User talk:Brad101/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

GW RfC proposal

I've been working up a proposal to resolve the RfC, here. Feel free to edit it or place comments on its talk page. I think it's pretty fair and, if he'd adopt it, would solve our problems. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Help!Thomas Jefferson

Another editor has suddenly brought up all the old arguments about TJ's paternity on the Thomas Jefferson Talk page and is arguing against the conclusions, even though I found that the TJ Foundation has changed their website to say that, "Ten years later [my note: after the DNA study and their commissioned review], TJF and most historians now believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings." Is the RfC the best way to proceed to try to shut this off? I will contact the DarkOne on his Talk page, but expect continued resistance, as you can see by the discussion.Parkwells (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this one, too, but I don't think there's a problem. Consensus on the page is clearly against DarkOne, so there's no need to change anything. Unlike GW, this dude seems only to emerge from hybernation periodically, cicada-like, to annoy everyone anew. Best to just wait him out, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you're probably right. It's just such a waste and people try to answer rationally. I'm going to try to bone up on administrative procedures; need to learn more.Parkwells (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just recently took TJ off of my watch list. I've had enough of that in the past month. Brad (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Garfield

I have tried my very unskilled hand at improving the images here. Your review may be urgently needed. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Query, whether Garfield, having reached GA status, would be appropriate for semi-protection, and whom to ask about it. (There have been maybe 10 or so incidents of vandalism in the past couple months.) Carmarg4 (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection is only based on the amount of vandalism an article is receiving. From what you describe, 10 incidents in two months doesn't seem like enough to warrant protection. You could ask at wp:rfp though. Brad (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FDR

FYI, I have been working on the images here. I'm sure I have barely touched the surface. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I know you are busy, though. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Belgium

Dear Brad, could you please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium/archive3 on the improvement to the Belgium article. Several pictures have been removed. Style has been improved in sections such as Religion and Science. Several references have been added in History and Economy. A new paragraph on transportation has been written in the section Economy. Two sections are utterly new: Health and Military. 07:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Eisenhower

I am beginning an image review, and have initiated a section on the talk p. I'm going to start at the beginning and go through in the order of appearance. FYI, this may end up on a collision course with Gwillhickers, who added stamps plus a section devoted to them back in January. But I will address that at the end so it will be in proper context of an overall image review. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have completed an image review here. There were entire sections devoted to coins and stamps. I have moved stuff to the talk page to reduce overcrowding and maintain significance per WP:image. No comments yet but it's very early. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your very thorough work in assessing Wikiships articles over a long period of time - few new or recently edited articles seem to escape your scrutiny! Many thanks for your ongoing contributions to the project. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) It's something I've been doing for several years now. Brad (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

India FAR

Hi there, The history section expansion of India in response to FAR comments is now complete. All remaining issues have been addressed. Please weigh in at FARC. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I have now completed redoing the cites in Citation format with endian dates + Harnb format for books that were cited many times. Please take a look and weigh in at the FAR. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

us marine corps far

thanks for note, i wasn't planning on starting it soon so feel free to set it up, Tom B (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass NARA image upload

Hey Brad, there's a few treats for you in the mass NARA upload to Commons, like:

• File:United States, 1812 - NARA - 512967.tif
• File:Constitution. Port beam, at sea, 1931 - NARA - 512901.tif
• File:Constitution. Meeting with the Guernere, 1812, 1812 - NARA - 512982.tif
• File:Constitution. Sail plan - NARA - 512970.tif
• File:Constitution - NARA - 513007.tif

Enjoy. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed but nothing really exciting there except maybe the 1931 pic. What I really need is a good pic of United States suitable for the infobox pic rather than the pos that's there now. Brad (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I've been categorizing all of the ships and thought you'd be at least interested in them. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

HMS Doterel

Brad, would you mind assessing this new article for WPSHIPS? It's been nominated for DYK, and I think it's valuable for you to pass an eye over it and give it an assessment. Shem (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This article was already assessed by me a few days ago and hasn't changed much since. Don't see any reason why it needs an assessment. Brad (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about ship names

Do you know the convention at Wikipedia:MILHIST for listing ships' names? In this article, I left off the "U.S.S.", but there was a question at peer review over whether that was proper. Thanks, --Coemgenus (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I commented at the PR. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem; just don't leave a brownie on my page. heh. Brad (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not even a kitten? ;) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Blade Runner review

Hi

I have posted at the second FAR concerning the media 3 issue.

