User talk:Cla68/Military history project dialogues

here

No problem friend. Don't feel some guilt or something like that. I've just done some maintenance. Btw, I am watching your professional edits for some time and must say you look like an expert for World War II. Do you study a history or something similar ? - Darwinek 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same satisfaction creating and editing all these articles. Surely it will help many people. I believe Wikipedia will become really a huge encyclopedia in a few years. It just started in 2001, I am here since 2004 and must say it's every year twice larger. Anyway, if you will need some help or assistance in future (I am an admin), just let me know. :) - Darwinek 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks for all your help on sources, etc - which was why I awarded the barnstar in the first place! John Smith's 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have nominated the article Axis naval activity in Australian waters for peer review and Kirill has suggested that I ask you to have a look at the article. If you've got the time I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks, --Nick Dowling 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments. --Nick Dowling 10:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your sixth (sixth!) featured article! Here's some champagne to celebrate the occasion! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Cla68. Do you need to add the links to the Japanese articles, when the interwiki links are already there: "ja:第三次ソロモン海戦", etc. And why as external links? —wwoods 07:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Cla88. I need some help with the detail regarding Amchitka's role in WWII, and Kirill suggested that you might be able to help. I've found two sources, but these contradict each other slightly, giving different names for the people involved. Can you help with this? Thanks, Jakew 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I've now revised the coverage of the section on WWII, and I'm now much happier with it. The main problem I had was that the sources were giving different names for the makers of certain decisions, but I've decided to omit names. I like to keep some human interest, but ultimately the article is about an island.

If the mood takes me, I might do a little work on the main Aleutian Islands Campaign article, as it could certainly use some work. However, I seem to have unintentionally adopted nuclear test sites as a personal project, and there are many more to do once I've finished this one... Cheers, Jakew 11:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for a map that zooms in on Kolombongara island, where did you find the solomon islands map so that I can find the others? --Sugarcaddy 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree on the ganging up thing, I had to fight 13 people at once. --Sugarcaddy 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what was wrong with the testimony edit of the nurse who stated she helped cover up bodies in West Tokyo. It had references and quotes by the people who investigated that issue. The nurses name is Toyo Iishi. If we don't give specifics in that article section people tend to delete it. Then later as time goes on references will get lost or forgotten, then people tend to state that the information is not true. I will try to re-edit it without the qoutes by the investigator which could be seen as POV, I believe they stated "legacy of Japans rampage" or something. But I think the name of the individual who testified needs to be included, otherwise the article which is sensitive to begin with is always being changed with people asking for proof. It reminds me of the holocaust section where some people keep saying it never happened. Anyways I'll add the name of the nurse, but I won't put in the quotes. Please check it out and see if you have problems with it and let me know, thanks. --4.23.83.100 10:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess for me the museum was frustrating because I was with a bunch of people who kept saying how horrible it was, and one stupid girl who said to the Japanese with us "I want to apologize for what my country did to you" followed by solemn nods from other foreigners in our group. But there is no mention of what preceded the bombing, other than the "cold, calculated" process America took to decide what city to bomb. It most definately is designed to elicit sympathy from the rest of the world. Even my own girlfriend said while we were there "I hate Americans." So much for fostering "peace." I have never introduced the atomic bombings into conversations when talking with a Japanese person; they always do.--Nobunaga24 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Template:Campaignbox Pacific 1941 should be kept for three reasons. Firstly, if we are following Allied commands in our definition of campaigns/theatres, it corresponds somewhat with the short-lived American-British-Dutch-Australian Command, which preceded the three Allied supreme commands formed in mid-1942 --- the Pacific Ocean Areas (command), South West Pacific Area (command) and the South East Asia Command. Second, I also think that if we combine the Pacific 1941 items in the other two (or three) they will become too big and unwieldly. Third, "Pacific 1941" covers the period of the Japanese offensives up to and including Midway, after which the tide of war turned. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 07:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be the first person to ever have two featured articles promoted simultaneously. Congratulations! :-) Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's well-known that Koreans were often used as POW camp guards and some individual Koreans perpetrated some terrible abuses. However, to mention them in that context makes it sound like torture was somehow peculiar to Koreans, when it was really an aspect of the brutal Japanese military culture of the time. Grant65 | Talk 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have just self nominated Axis naval activity in Australian waters for Featured Article status. If you'd like to vote or make a comment, the nomination page is: Featured article candidates/Axis naval activity in Australian waters‎ Cheers, --Nick Dowling 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice and vote of support. --Nick Dowling 07:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Presented for the amazing work you have done on the pacific Theater during WWII. If I can ever be of help please let me know. Cheers--Looper5920 01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've read your explanation on my user page for tagging commons:Image:GuadAoba.jpg as U.S. Goverment work. I think that I've found ideal tag for that photo, and for other similar photos: commons:Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto. I've tagged commons:Image:GuadAoba.jpg, and you should only provide image source. Bojan 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for bothering you with this, but might you be able to chip in on this A-Class review? The usual crowd seems decidedly absent, and I'd prefer not to have the article sit in limbo because we haven't been able to round up some reviewers. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

moved to user page.

I came here, saw this and decided not to start a new section. But anyway:

Hi There,

Just created this article, Battle of Ghazni during the First Anglo-Afghan War. I was wondering if you could fix up anything which is incorrect or add to this battle or link this battle to other articles so that it generates traffic. Thankyou. Mercenary2k 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a minute, could you take a look at Template talk:Campaignbox New Guinea? I've done a major expansion/reorganisation and have "compressed" some battles as sub-campaigns. Grant65 | Talk 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Grant65 | Talk 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. (I had a redlink to Battle of Driniumor‎.) On a related note, after much pondering and changes of mind I have also created Battle of Aitape as a dab and moved "Battle of Hollandia" to Operations Reckless and Persecution with several redirects. Grant65 | Talk 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we were both working on Bougainville simultaneously. I had decided to group the Japanese counterattacks of March 9-17, 1944, as "Bougainville counterattack", (see http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Rabaul/USA-P-Rabaul-17.html) but I'm assuming that you have split it up into smaller actions(?) I'm fine with it either way -- the problem with the theatre as a whole from the point of view of military history is that there were so many small, interlocking actions. Grant65 | Talk 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, isn't Landings at Cape Torokina already covered under Battle of Empress Augusta Bay? Grant65 | Talk 13:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NM, I just saw your answer at Talk:Battle of Empress Augusta Bay. Grant65 | Talk 13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I think it is somewhat confusing to have a "Battle for Bougainville" within "Bougainville campaign". Since you don't mind, I'll change it to Bougainville counterattack, with it showing as "Japanese counterattack" in the campaignbox. Grant65 | Talk 17:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just added that photo to the article, replacing the photo of the sub on the back of a truck. It fits in nicely with the photo of the funeral of the Australians killed in the attack. --Nick Dowling 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the request for A-class review in the WPMILHIST pages. Nice, complete article. One quick question:

• Background section - 2nd paragraph: Was the goal to secure the islands by night fall of the 8th, or was the goal simply to secure the islands (which was accomplished by the 8th)?

— ERcheck (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal was to secure the islands of Tulagi, Gavutu, and Tanambogo as well as the airfield on Guadalcanal (which was accomplished by the 8th). Since it may not be clear enough, I'm going to try to rewrite that sentence. Cla68 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.... the article is well on its way to Featured. — ERcheck (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I left an additional comment on the Peer review page. — ERcheck (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the go to guy for the Pacific War I thought I'd ask you to take a look at the CAF page and let me know what you think about the layout. My biggest concern right now is that it is presented in a logical format where the info flows. Do you think the sections are what the need to be? Any advice you can give is appreciated. Thanks--Looper5920 08:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, happy new year from me also. I have changed the terminology at Battle of the Tenaru because "United Kingdom" in military history is usually understood as meaning the British Isles and forces recruited and emanating from there. British Solomon Islands Protectorate is now a redirect to Solomon Islands as the present state is a direct successor of the colonial one.

