way too many pics on display. You have to cut those down to at least half and then point the reader to commons to see more and the commons link is already there. The timeline section has to go. The article itself should be a timeline of events. If you can't work the mentions into the body of the article then you will have to get rid of the more minor and trivial parts. There are entire sections and paragraphs without inline citations and the lead section needs expanding. Based on the amount of information in the article, the lead should take at least two paragraphs to summarize the entire article. --Brad (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
hmmm, thx, that could be a lot of work.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It could be but I find that picking away at articles when I have time eventually cleans them up. --Brad (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

SMS Adler

Thanks for the help. I can't seem to be able to download this photo to Wikimedia http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h42000/h42118.jpg It is a U.S. Navy Historical Center photo of a contemporary drawing. I'm not sure what I am doing wrong. Can you help? Pustelnik (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The pic is now uploaded on wikimedia and showing in the article. --Brad (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Pustelnik (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington Irving (sidewheeler) GA review

Thanks for letting me know, I had not noticed that. Will try to address this weekend. WilliamKF (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit. Your changes look good to me. WilliamKF (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No reply needed

I am writing to let you know that your recommendation of the Fouled Anchors article did not vanish into the luminiferous ether. I have read it, and you were spang on - it is a good read. Thank you. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 The Military history A-Class medal 
For prolific work on USS Constitution, USS Congress (1799) and USS President (1800), all promoted to A-Class between October 2008 and October 2009, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

USS Constitution

hey, i was just looking on the uss constitution wiki page, and came across something that i dont think is correct. It states the it is the oldest commissioned naval vessel ever, however i have always thought that to be the HMS Victory. It is even stated on the HMS Victory page that it is, and i qoute "the oldest naval ship still in commission". Just thought i should bring that to your attention, however if i have made a mistake i apologise in advance. please reply on my talk page however, as i am sort of new to this and do not know of any other way of doing it. cheers --Kyle020493 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RNLB Mary Stanford

Brad, since you assessed this article, have you any suggestions on how it can further be improved? thanks. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The next step would be a good article review if it meets the good article criteria. The lead section should be expanded and make sure there are inline citations on every paragraph in the article. That's about all I can tell you at this point. --Brad (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Recruit (1806)

Hi Brad, thanks for adding the assessments to the talk pages for some of the articles I have worked on, especially HMS Zenobia (1807) and HMS Peruvian (1808). Could I ask you, when you have the time, to return to HMS Recruit (1806) to see if it warrants upgrading from "Stub" to "Start"? Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It moved up to C-class but the lead section is sort of weak. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramones

Hi, I saw the message that you left on Talk:Ramones about the incomplete WP:GAN. I did some copyediting and put in a couple of references and think it is ready to be reviewed so I added the template into the talk page. J04n(talk page) 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm reaching out to the primary editors of the page to work out some sort of cooperation plan for progressing on with the review. I'll let you know when/if there is agreement on continuation. Thank you for taking the time and energy into what you have reviewed and commented on so far. J04n(talk page) 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. There isn't any reason to think the article can't pass to GA but it's a lot easier when everyone is on the same level. Quite likely that has been one of the factors behind all of the previous GA failures. --Brad (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm making some progress in communicating with the concerned parties, should be ready to go by this weekend. J04n(talk page) 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, I think it's all set. I disagreed with you on one point. I think that the Hall of Fame section should remain as is, see my comments. Thank you for the thorough review and your patience. J04n(talk page) 03:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your time and advice! J04n(talk page) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AWB edits

Please be aware of changes to image filenames when you make AWB general fixes in the future, such as this one. The result was a broken image link. Cheers. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Response re Ship Projects tag and linking

Hi, Brad. I was unaware of the ship projects tag or that authors were supposed to add it until you wrote me. I thought people interested in/managing (or whatever the right word is) the ships project were supposed to handle that for authors. And the article ratings are not of much interest to me -- whoever can add value ought to go ahead and do it, and that's not really up to some central authority to decide anyway -- so I never worried about them much. And a lot of them seem silly; for example, a lot of World War I patrol vessels don't have much recorded history to share and the articles on them are essentially complete (barring the occasional tidbit from here or there) but they get rated as a "start" class when they actually they are pretty much complete and finished. It makes whatever rating system is in play lose credibility, at least to me -- although I have others look over my shoulder and wonder aloud about them, too. I also have no clue as to what makes an article more or less important; I understand a battleship outranks a sludge barge in the greater scheme of things, but I think each article simply is important in its own right. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to explain my outlook on things. All that being said, I'll add the tag per your request in the interest of playing on the team.