I realise that you may feel like you are repeating yourself, but I really would appreciate some further help in overcoming any problems you feel are still present.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for fixing those, I do not often come across image rationales and the specificity of the article had escaped my attention. I will try and look at the ref problems tomorrow as I am off for the night in a moment. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have encountered a little problem with citation styles, see the FACR page 2, Talk:Blade_Runner#Citation cleanup, my post at Wikipedia_talk:Featured articles#Citations, and the diffs [1]. I am unsure as to how that may be resolved, is it necessary to put them into one style? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and the help you have given. I tried to work collaboratively with the other person but it seems that they wish to "do it themselves, their own way". I must admit it is a little "owney", but at least the work is mostly done - the main aim, of course, being to save the FA star if possible. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I consider the 2c problems fixed now. I did notice that the rationales for the two images I outlined at the FAR still need to be changed. Almost done. Brad (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Any better? Spinner Billboard, Bladerunner Sun.

I have tried to specify why they are used and what they are conveying - in particular "Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?"

It is my first attempt at writing rationales, I must admit that my first edits were pretty off the mark though :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hi Brad, you mention creating a bibliography and citing page numbers for books used as a source multiple times. Can you show me an example, and I'll make it so? Also, I've been providing more citations for the article, but I'm not sure what you mean by "some paragraphs without citations," which still need citations? Content in the tables, or are they sufficiently sourced now? I've got your talkpage watchlisted, so you can respond here. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 07:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I intend to address the issues but can't for the next 12+ hours. I'd prefer that comments about the FAR stay on the FAR page rather than dragging them over here. Have patience.. It won't be delisted anytime soon. Brad (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries, I totally understand the timeframe. I was trying to take a full month-long wikibreak, but didn't quite manage it... :) Dreadstar ☥ 20:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded to you here Talk:History_of_merit_badges_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#Hillcourt_problem 216.246.49.22 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry, it's all yours man! I don't know what I was thinking! Dreadstar ☥ 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hello Brad !

Sincerest thanks for the incredible assistance with the ISS article. That is one brilliant list and a huge guide for further work to improve the article, I can't express how much I appreciate this kind of guidance which is so clear and easy to follow for beginners like me. THANK YOU!

