User talk:Parsecboy/Archive4

Re: Kerrigan

Yes, it was in the novels, Kerrigan was one the thing ghosts who killed Mengsk Sr. But I don't know the specific novel off-hand, but many other users have confirmed this. The Clawed One (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

World War Two

Oops, my mistake. That'll teach me to wield the delete button so casually. Qjuad (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's easy to miss little things like that. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

World War One

Why do you dislike Serbia in info box in WWI? Serbia started the war, it won the first victory of allied countries, and a huge number of casualties comparing to population at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First, longevity in a conflict is not a criteria for being considered a major power. Australia was in the conflict from the beginning as well, yet it's not considered a major power either. The fighting in the Balkans just doesn't compare to that on the Western Front or in Russia in terms of scale or importance. Lastly, Bulgaria is included on the Central Powers side because it wouldn't make sense to have Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, and then have a "and others" when it just refers to the 4th member of the Central Powers, Bulgaria. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you measure importance of a country in the war? By the number of casualties? --D1111 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that for a country to be considered a "major power", it should make significant contributions to the war effot, something in this case I feel that really only France, Russia, the UK, and Italy did during WWI. One could argue in favor of the US in terms of manpower, some 4.3 million soldiers, and of course the aid in materiel. Consider that the Indian Empire provided over twice as many soldiers as Serbia did, and was fighting for just as long. They're not considered a major power either. I would like to point out, however, that the decision is not ours to make. We need to have reliable sources stating that Serbia is considered a major power during World War I. Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Major power" maybe not, but "major combatant" certainly yes. I personally think that Serbia played a major role in WWI by all means, especially by *relative* war effort, and it therefore deserved to be in the info box. Please at least do show some respect for Serbian casualties, which are at least bigger then those from USA. Relative Serbian casualties (in relation to population) were the biggest anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs)

Major power and major combatant are essentially the same thing. Like I stated in my comment above, it doesn't matter what you or I think about Serbia's contribution. Provide some reliable sources stating that Serbia was a major power during the war, and it can remain in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I care to give you a source? I was just surprised that Serbia was not there, and wanted to contribute. If you like tweaking the history, just go ahead. --D1111 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you need to provide me any sources. I mean for the article itself. Perhaps you should review the policy on verifiability. If you think Serbia should be included in the infobox, I would also suggest bringing it up on the talk page. I believe there was consensus at one point to not include Serbia, Canada, Romania, and other minor powers in the infobox. Again, reliable sources should be provided to support the change. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there also a Wikipedia's policy about which country is considered major combatant in one war? Because we are now discussing opinions, and not the actual facts (so how can I "provide a source"??). Speaking about opinions, IMO a total number of casualties should be considered more important then total personnel engaged (as they could have been engaged in potato peeling and not combat), so by that criteria USA actually should go in "et al.", and Serbia should stay in info box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs)

There's no need for a specific policy on "major combatants". The only one needed is verifiability. Provide sources backing up your claims, and Serbia can remain in the infobox. If you don't, you're just using your own opinions, which is not allowed here. As I said above, it would be best if this conversation continued on the talk page for WWI, in the discussion I started there. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean "there is no need" for specifying the policy, and you are the one who reverted my edits? Is that not your opinion them? I explained why I think info box should be changed. For sources, you just need to look up number of casualties in WWI. If you still think you are right, you just need to provide a way to measure war efforts that supports your claim; I gave you my criteria, it makes a lot of sense and is a plain number, so it is easy to compare. What is supposed to be your criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1111 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to review the core Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They all go hand in hand; to make a change (especially a controversial one, as this one is), you need to have reliable sources to verify those changes. A reliable source in this instance would be, for example a book written by a respected historian with established standing within the field in question, a peer-reviewed journal entry, and so forth. Simply stating the number of casualties and taking your own judgements from them is a clear case of original research, which, as mentioned before, is strictly prohibited. As should be obvious, there is no need for a specific policy about picking which countries are major and which are not in a given war. By following these three policies, we arrive at the correct end-point: a product that matches more or less with the consensus of historians on a broad scale. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

F-22 Pop Culture Thing

If you check the website of Ironman (the film) it tells you some information on it.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

German surrender?

