This is my talk archive; please do not edit this record of past discussions. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page.

Dear Kralizec, would you please react to: Talk:Oklahoma_City_bombing#info_removed ? Thanks, Xiutwel 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I restored it with different wording now. Hope you like it. — Xiutwel (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ramona Valley, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Template:State park has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:State park. Thank you. — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec!, your work in identifying the copyvios was spot on. However, it was also a trifle unfortunate as I could not figure it out before putting it on main page. It was past bed-time (even as I write now, it is so, I am from UTC+5.5, you see) by the time I updated DYK and I was not around when you slapped a copyvio on the article and the image. Luckily, there were other admins around and they took appropriate and timely action in removing the offending entry from DYK. I have just reviewed your actions in reporting the copyvios - they are fine - except that when you slap a copyvio on an article, you are supposed to blank out the remaining content, i. e., just the copyvio notice along with your sign should remain and everything else should be deleted. Great work, now that you've got a hang of it, I'm sure you will be more confident in tagging other copyvios appropriately. Btw, I have left [1] messsage on Swollib's talkpage. It is often said that it is very rare for some one to get caught during their first instance of copyvio/ plagiarism. I'll try to review his previous contributions to check for copyvios, time permitting. You may also want to do the same. --Gurubrahma 19:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd slap a copyvio on both the article and the image if I were you. Though the article may be considered a borderline in terms of a copyvio, it would most probably be deleted. The tag on the image is unpardonable, as there is no mention on the website about revoking copyrights. Do list both of them on the copyvio page, no need to notify him further, it is only optional, once was enough, --Gurubrahma 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very befuddled by your Charles de Gaulle fixes. Why did you fix incorrect spellings and capitalizations in the link in order to bypass the redirect, but left the incorrect spellings and capitalizations alone in the article text? Changing [[Charles deGaulle]] to [[Charles de Gaulle|Charles deGaulle]] just doesn't make any sense to me. Why not correct it to [[Charles de Gaulle]]? Remember, our readers see the article text; for the most part they're not looking at wikitext, so it's more important to get what they see correct than what they don't see. --TreyHarris 18:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Major non-NATO ally, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 15:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice World image on Major non-NATO ally but would be great if you could also paint blue the half east part of the island of Tierra del Fuego :-) -- Jor70 05:55, 31 January 2006

Thanks for your eagle eye. Image fixed! --Kralizec! | talk 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a quick note to say that material recreated after being deleted (for any reason, including copyvio) can be speedily deleted (G4). Cheers --Pak21 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed page at random. I harvested the data on the cite without copy pasteing... What do you think? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that article. If you write any further Poland-related articles, feel free to announce them at Portal:Poland/New article announcements.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec!, thanks for the invitation. May I also suggest we delete the Wicher class template you created? I don't think it's necessary since there were only two ships in that class. Appleseed (Talk) 14:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that when an article has its own category, the article gets placed only in that category, and then the category gets categorized. Appleseed (Talk) 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the info - you may want to post the invitation at Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I would like to invite you to move your project reports to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Polish military history task force, previously known as WikiProject Polish Army. It seems a much more related project and you'll surely get more support there. If you had any problems - just let me know. //Halibutt 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Wicher class destroyer, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Looking at a couple of the articles ([2], [3]) on my watchlist, I see that you have been removing Category:Cruiser classes from the ship class articles. Unless I am mistaken, this is the same category you added to the articles in February. Just curious to see what is up. Is this part of a project? If so, perhaps I can help. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely appreciate any help or suggestions you can offer for my project. Essentially I'm trying to heavily clean up Category:Ship classes and its sub-categories. My original goal was to move the pages on Category:Ship classes to sub-categories, such as Category:Cruiser classes. I'm pretty much done with this, and the remaining pages would go into such small categories I don't want to bother yet.

Next, I want to move pages from the sub-categories into categories for the specific class of ship. For example, I categorized Bainbridge class cruiser into Category:Cruiser classes in February to move it off of Category:Ship classes. The second stage was to make sure it was listed under Category:Bainbridge class cruisers and move it off of Category:Cruiser classes. In this particular case, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers was already listed, so all I did was remove Category:Cruiser classes.