I got a kick from the B5 reference, I like that char. I like when he came back through time and saw 'the one' and was saying how he looked like the one but wasn't the one. Oh I loved that series and was sad to see it go. I should get a hold of it and store it until my memory of it fades some more, then I can watch and enjoy it anew. Anyhow, my sincerest thanks for the assistance, I took a break from that article, but that doesn't diminish the help your have given to me, personally at all, I'll apply those guidelines to all work I do from now on, so I learn not to look at those same kind of mistakes anymore without noticing. I look forward to that article being improved a great deal more, it has such a long way to go, and I feel the subject is of such great importance as an inspiration to help bring reality closer to Sci-Fi. It would be lovely to help raise a generation that believes a series of space stations through the solar system and colonies on deep space worlds is not any kind of dream, but an obvious need and reality. It was interesting to read an American observer summing up that the Russians/Soviets genuinely 'took very seriously the idea' that tens of thousands (or more) of their citizens would be living permanently in space one day (and were working to make it reality). Penyulap _talk 01:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Brad, I apologize for the trouble my inexperience has caused, is there any way we can assist each other with the FAR process ? I saw your comment regarding the chronology of the FAR, can I assist there, or is that not required ? Penyulap _talk 12:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything is fine; I was merely pointing out the story behind that particular FAR so everyone would understand. There hasn't been much effort at all to fix the problems I outlined so I would say at this point the article is in danger of losing its FA status unless some serious work begins. Brad (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that may paint me up as a bit of a villain, although, looking at what a few people probably think of me atm, that may be an improvement, lolz. My original intention was for the article to pass through FAR as FAR is intended to work, and come out better for the experience. But I feel so restrained from helping with it, I see so many things it fails for, that other eyes can't see, and they can see way more than me, that I can't see, and we can't work together, it's heartbreaking and DGAF at the same time. I need to do some research to find out if there is an Israeli Module and a Palestinian module up there, it would explain a lot. It reminds me of trying to steal the eggs out from under a chicken that is sitting on them, without getting pecked. I think I should try to collaborate on a humorous essay to that effect, something nice and balanced, good to lighten up the mood.(and mine). The way I see it right now, the article has to come to FAR maybe biannually each time it's been hatched and spills out putrid currency. Anyhow, I hope to find some better way to work around the problems, or work with people, so I don't give up. I compressed the notifications to make it look more the part, but didn't compress or cleanup my monologue, because I didn't know if thats allowed, good form or didn't matter, I'll go with the last one for now. Thank you so very much for the response I appreciate it. Penyulap _talk 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You've had the right idea but your postings are quite verbose and a lot of people won't take you very seriously when they have to read through multiple paragraphs. The version that passed to FA 18 months ago was in fairly good condition although I would have to say that I wouldn't have supported its promotion in that condition. The current article shows the amount of deterioration that has taken place. The only way to keep an article featured is to watch over it constantly and update when needed. Obviously that hasn't been the case. Brad (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do talk too much alright, this article I think is the entry point for a lot of new inexperienced editors like me, I try to assist others to 'get settled in' and hand on the minuscule knowledge I've gained like this guy [2]. At least as wp:spiderman I collect experiences and examples that will help me to assist newbies directly, write guides for newbies, and illustrate rapport with them. I think newbie expectations from ROTN (rest of the Net), like giving mods (admins) more respect, do not in any way translate onto WP because mods are looked to for guidance and assistance as well, here, they get the respect of course, but there is very little if any assistance given, in my experience. I'm seeing that as something I can write for, and comment on, and maybe, god forbid, suggest more names for more offices. I think the ISS and shuttle are the treetrunks for spaceflight on wiki, both new material and editors enter here, and flow outwards into other articles. When the hard work of FA was done, an iron ring was created to protect that work, rightly so, it's proper human nature and a good idea. The flow however doesn't stop, it increases, and is now deflected, deleted and wp:leaving. Nothing is getting through into science. this is science on the ISS, this and this is how they should look. As the tree has grown, the iron ring is now ring-barking spaceflight. The situation requires such tact in some respects[3]. Many editors, especially me, have a great deal of time on their hands because of RL, and do a lot of research and googling. Penyulap _talk 16:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Geier ships

I'm glad that a ship enthusiast has picked these up. I was surprised to find that sourced information had been thrown away in over-enthusiastic conversion of a "ragbag" page into a proper dab page, so rescued the info for these stubs (and a native American tribe) and launched them into the ocean of WP! PamD (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katyn massacre/archive1

Please stop by the discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Baleine

Hi Brad101, I really hate to see information thrown away that could save someone else some searching when they get around to do an article. Especially in this case when the person who created the page was trying to link it up with the project Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM/Warship Histories. As I see it, removing the references privileges form over function. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When a page is created about two ships with the same name it's a {{shipindex}}. Otherwise create articles about each ship. Were there any other RN ships that carried the name Baleine? Brad (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I had this page on my watchlist after dropping in a comment above, so spotted this and have split the article into two, using the {{copied}} template to preserve their history. Also added a hatnote at Baleine. I'm with AR in hating to see effort wasted and sourced content discarded - hence, in fact, my creation of the Geier ships mentioned above, where a lot of sourced info had been discarded from a ragbag of a page which covered umpteen topics under the name of Geier, by someone forcing it into being a compliant dab page and just abandoning other editors' work while doing so. Much better to stick it into a stub or several. If people don't like the resulting stubs they can propose deletion ( Geier Indians is at AfD as I type). PamD (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Making separate articles is the way to go then. Brad (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Image of young McKinley

