User talk:Wwoods: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:15, 5 April 2006

malo's RfA

Thank you!

Wwoods, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was pleased to see that you supported me. And while I have thanked Durin for his impressive nomination of me, I would like to thank you for taking the time to introduce me to making templates long ago (back in august :) ). I feel pretty confident had you not taken the time to leave me a message on my talk page that I would never have been able to contribute has much as I have (so far) to Wikipedia. I hope to prove your trust in my abilities to be well founded. Thanks again for your support. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ship table

Thanks for the heads up about Netholic has been getting up to with the template. My answer would be an unqualified, "Continue to use the current template since I have got rid of all the meta templates." Since I have purged all the QIF parts with the new non-server-straining code I see no objection to using this version for the foreseeable future. David Newton 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Francis Scott Key

I note that the FSK has an image of the man, rather than the sub. I was unable to find any images of the actual sub. However, we do not have an image of the man on the sub page for Henry L. Stimson (Image:Henry L. Stimson.jpg), but have one available in the article on the man. What's your feeling on including an image of the man rather than the boat? Avriette 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Hi! I don't mean to intrude, but I noticed you have made some edits to the Cheers article in the past! I've given the article a serious reworking and I hope it can garner your support on it's FAC. Thanks again! Staxringold 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk

Some of those ambiguous links to Norfolk should probably have gone to Naval Station Norfolk. —wwoods 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that generally this would apply to all articles relating to ships? Rob 13:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean all the ship articles relating to the USN that refer to Norfolk unless it is Norfolk UK explicitly? Rob 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Italic collision

No, thats my fault entirely. I was using a semiautomated program to change a bunch of articles from one category to another. It looks for html format tags and converts them to wiki markup (which is usually a good thing, at least from wikipedia's standpoint)...but as we can see in this case it wasn't clever enough in its substitutions. I'll have to check my other changes from this morning and see what other articles I've screwed up. :( --Syrthiss 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rilian/Rillian

Hi. Back in December you moved the article on Rilian, the Narnian character, to Rillian. In current US editions at least, the former spelling is correct. Do you have a source for the -ll- spelling? —wwoods 08:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was mistaken. It ought to be Rilian, and not Rillian. NatusRoma 15:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Secret

I don't know what the convention is for determining which flag a given ship flies (flew). I have added a small stub for the USS Secret. Could you check the flag? Thanks! Avriette 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with templates for WP:Weapon

User:Fluzwup ('scot') and I are formulating an approach to get ballistics data added to the cartridge pages. I can procure the data, but both of us are pretty green as far as template work goes. You've done good work on the ships, and I was wondering whether you could help us with our endeavor? See [1]. Avriette 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, wwoods, I've got a rough version of what I was looking for. Do you suppose you might be able to debug the few issues I mention? Avriette 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal regarding Ryan G. Anderson.

I don't have a problem with moving the article per your suggestion. However, I suspect that such an effort might require action from a Wikipede with admin rights to make the move... Folajimi^(talk)

Just out of curiosity, what brought you to the stub? Folajimi^(talk)

Template:IN-FedRep popped up on my watchlist ("Reverted edits by Folajimi to last version by Wwoods"), so I went over to see what was happening, like Rikki-Tikki-Tavi. Incidently, if you want to disambiguate Dan Burton, I've no objection but the non-breaking spaces in the template keep the name and party from being split by the end of a line, which (IMO) is a Good Thing.

For naming bio articles, my order of preference is

[GivenName MI(s). FamilyName],
[GivenName MiddleName(s) FamilyName],
[GivenName FamilyName], and last,
[Name (characteristic)]

since I figure the variations on the name are what most people are going to look for and link to. When I do a bio article, mostly from DANFS, I put out redirects at the variations on the name, and often catch some pre-existing incoming links.

—wwoods 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response has me rather baffled. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi? Dan Burton?? DANFS??? Perhaps I am missing some sort of hint here, but the connection to Ryan G. Anderson is anything but clear to me. Care to clarify? Folajimi^(talk)

[<--resetting]

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi—Throwaway literary allusion: 'The motto of all the mongoose family is "Run and find out," and Rikki-tikki was a true mongoose.'
Dan Burton—You had changed a link in Template:IN-FedRep from Dan Burton to Dan Burton (U.S. Congressman).[2] I wondered if that change should stand, so I clicked on through to those pages, and on to your User and Talk pages. "Ryan Anderson" was at the top, and Ryan Anderson (traitor) caught my eye.
DANFS—The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships has articles on almost all US Navy ships, up to ~1968, including biographies of the people ships were named for. Since it's in the public domain, I've found it a handy source of information for Wikipedia.

—wwoods 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification.