You aren't obligated to add the template but I was asking if you could, in order to help me out. Some explanation of the rating system is given here. In most cases I find that your articles fall just short of a C-class rating because of a very short lead section. More information about the B-Class checklist can be found here. In general your articles aren't that far away from making B-Class with a little more effort. --Brad (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As for links, I try to link things that have to do with where the ship operated, what it does, what characteristics it had, and what technical terms a layman might not understand. I work for the U.S. Navy and am appalled by how little even my coworkers know about naval affairs, geography, ships, history, etc. -- including the young man who recently asked me which end of the ship the bow is. I understand that linking really silly things is undesirable, but in a world in which I'm sure many Wikipedia users don't really know where Seattle is or what a knot is or which end the bow is, I think it is unwise to go light on links. Frankly, I don't know why anyone cares about "overlinking" all that much, since blue lettering among the black lettering isn't distracting, but it does let people easily jump to terms they may not fully understand or feel like surfing to. Anyway, I'll continue to try to find the "sweet spot" in terms of how much linking other editors think is perfect, but I suspect we'll never all agree and that erring on the side of more vs. fewer best serves the Wikipedia-reading public. If there are some sort of conventions out there that are well-established and I am ignorant of, let me know; the link you sent me makes sense but I think I'm getting corrected at a more detailed level than that link addresses -- I suspect as a matter of personal taste more than at the level of any really obvious overlinking. And I suppose that even that is more a matter of opinion than anything else. If the article is more useful to a 5th-grader researching what great-grampa did in a long-ago war, for example, what harm is there in providing a few extra links that an adult or a navally-informed person would not need? Is a little more blue really all that disruptive? Again, not really trying to be argumentative, but I'm really sure what merits so much concern. Mdnavman (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)mdnavman

It was just a suggestion. I find that overall the article becomes a sea of blue and red links. Combined with the text, it's visually unappealing. --Brad (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

USS Cocopa

Thanks for rating the USS Cocopa (ATF-101) article. Unfortunately for me, you didn't get a chance to see the extensive work I've done on it since your initial review. If it's not too much trouble, might I ask you to take a second look at it, and rate it accordingly? Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It makes a C-class now. Nice article. --Brad (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Are you a bot?

Are you a bot? You left the following unhelpful edit summary on Talk:Brassey's Naval Annual, Talk:Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey, and Talk:Thomas Brassey, 2nd Earl Brassey:

Current revision as of 19:21, 30 November 2009 (edit) (undo)Brad101AWB (talk | contribs) m (For wp:ships one or more of the following: reassess / reassign to another project / infobox tag / misc cleanup using AWB)

I have no idea whether your edits were correct or not because you did not state the reason for them. I know that bots behave like this when they are correcting spelling errors, or date-unlinking, so I wondered if your edits were bot edits. Looking at your contributions, they all have bot-type edit summaries.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a bot. The edit summary "reassign to another project" is applicable for those 3 articles. In other words, wpships should not cover articles that are not about a ship. --Brad (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I now understand your edit. Please consider giving more easily understood edit summaries, e.g. "wpships should not cover articles that are not about a ship".--Toddy1 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

USS Congress (1799)

I think it was fairly close to FA level. Ruslik_Zero 14:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a late response. The discrepancy you pointed out over John Rodgers led me to one source, that led to another, etc etc and I've found three additional sources that will expand the article much further. I expect that I could renominate a few weeks from now. I don't regret the withdrawal as it has allowed me to make the article much better. --Brad (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary 2

The Queen Mary 2 article has become a GA. I'd like to thank you for evaluating the article and giving me some advice as to what needed to be improved. Your help was invaluable and I have learnt a lot in the process. Thank you. Jhbuk (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that worked out for you. A lot of people don't bother to take articles higher scale. Think about A-Class next :) --Brad (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

French frigate Corona (1807)

Can this be assigned to Category:1800s ships? (For example.)Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