BTW, I just discovered 15,900 Google hits for "British Solomon Islands Protectorate Defence Force" and 17,300 hits for "BSIPDF"! So that is clearly worth an article too. Sadly ironic that the present day Solomons is a failed state which barely even has a polic force, let alone a military. Grant65 | Talk 04:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's comparable to the situation with the (British) Indian Army, in which units/formations were referred to as "Indian _ Brigade", "Indian _ Division" , "Indian _ Corps" etc, when a majority of the subordinate units/personnel originated in India, even if other units in the formation were actual British Army units. Grant65 | Talk 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started a stub article for British Solomon Islands Protectorate Defence Force. Information is very scarce. Grant65 | Talk 11:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I believe I have addressed most of them. If you have time, could you look at the recent dispute on the article's talk page and offer some comments on that issue? I am afraid as long as there are only two opposed voices we are rather deadlocked.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the acknowledgement on your user page. "Advice on preparing a history article for FA" is a good read too. Grant | Talk 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Was wondering if you thing that Cactus Air Force maybe sonmeday has a chance of being nominated for FA-status. I know it is a long way off but it does have some potential. Was wondering if you thought it was worth a chance?--Looper5920 13:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors I really trust I was hoping you could do me a favor and take a read through List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons. You may have noticed that it has been my pet project for awhile. I am still working on the intro but I was hoping you could just go through and copyedit. Right now I still need to add the Post WWII info and edit some of the earlier stuff. It needs a fresh set of eyes to make sure it is on the right track. When it is complete one of these days I am hoping to put it up for WP:FLC. Anyway, if you have a few spare moments please give it the once over. Cheers.--Looper5920 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly the web has very few resources for lower ranking officers and enlisted personnel, even famous ones. Two that come to mind are Barbara Rainey the first female Naval Aviator and Doris Miller the first African American awarded the Navy Cross neither have significant bios on the internet. You may want to try Arlington Cemetery (If the officer is buried there) they sometimes have decent bios on certain famous officers. Your best bet is the library but even then your limited by the officers notability. If the officer is notable enough they will have a biography somewhere, but thats not to say it will be easy to find. I wish I had a better answer but, I have found most of the time you will have to piece together small tidbits of information from various sources in order to really get anywhere. Sorry I couldn't be more help. As for John McCain Sr. I did find a small bio on Arlington site here Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 07:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just purchased Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II written by Ikuhito Hata and Yasuho Izawa (1970) and edited by Don Cyril Graham (1989). I was wondering if you own this one amongst your library and if so have you been using it? It has some numbers for the Guadalcanal campaign and a others but I would want to bounce them off what you have to make sure we are putting a good product out there. Some seem legit and others seem a bit high. Let me know--Looper5920 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard of this book. Does it cite its sources? One problem, from what I've seen, of Japanese history books translated into English is that they often don't have a reference list or bibliography. So, it's hard to tell how credible the information they contain is. Henry Sakaida's book on Japanese Navy Aces is considered credible so that book might serve as a cross-reference for this one, but I don't have that book either. If the numbers in Hata/Izawa's book differ greatly from numbers in Frank's or Lundstrom's books, then I'd probably go with what Frank or Lundstrom say. But, that book must have some good information, because in searching the web it looks like it was used as a reference for at least one article in World War II magazine. Cla68 13:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You made and uploaded the video still for the 190th/Blues and Royals friendly fire article. I need to capture a video still for another article that I'm preparing to start but don't know how to do it. How do you capture a video still into a .jpg or .gif file? Cla68 09:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

VideoLAN has the built in function to screen capture. I use and recommend that. VideoLAN is also an excellent video player and it can even play corrupt video files to a degree. -- Cat ^chi? 09:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, all I was trying to do was correct Crutchley's name, reinstate Getting's name and maybe one or two other minor touches. I think we were both working on it at the same time and one or two edits got tangled up. I've seen this happen at least once before. I certainly wasn't trying to alter the stuff you are talking about. Grant | Talk 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on another one of your articles making the featured article!! Great work! --Kralizec! (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Someone today took exception to a bit of text you added back in December. Please see also their comments on the talk page. I guess what would be nice is reverifying that was the text from the book? Shenme 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed you added it to your user page. It was announced a week or so ago that its going to be the production base for The Pacific, the successor to Band of Brothers and most of the shooting will be done in other parts of Australia. From what they'e said, it looks like the story will focus on the 1st Marine Div.Grant | Talk 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to checking it out when it gets shown here on Japanese cable TV. I was in Melbourne on a work trip so I didn't get to see as much of it and the surrounding area as I wanted to. Cla68 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing your nomination for Fatured Picture, I thought you might want to support your own nomination - I don't think you'd have nominated an image you didn't like! :) J Are you green? 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I got his date of birth from the Social Security Death Index. There are only two "Arthur A. Holland"s in the index. One of them (SSN 225-72-0756, issued in Virgina) has "24 Jun 1994" a the date of death. There is no real doubt it's him. You can add a note of that source to the article if you think it is appropriate. http://ssdi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

66.24.243.60 07:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On 15 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Iowa turret explosion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on this article! Kudos, to you sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Contact is a new service and honor the milhist project has introduced. I want to suggest you as a possible contact. Could you please name some subjects you are quite familiar with and willing to help(answer questions, reviews) within our scope. Wandalstouring 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You were elected contact (It took so long because I had to reduce my wikitime). You will be notified about peer reviews within your scope. Please help us to find other editors capable of becoming a contact. Wandalstouring 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cla68,

I noticed you listed Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#Peer review requests. I apologize if the instructions there were unclear. The purpose of that list is to inform editors who work on Japan-related articles of relevant peer-review requests that have already been submitted to Wikipedia:Peer review. Since this article has not been submitted there, I removed it from the list, but I encourage you to submit it to WP:PR according to the nomination procedure and list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#Peer review requests again. (If, like me, you find editing tables tedious, you probably already know it's easy to copy and paste from an old version.)

I've added to the instructions and hope they're more clear now. Since it's a wiki, you can of course edit them too.

The article looks interesting and I wish you success in getting a peer review.

Best regards,

Fg2 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are an expert in military history, I wonder if you might have an opinion as to the article on this book. Is being used as a truncheon to beat up on George Soros, but apart from that I wonder if the book is sufficiently notable as to warrant its own article. I am suspicious by the lack of a prominent publisher, and the sensationalist claims being made. --Samiharris 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for helpful reply and suggestions. --Samiharris 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gig 'em! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding! Good work, and many happy returns! Check-Six 05:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This review might interest you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cape Esperance Greetings Wandalstouring 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Cape Esperance that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's me, cla68, that submitted that article. I changed my signature recently. CLA 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't check that. Wandalstouring

I've made some changes following your comments at the recent A-class review of Ironclad warship and would be interested to hear your thoughts before renominating the article. Many thanks, The Land 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a new peer review request for Attack on Sydney Harbour that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small additionin my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have been elected to serve as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. When you get a chance, please stop by the coordinators' work area and take a look at the various open tasks and ongoing discussions there. Kirill 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your election as an assistant coordinator. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats to you on your election as an asst coordinator! I look forward to working with you in the future. LordAmeth 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: please try to drop by the coordinator work area sometime soon if you haven't already. Thanks! :-) Kirill 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Good luck on your trip. Kirill 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cla68,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Burning Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat of VF-2 aboard USS Enterprise (CV-6) on 10 November 1943 (80-G-205473).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 8, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-09-08. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cla68,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 5, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-05. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see an article on Battle of Koromokina Lagoon. Could you create it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to start a stub article on it this weekend. Cla68 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great - yours and the projects work on WWII Pacific theatre is awesome -a pleasure to read. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Super work. Thanks!! Keep up the great work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cla, someone asked on Blackwater USA's talk what was going on with the external links to ebird.afis.mil, which it appears only viewers from a military network apparently? You added the first ones here. Please let us know on the article talk page? Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 06:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it didn't influence deliveries to Guad, just that it wasn't that simple, & IJA's perceptions of Vandegrift's strength needs to be mentioned, IMO. Trekphiler 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, notice you're doing great work on adding the MILHIST tag to talkpages you're creating. Just wanted to pass on a thought- when I do that, I also delete the article from the Assessment Drive list- means that nobody has to come back to it for a while. Cheers Buckshot06 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Tautog infobox? It's showing "struck" rather than "stricken", & won't accept a change to that without wiping out the section entirely. Nor will it accept an add "as built" without putting it in a weird place... Trekphiler 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that it's using a different infobox template than the other related submarine articles that uses "struck" instead of "stricken" and doesn't have an "as built" field. The infobox probably needs to be switched from the "Infobox Ship" to "Ship Table Header 01" as in the USS Thresher (SS-200) article. Cla68 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support at the above successful FAC.--Jackyd101 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi could you expand Mariana and Palau Islands campaign a bit cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your're terrific!!! thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cla68, thanks for providing "references" to articles, but I'm worried that such an addition is misleading. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have the information put in there (assuming they are indeed reliable sources), but I fell it's important we are careful not to give people the impression they were used to actually write the article. They are kind of link additional material that may contain some of the info in the article, but not all, and may contain additional.