Today, I stumbled onto this WP page and was wondering how that really works. Can you reconcile those remarks with the action known as "speedy deletions?" Folajimi^(talk)

US whatever to United States Whatever

They're all being changed because (1) it was what people agreed to do on WP:CFD and (2) it is expansion of acronyms, which apparently fits some style guideline that I can't put my finger on at the moment (outside of being a speedy renaming criteria). I wasn't the one who closed those particular discussions (or participated in them, as an admin who does close discussions on cfd), I'm just one of the folks moving the articles into the new categories. :/ --Syrthiss 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the link now that I had more time... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) says that in "general" abbreviations should be expanded ("World War II" instead of "WW2") and further down, the by-country designation should be "in/of the United States"...so there's policy that is behind the nominations for renaming (as much work as it makes for me and poor Kbdank71). --Syrthiss 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't somebody have a bot that could handle this sort of thing? Gdr recently changed the {{disambig}} tags on a zillion pages. Well, thanks for the response. —wwoods 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AllyUnion's NekoDaemon bot will find {{categoryredirect}} tags and move the articles to the renamed category...but for some of the smaller categories I've just been doing it with AutoWikiBrowser, since the bot appears a little backlogged. --Syrthiss 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CUP

I just created copper units of pressure, so the link can go in the cartridge template. scot 04:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More cartridge template experiments

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fluzwup#Template_experiment and down. Avriette managed to catch me in mid-creation, and apparently thinks not everyone has a 1600x1200 pixel screen. I suppose he might have a point--at work I have TWO 1600x1200 screens :) scot 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Thank you for your work correcting the capitalization of the title and chasing down the links to make them direct and correct. You may be interested to note that I have carved out the new Robert A. Heinlein bibliography article, per the note I placed four days ago in Talk:Robert A. Heinlein. Hu 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you changed "Is" to "is" throughout Wiki for "Harsh Mistress"? That flies in the face of all style manuals I've ever seen. Also of the book itself -- I have the first edition from 40 years ago, and believe me, the title is "Is", not "is".... Hayford Peirce 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Well, that's the way I've usually seen it, or abbreviated MiaHM. —wwoods 03:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Pedro Bay

No problem. If you need anything else to be done, I am at your service. --Spot87 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ship naming convention

Pardon me if this is in the wrong area, I use this feature so rarely that I am not completely confident in where to post this. My question is: Who created this naming convention?

In nearly every published source I have reviewed (I will admit that I don't know what DANFS does, but I consider it only a semi-legitimate source anyway) the appropriate formatting for a vessel like the USS Ajax would be to use the 1869 date.

Because the ship was on the Naval books for 7 years before she took that name there is a history for the Manayunk, however thin, and that date is used to distinguish the differences. In the case of the Manhattan, which wore the name Castor for two months in 1869, the convention I've seen would make the appropriate listings as Manhattan (1863) and Castor (1869). After the vessel reverted back to Manhattan in 1869 the original date would apply. For the vessels that bore three different names, likewise, whichever year that vessel took that name is the year that it should have listed.

After reviewing the existing conventions further on the link you provided, every other source I have seen treated "names" that the hull held the same way you treat "ID numbers" that the name held—a separate recognition of each one, with priority being given to the most famous, then the first, in that order.

That is generally the same way I have set my articles up as well. If there is going to be an issue with this I would be willing to go back and alter the pages to Wikipedia's naming conventions. Zurel Darrillian 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into the page history, I see that Stan Shebs added that bit back in May 2003 ([3]). I presume the thinking was that launching is a unique event in a ship's history, unlike naming or commissioning.

DANFS doesn't seem to do anything to disambiguate—"monitor Manayunk was renamed Ajax (q.v.)". The online version simply adds Roman numerals, but that's obviously not considered part of the name of the ship.

At a minimum, please make redirects to catch any incoming links. Feel free to raise the subject on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. By the way, I've ginned up footers for the Amphitrite, Arkansas, Milwaukee, and Miantonomoh classes.

—wwoods 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSC page

Just to let you know, I set up a page for Consolidated Steel Corporation. I've been going through a search to wiki-link other pages that mention Consolidated Steel (mostly Navy ships so far), but if I miss some, look out for red links that could be blue. Zaui 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day influenced Star Gate?

Regarding your recent edit to the Groundhog Day (film) article, it is difficult without a source to be certain that the Star Gate episode was actually inspired by the Groundhog Day movie instead of, say, Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus. Do you have a reputable source that says SG1's inspiration was really the Groundhog Day movie? The Rod 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly of interest

User:Avriette/ShipImgQuery and related User:Avriette/Task List. Thoughts? aa v ^ 03:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So updated. Interesting that navsource has photos which are claimed to be USN photos, which danfs doesn't have.

