Wikipedia

User talk:Trekphiler/Archive 5

< User talk:Trekphiler
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Xyl 54 in topic BotA
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Trekphiler. I wanted to drop a note of thanks for you addition to my change about the Hindenburg film item that I changed. I know it was a small thing for editors like us who have been around for several years but I thought it would be good to have better wording than I was working on. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 03:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Salmon Class Submarine

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Trekphiler, this article is all yours. I will not spend any more time on it. DaveyJ576 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

the mines

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

actually i made a mistake. the information that the mines were actually used in battle were false, but the chinese did posses a few weapons called "Electric mines" mentioned in several sources.

the thing that was false was the depiction in the nianhua, no ships were actually blown up, but they were deployed.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

it appears during the Battle of Dagu Forts (1900) a few "electric" mines were deployed by chinese on the Beihe to prevent allied ships from crossing through, and this was confirmed by the western sources, it was the other nianhua depicted events at the Battle of Shanhaiguan (1900) which were definitively BS.

torpedoes

it appears that the Chinese did have an electric torpedo factory at tientsen.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

this source also says that china laid electric torpedoes in several areasΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobile Sister Project

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

What do you think of our efforts having their own sister project? I checked the other Automobile projects for something 'hot rod' worthy or relevant, but didn't spot anything that made sense. The rest are primarily racing related. Or maybe it should be a child of the Transport project? Something like WikiProject TransportModifications since it crosses auto, motorcycles, trucks, etc.

So far we've discussed people, trends, categories of customizing, notable custom vehicles, and events (shows). Plus it seems like there are ample articles to pull under this project heading. Wha'd'ya think? Scalhotrod (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"♠"Sister project"? Sounds very interesting... I'd definitely agree, there's room for it. Count me in. (Word of warning: mostly for moral support; my sources are mainly in storage ATM, & likely to stay there for the foreseeable future...)"

So with regard to making this a reality, my thought is to first compile a list of articles that would fall under the scope of the proposed WikiProject. Maybe that alone will help determine or indicate if it should be a sister or child project to Automobiles. I'm also thinking that the more subject matter related articles that can be located, especially those that are not identified as Automobile project, should help to support the case for the new projects existence.

With that list in hand, the Wiki-Powers-That-Be can be approached about the creation of the new project. Seem reasonable and/or logical? Scalhotrod (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Trek, I'm still working on this, just a bit back burner for the moment. I am working on Roy Brizio's article finally. --Scalhotrod (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war and 3R

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a 3R warning on the Zimmerman Telegraph, and the advice to stop deleting sourced info. Take it to the talk page, where the consensus of editors is important. None of the information you are deleting is controversial, and you have not explained why you are blanking it. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Burn Notice talk page

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A rhetorical question about the writers' motives for a plot point is not something that is appropriately discussed on the Burn Notice talk page. It does nothing to improve the article; rather, it invites a discussion more appropriately held on the USA Network forum for the show. You might want to take it there. Drmargi (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Trekphiler. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WPF1 Newsletter (February)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

SSP

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Hi! Re the discussion on satellite solar power, while of course I have some interest in saving this nice little planet from human depredation, I'm mostly interested in it as a step up to getting us off Earth entirely, safely ensconced in the wider Solar System. I guess we are mostly agreed about that.  :) Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey yeah re. the park, me too. I think I got the idea from Arthur C. Clarke, probably 50+ years ago. BTW, have you seen the Nautilus-X material at space exploration? Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm convinced Nautilus-X is close to the right road. (I do think the DC-X was a better idea than wings for coming home to landing from LEO; hope it resurfaces some day.) The huge economic/engineering problem is simply getting up from the surface to LEO, v=8 km/s. Which we can do, but it is expensive, ~$10K/kg. (Space-X is quoting is quoting ~3× lower costs for the Falcon 9 heavy, hope they can really do it.) The vehicle mass (per unit payload mass, of a typical chemical rocket) is exponential in that mission velocity v number, but the exhaust velocity c sets the exponential scale. Once we are established at LEO, we can use solar ion drives, with exhaust velocity 10-20× higher than LH2/LOX, and all the materials we need are available on low-gravity, airless bodies that require only 2-3 km/s to reach from high earth orbit. Nautilus-X is designed with that in mind, using solar or nuclear electric power. (We might need to use smaller chemical shuttles from LEO to HEO, to get people through the Van Allen radiation belts quickly.) At this point I think we are in far better shape to settle the Solar System than we were to land on the Moon in May 1961, when JFK issued the Apollo challenge. Wwheaton (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I like Kilimanjaro ("shining mountain"), having spent a year teaching in Tanganyika in 1962-1963. It would be a great place for a spaceport, Tanzania ought to take advantage of it. Politics is the problem (fortunately support for space exploration is widespread, across the political spectrum, except for hard-core Luddites), which leads us to education, which brings us full circle to Wikipedia. So, "happy editing"! Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bomber Command/Lindemann