Have a look at Category:Battleship classes or Category:Aircraft carrier classes to see my eventual goal. I'm pretty much done with those. I think it's a much easier and cleaner way to navigate than the way things were before.

If you have any suggestions, please let me know. If you agree with this idea and want to help out, perhaps you could ensure that specific cruiser class categories (like Category:Bainbridge class cruisers and Category:Baltimore class cruisers) are listed under Category:Cruiser classes, ensure that the class main article (Bainbridge class cruiser or Baltimore class cruiser) is listed under the class category, and then remove Category:Cruiser classes from the class main article.

I would also really appreciate help in finding orphans. For example, even though Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi was unique, I still felt it should be findable through Category:Aircraft carrier classes so I listed it. TomTheHand 15:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Yes, what you've done with Monmouth class cruiser is exactly what I'm talking about. I will list this on WikiProject Ships when I get back from lunch. I was unaware of that project, and when I had questions before I went to WikiProject Military history where they were pretty unenthusiastic... apparently, because I was in the wrong place ;-) TomTheHand 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec, I noticed that you uploaded this picture and I'm intending to use it for an article in/at :-) the german wikipedia. Is it possible to upload this one into the "Commons"? I'm not really an expert in all that license stuff, sorry. :-) Thanks and Greetings! --Jörg1979 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Krupp armour, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you want to clean up the ship categories, which I agree are a mess. However, the discussion that you pointed to is less than a day old and only has two participants. Please hold off on making wholesale changes until your proposal gains more attention, discussion and consensus. Thanks. I'll move my comments about the proposed changes to that page. Again, please wait before making changes that will have to be undone in the future. Jinian 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec!, I've been watching the Pensacola Christian College page for a while and have noticed that you refer to m:inclusionism in some of your comments on the talk page. Although I do agree with what you've said at Talk:Pensacola Christian College, m:inclusionism is a page on meta, not on this site; and it's only a philosophy, not Wikipedia:Policy. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information I deleted it was wrong. Carlos Moyà is not catalan, he is from Balearic Islands. And, of course, Roger of Lauria and Roger de Flor. The fact they were part of Catalonia history don't make them catalan people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.203.136.121 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a spanish wiki user and I don't use the english version so often but yesterday I arrived here and I saw many wrong facts. In the spanish version we have the same problem. There're people who don't understand what Catalonia is and what is not.--81.203.136.121 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response in regards to the images for the article Lorne, Victoria. I believe I only requested images earlier today :) -- Longhair 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your image updates. They do look much better. I trust you enjoyed Victoria? -- Longhair 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Oklahoma_City_bombing#Proposal.2Fapologies. Thx. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Oklahoma Aquarium, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BRIAN0918 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided cites for the additions to the article so far, and hopefully will locate other details within the court documents. The manhunt for the Iraqi businessman might be difficult to locate, as it was more of a broadcast media story than a print story, but it is vital as an example of America's yearning to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, even in 1995. Likewise, the connection to the bank robbery gang through the commercial explosives used to prime the anfo give important context to an attack that seems to otherwise be just the work of just a few angry men. Niether of these facts points to a grand conspiracy, but they do show how our leaders would rush to war in one instance, and seek to prematurely close a horrific case in another instance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.0.91 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 July 2006.

Hello-

You sent me a message about the alleged "vandalism" I commited. I'm sorry that you think that, I was only aware that Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, including anynymous users. I have since registered as "Laniki" in order to resolve this. I deleted only a portion of one sentence on the article for "Pensacola Christian College." Since digging a little more into the authors/editors of the article and the discussion around it, I have found that the prominant contributors are neither current students, alumni, staff, or faculty. Their primary sources of information seem to be the internet, booklets, and friends who have visited campus, as well as negative experiences that one-time students have had.

This article seems to show a blatant disregard for the "neutral point of view" policy that Wikipedia expects its editors to adopt, and you appear to have violated the proceedure used to correct and notify vandals. According to the proceedure, you are expected not to contact the user or trace the IP address unless it is absolutely clear that intentional or nonsensical vandalism has occured.