Please continue to add the sources, but, please put them either as a (general) "Further Reading" section, or if you can link them to specific info, it's even better if you can add them as in-line cites.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this. thanks --Merbabu 09:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Books that aren't actually used for the article should be in a "further reading" section. The thing is, a lot of those articles are so undeveloped that by putting the book in the "references" section, I'm indirectly advocating that whoever decides to improve that article should really consider using that book. If I'm the one who ever decides to improve the article, usually with FA as the goal, then I'll probably use that book as one of the references. Of course, that doesn't mean that the book can't be listed at first in the "further reading" section and then moved to the references section at a later time. Cla68 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the citation you request on the A-class review page for USS Illinois (BB-65), would you reconsider your poistion on the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour and take a look at Talk:Yamashita's gold? Thanks. Grant | Talk 08:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject but it looks like you're correct in your position on the article's content. I'll help you out if you need it. Cla68 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could explain why agree with me on the talk page, I would appreciate it. Grant | Talk 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you are familiar with it but if you go here and type in Provide Comfort there are about 850 images that come up. May be able to use one or two of them.--Looper5920 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's actually where I already found most of the images that I have. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there again. I made some more updates, mainly pruning down the military reform section and forking it. Thanks, `Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Cla. I've gone through and hopefully improved the article. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed to support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackwater Worldwide/archive1

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Happy New Year —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdws (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it and left a comment on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This might be of some interest to you; it's probably a matter you're more qualified to comment on, in any case. Kirill 14:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure; they were insignificant endash corrections. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please ping me if you get a better image file of that photo. It can take a little while to handle the correspondence, but people have been surprisingly helpful offsite about these things. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Cla68. I was asked to write a signpost tutorial about how to get an article to featured article. This is my first draft. It is based on my own page: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA, which was inspired by your advice as well. If you have time, check the draft, offer any comments you would like, check the prose, and propose me any improvements you regard as useful. Thank you in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way what happened to the MILHIST's advice on writing a FA. I click on the link, but I cannot find it. Did they remove it or am I just fool?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on the page's talk page. Great work. I'm not sure what happened to the MILHIST FA advice. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in this or this. I put this up here just to get it out of the way. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the USAF incident FAC passing. For future reference, you can use the |accessdate= and |accessyear= parameters so as to have a consistent date. Woody (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip and for the helpful comments. Cla68 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good day,I am soliciting your input and support for reinstating an article that I wrote called Leo J Meyer. Col Meyer was a soldier who started out in pre WWII National Guard ranks. After being called to Federal service and serving in the Pacific for most of 1942 he attended USAAF OCS in Miami Beach Fl along with several Hollywood personalities. His squad Sergeant was William Holden. He continued thru the war to Japan and returned after it to NYNY. He reenlisted in the National Guard and then transferred back onto active duty. He managed to get his commission reinstated and spent the rest of his time on active Army until retiring as a Colonel in 1971. He actually participated in combat in three wars and was awarded three Combat Infantryman Badges (read the article and the article on the CIB to learn the significance).

Besides telling a story of a man who “just wanted to be a soldier” I intended to wet the whistle of readers with a glimpse of US Army history (federalization of NG, WWII enlisted rank system, etc) hoping to encourage further investigation and learning of that history via Wikipedia.

I began posting the article to Wikipedia in late November 2007. By late January 2008 I felt the military biography was essentially complete without telling anecdotal stories about him and his friends like Hugh Casey for whom Camp Casey, Korea was named. That would only point out his personality and not necessarily be encyclopedic. At the end of January 08 a Wikipedia Administrator nominated the article for deletion. Although there were a couple of administrators who participated in the discussions who supported leaving the article, the decision was made to delete.

Obviously I feel that the Military Biographical Article falls in line with other articles of soldiers like Meyer’s friend Frederick Weyand whose article was the example I followed.

I found that those people who participated in the AfD did not read everything published or what was there very clearly, i.e. I hade posted an image of an article from an Army publication which addressed Meyer’s earning his parachute wings at age 51 and I had included from the get go the title of a book about Scrimshaw in which some of his art work was published by the books author. One complaint about this later was that there was no ISBN. I could not find one but I have found the Library of Congress Catalog numbers for the two books referenced.

I have modified the article and it is currently at User:Meyerj user page. I am inviting you to read it and if you support reinstating it, helping me to do so.

Thank you for your time.Meyerj (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for taking some of your time. User:Nick Dowling recommended you (see here) as someone who maybe able to help me in a referencing problem for 3 Japan military related articles on subjects from the WWII period. I have already asked this question on the Japanese military history task force talk page but have had no response. Sorry if you have already seen this query there, but I am no expert in Japan or its military history so would appreciate some expert guidance. Any help would be much appreciated, even if it is to advise where/who else to ask. regards ascidian | talk-to-me 12:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it looks like you identified correct sources. I also responded at the Japan MilHist page. Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at them, its a great help to know I'm on the right track. I'll also try and look at those other two sources you mentioned. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cla... if you get a chance, mind taking a gander at Bezhin Meadow? It's the one I'm working on now--I've got a ton of sources at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Bezhin Meadow that I still need to go through. Any early feedback would be appreciated, as in the past. I've got it in for a GA nom, I think it's probably 6-8 weeks from an FA nom, if I can keep up the pace from the past few days and not get sidetracked. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I don't work much on film articles, but doesn't the film plot section come before the production section? If not, no big deal. Also, you might try to explain in greater detail why the Soviet authorities didn't like the film. After reading their rationale, I still don't understand why they didn't like it. But, perhaps that's the point. Maybe their reasoning was contradictory and didn't make much sense. Also, what was the critical reaction to the film after it was finally released? And, what type of cinematographic style did it use, surrealism, noir, hyper-realism, etc.? And whatever style it used, was it the same kind of style used by most Russian film makers of that time? Anyway, looks like a good start. Cla68 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The reason the Soviet authorities sank it is absurdly contradictory, added in by the fact the man mainly responsible may or may not have been an English spy--as far as I can tell, about 1/4 through the sources, a mystery. I put the production before the summary, since it seems like the production itself is more notable than the film. It seems odd to me, as well--the story being the filming of the film, rather than the film itself. I'll look into expanding the other bits based on your suggestions. The sources are rich, but a bear to get through. The reaction/legacy section I think will end up the largest in the end... Lawrence § t/e 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I don't understand the dispute and talk page is difficult to parse because the participants there seem to be already very knowledgeable in what the dispute is. Please explain to me what the dispute is about assume (correctly) that I have no background at all in what it involves. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue involves the lead. Some users want to add this information to the lead. As I explained in my large post at the bottom of this thread, such claims seem undue and fringe. For example, a similar argument would be to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article (which I'd oppose, of course), or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd take it to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and post a link and notification about the thread there on the talk page of the article, and perhaps on the talk pages of the editors involved. The editors at that noticeboard could provide some good advice on how to approach the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the noticeboard, I haven't thought of that. What to you yourself think about the fringiness (or lack of it) of the information discussed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

You're correct the whole thing is bigger than KC-X, yet it would be better I think if it could be named differently. Virtually every aircraft programme the DOD does is bitterly controversial at some point; the B-1A, the A-12, the B-36, the RAH-66, the F-22, the F-35 all come to mind without too much thought. What would you think of a re-name to 'US KC-135 replacement program' (not 'programme,' since this is US)? Your thoughts would be appreciated. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading my mind! You've already done it. Thanks Buckshot06(prof) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed as passing, Good luck with the FA. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominated [1]. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cla, any interest in c/e'n this. Its very close just needs a final push. Ceoil ^{Non visto ... Provvedi} 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats okl; Dank55 saved the day re prose, and Yannis has it covered re content. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 09:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A little help please. You undid my link for Robert Hall in the Battle for Henderson Field, because it pointed to the wrong Robert Hall. You are right. I was trying to fix it, without success. If you have the skills, please redo the link to point to Robert K. Hall (National Guard Officer). Find it under Robert Hall (disambiguation).Best Regards!! Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmilesmmr (talk • contribs) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Update: My Robert K. Hall page has been deleted anyway, I guess it is not to be. Thanks anyway!!! Todd Jtmilesmmr (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that that page existed. Sorry for not helping with it. I wish I could have participated in the deletion discussion, because I might could have helped it not be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! I have asked for some help in getting it reinstated. If it goes up, I'll let you know so you can add. Best regards. Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmilesmmr (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Robert K. Hall (National Guard Officer) has been put back. I'd appreciate it if you could re do the link from the Battle for Henderson Field article to point to the right Robert Hall. It would also be great if you could improve on the rather short story I put together. I can't even find birth/death dates, or confirm that he was one of the very few soldiers to be awarded the Navy Cross for WWII service. Thanks! Jtmilesmmr (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I worked on the article [2]. I don't think it will be a candidate for deletion now. I would suggest putting the references in the correct format (see the Battle for Henderson Field as an example) and adding some inline citations. Otherwise, I think it's a fine start. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate, could you look at an article I'm authoring here (It's only done up to the "incident" section). I want to know what type of infobox I should use, the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} or {{Infobox Aircraft accident}}??? Cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For friendly fire incidents, I use the infobox such as used in this article. Cla68 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the article once completed. It's almost inevitable that there's always some kind of coverup after these incidents occur, isn't it? Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm consulting you because you commented on the Battle of Strasbourg review and therefore preseumably have an interest in this period. What I would ask you to do is to read my article Late Roman army through and give me your opinion on whether you think it's A-class.