I think I have found some better pics of young McKinley but am unsure how to make proper use of them. Here are the web addresses. I could use your expertise on this. I suppose I need to ask for some info on these pics from the primary source. Let me know. Thanks. http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/mckinley/William.html. A second one - http://blogs.cantonrep.com/flashbacks/major-mckinley-rose-from-humble-beginnings-in-canton/. Hoppyh (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The pics you point out aren't the best quality and are very small. I'd look or wait for better ones. Brad (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

McKinley's State Department

If you can, take a look at the last paragraph of the McKinley's Foreign Policies section. In context with the narrative, I have added 3 adjoining pics of the people mentioned. This may be over the edge, and regardless, at a minimum, it needs a tweak for consistent sizing. Your expert opinion of this is needed. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the article is carrying a C-class rating, now is a bad time for image reviews. MOS:IMAGES and its associated pages are quite forward and understandable. I'm willing to spend the time on an image review when the article is headed for GA class or higher. Brad (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate having a clearer idea of making the best use of your time, which is invaluable. Hoppyh (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

FAR for History of Miami

This article is being reviewed for de-nomination:

• History of Miami; talk page
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Miami/archive1

Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

PS what does the thing at the top of your talk page mean?

Chester Arthur GA nom

I added the source info for the two images, as you requested. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Accessdate error

This edit introduced a cite error into the article because you added an "accessdate" parameter to {{#tag:ref|...}}, rather than to a citation template. Just something you may want to keep an eye out for in the future. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks for the fix. Brad (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kamal Haasan

Firstly thanks for copy-editing the article. When I nominated this for FLC, the reviewer said not to include the hard-code of the url in the references. I can still see that in "work" parameters. It will be nice if you also correct those. Regards! --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 08:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that Ohconfucious has fixed the problems with the work parameters. Brad (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC of USS Constellation vs. la Vengeance

Hello Brad, the image you objected to on copywrite grounds has gone through a Files for Deletion nomination and was found to be in public domain here Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_24#File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg. I was wondering if you now support the articles assention to FA status.XavierGreen (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ive posted the website that i first discovered the image on (and the one with the version i uploaded). I previously had posted it in the Files for Deletion review, but ive added it to the FAC now as well.XavierGreen (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello..

Hey there. I've noticed that you've done some work at WP:FAC in regards to reviewing sourcing problems. I was wondering if there was anyway you could look at Kurt Hummel and see if there is anything that might still need fixing. The original user who looked at it, Brian Boulton, is away from Wikipedia for two weeks and the article has been there for some time. I'm afraid if it goes unchecked it'll get closed too soon and we won't see any results. I really don't think there's much more that needs to be done in that area. If you could do that, it would be extremely helpful. If now, do you know anybody that I could direct this to? Thanks, HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

All of Brian's concerns were addressed but only Brian can declare them to have been fixed. I do not see any outstanding problems with the references but I don't have the time for an in depth study and spotchecks. Brad (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for replying! HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback about editing

Editing Wikipedia made me... Sad

Because...

"Too many regular editors own their articles and won't let others make good changes to them."

• mw:MoodBar

 —Portuguese Man o' War 21:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

nb: I was going to ask you about that example, but didn't get the chance to.

These accusations of ownership that you're throwing around are unfounded and confused with policies already in place that apply to articles that are laid out in a particular manner. As far as Constitution is concerned I spent most of 2008 building the article so that it passed as a featured article. Since then I've been the one who has done most of the maintenance and upkeep on the article. I make it a point to ensure it remains that way. If I hadn't done this it's very likely the article could lose its featured status. I most definitely have an investment in the article and if this is ownership by your definition then so be it.