Since you did not attend Pensacola Christian College, I cannot understand how you could associate my edit with vandalism. This is the sentence I edited:

"Mixed-gender interaction has the strictest rules. Stairwells and elevators are segregated by gender, members of the opposite sex are not permitted to touch in any way (even shaking hands is against the rules), mixed-gender meetings (even off-campus) are forbidden unless a PCC chaperon is present, and staring into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex, called "eye kissing", "optical intercourse", or "making eye babies", is discouraged by the administration."

I deleted everything that followed "and staring into the eyes" and corrected the previous portion for grammar reasons. I deleted it because it was the most outstanding lie in the article. "Making eye babies" is a term coined by students, not faculty or administration, in order to tease their friends. I have personal experience with this, and though me and my friends often told them to "get a room!" the administration never "discouraged" it. Neither have their been any announcements ever discouraging such behaviour.

It is absurd to accuse me of vandalism when the only thing I deleted from the article was a factual error.

Thank you for your time. If you feel that I am wrong in defending my edit and would like to discuss it, you may contact me at [email protected] . I would value any continued discussion or opinions that you may have on the subject. --Laniki 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When you added the excellent Infobox terrorist attack to the Oklahoma City bombing article, you also added the {{current}} template [4]. Since the bombing happened about eleven years ago, I presume this was a mistake and have since removed the current-event template. My apologies if I am mistaken. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was a mistake. I may have been copying the template from the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings article which had the {{current}} template at the top. Thanks for pointing that out. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, it was not vandalism, if it seemed that Im sorry, but the sign above clearly indicates no criticism of the Authors, those comments are very provocative, and those poeple have a history of that in sites like Dune Novels.com, please keep an eye on them

Thanks.

On 22 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Casino Sault Ste. Marie, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

hi, please react to: talk page Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Oklahoma City bombing#ready to insert? — Xiutwel (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kralizec!. I checked the history of the smoke detector article and found that you added content about the failure rate of photoelectric and ionization detectors. I was wondering if you know of an online version of the Texas A&M study or if you have more information about it, such as the specific year that it was done, the researchers who performed it and the study's title. This would be helpful information for documentation and to investigate a problem: the failure rate of photoelectric detectors for "small, energetic smoke particles" is given as 3.99%, which is much lower than would be expected, as photoelectric detectors are not as good at detecting such particles and the failure rate for the particles the detectors are good in detecting is given as 4.06%. My first guess would be that the failure rate is supposed to be 39.9%, but I cannot make such a change with verifying it. Also, I am suspicious of the quality of the study because the figures given probably overestimate the precision of the experiment. If the report cannot be found, I think that a newer study should be found to replace it because the design of smoke detectors has probably changed significantly since then. Thanks, Kjkolb 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry. Henceforth I shall bear in mind to mention edit summary. Sorry again buddy. Joram Beda 06:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also try add edit summaries.

Siddiqui 16:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading Wikipedia for a couple of years (Ctrl-clicking 'wiki'links satisfies my ADHD-riddled brain), and have edited many things that I felt were gramaticaly incorrect, unclear, misleading, or just plain wrong. Only recently I registered so that my submissions could be tracked. My questions are these - Is anyone checking what I do? How do I know if I am doing things right? How do I know if I am helping or hindering? How can I more productively help clean up Wikipedia? Awhit003 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do if I have the burning desire to add

"Everything that can burn will; as soon as I find a match."

as the Tenth Law of Thermodynamics?Awhit003 06:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive words! It's great when Wikipedians work together. 1-54-24 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec. I've responded to your message at User talk:Meegs#Image copyright violations. Best regards ×Meegs 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. ×Meegs 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear and obey.

Thanks :)//Halibutt 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I WAS pleased to be a part of this community. I am, though, at this time very disturbed by the pictures of erect male gentialia. I attempted to remove these, and they were put right back (within seconds...). I have no interest in a flame war, or in being removed, but I feel that what is illegal in Virginia, and the USA, for children to view, should not be included in a resource for all.

I have written a letter to your editors, and it is my hope that this situation can be resolved to my satisfaction. They are, after all, only a few pictures and while it may be argued that their removal constitutes a abrogation of Wikipedia's free speech, their inclusion makes this site unusable to my children.