Wandalstouring recently nominated it for A-class review, but the results of the exercise were disappointing, to say the least. The problem was that we got only one comment, from someone who, as it turned out, knows nothing about Roman history and who only bothered to read the intro and the first few paras. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Late Roman army. After my response, the commentator appointed himself copyeditor (without invitation) and proceeded to edit in a way that obliged me to make factual corrections to virtually every para (see the History of the article). The commentator then suggested the article should be transformed into a kind of sequel to the blood-and-sex TV series Rome (see the Discussion page of the article). So what should have been a serious review of a serious article turned into a farce. After the first couple of sections, I had to request that he stop the copyedit. Someone then closed the review after just 4 days and before anyone else had had a chance to comment.

I don't accept that this process was a remotely valid assessment of the article and intend to renominate it in the near future. But first I would like to build a body of support that can weigh in at the appropriate moment. So do let me have your views. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic should be withdrawn. The nominator is a new account and it is clear that you have done a significant amount of work on the topic, so it should be up to you. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the article need to get to FA. Burningjoker (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to finish the Operation Ke article, summarize that article in its own section in the Guadalcanal Campaign article, add citations to the "Aftermath and significance" section in the Guadalcanal Campaign article, then nominate it for A-Class review in WP:MILHIST to get some more eyes on it to make sure its complete. Then, I'll nominate it for FA. We're probably looking at another few weeks or so before its ready. I appreciate your help and interest in helping out with it. Cla68 (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

how's it. Burningjoker (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One of your sentences is missing some words: "Dr. Lounsbury that the book would ultimately not be suppressed." Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed [3]. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ran into a hitch. Someone didn't like the change at World War II casualties. In order to avoid a quarrel I've opened a noticeboard thread. Thought you should know. Durova^Charge! 11:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Talk:World_War_II_casualties#Images
• User_talk:Durova#Image_WW2

Please see Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II#Monte Cassino --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've joined [4] the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article James Dalton II, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't read the rules closely enough and didn't realize stub articles weren't eligible. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A major rewrite (up to and include a renaming) has significantly changed the Kiev Expedition (1018) article, which you recently supported for A-class. I've commented on talk, but so far we have a revert war in mainspace and comments would be much appreciated. I belive the rewrite has a potential to significantly improve the article, but currently the article has destabilized. Your comments would be much appreciated at Talk:Boleslaw_I's_intervention_in_the_Kievan_succession_crisis,_1018#Please_explain_major_rewrite_in_detail.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was an interesting article with some real scope in it, especially when I found out he got the Silver Star. That photo of Dalton with MacArthur at the local library site is fantastic. Would look great on the page. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Cla! I just finished reading a book on the Hainan Island incident, which I found really interesting. Looking around, there seems to be a lot of other sources still live on both the Chinese and U.S. sides. Do you think, if I put some effort into it, the article could be improved to FA? Kelly ^hi! 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article can be taken to FA because of the sources available. Unfortunately, two sources that would have a lot of information, Stars and Stripes and Military Times only make available two or three years history of their articles before removing them from their websites. In spite of this, I think there is probably still enough information available on sites like the NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, and others. If more articles are needed, I think we could ask someone with a LexisNexis account to locate and provide them. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Dalton II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, according to my spreadsheet, I have promoted 500 FAs as of today.[5] Congratulations on another fine job at Operation Ke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cla68 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, several links in the Web section are not cited in the article. For that reason, I would have thought that they should be moved to "Further information"... Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 06:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've done so [6]. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but if you want to, by all means go ahead and nominate it.

Also, I noticed you uploaded Image:PacificWarAlliedCommandChart.jpg. I was thinking about uploading something like that myself. However, the one you uploaded is inaccurate in two respects. The pacific command structure was divided into:

• the southwest pacific (MacArthur)
• Pacific ocean areas. This was itself subdivided into
  • North (Nimitz)
  • Central (Nimitz)
  • South (delegated by Nimitz to Robert Ghormley and later Bull Halsey)
• Pacific fleet command (Nimitz)

The picture omits the south pacific area delegation, and omits the fleet command. Raul654 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Image:Pacific WWII command.svg Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll make the change. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you did it already. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I will leave this one to you. Good luck with the rewrite. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you can make us of this, but when doing some preliminary reserach into the accident I discovered a number a similar incidents with gunpowder explosions that hurt ships, most notable two explosions in the #2 gun turret on the battleship USS Mississippi and an explosion in the #2 gun turret aboard the heavy cruiser USS Newport News (CA-148) that rendered the turret inoperable. I'm not sure if you or will make us of the information, but I thought you might at least like to know about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing I forgot to mention: Your name and the Turret explosion appear on the page User:TomStar81/Iowa class battleship featured topic work group; if you would like to update the articles status on the page as it moves up the assement chart you are free to do so. Alternatively, me or MBK and track and update it if you prefer not to. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, I think I've found a semi-accurate casualty figure for American forces. Could you give the article another peruse if you have time? Thanks. Regards, Cam (Chat) 06:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, date issues fixed. Cam (Chat) 04:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cla, NYB's post (above) led me to check your contribs. Which led me to see that editors were entering declarations on the closed Gabon coup FAC (closed only four days ago with serious issues, see the previous FAC talk page). Which led me to realize that the MilHist announcements template wasn't being updated. Which led me back to premature Keep declarations on the Russian Ground Forces FAR. Moral of the story: thank you NYB for sending my day down a black hole: I used to really count on the MilHist Project to uphold FA standards. I'm hoping that you, Roger, Woody, WS and some of the other oldtimers can bring the MilHist Project back to its former glory wrt upholding FA standards. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have looked at it more closely. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Cla68, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in considering a collaboration on the articles about Japanese carriers & battleships? Cam ^(Chat) 23:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Look forward to it. Please edit away and I'll try to help out later. The Yamato-related articles need some work and they get a lot of views, so it was in that area that I probably was going to start working next, but it will be a few months probably before I get to it.

By the way, I recently acquired some Japanese picture books about IJN aircraft carriers and Yamato class battleships which contain some pictures that I've never seen before, and may not be widely available, or available at all, outside Japan. Subject to when I have spare time, I'm going to start scanning and uploading these pictures to Commons and linking them to image galleries for the different ships. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! You're in Japan, so you likely have access to more resources than I do (and different resources). I'm beginning right with Yamato and then moving onto the rest gradually, so happy editing & uploading! Cam ^(Chat) 03:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get some of the Yamato images uploaded soon. Some especially interesting ones are from the original engineering plans and blueprints, some in color, of the ship's design and construction. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

this is just an initial list (this will likely expand, since I haven't dragged out all my Pacific War books yet). Cam ^(Chat) 03:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jackson, Robert (2000). The World's Great Battleships. Brown Books. ISBN 1-89788-460-5
• Reynolds, Clark G (1982). The Carrier War. Time-Life Books. ISBN 0-80943-304-4
• Schom, Alan (2004). The Eagle and the Rising Sun; The Japanese-American War, 1941-1943. Norton & Company. ISBN 2-00201-594-1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
• Willmott, H.P. (2000). The Second World War in the Far East. Wellington House. ISBN 2004049199 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.

