User talk:Cla68

Could I enlist your mad skils?

You are one of the masters of the art form of the Featured Article--any chance I could entice you to take a copyediting/language look at The Greencards? rootology (C)(T) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Root - hasn't this been up for FA before? I seem to recall reviewing the image copyrights back when I was still helping out at WP:FAC - at least they look familiar. I think the article looks great but I am dismal at the Manual of Style. Kelly ^hi! 15:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It was up twice (the second time too soon) here and here, and for peer review. Myself and Andreasegde did a lot of cleanup, but I think it still needs a lot more... I don't want to FA it again until it's bulletproof. rootology (C)(T) 16:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look at it. But, I don't have much experience with articles about music bands. Cla68 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to get to it. I'll try for tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why apologize? International travel > me. :P Thank you! And if helps: I've forked the lead members to trim down the early history section a bit (I just haven't removed it from the parent article yet--I just replicated so far). rootology (C)(T) 23:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As requested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Greencards, I just tried again. Wish it luck! rootology (C)(T) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues (click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.

The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In related news, Stonehenge has been built and the Great Pyramid of Giza has been completed. Kelly ^hi! 01:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Notice

As I said in the block log, I put my block up for review on ANI, or rather am In the process of doing so. Please migrate any discussionthere.--Tznkai (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the ANI discussion. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

In light of the arbitration decision and in the spirit of your recent comments about it, I think it would be best if you made every effort not to refer to SlimVirgin further and certainly if you did not post in her userspace. This will be a helpful contribution to defusing the tensions so everyone can get back to more productive pursuits. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone tries to further promote the idea that the recent case had anything to do with Poetlister, I will protest that visibly and vigorously. Otherwise, I have no problem with what you're requesting. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I like your interest in Japan.

I've talked to a few Japanese about Japan, but they seemed reluctant to open up. What do you think about Japan, its culture..... I'm fascinated by their conformity and the way the "nail that sticks up is hammered down." It's also interesting in light of Thailand, which is also Asian, but the people there seem to have such an incredible belief of self. I wonder what has caused the mindsets of the people in these two countries to be so different. What do you think? Scifiintel (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, the Japanese only make an effort to conform to the perceived mores or rules of the group that they happen to be participating within at any given moment. Outside of that, they are as individualistic and self-aware as anyone else in any other country, although they aren't as open about it in public as some other societies, like, for example, Americans. Each culture in east Asia is almost completely different from the others. If you try to compare, for example, Korean (where I lived for one year) culture with Japanese, you're not going to find that many similarities, although there are some, such as the Confucius-inspired philosophy of an individual's responsibility and duty to family. Of all the different cultures in East Asia, I think the two most different from each other are the Philippines and Japan. Cla68 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me. What do you think is different about the Philippines and Japan? Scifiintel (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider

[1] Cla68, please reconsider filing this. There is no good that can come of it, for anyone. It is not within the power of the Arbitration Committee to make that finding. For everyone's sake, please withdraw this. Risker (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have strong personal feelings on the matter. I'm not going to withdraw it, however, I am going to go on a break and come back in a few days. You all can sort it out amongst yourselves. I believe Wikipedia needs to make a statement that this garbage is NOT tolerated, and we ARE willing to publicly call out a real person when they abuse our trust and what we're trying to do here. That's it, I'm signing off. If anyone has any questions for me, email me or post on my talk page, I'll check it once or twice a day. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm calmed down now. Sorry. [2]. Cla68 (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Cla68. No need to be sorry, I understand your frustration. Risker (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FPC

Hi, I was wondering whether you had the original source for that FPC you're running. It's a fantastic document. If the technical side could get a boost I'd love to change to support. Not much I can to with that particular file, though. Durova^Charge! 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your objections to that image were valid and I'm not upset about it. I'm not sure what I can do to fix it. The document that it comes from has a lot of excellent images that I hope to nominate in the future after they are placed in appropriate articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FA help thanks

Thank you so much for your help! Sandy just bumped The Greencards to FA status. :) rootology (C)(T) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 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) 22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding FlaggedRevs

Please, please, please do not start a giant RfC regarding FlaggedRevs. There is a fair bit of discussion that taken place over years and a giant RfC would be disastrous. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest instead to get things moving on it? Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks by user logical premise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logical_Premise/editorluv
Thought you might want to know about these personal attacks.
Messengerbot (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logical Premise/editorluv. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of a collaboration

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
• Willmott, H.P. (2000). The Second World War in the Far East. Wellington House. ISBN 2004049199.

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)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Although you have not edited the article (as best as I can tell), your comments and participation will be useful and healthy to the project. In other words, please don't sit on the sidelines, but help fix this article. I'm making a personal request. This will be cathartic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

USS New Jersey

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)

Thank you

For your kind words at my ArbCom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Iowa turret explosion

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)

Joe the Plumber

My issue is not whether the information is supported by reliable sources but as to whether the information should be included about an otherwise non-notable person. Editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability - that the information is sourced for reliable sources doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion. Please refer to the subsection of WP:BLP that deals with biographies of otherwise non-notable people at WP:NPF --Matilda ^talk 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that Joe the Plumber has a few skeletons in his closet is one of the reasons for his notability. The media is having a field day with it all. The Washington Post mentions his tax problems [3]. So, in this case, using those tax lien documents as a primary source is fine. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Replied on my talk page --Matilda ^talk 06:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar/SV case

With secret cases it's hard to know what or who they're talking about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