All that can be done from the launched and completed dates are done. There are ships laid down and never launched, ships that never got off the drawing board, ships laid down and comissioned in the same year (well there was at least one), and ships with a year in the title of their article. Can we do anything with these? Rich Farmbrough, 08:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC).
In the case of Corona the only thing we have to go by is the year in the title so 1800s ships would apply. It would be the same theme with the rest that you mention. If new information about the ships comes along later on then the cats can be adjusted accordingly. Thanks for taking this up when no one else would. --Brad (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SM U-6 to SM U-117

hi Brad101, thanks a lot for proposing so many interested and qualified users to add valuable contributions to my simple initial stubs from SM U-6 to SM U-117. That exactly was my idea and hope behind it: I created the last weeks some 80 new entries with the stuff of the British Admiralty Intelligence and added it to another 20 already existing articles in the above mentione range. Unfortunately there is a ongoing discussion here to delete all my uploaded source images, the basis for all these articles : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_11#File:SM_U-25_001_Cruises.jpg . Maybe some of you would like to comment there, if they should think the source images from Room 40, published in my book, should NOT be deleted ? Until this discussion isnt closed, I was recommendend not to add any more articles AchimKoerver (talk)! I would like to do and could quickly contribute in the same style articles for all still missing German U-, UB-, and UC-subs of WWI, in total another 250 articles in a quite short time. Then interested users can contribute, whatever they can grab out. It would be a great dynamic contribution PROJECT, I think, but there are some people on Wiki, who think it wouldnt fit "their" standards. Any help from you and the community would be welcome to support this project idea: look at SM U-92, which I finalized personally (because in this sub my grand-uncle died), to get an idea of the target of this project. --Hans Joachim Koerver 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I really do not have much to add about German submarines of that era. My effort has been to only assess the article for the ships project and make a few minor cleanup changes when I see them. --Brad (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruizer class brig-sloops

Hi Brad101, thanks for adding the talk page assessments for these and some of the other articles I have worked on. One thing that irks me though, and this is systemic and semantic, not you, is the designation of "Stub" for articles that are, by their nature, never going to be longer. Frequently the short article is complete in the sense that little more can be found, in great part because there is little or nothing further to find, or worth saying. The problem is analogous to that of little people who will always be little people, full grown in terms of maturity if not height. Can we not find another word? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of your articles could be improved simply by adding an infobox. If the class article has specifications about the ship then you could carry those over into the individual ship articles. Then look at the article structure. There needs to be a lead section and then underneath that some sections about the ship. With a little more work, C-class isn't that far away or unobtainable. If you're only going to leave a block of text in an article then it would likely never go past stub class. --Brad (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

SS President

Thank you for the review. I have expanded the opening as per your suggestion. GRUBBXDN (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ARA Uruguay review

Greetings:

Could you please take another look at ARA Uruguay (currently C level due to reference issues)? Subsequent to your review of 05:00, 25 December 2009 I have completed the inline references. The article is currently queued for DYK main page entry (queue 3) and should show up on the main page soon.

English language references of appropriate authority and quality were insufficient, so these had to be in Spanish. Almost all reference are to the ARA official website page or to one of two pages on the SUGARA (national lifesaving organization) page, links to Google translations are shown in the References section.

Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

P. S. - I see you checked Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met. The article is as thorough (for a DYK article) as the references suggest, and I do not believe that there are inaccuracies present. Do you have additional information? - Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the rating to B-class. The article really should be expanded further. For a ship that is over 100 years old there isn't very much information in the article. --Brad (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I expect to return in 3 to 4 years to Buenos Aries on a personal tour (not tour company) and will make time to further research this ship. I think its exploits were outstanding, especially for a vessel not in wartime. Best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Error on another page

Sorry - not particular Wiki-competent, but I note an apparent series of errors in the article on the Advance Seal Delivery System. The timeline (is/was) seems screwy - not sure if ASDS is gone or not. Anyway, it's not really my interest; just thought somebody seeing this might want to take a look. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.246.177 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ballahoo class schooner

Hi Brad, I have added ship boxes for the 14 (of 15) vessels in the class. It was relatively easy as we do not have individual measurement data for any of them. At some point I will address the Cuckoo class schooners. They are more time-consuming as there there is more individual measurement data. I have to admit I hate doing ship boxes as the work is entirely mechanical. Also, in many cases for vessels as small and short-lived as these, the box is bigger than the story. Anyway, in the meantime, could you look at those articles that you felt needed only a ship boxes to be upgraded to C Class and consider upgrading them? Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And now all the Cuckoo class schooners have info boxes. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. You can reassess the article very easily by removing |needs-infobox=y and changing |B5=n to |B5=y This will automatically assign a higher rating to the article. Try it and see. --Brad (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brad, thanks for the upgrades. I'll try the fixes you suggest. However, I feel it is somewhat inappropriate for me to rate articles I have written. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There isn't much inappropriateness in telling the template that the |B5= criteria has been met. The template will assign a new rating based on the B-class checklist assuming that the article was at Start-class or higher. I really don't see how that would be assessing your own article. --Brad (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ship and shipwrecks

Just one small talk item on shipwrecks is not what I would consider sufficient for this - ships in my mind is an ill-named and rather puerile attempt at swallowing up a range of quite discrete maritime history subjects areas - (and good luck to them) but I think for shipwrecks to be clustered in is reflecting a rather poor understanding of the separation of duties SatuSuro 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong with a template?

