User talk:Bellhalla: Difference between revisions
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
Hi Bellhalla. Thanks a lot for your info! Frankly, after almost three years in Wikipedia, I was completely unaware of non-breaking spaces! :( Best regards.--[[User:DagosNavy|Darius]] ([[User talk:DagosNavy|talk]]) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Bellhalla. Thanks a lot for your info! Frankly, after almost three years in Wikipedia, I was completely unaware of non-breaking spaces! :( Best regards.--[[User:DagosNavy|Darius]] ([[User talk:DagosNavy|talk]]) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Congratulations! == |
|||
{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png|90px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |'''The ''[[WP:MILHIST#ACM|Military history A-Class medal with Oak Leaves]]''''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | By order of the coordinators of the [[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]], you are hereby awarded the ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards#ACMS|A-Class medal with Oak Leaves]]'' for your contributions to [[U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)|''U-5'' class submarine (Austria-Hungary)]], [[U-20 class submarine|''U-20'' class submarine]], and [[SM U-68|SM ''U-68'']], all promoted to A-Class in February 2009. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[pf]]]</sup> 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 04:31, 26 February 2009
Gordon E. WilliamsYou edited this, you may be interested in commenting on its deletion: Gordon E. Williams
Milhist logoDo you have time to knock up a graphic saying
in the same style/typeface as the "Bugle" logo please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've dropped it the dummy of the next front page. I'll ask Kirill to sort the html, it's not quite right. Thanks again! --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(od) Thank you very much. Kirill thinks the "gold" is a bit too bright. Is there any chance you could make it darker/redder? The other small problem is that the "map" is rather blurred (perhaps it has a "glow" treatment?). Finally, and please scream if this is impossible, can the gold be rendered with highlights, like real gold, rather than a flat colour? Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding, --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Operation: TrailblazerAfter 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)
Template:ShipeventsIs it possible to alter the template so that it shows +/- 5 years instead of +/- 4 years? Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
GAN of Minas GeraisAlready?!? :) I know that I have to write a lead; I will get to it tomorrow. Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of SM U-30 (Austria-Hungary)The article SM U-30 (Austria-Hungary) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:SM U-30 (Austria-Hungary) for things needed to be addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
GAN for SM U-31 (Austria-Hungary)I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Ju 87I thought the citations were the strongest point! I thought I would have trouble with all the others! Given that I have most of the books given I can sort this out. I'll cover everything. Dapi89 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
GAN for Doug Ring in 48, Second Test in 48Hi Belhalla. Thanks for the review. I have attended to your queries on both articles. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Your GA nomination of SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary)The article SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-42--Dravecky (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-43--Dravecky (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-44--Dravecky (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-45--Dravecky (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-46--Dravecky (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-47--Dravecky (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ConnecticutWe did it, my friend! Thanks for your help throughout - it was invaluable! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Austro-Hungarian submarinesNext time give a hint if you need fast GA reviews because you're running the articles in the contest departement. Still, A-class reviews with fewer articles might be the better choice. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Endurance}}-related questionI might have what you were after. JIMp talk·cont 11:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Q shipsRegards your question, see Thomas Crisp, which I took to FA two years ago. Regarding Q-ships in general, I'd be happy to help with any questions you may have or any articles which could use more details.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Day before month in US military articlesTreating the US military as a separate nationality opens up a can of worms. I don't disagree that most American civilians will be able to figure out day-month formats, it's the level of comfort they should be afforded while reading about where all their tax money has gone. ;-) As for the can of worms, it seems to me that SS Iowan should use month-first dates, as her period of service in the US military was less than two years of her 55-year career, and most of the article's text describes her civilian service. Are bios of generals covered under "articles on the modern U.S. military"? If so, would Colin Powell's article use day-month when he was a retired general, then be eligible for conversion to month-day after he became Secretary of State? What about air bases that also include Census-Designated Places, which are actually civilian towns? As for the first editor's prerogative to set the date style, many of these articles were simply scraped off external web pages, with three apostrophes added before and after the subject name to bold it. They're mostly a far cry from scholarly work. Should these editors get to claim their style for life, forgetting about "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ..."? It seems to me that the line about US military articles inserted in the MoS may have been a way to assuage the consciences of the editors who have left these behind. When I see dates like 02 AUG 44, I change to August 2, 1944, since this is an encyclopedia, not a ship's log (unless, of course, it's a quotation from a ship's log). I have been cleaning a lot of these up, and I don't see a lot of other editors cleaning them up. Why should they fight me when I do it? Chris the speller (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC) GA Review of Walter OesauHello Again! I am genuinely glad to see you as the reviewer. I will definitely make every attempt to address the concerns raised in the review. However at this time I have a bit spotty wiki-time, due to other preoccupations. I am going to make a point of trying to address at least one point a day. But that's stretch. I hope you will be considerate. I am afraid I can offer may be 15 days as my deadline. I am sorry I just can't offer anything concrete. Perseus71 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Co-reviewHi Bellhalla Want to co-review Second Persian invasion of Greece? It has been a massive series on the Greco-Persian Wars I had to review recently and I would welcome it if they didn't all show only my concerns. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!Hi Bellhalla. Thanks a lot for your info! Frankly, after almost three years in Wikipedia, I was completely unaware of non-breaking spaces! :( Best regards.--Darius (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Congratulations!
|