True. But, Kirill, Bainer, and FT2 made sure it was clear who they were talking to. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd be good if folks who want to be understood spoke clearly. All of this mystery is unhelpful, and against the better traditions of Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just please notice, Will, that the complaining editors haven't waived the privacy issue, but have only raised certain points relating to confidential discussions. Lar specifically offered an open discussion, which Tom harrison called an unacceptable threat, and to which Wikitumnus did not respond. If you'd like to criticize the decision to hold a private case, I think you'd need to be more specific about how to address this, and preferably acknowledge the unacceptability of requiring confidentiality for just one side. Mackan79 (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Older FAs

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)

Naked Short Selling

I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for getting that started. I added another paragraph using a different source to give a little more depth to Japan's involvement [4]. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Yamato Class Battleship

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)

Battle of the Coral Sea

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)

Your question

If you wish to ask my views on this, please restate the question in a way that doesn't personalize it. For example, you might want to ask if there are valid reasons for admins to protect pages in their own User: space. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could have asked you the same question in that ANI thread, which would have presumably prevented you from immediately removing it [5]. Since you're one of the only ones that I saw in that thread who was objecting to ChrisO's use of the admin tools to protect a subpage in his userspace, it's not personalizing it to ask you if you've done the same thing. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 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) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch interview

Per this discussion, I'm hoping you'll be interested in being interviewed for the Dispatch, to be published in the Signpost within a few weeks. I started a temp page at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN. Usually, the format is that interviewees drop in some text and Tony1 or Jbmurray copyedit, but I suspect that we won't need copyediting and trimming here, so I see it as more of a pick and choose, narrowing down responses only if needed. The goal is to highlight your work, and to guide, inspire and motivate other writers. If you're interested, dig in ! If not, just leave a note on the talk page of that temp page and I'll remove you. I'll tentatively aim for the November 24th Signpost. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question on naming conventions

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)

Wikipedia Review

Yes, I was aware that you and NYB, as well as other great contributors, use WR. That's acceptable, however much I think it's detrimental to to the project...unless you want to be on ArbCom. I personally think it's a cesspool, and I don't trust anyone who spends a lot of time there to have that much power in their hands. Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BADSITES paranoia will never go away, it seems. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a cesspool, based on what's been going on over there in, say, the last 6 months? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the demise of Wikback, WR is basically the only significant independent forum for discussion of Wikipedia, and there's always value in the existence of a non-house-organ forum, even if a lot of what goes there is silly. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I made a list of all the problems that were going on in Wikipedia which were discovered, highlighted, or exposed first on WR before being subsequently addressed here it would be a fairly long list. One of the reasons for WR's success in this aspect is that it is an open, independent forum whose members include banned editors, observers who don't actively participate in any Wikimedia projects, semi-active Wikipedia editors, and very active Wikipedia editors, administrators, and even a few arbitrators. Of course not everything discussed there is correct or even above-board. That's the nature of an open, independent forum. But, a blanket condemnation of the entire site is silly and, in my opinion, cultlike. Cultlike because it exhibits a bunker mentality against outside criticism. I remember reading somewhere that an indication that a city is operating an effective rapid transit system is how many websites exist criticizing it. If Wikipedia was irrelevant, then WR wouldn't have as many participants and wouldn't have the impact that it has. We're fortunate to have an outside critique site that to help us run this project. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well said. I'd also add: if WR went away tomorrow, something else would eventually take its place: Wikipedia is part of the mainstream now, and criticism is inevitable. In fact, as you (Cla) allude to, criticism often helps the project to correct its deficiencies.

And I also agree that the occasional abuses that occur there are inevitable if openness is to be preserved. I think of WR abuses as the analog to Wikipedia POV pushing: POV pushing is impossible to eliminate completely without putting the entire project into lockdown and having every edit placed under scrutiny, so it's a necessary evil side effect of Wikipedia's openness; WR abuses are similarly a by product of the openness required to be a true criticism site. ATren (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Akutan Zero

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)

Comment on Ryan's talk

Cla, with respect to this comment, do you have knowledge that this was Coredesat? Because it's signed by an IP and there was no indication it came from him. ATren (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw Cordesat's signature on it. Cordesat participated in a thread on WR where it was linked, and didn't mention that it wasn't by him. Cla68 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't disputing it, I was just wondering how you knew - I thought perhaps you just misread the diff. In any case I see you've clarified anyway so it's moot. :-) ATren (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Garden/WikiCup

Ohai Cla68, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup. ayematthew ✡ 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against what's going on there, I just don't usually participate in competitions like that. Thanks for the invite, though. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Naming Conventions

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 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) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Akutan Zero

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akutan Zero, 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.

DYKBot (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Iowa sources

• 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)

What's the best way to get some MILHIST opinions on an article?

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

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 12:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Bill May

On 25 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill May, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Port Chicago

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

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/Fringe science/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/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

James Newland ACR comments

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)

Happy New Year!

Dear Cla68,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

USS Iowa turret explosion

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.

Guadalcanal campaign

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)

Fred Moosally

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)

Quick question on Yamato-Class article

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 [6]. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Elmer Gedeon A-Class discussion

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

Your flagged revs vote

It's just not your day! (I'm not restoring your vote, in case I'm misunderstanding this). PaddyLeahy (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that's all about, but it's no big deal. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Images

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)

Iowa Turret explosion

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)

Congratulations!

		The Milhist A-Class medal
		For prolific work on – Operation Ke, Guadalcanal Campaign and USS Iowa turret explosion – promoted to A-Class between August and December 2008, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. -MBK004 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)