Once an article has an established format and layout they should not be changed without good reason and without discussion before hand. Your edits are breaking already established formats. I started a thread on Constitution's talk page about the overhaul I'm currently putting the article through. That would be the proper place to discuss changes before implementing them. Brad (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you commented in the dmy discussion, too. I'm sure there are fine distinctions between ownership and deference to original creators — but they're lost on me. It all amounts to a restraint on editing wo/attention being paid to the wiki-clique.

The Constitution article is well done, and seems mostly your work, so good on ya. It could be better, though. Anyway, I'm off it.  —Portuguese Man o' War 10:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Endymion

I've asked for clarification re one of your comments at the GAR. Once I'm clear exactly what you think needs changing I can give a fuller answer. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

The article's near future is really looking up. Editors are coming on board making real refreshing changes and improvements to the article. It's not just a breath of fresh air, it's a good gust. The relief from FA status is just what was needed ! This is brilliant ! Penyulap _talk 15:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR queue

I took Dog Day Afternoon. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a master list of FAs from 2005 up to about June 2006 that have not had a FAR since promotion. Looking through that list you will find a lot of articles in very bad condition. Enjoy. Brad (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ship Homeport

As per your suggestion, see here. Thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey Brad101, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

I want to have another go at getting Big Mac through FAC. Do you recall any outstanding issues that need to be addressed first? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Responded

Would you please comment to my response? Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/James_I_of_England/archive2 Mugginsx (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Order of Canada

Thanks :-). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement Le Diamant (cruise ship) HMS Sundsvall (J12) Qozlu, Ardabil USS Boston (1825) HMAS Burra Bra USS Sea Horse (1812) SS Athenic CSS Nashville (1853) Butterfield Overland Mail in New Mexico Territory USS Frances (1813) Oceanic (unfinished ship) SS Calgaric SS Cretic Italian submarine Berillo HTMS Sri Ayuthiya SS Cymric Italian submarine Lafolè SS Magnetic

Cleanup HMS Suva Osama bin Laden Charles H. Zeanah Merge Origin of the Azeris Uetsu Main Line Media planner Add Sources SS Bovic Iranian Azerbaijanis James Monroe Wikify Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad Revenue Act of 1940 Sustainable Seattle Expand RMS Cedric Confederate States of America HMAS Beryl II

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ebenenzer Dorr, Jr.

Hi Brad,

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but I've been researching the early Northwest fur trade for many years. I left a comment on the Otter(ship) page concerning the references to Captain Ebenezer Dorr. It seems very likely that this was the same man who shipped as supercargo on board brigantine Hope, Joseph Ingraham, in 1790. If so, this would be Ebenezer Dorr Jr., born 1763, and later a well known captain in the fur and China trade, rather than his father who was bonding vessels during the Revolutionary War. I'm not an expert on the Otter voyage so I don't feel qualified to change something of this significance. Your thoughts please? Cranberrydavid (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered at Talk:Otter (ship). Brad (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event

Hi Brad left a responce for this on my talk page best wishes--Whodidwhat (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

Hi, thanks for the note. Can you define a timely manner? Do you mean 2 hours? 2 days? 2 months? I'm working on the film stuff first as that's an easy fix. The actual page numbers will take a little more time, but it can be done. Thanks again for raising this on the talk page so we can work on it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that page numbers will take longer. I'll check back on the article in a couple of weeks unless you ping me sooner. Brad (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you take a quick look at the media section and let me know if I am ok with the sourcing on the films, etc? If this passes muster I'll use the TV episode cite template for Burn Notice. I happened to have the Combs article (magazine actually) on my desk so I could fix that one quickly, the others, I have at home, and I can probably get to those (and have them completed) by end of day Friday.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to Talk:Ernest_Emerson#Featured_article_concerns. Brad (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Brad and nice to meet you here on Wikipedia. I see that you have commented on some music FAC's. I nominated "Rehab" for a FA. It's it third nomination. Can you look at the article and comment or eventually give you vote on Rehab's FAC. Thank You — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 22:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't review articles where I've been canvassed to participate by an editor I hardly know. Brad (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

S.A. Agulhas or S.A. Agulhas?