Looks good. I have Peattie and Evans' Kaigun, Skulski's Battleship Yamato, Dull's Battle History, and Hansgeorg and Jung, Dieter and Mickel, Peter Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! The last one in that list might come in handy, seeing as it might finally settle some dispute over the statistics on displacement, crew, length etc. The infobox figures and the figures I have access to have contradicted one another on almost every statistic(that, or whoever wrote the infobox really sucked at converting from metres to feet and knots to km/h!). Cam ^(Chat) 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I, too, am interested to see what the response will be (if there is any response). I was not aware that the captain of Big J was part of the coverup. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, that contradicts the Navy's official records on who was CNO at the time See here. Neovu79 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops nevermind, you're right. I see my mistake. :-) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality over Quantity, Cla. I am more than willing to wait for your rewrite to wrap up before going ahead with the FT nom. As it as at the moment I have two articles that are not to FA standards yet and likely will not be until after new years. Its been three years in themaking, a few more monthes of waiting in exchange for an entirely FA FT will not kill me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One other thing I keep forgetting to mention: have you tired to find/found a picture of Clayton Hartwig? I tried for monthes (on again/off again) to find his picture and never did locate anything, and was hoping maybe someone lese could find such an image so as to allow us to put it up here. TomStar810 (Talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While looking at older FAs, I came across Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and Battle of the Eastern Solomons. They are in incredible shape for articles that were promoted to Featured in 2006; I only did a little minor cleanup work. The external links/further reading sections have become a bit linkfarm-y; I marked one deadlink at the former article (and removed a way-too-broad external link), and at the latter article, commented out several external links to books that appear to be general ship histories. Could you take a look when you get a chance? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Those corrections are great and much appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have no issues with you editing the articles simultaneously (I am a fierce opponent of article ownership). Of particular note should be the fact that I have little to no writings on the "Design and construction" section of both the Yamato battleship and the class page. If you could concentrate on those section, I should be able to finish rewriting the "design features" bit by the end of this week. Cam ^(Chat) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated this very important article for good article listing. It should be much better quality. If you have time, please have a look. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is on my "to do" list to try to bring it up to FA standards. I'll probably get to it in another couple of months. Cla68 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

one thing I've never quite been able to figure out with regards to ship naming: We call it USS Iowa, using its official designated name. If that's the case, then why do we call the IJN Yamato the Japanese Battleship Yamato? Seems the former would make more sense than the latter. We don't call it United States Battleship Iowa, so why do we apply it to the Axis-power navies? Cam ^(Chat) 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's been the way it's been done on Wikipedia since before I started editing in late 2005 and I haven't been able to find the original discussion on why it's done that way. I believe the official title for Imperial Japanese Navy ships is, "His Imperial Japanese Majesty's Ship Yamato", which would mean the ship is "HIJMS Yamato". But, I think the argument against this is that the real name is in Japanese, and therefore the "HIJMS" abbreviation is an English-language approximation, and therefore not completely accurate. So, we end up stuck with a generic titile of "Japanese battleship Yamato. I notice that CombinedFleet.com uses "IJN Yamato so perhaps that is the way to go. If so, we should probably bring it up at either the maritime warfare project page or the main MILHIST project talk page. Cla68 (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that answers my question. I'll float it around the Coordinators to see if anyone there knows why it ever was drafted that way. Regardless, I'll begin drafting a proposal to ammend the naming conventions as soon as possible. Cam ^(Chat) 06:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this could very well become my next FA :). I'm probably going to stop by my University library tomorrow and check out this book. Raul654 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. Cam ^(Chat) 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lexis apparently doesn't have the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but there is an article "Deadly Blast Haunts Battleship's Skipper," Steve Vogel, March 18, 2001, Washington Post. I think it might be the same story with a different headline, because the byline claims that Steve Vogel is a Washington Post staff writer, and it has a direct quote from Moosally toward the beginning, "Then I knew it was horrible." I could send that to you or post it. I could not find it anywhere online. EDIT: Oh wait, there's this, but the meat of the article is not freely available.
• It has the AP story. I searched the story text in quotation marks, and it appears the story is still online here. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cla, I know you've done extensive work in the Military History area so I'm seeking your advice. We are having a discussion on an image of soldiers who died during Operation Red Wing, and whether or not it should be included in the article. I've suggested we seek information from those who have written extensively in the MILHIST project with respect to usual practices in such articles; after I suggested that, though, I realised that I don't really know the most effective way to seek those opinions. Any suggestions on a good place to post a request? Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up and say thanks for joining in on this discussion and bringing other eyes to this article. When we have so many well-informed editors on a general topic such as military history, it only makes sense to find out the usual practices and tap in to our resident experts. I've been a tad busy these last few days, but will make my way back over to the article in the near future; I think you and our other colleagues have made some very good points that I find persuasive. Risker (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

As promised, I'm letting you know that I'm 99.9% done with the Port Chicago disaster article. Whatever is left undone is of such low importance that I feel I can turn to other interests for a few months instead. Please see what you can do to improve the flow etc. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cla68. I was a little puzzled by your comments in regards to sources at the A-Class review for James Newland, so I have responded there in the aim of clarifying my confusion and was hoping you would be able to reply? Thanks and cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the article just got bumped to FA. Well done. Hopefully USS Iowa (BB-61) will encounter favorable conditions as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thompson's book gives a lot of good detail, not all of it negative, about Iowa's history after it was taken out of mothballs to when it was decomissioned again. I'll try to add more material to those sections as well as the turret explosion section over the next couple of weeks. What was your timeline for submitting the article for FA? Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently now. ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Maralia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In the Japanese wiki is an image of Major General Maruyama in the article about the Guadacanal campaign. You might want to add this to make the distribution of pictures more even for both sides. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I noticed a LOT of hard work you have put / are putting into this article. I admire your dedication, efforts, and writing abilities. Ched (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful edits you've made to the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Yamato class main article is finally beginning to take shape, and I've finally got the page rewritten and heavily cited. That said, there's one statistic I'm missing a reference for. Would you happen to have any references that mention the cost of the Yamato vessels? Thanks for your help, Cam ^(Chat) 03:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this is going to be hard to pin down with any certainty, but I'll look through my books and throw some numbers and cites out there:

The contract for Musashi on April 10, 1938 gave a delivery price of 64.9 million yen- Yoshimura, Battleship Musashi, p. 43.

My other books didn't have any cost numbers to I just dropped an inquiry at Tully's Port Index [7]. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your query.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do that. Give me a moment and I get back to you when its up :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• For some reason I could not get the image to come up in my web browser, but by using the text in the address bar and matching them to the picture names I think I got the right one. If so, then the image you asked for should be here, uploaded at the commons and ready for use. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article was promoted to FA. Congratulations! It's obvious the incredible amount of work and detail you went into on this article. Thanks for the kudos in the FA discussion also. Glad I was able to help. Otto4711 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that, sometime back, you mentioned that combinedfleet.com had been identified as a reliable source. Would you happen to be able to provide the link for this for me? I have a hunch that it will get asked in the future FAC of the Yamato class, and I want to have that link as assurance that the site is reliable. Cam ^(Chat) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a link we should always have handy when it comes to using that page as a source. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Ooooooh...those tabular records are going to come in handy. Cam ^(Chat) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Japanese destroyer Kamikaze (1922), 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. Thanks, Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Japanese destroyer Kamikaze (1922) 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! Jappalang (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)#Dubious an issue concerning whether the article uses nautical or statue miles has been raised. While researching for the turret explosion, did you find any info that the standard range for the 16in guns was in statue miles, 'cause I was under the impression that all figures given were in nautical mile form. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to answer. It appears that naval gun ranges are always in nautical miles. I've never seen anything to indicated that statute miles are used unless it is clearly stated that it is statute miles that are being given. The default appears to be nautical miles. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I apreciate it. Of all things I expected to be called for the difference between nm and sm was pretty far down on the list. Guess it goes to show that the thing you least expect is the thing others will question :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese destroyer Kamikaze (1922), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:EasternSolomonsMap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 06:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Before I give an answer I think it best to talk this over with the guys working the FT push for the class; I think it would be unfair of me to to decide anything without consulting them first. I will get back to you when we have a definitive answer, maybe a day or two. Is this ok? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

^TPSing I'm thinking that a FT on the explosion would be an excellent sub-topic of the class FT. See this FT: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System. That would mean waiting for the class FT first before this one. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested here, since you are responsible for the explosion article: User_talk:TomStar81#Featured_topic_nomination. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since your name appears on the list of major contributors I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer you a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to use a fair use of a living person, you can just look him up on google images can't you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When someone is improving an article for GA, A-class, or FA consideration, I try to leave creative control of the article to them, except for helping out with some grammar or copyediting. That's why I didn't do it myself. I was preparing to participate in the A-class review for the Burge article and looked over the article first. If you don't want to use a fair use image of the subject of a BLP, or believe someone will object if you try, that's fine. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to paste this here too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand very much that a picture would be useful. However, unless we can show him on the cover of something in a way that is relevant to the article, I don't think a fair use image is appropriate. There are in fact images very high in the search results on the cover of the Chicago Sun-Times. However, I do not see the newspaper article as significant to his biography. Thus, I am staying away from fair use. I apologize if I did not explain myself previously. I am going to copy this to his talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So I think that I am going to write an article on the never-built Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser...would any books in your library have any additional info than this? (Otherwise, I will probably have to wait until I buy Conway's 1922–1946 so I can see the history ('background') of the Royal Netherlands Navy up to WWII on page 386 (argh Google Books...)) Thanks for the help, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I only have books that cover the Imperial Japanese and US World War II navies. I'll try to find some book titles that might have information on this subject. For what it's worth, there probably are some German sources (as well as Dutch) that likely cover that subject, but I don't know if that helps you any. Cla68 (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Operation Ten-Go - a valuable contribution to the project on an important piece of military history. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HollandB-52Yakima1.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. Chick Bowen 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