Search Google Images for USS Adirondack (AGC-15) at *.mil navsource.org

for example. If only mediawiki had some way to iterate over data, I could just incoporate the "linked here" data off IIH.png. aa v ^ 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imdb

Hi, I don't think the redirect should be protected, because the template on itself is pretty ambiguous and I know it's caused problems before (because people keep trying to use it for film titles as you've seen). If someone ever gets a bot to replace the template on the pages that currently use it with {{imdb name}}, changing it back to a dab page afterwards would probably be good, to prevent the same problems in the future. But before that, it should be kept as a redirect :) - Bobet 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Thanks for your note. I wasn't aware of that problem and will keep an eye on it. Best, --Ian Pitchford 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Liddle (APD-60)

I have been having trouble moving this article to its proper name, USS Liddle (DE-206). Would you please make the move for me. Once it is moved, I will import the DANFS information, so that it is similar to all the other Buckley Class destroyer escorts. Thank you. --Spot87 01:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Spot87 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Baron DeKalb

Would you mind looking at USS Baron DeKalb and fixing its armament plus add a ships box, Thanks - Noles1984 21:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pitching in! Click 1632 talk

FrankB 20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Trying to Figure How to Procede

Thanks for your input, you make some good points.

Can you drop me a quick list of the 1632 series articles as you now know it, or confirm the 1632 series article is complete wrt all the spin-offs. I realized last night that I made a rookie mistake when I jumped into this, but I'm still editing the talk at this moment, so check it in a while. I raise the above query as I'm tabbing through the whole evolution of the 1632 (novel) article whilst trying to figure out what to do where and how. Hence I see the ROF shorts list, etc. as things evolved. I want to do the same for any other artys so I don't inadvertantly step on more toes while making up with anyone I've offended.

I also made a belated post (again currently in same mid-edit) just below your initial response to the mysterious 'Anom' with 4 total edits... I obviously wounded someone there, and thoughtlessly exacerbated it with a thoughtless comment on the Talk. Everything seems to be rather overly minimalist. Why?

Apologies for putting foot in mouth as well in talk and action, but that's explained as best I can in the suspended change to talk: 1632 (novel). I'm contemplating reverting and can use assurance I've now got the big picture.

Thanks, much obliged. email would be best (fabartus@comcast.net), talk for a simple confirm, or post a list to my user page under current 'large edits' heading tab if you don't like email. Thanx much. FrankB 17:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response 2 your msg (I logged in & was told "no SEND address")

(The response per se follows my liberal autobiographical spiel.)

Bruce David Wilner is my actual identity. You can e-mail me at the absolute address bdwilner@nsli.com (you can capitalize any or all of the FQDN, nsli.com, as you know, but the bdwilner must be rendered in consistent lower case); I don't have a whole lot of faith in the Wikipedia e-mail mechanism, given the freak situations I have encountered (as well as described supra within Malo's posting). You can read about me at my corporate Web site, http://www.nsli.com (there are also a boatload of miscellaneous sites underneath it in its "..." subdirectory; I chose that name because I cheat on Web space, but there are no hard [i.e., OS-enforced] disk quotas, and I presume that administrators loping through hundreds [thousands isn't humanly possible at one sitting] of users' and/or businesses' directories using the ls -la command won't notice ..., as it will blend seamlessly with the . entry for the current directory and the .. entry for its parent ), or even in my amazon "critic's profile," http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AAV60LO49N9CV/104-4414361-6217529. I have at least thirty or forty book reviews up there, in subjects ranging from fantasy and sci-fi, across electrical engineering, computer science, and mathematics ("my field," so to speak) through comparative religions, early modern history, linguistics, medicine, cryptozoology, Arabian Nights, Native Americans, astronomy, and Biblical exegesis to the paranormal, geography, vexillology, and even the history of torture (arguably startling for such a gentle soul, but tremendous intellectual fun--escapism, if you will). Isn't that a cool and variegated immixture?!

One reason I mention all this is because--well, to be frank, I'd like to be an author, an attributed author, moreover. I have had to write/edit quite an assortment of articles, typically because they're either chock-full of misinformation or they are just stylistically wretched or wont to stress niggling details over archetypal content or exhibitive of other blatant faults. (As you may have noticed, I can write.) You may not have noticed that I am (forgive my humility :-) ) a genius. I mean, winning a master's degree under double full scholarships by age nineteen (more common nowadays--done by suing high schools if they don't give your quasi-literate son a high school diploma--but just try pulling that in New York City in the 1970s!) and having a photographic memory and being able to do instantaneous calendar arithmetic and switch among four simultaneouly spoken languages at a party without missing a beat may be indicative that I'm slightly smarter than the average bear (yes, there's no such thing as an average bear, just a polar bear, a brown bear, a black bear, a sun bear/honey bear, and a spectacled bear: a sun bear makes an entertaining pet, but its claws are sharp and so must be continually maintained, whereas I really cannot recommend either a polar bear or a brown bear as a pet). So, I'd really like to (a) contribute and (b) be noticed for it. (BTW I was very upset when I edited an article entitled "Fellatio" that was [a] full of errors and [b] didn't excite the reader [well, THIS reader, at any rate] in the slightest and some character named "Nelson Wu" [I think] undid my changes and accused me of VANDALIZING the article. I was unaware that FIXING an article by replacing erroneous content and making it read as if it were written by an adult connoisseur vice a monotonous child constituted vandalism! I was endeavoring to improve the quality of this putative encyclopedia. I can even speak British, saying such things as "encyclopaedic endeavour to put the jewelled hyaena in gaol." or maybe put my period outside the double-qm, thus --> [gaol".] like that <-- just to the left.)