Hi. I noticed that you de-italicized "S.A." from the name of S.A. Agulhas in your recent cleanup. In my opinion it is part of the ship's name, not a prefix, and thus should be presented in italics. Tupsumato (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Hi, did not mean to change your work but was trying to respond to Gwillhickers, or maybe was out of town and discouraged. Have tried a different approach to the Lead, again making Hemings Controversy section, etc. and using some of your material, making it shorter, noting limitations of one person tested from Hemings, keeping the TJF quote only in the footnote, and noting the 2010 MacArthur Foundation quote about Gordon-Reed "dramatically changing Jeffersonian scholarship". Thanks for your contributions. Parkwells 01:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Emergency tow vessel

First of all, Merry Christmas! I see you've re-assessed Emergency tow vessel and found it lacking references. As there are currently 38 inline references throughout all sections I'm wondering what else should be sourced to have this article lifted to B class. It would be helpful if you could add {{citation needed}} where you think it necessary. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for having another look at it. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

I think the content of the "J-H controversy" summary is settled. While there was a separate section for the placement, it got overlooked. I moved it again to the bottom of the page. We are trying to decide where to place "Marriage and family" and "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" sections on the Thomas Jefferson page. If interested please join us on the talk page to help resolve the issue. See section labeled "Call for opinion on placement" of these sections. Parkwells (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this, I got confused. You've already stated your support for a "Personal life" section. I agree that something better might develop.Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Your most recent comment here was way out of line. I appreciate that you're taking the time to engage at FAR, but being combative doesn't help. If you want to disagree with Bishonen/Rex, you can do so civilly. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Bishonen has requested that you strike your comment. Would you be willing to do this? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope; not striking. Considering that I've been told to Fuck off twice and am often attacked just for making a nomination, I see no reason why I should. Brad (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I think the issue Nikki has here is with the comment towards Bishonen/Rex, rather than other peoples' comments towards you in other FARs? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, that's the point. While I ignore behavior much worse than the norm I don't go around demanding admin intervention. The fact that Bishonenon became hysterical over the word "drones" and demanded that Nikkimaria block and chastise me or else it was going to ANI is completely and totally ridiculous and nothing short of threatening admins. The fact that Nikkimaria drank the kool-aid and hurried over here claiming that my behavior "was way out of line" for using such a lame (as compared to fuck you / fuck off) word as "drones" is just another example of the ridiculousness of the whole episode. And WP wonders why editor retention is such a problem. Brad (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous, hence if you just ignore it, no action would be taken. :-) Don't stoop to the same level, though, alright? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh. It'd be great if everyone could "drink the kool-aid" and agree about everything, but that isn't going to happen, particularly at a process like FAR. I've no intention of blocking you over the episode, and you should feel free to yell type angrily at me if that's what you want to do, but I would appreciate it if everyone (not just you, but this thread is a convenient soapbox) could limit review commentary to commentary related to the actual review to avoid the interpersonal issues entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've no reason to type angrily at you. I believe you were put in a difficult situation so in order to appease the loudest screamer you posted here. My comment about editor retention is geared more towards those editors who make mountains out of molehills and create shrill drama. Usually this behavior has a way of distracting from the issue at hand: the article. On those occasions where an editor/s are sincerely dedicated to keeping an article featured, I'm more than happy to help out. When their objective is to argue point/s and refuse to see any problems at all with the article and attack WP policies, I lose any willingness to help out. And I admit to being snarky (among other things) but that's just me. Brad (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I apparently have seasonal affective disorder. Most winters I just don't feel like doing much. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