With the promotion of the Iowa class FT, you are now free to proceed with your FTC on the turret explosion. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jon Burge. The article could use some support for its A-class nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

...or at least your articles are in the media. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's from last year but thanks for telling me about it. Cla68 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it? It's in the Signpost for this week... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not exactly surprised to find that the traffic has increased somewhat, but I was suprised to hear the group will have their reunion in NM. That's right in my back yard (not literally, my back yard is the Franklin Mountains, but behind those is the great state of NM). I may have to go, if I can find the time. Incidentally, have you given any thought to putting the turret explosion article up as TFA on 19 April? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, with a little luck it may go up on 19 April, but we have had a lit of battleship articles up recently, so I think your right about the wait. Still though its worth a shot. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just pasted in the copyedits. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to look at it tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My book about the USS Iowa should arrive soon, and next week I can work more on reviewing the article. I still need to look around for other sources. Unfortunately, my time available for working on Wikipedia has been very limited (and I'm not available this weekend). But, this is a top priority of mine. Regards. --Aude (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The problem I often encounter with used books sellers is that they seem to like to save 5 cents by using book rate postage, which means that it may take several weeks for the book to arrive. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Cla68, I've got a request. Would you be able to add a section to the Yamato class battleships on the symbolic nature of the warships within Japan at the time from the sources you possess? Once that particular aspect of the article is complete, I think that the class page is nearly ready for an FAC. Cam ^(Chat) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as a quick start I can copy over some sourced material from the Ten-Go article. Later, I'll check Kaigun and few other books for more info. Cla68 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It happened that there was a spot that Raul654 announced would not be filled due to the subject matter and the date, and I seized the opportunity to add USS Iowa turret explosion to the tfa counter. Since your the man behind the article's FA status, I felt it only fair to inform you so you could add your two cents to the tfa request page. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call to add the article when you saw the opportunity. Cla68 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is worth 2 points, but Wehwart informs me that we can add another point to the if you co-sponsor. Thought you might like to know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of press coverage, here (3/16/2009 post) is an announcment that KLTV will be doing a story on the event. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article seems like it has your name written all over it.--Looper5920 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it. Because this incident happened where it happened, not as much information may be forthcoming about it as if it had occurred near the US. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You were kind enough to support Capture of Fort Ticonderoga in its MILHIST A review. I've listed it at FAC; appreciate your comments. Thanks! Magic♪piano 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes to and comments on Australian light destroyer project. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cla68. I'm interested in looking for someone to monitor our edits on the Battle of Malaya articles. There are a couple of us interested in improving this area. Would appreciate any help or just keeping an eye out on these articles so we can get them up to standard quickly. If you can find the time to help that would be brilliant. thanks. Tristan benedict (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a huge help, thank you mate. I won't ask you to send me the electronic copy of Hayashi's book just yet as i am living in Zimbabwe at the moment (very, very slow downloading in this country). When i next go down to South Africa i will warn you so you could send it then. I will be in touch if i need any help soon. Thanks again. Tristan benedict (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cla, Do you have any sources on this topic? I'd really like to expand the article, but amazingly little seems to have been written on it. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into the sources on the US bombing campaign against Japan and was surprised to find that there apparently is no, "definitive" tome that covers the entire topic. Instead there are books on different aspects of it. I listed all the references that I could find here, none of which I currently possess. Unfortunately, the US Army official history of the campaign hasn't been uploaded to the Hyperwar site yet, there's only a placeholder for it there. The only book I have right now on the topic is this one (B-29 Hunters of the JAAF) and an article from World War II history magazine about Curtis LeMay. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I should have looked more closely at the article, it's not about the B-29 raids. I think I have Frank's Downfall book and that's it. I'll check to see what other info I have. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today, I scheduled the USS Iowa Turret Explosion article for April 19 as you requested. However, a few hours later an OTRSer emailed me asking me to reconsider, as there is an open OTRS ticket on a closely related (BLP) article, and featuring the turret explosion would very likely inflame the issue. I don't know yet what I'm going to do, but unscheduling it is a very real possibility. I'm giving you a heads-up in case that happens. Raul654 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cla, I am trying to help Wrad push green toward FAC here at Talk:Green#within-sight-of-the-finish-line_peer_review_notes_to_go_here... with some final thoughts on comprehensiveness...and just remembered military use - any other notable ones beside green beret and green line? I am a neophyte on military stuff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I sat down and looked over the Iowa Turret explosion, Fred Moosally, and Glimpse of Hell articles this morning. I also read the Moosally talk page and talked with Bastique about it in IRC. In short, I agree with you on basically everything.

I strongly disagree with suggestions that the article should be deleted. It would flatly contravene all existing notability rules and precedents to do so. I have also seen no evidence that Glimpse of Hell should be considered unreliable (Moosally's own self-serving criticisms of it aside, I've seen no evidence anywhere to suggest that the book is wrong. Moosally's court case did not achieve any finding of fact that the book was wrong, nor did the settlement include such an admission. In fact, the letter sent to him afterwards by the publisher seems carefully designed to avoid any such admission. And contrary to Aude's suggestion on the talk page, low sales figure do not impute any sort of unreliability.) Nor have I seen anything in the Moosally article that violates any of our policies - in fact, almost everything is double-sourced. In short, this case boils down to someone who doesn't like the fact that his biography paints the same unpleasant picture of him that reliable sources do.

With that said, I'm going to be unscheduling the Iowa turret explosion article from the main page. I don't usually explain these decisions, but in this case I feel that I owe you one. It wasn't an easy decision - the fact that it's the 20th anniversary of the explosion (and the 10th anniversary of the book) argue in favor of its selection for that day. So does the fact that, despite much hand wringing, as far as I can see both the Iowa Turrent explosion article and the Moosally bio are in full compliance with our policies. And I am loathe to let a self-serving BLP complaint (which, at least so far, seems to have no merit) cause the Turret explosion article not to be featured on the anniversary. On the other hand, the Moosally article is inextricably linked to the explosion article, which is why I don't think your compromise would help. Most importantly, I don't want to inflame the OTRS issue or make things harder for Aude than they already are. I'd be happy to put it on the main page once the she finishes reviewing the article. (Although when I asked Bastique for a time-frame for wrapping up the issue, he could not give me one. If that doesn't happen in a reasonable amount of time, I may reconsider.) Raul654 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Cla68, and to make sure that everything I said on IRC gets reflected in context. I personally believe that Moosally is not notable enough to have an article and we would otherwise have no problem removing it. I also personally believe that you're an exceptional contributor to Wikipedia, and would regret to see all your hard work go waste. So it makes this a difficult situation, at best. Bastique ^demandez 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I appreciate your careful consideration of the issue and for taking the time to explain your decision. The real-life reactions to this and the Moosally article have been interesting. As you may have noticed in other discussions about the main article, soon after someone made this edit to the article's talk page, almost all of the images related to the explosion disappeared from the DoD's image database. Anyway, after Aude completes his/her review of the Moosally article and Thompson's book, hopefully we can renominate the article for main page listing on next year's anniversary. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess he did remove the turret explosion after all. So sad, it will be sometime before we will be able to get it back up. I guess all we can say is that we tried. - TomStar81 70.245.127.65 (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I like some of your changes to the wording of the essay but I question your removal of 'had' because your replacements are circumlocutions.Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I make mistakes sometimes in my copyediting. Please feel free to change back anything you don't agree with. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do too. I try to make edits laconic but I also try to avoid repeating words, which sometimes means agonising over analogies. I'll leave yours alone because I know the feeling :o)Keith-264 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Were you thuinking of writing about the VC? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If I do, probably nothing much more than starting stubs right now. My "to do" list is long enough to keep me busy for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the book references mate, am looking for them now. Really appreciate all the help Cla. Tristan benedict (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your WWII featured articles are bad ass, man. Excellent job! I'd give you a barnstar for all of this, but it looks as if you've already received all of the essential ones. In regards to FAs, I'll have to catch up to you some day, considering how you have about twice as many featured articles under your belt than I do. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations also from me on the Battle of the Coral Sea article - your work on this article and creation of supporting articles was very impressive. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Piling on... Excellent Battle of the Coral Sea work! Congrats. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cla, do you have any references on this operation? I recently created this article and am thinking of developing it to at least A-class standard. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two books that have some information on the event:

• Mark Felton's Slaughter at Sea has one entire chapter on the Behar massacre.
• Eric Lacroix's Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War has some detail and background on the status and operations of the Japanese cruisers involved, but little detail on the actual operation itself. If you don't have access to either of these books, please remind me when you're ready and I'll go through and add any information from these two sources which seems to be helpful for completing the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cla, does Lacroix have any additional information on the "Super A Type" Design B-65 cruisers that Google Books does not show? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Those cruisers, with 12-inch guns, appear to be more like battlecruisers than normal cruisers. I'll check Lacroix and the other books I have on the IJN to see what information I can find. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you can just reply here (I have this page watchlisted ;). While they do look like BCs, Conway's says that "Super A Type cruisers" = heavy cruisers, and so I figured that it would be safer to put it at Design B-65 cruiser. Thanks for your help! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked through all of my IJN books, including Evan's Kaigun, Lacroix, Watts' IJN, and Jentschura's Warships and added some material. I believe the article now contains all of the information on those cruisers which is readily available in English sources. Please feel free to change around the text that I added to the article as you think appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! The only source I have that directly deals with the B-65's is Garzke and Dulin's two or two-and-a-half page blurb in the Yamato class chapter, so that was a great help. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly like to get it to FA, but I didn't think it was possible. What did you have in mind? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to add a background section about the "Decisive Battle" strategy and how that drove the proposed construction of these cruisers and their predecessors. After that, the article might need a little more detail on why they were canceled if you have that information. Hopefully, that should be sufficient. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be awesome; I know very little about that strategy, so it'll be a learning experience. :) G&D don't say anything about why the B-65's were canceled, but it says this in the Design A-150 section on page 85: "At this time [late 1941], war seemed imminent, and there was such a demand for aircraft carriers, cruisers and smaller ships that design work on battleships would never be resumed." Could that last sentence be applied in the B-65 article, you think? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Don't worry about time; B-65 can wait if you have more pressing article priorities. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non notable military accident no civilian casualties

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. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, it is only a proposed deletion you can just remove the notice in the article if you do not agree and I or somebody else can then raise it at AfD if it is thought still not to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated 2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Over a year in the making, it's finally here as promised

It's already been on "Did you know..." and is currently undergoing an A-class review. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

About the NYT article that you mentioned, can you email the contents to me, I can only see the start of it. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that that article has since been moved behind the pay wall of the NYTimes. One way to obtain it would be to ask someone with LexisNexus access to email a copy of the text to you. I don't have that access, but most of the participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law have access because they use that tool for legal research. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cla, I don't know if your interests extend this far, but a question involving naming conventions for IJN ships has arisen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1. If you can shed any light on the area please take a look. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to ask you the same thing. Appreciate if you could poke your nose in there; even if all you have to offer is OR, it has to be better than my OR :) Maralia (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you guys caught me on the weekend when it's hard for me to get on the computer for more than a few minutes at a time. I'll address this as soon as I'm confident of enough time to give it adequate attention. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've answered. It appears that the battlecruiser was named after a town and the heavy cruiser after a mountain, but I'm still trying to confirm which was which. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heya again Cla, what page does Lacroix say that on? Thanks :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is some advice on preparing advice on preparing a history article for Featured Article: make sure you work in the correct namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? Cla68 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Urashimataro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey, Cla68, I'm in the middle of a rewrite of Kongo class battlecruiser, with my sandbox located here. I've found resources for just about everything (design, each ship, armament, propulsion) but I've found next to nothing on the armour specifications of the class. All I have is thicknesses. Would you happen to have any information on the composition of the armour of the Kongo class? Cam ^(Chat) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cam, I placed some more information on User talk:Climie.ca/Sandbox/Kongo-class. Kablammo (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah, I agree. Thanks for the correction. --Sageo (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Heya Cla, you're my go-to guy on anything Japan-related now I think. ;-) Would you be able to/know anything that could help resolve the image issues (see here) raised at Amagi-class battlecruiser's FAC? Thanks so much, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment at Elcobbola's talk page and added more info to the image files. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been a series of edits to this article by an IP editor. Most seem simply matters of preferences; I doubt there was any improvement, and some changes were made to cited text, which always raises red flags. I have done some cleanup but it may have been simpler to revert, as was done with respect to the same editor's wholesale changes on two other articles (once by me, and one by another editor). When you have time, please take a look to see if the changes should be kept or reverted. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Heya again Cla. I know that you said "[t]he publishing date of the pictures in the book by the Kure Maritime Museum, (edited by Kazushige Todaka), Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album: Aircraft carrier and Seaplane carrier, is April 23, 1949"[8], but it appears that the book was published in 2005, not 1949. Did the book state that the images were first published then? —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've provided further comment on Commons and will check the FAC discussion again to see if progress is being made. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help Cla! :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cla, if you have time, would you be able to have a look at the Battle of Morotai‎ article and let me know if you have any suggestions on how it could be further improved (or just add them yourself, of course!). I'm thinking of nominating this for FA status this weekend. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I nominated an article for FAC, but from what I've observed lately many of the reviewers have really been focusing on minutiae, especially concerning images. I went through the images and tried to make the sourcing more clear on each image's Commons pages. I see that you already have the alt text done, so that should take care of that. I checked the footnotes and refs to make sure they were properly formatted and didn't see anything out of place. So, I think as far as the MoS is concerned, it's good to go. Prose-wise, I think it's excellent but I'm often surprised by what the reviewers come up with. Good luck! Cla68 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Care to reconsider? Flayer (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, K-ASROC, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 4wajzkd02 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC) --4wajzkd02 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't have the history books in hand, but I can do some copy editing. Are you game? Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla, I will help with this as well if you decide to do it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. This really is an important article, so perhaps I should put it high on the "to do" list. Cla68 (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look here? Thanks :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been reading this aticle with intrest as I am actually writing a whole article about the japanese occupation of Nauru in the french wikipedia. From what I've been reading, one of the factors leading to the second attemp of invasion was the raid of Makin in August 1942 which was a proof of the wickness of Japanese forces in the Gilbert area at this time. References can be find there [9]. Best regards --Kimdime (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was written with material that can't be find online, specially this book, it is still a work in progress, many things have to be added perhaps even a subarticle about Nauruan exile on Truk Islands, but I have a question, what is exactly called "Operation RY" ? Is it the first attempt of invasion, the first plus the second or the whole period of occupation of the Island by japanese troops? Regards.--Kimdime (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I find your essay on how to write history article is most helpful, but since I'm still new at this, I really hope to get more advice from you.

Right now I'm involved in a content dispute over how much "human elements" is needed in a milhist article. Would you mind take look at the article Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River and see how to improve the "human elements"? Jim101 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I'll work on it right away. Jim101 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Cla68, I've got a bit of a problem.

Japanese battleship Yamato is currently at FAC, and an oppose has come up arguing that I have relied too heavily upon combinedfleet. Would you happen to have any major literature on Yamato that could replace some of the citations in the article? Thanks in advance, and sorry for the short notice; I didn't think this would be an issue, but apparently it is. Cam ^(Chat) 04:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: if you have access to Skuski's The Battleship Yamato, we would love you forever. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the IJN, I have just about everything in English. I've been kind of busy lately, but I'll try to work on it later today (JST). Cla68 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a few comments regarding the "Cultural Significance" section which only you have the sources for. If you have a moment, could you pop over to the talk-page section of the review and take a look? Cam ^(Chat) 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Heya Cla. From Google Books, it looks like Lacroix and Wells' Japanese Cruisers in the Pacific War has some good information on the Japanese battleship Tosa (sandbox link), but I can't access most of it. Is there any chance you can add information from there to the article? Many thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. It might take me a few days but I'll get to it. Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no real timeframe. That thing has been languishing in my userspace since September, so....a few days won't hurt. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick poke to ensure that you haven't forgot. If you haven't, sorry. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I'm going to try to get it done today. Kaigun also has some information, so I'll be adding that also. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Further note to remind myself to check if I have any other pictures of the ship that I can upload. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have three other pictures of the ship I can upload if they aren't already in Commons. One is of the ship coming off the slipway, another of it being prepared for the explosive testing, and another of it being prepared for scuttling. Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! I wish I had a scanner like yours... my university's scanner always leaves artifacts, like this. I can Fourier them away, but it's not the same. :/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one last request: can you doublecheck the paragraph with the {{dubious}} tag? If I remember right, there was a contradiction between Lacroix and Breyer on either the amount of water or the list... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

quick poke, I think you missed this because of the comments below :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Cla, are you finished? If so, I'll move it to the mainspace and DYK it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC):

No problem at all. Thank you so much for your additions; I really appreciate it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have an interest in WWII events related to the Pacific. I recently expanded Raid at Cabanatuan while using multiple sources found online and in my local library. Before pursuing FA at some point, one area that I have been unable to find details on is the Japanese reaction to the raid. Do you know of any sources that cover this (all of the ones I have used are mostly pro-American and don't focus on Japanese except for death counts)? If you know of any other sources that would be helpful for the article, I'd appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I would appreciate anything you stumble across, and I'll continue to keep looking. I know that is something that would be brought up at FAC, so hopefully I can at least find one source that includes even just one quote from the other side. The language barrier is going to be difficult to pursue Japanese sources on the event, if any even exist. Anyway, thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On April 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese battleship Tosa, 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, Cla. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This was a point brought up in the FAC. Would your sources happen to say exactly where she sunk? Lengerer seems to say that it was off Okinoshima, Munakata, but all other sources I have say that it was in the Bungo Channel... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is another Okinoshima that is not on Wikipedia? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you acted in good faith as I found the Kyodo News article that states this but historically Kanwa Defence Review has not been the most reliable of sources. I'm not citing this as an encyclopedic source as it is a forum and the fact that it is a cesspit of stupidity and useless unproductive discussion but if you scroll down to the 12th post, there are images of the J-11 participating in the PRC national day parade (See). I have no objection to your edits, but would like to err on the side of caution and add that information in when a more reputable defence source like Janes reports on the matter. If you find that acceptable, would it be okay to remove that information from the article for now?