You asked why I put Caspian VIII as the likely successor to the Pevensies in the article dealing with the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. (O.K., actually, I might have edited four articles: the individual articles for the four siblings, specifically.)

Why did I put Caspian VIII?

First and foremost, note that there is no hard record of the succession. It has to be pieced together from what documentary evidence is available, plus one's own brain.

I note that someone had formerly claimed that Swanwhite was the Pevensies' successor. This was CLEARLY erroneous: one can straightforwardly locate any of a variety of "Narnia chronology" type Web sites, where one can read that, while the Pevensies reigned from 1001 to 1016 (often written as 1000 to 1015, but this is with people counting from 0, and--obviously--the calendar begins with 1, not 0), while Swanwhite ascended the throne circa 571. How can 571 SUCCEED 1015?

Secondly, recall that the Pevensies visited Narnia the second time the very year after their first time, and only about fourteen Narnian years had elapsed, and then assisted Caspian IX in taking the throne from his evil uncle, Miraz. Insofar as Caspian IX was too young to have been reigning when the Pevensies left Narnia after their first visit/14-year reign, and as Miraz was a USURPER--meaning he was not chosen or elevated or gifted the throne by right of primogeniture--we must conclude that Caspian IX's FATHER was on the throne just after the Pevensies left. That gentleman was named Caspian (remember, how in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, a teen-aged Caspian tells Lord Bern, "I am Caspian, son of Caspian"), so his full reign name must have been CASPIAN THE EIGHTH.

THAT'S why I attributed the first post-Pevensies reign to Caspian VIII. It's just simple logic extrapolating upon the known facts (well, I know, they're not facts, but--in the Narnian pseudo-world-view--they're facts).

YOU MAY WANT TO FIX YOUR ACCOUNT SETTINGS/font>. All I know is that, when I tried to respond to your message, the initial complaint was, No Send Address (not even No Send-From Address, which would make sense insofar as I was not yet logged in), which--after I logged in (doing so correctly, being told, "Welcome," or some such)--REMAINED as No Send Address, demonstrating beyond the merest shadow of a doubting Thomas that the problem lay ON YOUR END of the equation, not mine!

Just Announced Yesterday

Thought you'd like to know ASAP...

1634: The Baltic War is now officially scheduled for hardcover publication in May 2007. You may perform the usual back-calculations to figure out webscription, e-arc and snippet availability.

– The Loyal Minions

Snipped from Erics Site. They're months ahead of schedule per Webers 'schedule' on his web site! B'regards FrankB 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments to bdwilner@nsli.com

[1] Caspian IX - You know, I guess you got me. I was thinking of the "immediate" consequence of Prince Caspian after Lion Witch Wardrobe. In actuality (as I'm sure you're aware), it is Dawn Treader that "almost immediately" (actually, three years later) follows Prince Caspian; indeed, PC occurs about 1000 years after LWW. So, it is certanly feasible to opine that there could have been eight or nine Caspians--as well as others--in the period between LWW and PC.

HOWEVER, that being said, your chronology is also far from perfect. You alluded to other rulers (Gale, etc.) as being "between" LWW and PC. As you would recognize if you reviewed The Last Battle, Gale, as but one example, was prehistory dating back far before Jadis and the Hundred Years' Winter. Indeed, I believe Gale dates to the fourth century AA, whereas Jadis reigned in the tenth.

[2] Czar Pavel Petrovich - My bad. I was trying to inject a dose of humor. With certitude, (a) anyone would instantly recognize that I was joking (it was marked "alternate biography"); (b) it takes seconds to delete the "offending" content. I do not need the sandbox. I wanted to express my humorous creative energies. I know, the forum was inappropriate. Actually, it was something of an experiment, viz., how long would it take before anyone noticed. (How many people read the Paul of Russia article?!) I conclude, then, that you are informed by automatic means as to who edited what and when. Then again, there are so many edits going on every day; could there possibly be time for human reviewers to grok ALL of them?!

[3] Crocodile shears (torture device) - I was amused by your comment (I THINK it was yours) about your legs being crossed after reading the addition. LOL!! ROTFLMAO!!!