World war 1 stuff The German people had understood the negotiations at Versailles to be a peace conference and not a surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thannad (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Squat effect

Hey, parsec, I'm wondering if you can help fill in a stub I created, since you seem far more knowledgeable than I am on things maritime. Other than knowing the basic info that I put into the stub article, I know nothing about the squat effect other than that it is interesting and a big scrape on the bottom of the QE2 was blamed on it. I hope I am not being presumptuous. Feel free to ignore this if I am. Roregan (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks loads. Roregan (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MV v. M/V

I noticed that you moved the MV Rhododendron article - were you planning to move all the others in the WSF fleet? BTW: Thanks for starting the moves - I had thought about doing all that sometime ago, but left it as I didn't want to deal with all the article moves needed at the time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I've moved and fixed links to avoid redirects on about a half dozen or so of them today to help out, but I need to go deal with the real-world again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

subordinate pages to M

You're too generous with giving out credit (or too humble to accept credit). I saw your post at WT:SHIPS#A_little_admin_help_is_required ... as far as I'm concerned, you're the one who uncovered the problem. I had noticed it in the WSF articles, but I hadn't acted on it until you started the process moving. And I had assumed it was limited to only the WSF articles until you posted the links to the other affected articles on my talk page. By the way: good job finding all of those! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I'm humble, but you did jump right in after I made the first couple of moves. I'm just glad the "SS" articles don't have the same problem. That would be quite a mountain of work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - more articles

Just a quick FYI: I've found a handful of articles here and here which were not previously tagged as part of WP:SHIPS. Luckilly, most of those are redirects - but there are some ship articles in the lists. I've begun tagging the ones I find with {{WikiProject Ships}}, but they will also need to be fixed to fix the M/S and M/V in their titles. I just wanted to give you warning that there are more with the slash. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IP reverts

The easiest way to fix a problem is to leave a message on an admins talk page. I'm just suggesting this because you don't want to get into an edit war. Try User:slakr, he's a helpful fellow. hope I helped--Pewwer42  Talk  15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the mark of a great editor is one that multiple IP address try to harass because the editor stopped there fun. Incidentally, I would fail with that criteria. How many of your friends know your user name and have you ever considered they could be playing a longggggg practical joke on you. another reason for stalkers is that you mention your service on your talk page (and your name and age and where you live) while most people (I would hope) respect that, some people have serious issues. Now if your willing to continue, bring every stalker IP to an admin, they can do IP bans for a section of address and I'm guessing there mostly from the same spot so the admin only has to do it once and it does them all. The more a user gets banned, the longer the next one is. and unless they move every time, the number of IP addresses are limited to a small range (that can all be banned at once as said above) Another thing is the right to vanish, you'll have to ask an admin for help with that one(of course) but it deletes this user name and gives you another which you don't put things on your user page that would help them identify you. One last thing, Why are you not an admin yourself, do you know how many edits you have http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Parsecboy&site=en.wikipedia.org over 6000 mainspace edits is more then enough to become an admin. Find someone who is willing to train you through admin coaching and get that mop (you can still use the right to vanish, just ask you coach how.) hope that helps and you haven't fallen asleep--Pewwer42  Talk  16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So the question is (because I've gone over your record and think your a great applicant) would you mind If I nominated you for adminship?--Pewwer42  Talk  07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly provide a co-nom, if you're interested? -MBK₀₀₄ 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, just let me know when the page is up. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked for 3 hours for violating the 3RR at Alaska Marine Highway. Your rollback privilege has also been withdrawn due to misuse. You may contest the block by placing {{unblock}} on this page and you may re-request the rollback privilege at WP:RFR. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires but consider discussing your edits rather than reverting. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Take a look at the page history; the IP vandal was reverting an edit I made to correct redirects; there's no content dispute. The vandal in question is a sock IP (check through my history this morning, and you'll see him stalking me in several different articles as well.}}