K then. I thought you might comment on some of the older FARC though. Seems like 6-8 months is becoming the norm these days. Brad (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS Ambonya

Hi Brad, Thanks for putting in the ratings on the ship articles I have been producing. I feel uneasy about rating an article I wrote. One question though. I have also been reluctant to put in a ship year category for vessels where I can't reasonably pin down the launch year. In the case of Ambonya, I have not been able to find any info on when the Harlingen, her earlier Dutch incarnation, was launched. In such cases, is the capture year appropriate? I can see your point in that it is all we have. I am uneasy, but am more than willing to go along if that is the consensus in the field. (And we can always change it later should additional info surface.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know the specific launch year then use a decade category that you think fits the earliest known date of the ships' existence that you can find. In the case of Category:1790s ships there are not currently any single year subcategories like Category:1794 ships so the decade category would have to be used anyway. Brad (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger, wilco. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

USC&GSS Research (1901)

I undid your addition of ship year for USC&GSS Research (1901). The information in the USC&GS annual reports (going through them for other reasons and noticing things for these ships) has an existing ship acquired that year with the 1901 date being its USC&GS service start date. There is no mention of former name, where or when built or launched so we do not know--maybe will never know--the origin of this vessel. It had apparently been operating in the Philippines for a time when acquired. I am keeping my eye out for that information, but do not have lots of hope. Palmeira (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The category is only used as a marker. 1901 ships is the most acceptable category based on the information at hand. If the real launch date is ever discovered then the category can be adjusted. Brad (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is back. Short of some good Philippine archives we will probably never know that ship's origin with a real build/launch date. Palmeira (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Fun with one or two ships as a choice

For some interesting history and a dilema of hulls that stumped DANFS see Bache talk page and article. This is a variant of the time honored old Navy way of getting around constraints on new construction but not "repair" and gutting a ship to the keel and ribbing (though C&GS had an appropriation to do this job) and "repairing" up to an operating ship. It does lead to a possible decision here to split the 1871-1900 Bache from the 1901 "new hull" that saw WW I service in Navy and later C&GS survey service. The fun of the Bache has diverted me from checking those records for other stuff that was my primary interest! Palmeira (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership: Tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of tea. Brad (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ships Infobox edits

As the editor that is responsible for most of the edits for the article Point class cutter and the cutter articles within that class of Coast Guard cutters, I want to first thank you for your patience with me on some of the errors that I make through ignorance to the standards that the WikiProject Ships tries to maintain. However, I am confused by your recent edit of the USCGC Point Roberts (WPB-82332) in which you deleted the class info box.[4] What I don't understand is that the article on USS Enterprise (CVN-65), for example, and many others that I have seen use this format. If this format is not to be used except for "Classes" only then the close to thirty articles that I have authored on individual Point Class cutters will need to be changed because that is the format I have used on almost all of them. If they need to be changed, let me know and I will start modifying them today. You have reviewed several of these articles in the past and nothing was said about them; has the standard changed recently? If it has, how do I keep up with changes made to standards for ships articles? I am very much interested in continuing to completion the Point Class series even though I don't see the rest of the articles being much more than C class work because of a lack of references. Most of my work on Wikipedia involves Coast Guard related editing, because it interests me as a retired Coast Guardsman. I plan to continue, but I don't want to manufacture extra work for you (or me) by introducing unnecessary errors in article copy. Give me some guidance and I will do my best to improve.Cuprum17 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The class box should only be used on ship class articles and it's been the practice for as long as I can remember. I don't always notice every thing wrong with an article, especially if I have a lot of them to assess. Enterprise has a class box because the ship was the only one of its class ever built. There were 6 originally planned but 5 were canceled. As for the Point articles that you have already done I don't see any big emergency to go around and remove them. Whenever you get to one you can remove the class box. I can help with that too if you want. Brad (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I've got the time now and might not later. It's no big deal, I just need to know the guidelines. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)