Thanks,Vedant (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, sorry for reverting your edit immediately, in the future I'll try to discuss edits so that there is consensus before any action is taken. If you feel up to the task though, one of my major to-dos is the article on the PLAAF as it features a ton of unsourced information as well as inaccurate service numbers. Vedant (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you just added a citation of the Washington post to the sinking of the Cheonan article and said it was from the 13th of May. Di you mean the 20th of May (today)? Gregcaletta (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be 19 May. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Cla68, I just started my rewrite of Japanese battleship Kirishima, and I'm wondering if you might have any photos that would be useful for the article (I'm most in need of stuff from 1915-1926, essentially pre-reconstruction). Cam ^(Chat) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the road at the moment, but as soon as I'm back home in a few days I'll check to see what I have and try to get them uploaded in a timely manner. Cla68 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you very much my good sir! Cam ^(Chat) 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know when you get closed to finished and I'll add any additional details I have from my library. Cla68 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

One other question related to Haruna's FAC: Does any of your literature on the IJN say what a "special service ship" is? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC) p.s. - we're still running into trouble with the copyright stuff. What year was the book you scanned it from published? Other option: Does it say who the photographer was and when they died?

The book does not give a copyright date, which is common with Japanese books, and does not give the photographer's name, which is also common in Japan when the photographer is working for a large organization, either government or media organization. In this case the photographer was almost certainly working for the Imperial Japanese government, which is one reason why the images are public domain. I'll look to see what a "special service ship" is. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla, a question has been raised at Talk:Cactus_Air_Force#SBD_Tires. I have replied, but do not have a copy of Sherrod. As time allows could you look into this? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cla, I just found your library subpage and see that Sherrod's history is not listed there.. Kablammo (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I didn't have anything to add that you had already said on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry to hit you with something on the day you get back from your semi-wiki-break, but your "mild oppose" is (almost) the only thing holding this up, and it's been suggested the ACR should be closed for lack of progress, and it would be nice if we don't all have to do this all over again. I'm asking the same question of Sturm: is it your sense that modern sources are using or avoiding the term "Kate"? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If I have time today I'll go through and change all the references to "Kates" and "Vals" to their proper designations then remove my objection. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I let Sturm know, and I believe that works for him. I'm still curious which terms modern English sources tend to use; I'll do some digging before FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to give you a heads-up, but sometime in the next several months, I'll be bringing up the Akagi article for ACR as well. You might want to work your magic before hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I think I'll put it at the top of my to do list. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You've done a huge amount of work on the Kaga article, more than I ever expected you to do. I'd be happy to share credit at FAC and make you a co-nom if you'd like. Just let me know when you're done with the article and I'll make the nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You did most of the heavy lifting on the article, so I don't think I deserve a co-nom. I'm not quite finished with it yet. I hope to have it done by this Thursday or Friday, including starting stubs on the red links I added. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Heavy lifting be damned, you've done an outstanding job filling in details. Many of which I knew nothing about and to the article's benefit. Mind you, I'm not entirely altruistic about this, as I'm contending for the WikiCup and it would be very handy to be able to submit two articles at a time for FAC. Especially as I have a number of articles about Japanese carriers by Lengerer and friends on hand and can do the basics while you add in stuff from Hata, etc. Otherwise I'm going to have to get my own copy. Again, I'd ask that you reconsider and let me get you the recognition you deserve for your work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, another reason is that I'm probably going to be away from a computer for a couple of weeks very soon so I wouldn't be available to help with the FAC nomination and responding to the reviewer's comments. That's why I want to finish the additions by this week. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to nominate it yet before the beginning of July and would be happy to delay for an extra couple of weeks if necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. We can talk about it when I return around the 4th of July. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to add the pictures that you wanted to? Considering the volume of changes that Dank's made to the article I think that a triple co-nom is in order. What do you think?

Yes, I've added the pictures I wanted to. A triple co-nom seems fine to me. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, what's the reasoning behind splitting Aichi D1A into two separate articles? Are they really that different, beyond different Type numbers and spats? The article certianly wasn't a long one, which is one major reason for splitting aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For that reason only, because of the different Type designations. If you prefer that they remain as one article, I have no objection and will help recombine them. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've raised the issue at WT:AIR#Aichi D1A split for further input, as I do not know much about the Japanese aircraft to give a good opinion on the issue. But from the content of the articles themselves, I'd say separate articles aren't warranted at this time. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just the messenger, an article you have worked on: Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident, has been nominated at FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident/archive1 -MBK₀₀₄ 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I was just coming here to tell you that the Stars & Strips has done something to their archives...I was looking for some of the original articles from the Michael Brown trial and they appear to have moved. Ugh... Kelly ^hi! 03:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If I remember right, Stars and Stripes article links used to go dead right around the three-year mark, which means I was operating under a deadline with both that and the Ehime Maru article to get the articles finished while the links were still available. Once the links go dead the only way I know of for me to access the articles is at the newspaper's archive at Hardy Barracks in Tokyo. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are any other Stripes articles you're worried about losing, let me know and I'll help archive them with WebCite. Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. BTW, I'm on Okinawa right now...don't know for how long, though. Kelly ^hi! 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While you're there, I suggest going to Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium if you haven't been already. It's well worth the trip. It's best if you get in there right as it opens before it gets crowded. I like the shark tank up to the left of the main tank in the "learning room" the best. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - I lived here for several years (99-02). The aquarium is great. My favorite attraction is the Underground Naval Headquarters complex where Minoru Ōta made his last stand. Kelly ^hi! 05:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay, then there's nothing I can tell you about that island that you probably don't already know. I visited the underground IJN complex also. I remember the sleeping room that was so small that the IJN troops had to sleep standing up during breaks in the battle. Please enjoy your time back on the island. Isn't the Okinawa triathlon around this time of the year over near White Beach? Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Triathlon? Oh man...I'm still working toward my first marathon. That said, I hope you eventually turn your inestimable ability toward the Battle of Okinawa - your Guadalcanal stuff is fantastic and I'd love to see this expertise expanded to the later war...maybe Iwo Jima too? (fingers crossed) Kelly ^hi! 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Okinawa definitely needs work. Fortunately, it is one of the few Pacific War battles with extensive sourcing on the Japanese side as well as the US. I hope to get to it someday soon. I meant watching the triathlon, of course. Good luck on the marathon training. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool - I can actually walk out on my balcony and see Hacksaw Ridge and Sugar Loaf Hill... Thanks for all your work, brother - both on articles and behind the scenes. Kelly ^hi! 07:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, are you going to refute Ironholds or respond to his comments by editing the article? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated 2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. YSSYguy (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey,Cla68, I just completed my rewrite of Japanese battleship Kirishima (now at GAN), and am moving onto Japanese battleship Hiei. As per my usual request at this point in the article-writing process, would you happen to have any uploadable images of Hiei that I could use for the article? Thanks in advance, Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Also, Haruna is undergoing a pre-FAC copyedit at the moment. Anything you can add to the article is greatly appreciated.

I'll check for both Kirishima and Hiei today or tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have more pictures of the two ships than I thought, so it may take me several days to get them all uploaded. I found two more images of Kaga also, including one that might should be added to that article. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiei is done. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that I had already uploaded all the photos I had of Kirishima. So that one is done as well. Cla68 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cla68! Are you still working on the Michael Brown FAR? If so, there is an unresolved image issue on the page, and Ironholds should probably be pinged to get any further comments from them. If you are still interested in working on the article, please let me know when you feel you have addressed the comments already on the page and I (or you) can begin pinging other possibly interested editors to try and get some further reviews. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about it. I'll get to it probably tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping? Ironholds has left some final comments and there is one image issue to be resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Cla68We've got a bit of a discussion going on over at Japanese battleship Yamato that you may be able to help with. Do any of your sources mention the Yamato class being outfitted with torpedo tubes? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)