I am not reviewing your block (as it would be inappropriate) but I will point out that only reverts of simple vandalism are exempt from 3RR, simple vandalism being something that any user visiting a page could identify as vandalism even if they had never seen the page before. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think that's complete bs. Vandalism is vandalism; in this case it should be pretty apparent that I made a good faith edit a couple days ago, and this stalker reverted it. It's a clear case of vandalism; take a look at another page the troll was harassing me, and another, and my own to-do list. Note the IPs are in a similar range, and all return to Qwest in Seattle, WA. If you look in my block log, you'll see that I was erroneously blocked for the exact same thing back in September; this "friend" of mine has been harassing me even before that; since about May of last year. Even if you do argue that my reverts technically violate 3RR, let's use a little common sense and enfore the spirit of the law, not the letter. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. Sit tight for a moment. – Steel 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Steel. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, if you're still on to see it, the banned user is Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), banned in May or so for gross incivility. I was the one who reported him for said incivility, so he's latched onto me ever since then, following me around and vandalizing articles to which I contribute. Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. You're still missing a rollback bit for the time being, though. – Steel 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The rollback bit is ok; I can always re-request it. I'm glad someone here has their head on straight. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, I understand your adherence to what 3RR states, but I strongly believe that in cases like mine, where it was only a technical violation of 3RR (because you weren't aware that I was reverting the vandalism of a permanently banned user, although I must also share some blame in not knowing of that exemption), you should warn the editor in question, to give him or her to explain their actions. Just to let you know, this is what I've been dealing with since June of last year:User:Parsecboy/Labyrinth13 Sock IPs. He's been following me around ever since, using dynamic IPs to revert edits I make, and other general vandalism. I've added a note to the top of my talk page with a link to that subpage that hopefully will prevent this from happening again. Anyways, I don't fault you for not knowing, but I'd just like to ask that in the future, you give editors like myself at least a chance to explain themselves before issuing a block. It'll save everyone involved a headache. Thanks. User:Parsecboy —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, from my point of view you were edit warring over a page and have a decent contribution history, so you should have been aware of the 3RR. So, again from my point of view, there was no necessity to issue a warning first. Perhaps if you had left an edit summary rather than just using rollback I would have been better informed. You're welcome to re-request rollback at any stage. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is to just be a little more careful in issuing blocks. The initial edit I made at Alaska Marine Highway was to correct redirects from page moves others and I had performed to fix problems with forward slashes in the titles. It should've been clear that it wasn't a content dispute, just someone editing disruptively, and my reversions of said disruption. I am well aware of 3RR (having been bitten by it before, for the exact same reason as this time); I assumed that anyone who came across the incident would see it for what it was (as most usually do) and either help revert the vandal, or move on to something else. I generally do use edit summaries with vandalism that isn't clear cut, however, in dealing with this guy, I feel it's better to just revert him, as he tends to make dozens of edits (most of which should be apparent vandalism anyways) in a few minutes time. Regardless, what's done is done; let's move on. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored rollback rights after reviewing the chain of events, leading back all the way to the original incidents in June 2007. Parsecboy, you may want to be a little bit more careful on using rollback though, because of this, at least until we can use custom edit summaries (hopefully that is in the works). -MBK₀₀₄ 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Just answer the questions and we'll get this started. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've transcluded to WP:RFA, the seven most stressful days of your wiki-career have begun. ;) -MBK₀₀₄ 21:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks Parsecboy, I'll keep an eye on the comments. Oberiko (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA (2)

Well done. – Steel 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I do plan on going through the exercises at the NAS in a little while. If I have any questions, I won't hesitate to ask. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, no real opposition, now you have the mop go get 'em--Pewwer42  Talk  21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your confidence in me, and for nominating me for the mop. If you ever need help with anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Roregan (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thirded! It is great to see that my first nom (actually co-nom) was successful. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ship class vs. general ship type

Thanks for the feedback at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. It brought up an interesting point. When I was pushing Bulk carrier as a FAC, I noticed that there wasn't an appropriate template for broad classes of merchant ships, so I adapted {{Infobox_vessel_type}} from a template that Kerrigan wrote at fr.wikipedia.org. {{Infobox Ship Class Overview}} makes sense in the case of an actual class, in the technical sense, for classes like "T1 Tanker." In cases like "T1 Tanker," there are a small number of builders/operators and concepts like "Total ships planned" make sense. For more general groupings like "Tanker" it seems to me that {{Infobox_vessel_type}} makes better sense. Any feelings? Cheers. Haus^Talk 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of {{Infobox Ship Begin/doc}} is its flexibility derived from the modular design. Don't rule it out just because the template has a field you don't need - just leave that field blank. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

hehehe

So I think my latest idea is the best yet, check out my user page--Pewwer42  Talk  06:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Solo28

Much appreciated. He blags the code from my user page and then insults me several times ! Hammer1980·^talk 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

hi

Cometstyles has smiled at you and showered you with WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:User:Cometstyles/smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I get blocked for no reason always..hehehe..--Cometstyles 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block

Many thanks for blocking that anonymous user i reported at WP:AIV. I'm not usually on recent changes patrol but I've recently been given rollback and just thought i'd try it out. To be honest i'm surprised someone could get away with redirecting blue to red, replacing the contents of sadness with happiness and pasting parts of WP:ROUGE into nuclear war without being spotted more quickly. I think all three were current for over half an hour. Does that sort of thing happen a lot or did I just happen to stumble across something unusual? It seems curious to me that other patrollers or bots didn't catch it. I was hanging fire for a few minutes assuming someone more experienced would step in and it took me a while to find out what to do (then i got 2 edit conflicts while i was reporting it...) Think I'll go back to editing statistics articles! Regards, Qwfp (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I knew there was a lot of minor vandalism, I just thought that such major and clearly malicious stuff would be spotted quicker than that. Surely the bots can't be fooled simply by putting "fixed spelling" in the edit summary? (BTW i wouldn't mind if you deleted these comments after reading to make it harder for that user to track me, though i'm probably being needlessly paranoid...) Qwfp (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)