I mentioned in my letter my willingness to bring this to the attention of my congressmen and senators. I understand that the idea of being threatened is offensive, but, should you have children, I would like to know how you feel about showing them these pictures.

Xchanter 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]

Thank you very much for your diligence and efforts. You are correct, and the mistaken catagorization happened when I was still relatively new to Wikipedia. --MChew 08:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, but I disagree, though out of respect to you, I have edited it to tone it down. [5] I do hope that somewhere along the line the substance will be addressed, since it really needs to point to the vandal. Hu 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Sorry. :-( The reason the line feed was inserted beacuse the version with the tags on the same line were showing up on the DoubleRedirects page.

My 'fix' edits were in good faith as they removed the erronus report of a DoubleRedirect.

Maybe this needs to be looked at more closely?

ShakespeareFan00 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for letting me know. =) Nishkid64 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comment concerning the modifications i had made on the pencicola christian page. it was appriciated , but the removing of the content was not appriciated. oh well . i guess hat some things just cant be helped. MERRY CHRISTMAS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamore12 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I remove content from Wikipedia because these were not shia muslims Bazel 08:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the kind words and encouragement. I'm not a prolific Wiki-er, but try to make a difference... Spent 4 years tinkering with those A2W's. Thought I could share some knowledge Phil 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about that little mishap. tiamore12 is a friend of mine, and she said that i could. for future refrence, please do no interfere with the dealings that we have on wikipedia, as the most certanly will continue. thank you for your concern though. merry christmas , and wright me back anytime if you once again find me an imperfect wikipedian. aren't we all?--Riddick07 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I'm sure that the situation will not turn into something too heated. It seems like the talk page is being utilized just fine ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandal on my user page. This guy is FUNNY, too! Remind me why people vandalize again? All I'm doing is LOLing at him! :D  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos. Xiner 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a contributor to NC-SHIP, please woudl you run an expert eye over a dispute I am trying to resolve at Talk:Royal Canadian Sea Cadets Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kralizec, Yes, I should have mentioned we have already attempted to get a semi protection placed on Brisbane, but it was declined. For now I will continue to watch for the reverts from the anon user and then check their edit history for related articles that they have edited. Rimmeraj 23:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they think alike! maybe that user will get the hint now! Darry2385 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love the image you drew in Pachycephalosaurus; it is exactly what the article needed. Kudos to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D ArthurWeasley 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your edit to SMS Ostfriesland where you deleted "excess date wikilinks". Please do not delink dates as links are required to allow users' date display preferences to work - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day. -- Arwel (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Regarding 4 links to "1920" in a 560-odd word article, yes, the links are needed when it forms part of the date, as it is needed to satisfy the user preferences of people who have selected ISO format dates as their display preference, e.g. 1920-11-05. I was involved in the original debate in 2003 which led to the creation of user date preferences; it has always been the intention that ALL dates must be wikilinked in order for preferences to work, where "date" means a combination of day and month, or day and month and year, but not necessarily "standalone" years which have indeed tended to be delinked in the last year when there was no particular reason to link to them. Regards, -- Arwel (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is linking all dates official policy, or just a guideline? --Kralizec! (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline, but a guideline which has stood for over three years now and I think it's fair to say that removal of date wikilinks is extremely likely to be reverted. I note that in the talk page for the MoS there's one participant who's opposed to linking dates, but he appears to be very much in the minority. -- Arwel (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I understand now. Thank you for your time and especially your patience in explaining the situation to me. From here on our I will proceed to wikify all dates I see. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For catching vandalism of my user page. I've never had a vandal return fire after a gap of three weeks before --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please look over this poll and add your opinion? Thanks. Cuñado - Talk 06:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Spot87 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thanks for the message; I am pretty scrupulous about edit summaries (I thought); I am adding birth and death categories for people in some of the stub categories. I will usually add +cat or +cats because I don't feel like typing out categories each time; also if I'm getting the info from another source I will try to cite that (usually the Library of Congress, aka LC). As for the minor edits, it's usually grammar or spelling and I suppose I can add that info to the summary; didn't really think about it. Let me know if I can be more helpful. Thanks,--FeanorStar7 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help save this category? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships

Thanks --71Demon 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]