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Frederick Lindemann said a lot of things, but this memo does not square with the record. Bomber Command's target was the German economy. Morale-collapse was just a by-product of seeing through the destruction of the economy. Besides, Harris and Lindemann were not where British strategy eminated. Portal had the ultimate say, and his preference was the economy. Harris and Lindemann may have interpreted this to mean morale effect - both of them were no strangers in manipulating operational directives as much as possible to 'interpret' them in away that suited their own morale-based goals. If we asked Portal, he would deny the target in the Ruhr campaign had anuything to do with winning the war by destroying morale. The aim of the offensive in 1943 against the Ruhr was to devestate it in order eliminate German production and the means of Germany to resist. That said, Harris did not disobey orders mind, and it was not until Portal put his foot down in '44 and Harris was directly ordered onto oil and rail targets that the general economy/area strike method was scaled back. In fact only the Battle of Berlin was considered a morale campaign from start to finish by all concerned. Dapi89 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the source is reliable. From an air-perspective, I see a lot of shit written about Bomber Command and Harris which tends to be selective, and or ignorant of the wider context/debate. A frequent complaint is they only 'did' morale. In fact, morale was and always was, nothing more than a bonus effect. The target pre-war, during the war and even after it was always the enemy economy. Harris, Portal and Tedder just had different views on how this was going to go down. Harris: Area attack, general dislocation, and hopefully a morale collapse; Tedder: rail communication which takes production and takes out coal thus synthetic oil; Portal: oil directly. This I think reveals a diverse strategy selection which puts the myth to the sword that BC was concerned primarily with morale.
I've added some points to the article which makes this clearer. Otherwise the reader is left with an unintentionally misleading impression. Dapi89 (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Its invalid because Bomber Command did not pursue morale to achieve economic effect but the reverse. What I'm saying is morale was a by-product, a bonus only. It was not the case with the Luftwaffe, whose bombing in 1940-41 and 1944 targeted the morale of the British, to force an ease-up on German cities. Dapi89 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats fine. If you have spare cash, you might find The Last Word? interesting. Particularly the Chapter by Sebastian Cox Setting the Historical Agenda. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No Ordinary Family

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it was kind of drastic to remove the whole Guest Cast section. I put it back with only those people who were important to the episode they were in (it's debatable whether Sara Bareilles qualifies). I intend to add one more either there or under Recurring Cast when I figure out who he is.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's Not All Right!

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hello. What does rvv mean? I added 2004 because it moved to #113 on the RS 2010 update. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Note to self: rvv probably means revert vandalism. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
At least you didn't use a bot and waste all my edits on that page! Please feel free to review my other edits today (seriously). 71.246.238.214 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In re Hadley v. Baxendale

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You can probably help with this. Here's what happened: I compared the block quote of the judgment in our article (by Baron Alderson) with the judgment at bailli.org (the EL). I thought the judgment at bailli.org would be comprehensive, meaning complete, but the block quote in our article has Alderson B saying things that are not at bailli.org. Bailli.org also has obvious errors, like "fats" for "facts". So, I concluded that bailli.org has omissions and errors, leading me to label the EL as "incomplete and erroneous" (or however I put it). I think our readers should be alerted to the fact that something is amiss here, but you probably know better than I do how to tag it or label it. I welcome your comments. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought: the article has 4 (four) links to the defective bailli.org text! 71.246.238.214 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Angon/Ango

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since you created Ango (weapon), I've got to ask for a source that explicitly distinguishes this "Ango" from "Angon". Because I believe this is exactly the same. Your article even cites Agathias, who is the main source for Angon, too. --bender235 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Truth to tell, I don't know more than what's there, & I don't have Halsall at hand. It may be nothing more than a spelling issue, tho IIRC, Halsall distinguished the two. I wouldn't oppose merging. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I'll do the merging. It's exactly the same. --bender235 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Bennett Cup

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, I hope this is right...