Why are there four '''' here? [1] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it had something to do with the ongoing date delinking. When {{cite DANFS}} was modified, the remaining usage of a date format in existing articles went haywire. Just remove any date format parameters from the template where the problem occurs in articles. --Brad (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have e-mailed you. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've responded. --Brad (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Narara (1900) Assessment Thanks and Question

Brad Thanks for the cleanup (I noticed some of the mistakes I have been making from this clean up) and the assessing the Narara (1900), First off I’m and not questioning anything you have done, I’m just trying to understand the assessing scale. I’ve had a look at the scale (again I’m in no way trying to change your judgment) to see where I have been falling down and what improvement I need.

Basically I would say the article is about a very little vessel and has about everything that there is about the local trading vessel, with little more capable of being dug up.

I would agree that the article is a bit of an orphan and has few links (in or out) and I admit that I personally like to quote sections of the original source materials (to remove interpretations and as it is a source of history it gives the perspectives of the time) and I would say gramma is not always my strong suite.

Is the assessment in part about the importance of the subject (and I would agree this is a very low important subject) or are there areas that I really need to improve, if so please give me some indication of what these are so that I may improve in these areas (hopefully in plain English as I’m still coming to grips with some of the wiki slang) Again thanks in advance Whodidwhat (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The assessment of a class rating has nothing to do with how important the subject may or may not be. Please look at the B-Class FAQ for further explanation of what each part of the checklist is for. The Narara article isn't that far away from a B rating. The lead section needs to be expanded to summarize the entire article. There is some problem with the grammar in the article but I can go over that once you expand the lead section. --Brad (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up I'll have a look at the lead section in the next day or so - as for grammar sorry but defiantly not a strength of mine unfortunately Whodidwhat (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Hi

In view of my position on the differentiation of ships and shipwrecks and my disbelief that shipwreck categories are tagged with ships rather than shipwrecks - you might find that I am changing a number of your awb tagging from 2 years ago - please discuss as the shipwreck talk page rather than here or my talk - if you have a problem with that. While shipwrecks is a project with an obvious scope - I see no reason to have categories with ships tags rather than shipwreck tags - I do hope you understand... SatuSuro 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh hell - well I got it all wrong with some reverts and parsec boy has re-added ships cats - and its all at the ships and shipwreck project pages - SatuSuro 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Brad101

I upload a photo-file of the USS Constitution 1947 issue 3c Commemorative stamp in COMMONS (USS_Constitution-1947-3c.jpg) and tried to insert it into the USS Constitution page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution) but alas there is a 'technical error' of some sort that escapes me as I am a novice at HTML editing. I tried to us a copy/template and substituted the above file name, but that attempt bombed also. In any event, the photo-file is here at Wiki-commons if you would like to incorporate it into the page. It's an engraved stamp and depicts the sails and rigging quite clearly, esp when you zoom in. Hope you can use it. Gwillhickers (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC) gwillhickers

I guess that's the one you wanted. I'm not exactly sure if the copyright is correct as you listed it. If you took the photo then it isn't work of the US government. I need to be sure of the copyright before I can put it in the article. I had been hoping to get a photo of the stamp one day. Thanks very much for uploading it. --Brad (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Greetings again Brad101 After a little research I discovered that stamps issued before 1978 are in the public domain and that licensing doesn't apply.. In fact there is a page, 'List of people on stamps of the United States' that contains dozens of images of US Postage Stamps, though their image quality and resolution are not the best.
I will be uploading more high quality photos I've taken of various US postage stamps with a historical theme. Many stamps were issued in honor of Presidents and notables but many were also issued commemorating events, famous battles of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, as well as an array of other events. Hope they become of use to the history pages here at Wiki'. All the best, GWH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwillhickers (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brad101/Archive_4&oldid=1166514483"