User talk:Bellhalla

84 137 34 13 User Page User Talk Travels Work page DYKs Good content A-Class content Featured content Awards You can click here to leave me a new message. Gordon E. Williams You edited this, you may be interested in commenting on its deletion: Gordon E. Williams Milhist logo Do you have time to knock up a graphic saying WikiProject Military history in the same style/typeface as the "Bugle" logo please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Sure. I'll be in and out today, but that should be an easy thing to do. I'll post here when I have it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) My apologies for not getting this sooner (I had now-resolved computer issues with PhotoShop). — Bellhalla (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) WikiProject Military history 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) If it's not too much trouble, is there any chance of a couple of variants? The first would be to have the text in gold, rather than bronze, for maximum contrast, and the second would be having the Military history in CAPS. We're also looking to render the Milhist icon per this, but in gold. Can you help with that too? --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Bellhalla? We love you... ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Sure. I'll give it a whirl… — Bellhalla (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Here are three variations covering everything(?) you wanted to see… — Bellhalla (talk) 23:23, 10 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) No worries :) Do you think you or Kirill could find an example of the shade of gold you're looking for, like maybe from List of colors or Template:Shades of yellow? That would make the color part a bit easier. (In the meantime, I'll make a guess and re-upload over the existing files.) A problem I see with the map (and it does have an "emboss" effect on it that can be easily removed) is that being all in one color, the words/lines/shapes all blend together. I know the point of the map in this case is intended to be iconic rather than informative, but it does help to be able to tell that it is a map. Finally, a gold metallic effect would be possible, but might take a bit longer. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC) I tried the color Old Gold for the new color, and also removed the emboss effect from the map. Any thoughts on the new color? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Operation: Trailblazer 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) The Teamwork Barnstar For your oustanding efforts during Operation Trailblazer, culminating in the 2009 Featured Topic nomination for the Iowa-class battleships, the passage of which resulted in the first ever Wikipedia Featured Topic concerning ships exclusively, I herby present you with The Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for all of your help, this is as much your Featured Topic as it is mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Template:Shipevents Is it possible to alter the template so that it shows +/- 5 years instead of +/- 4 years? Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) GAN of Minas Gerais Already?!? :) 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) Don't worry, I've already failed it for that reason alone.... ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Evil. Pure evil. Yes, I am talking about you. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I'm going to hold off reviewing until the expansion and cleanup tags are removed. (Technically, a cleanup tag is grounds for a quick fail.) Also, the Talk page doesn't have the {{GA nominee}} info on it. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I think it is safe to review the article now. I didn't see any expansion or cleanup tags on it, and I just looked. -MBK004 05:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Ah. Thanks for that. I thought I'd added the article to my watch list but apparently hadn't… — Bellhalla (talk) 05:33, 17 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) Everything looks fine, so I have just gone and passed it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:55, 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 87 I 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) Please see my comments on the GA board. Dapi89 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your help. I will take your comments on board and do as you have suggested when I figure out how best to tackle the points raised. I will nominate if for FA - but I'm not sure I would like it to be torn appart! Dapi89 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC) GAN for Doug Ring in 48, Second Test in 48 Hi 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) Ping YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:12, 23 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 On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-42, 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) 11:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-43 On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-43, 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) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-44 On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-44, 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) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-45 On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-45, 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) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-46 On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-46, 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) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) DYK for SM UB-47 On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM UB-47, 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) 11:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Connecticut We did it, my friend! Thanks for your help throughout - it was invaluable! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Austro-Hungarian submarines Next 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) The only contest I participate in is the Military history writing contest, and there, B-Class scores the same as GA-Class, so, really, I have no need for a fast GA review. But, I do thank you for the reviews. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) {{Endurance}}-related question I might have what you were after. JIMp talk·cont 11:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Q ships Regards 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 articles Treating 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 Oesau Hello 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) Thanks for the kind words. Keeping the article on hold won't be a problem. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Co-review Hi 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) Sure. I'll have a chance to take a look at it later today. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:34, 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! The Military history A-Class medal with Oak Leaves By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for your contributions to U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary), U-20 class submarine, and SM U-68, all promoted to A-Class in February 2009. Kirill [pf] 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)