I have noticed that there is a separate page for the 1902 Gordon Bennett cup, which should really be combined into the page we have been working on. I don't know how to suggest this. Fsbr1908 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. I added to the talk on your page and the reply arrived on my talk page. Does this happen automatically or did you go to my talk page and do it manually? And sorry, I went to the talk page of the "1902 Gordon Bennett cup" page but I couldn't see a link to the Auto Project page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsbr1908 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Who write this : Victory was achieved at a huge cost: between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships (totalling 14.5 million gross tons) and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied sailors and merchant seamen lost their lives.[45] The Germans lost 783 U-boats and approximately 30,000 sailors killed, three-fourts of Germany's 40,000-man U-boat fleet cassualties are wrong?i see someone changed all cassualties ,and putted as source a book about american history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


just read "... and some 72,200 Allied sailors and merchant seamen lost" 72,200 sailors killed and on infobox read 36,000

I have read to books about battle of atlantic ,and they sayd that germans lost 28,000 sailords and allies over 30,326 sailors — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

See here - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Responded again, same page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Responded again, same page, different section. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup, 'nother reply. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Points

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know we're agreeing - I'm just going down a rabbit hole over which season we're talking about. ;) 4u1e (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Apologies for the late delivery of this month's newsletter; the automated delivery system appears not to be working at present.--Midgrid(talk) 20:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles A-Class Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You participated in the Frank Buckles A-Class review. If you have any further comments on the article or are satisfied with the article as it is, please post on the A-Class review page. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am informing you of this posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about your actions to the Operation K article. If you wish to contribute your input on this, you are more than welcome to join in.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

History of whalers and tankers

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Trekphiler. You have new messages at Djembayz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Djembayz (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Trekphiler. You have new messages at Djembayz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Vega

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry, I'm not following your comment; could you elaborate?842U (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The idiot attacking the Aces article

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have had my say in the discussion page for the article itself - the last paragraph of this I have moved here instead as it is a little unkind.

It might be an idea to wait for the "Bozo" to go back to whatever he was doing first? Otherwise he really needs to be confronted. The ideal way to have done this would be with facts, but since (typically) he makes up his own as he goes and at best has no idea of the difference between a good source and "howler" filled trash, full of ignorant "errors" - facts do not have the effect they should. When cornered, he just comes back with "I didn't say that" (he did of course) and just shifts his argument a little. "Feeding the troll" by conceding more than is his just due is unproductive, although of course we do need to be strictly fair when (and if) he DOES have a point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Pacific War commander

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To Trekphiler: My opinion is Sun Liren is just a major general but in that article he is the major commander and leader. Xue Yue and Peng dehuai which I added are the captain general and joined many battle so I think they are more important than Sun. Xue and Peng are response for some amy group. If the major commander must be in Burma theater, I think the captain general Wei Lihuang is more important. Wei is response for whole theater and Sun is just the commander of one division. 210.53.1.98 (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)210.53.1.98

In-text citation style

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Trekphiler -- you seem to be following Chicago style in your insistence on "full name & title at first use". While certainly influential, Chicago is far from the only style guide in existence, and the referencing format you're prescribing is not only unusual among referencing systems, but is problematic for other reasons. Using pages of Morrow's book as an example:

Chicago

Either:

  • First reference: Walker C. Morrow and Carl B. Fritsche, The Metalclad Airship ZMC-2 (Grosse Ile: W.C.Morrow, 1967), 10.
  • Second and subsequent references: Morrow and Fritsche, Metalclad Airship, 78.

Or simply, for every reference:

  • Morrow and Fritsch 1967, 10
APA
  • Morrow & Fritsch, 1967, p. 96
ASA
  • Morrow and Fritsch, 1967:117
MHRA
  • same as Chicago, but specifically says not to use the long form of a citation where a separate bibliography is also provided.
MLA
  • Morrow and Fritsch 34

There are numerous other examples. What I'm trying to show you is:

  1. there are many different citation systems in widespread use, so you can no longer claim that "everywhere you know" writes out a long-form citation the first time that a reference is used
  2. Chicago itself allows for short-form citations
  3. you aren't following Chicago properly anyway! Note (1) the vast difference in how you formatted the reference from how Chicago specifies it should be formatted (2) all the subsequent references should have an abbreviated version of the title in them.

I put it to you that short-form citations make much more sense in Wikipedia articles because:

  1. they are easier to format consistently, in particular when an article is handled by multiple editors over a long period of time
  2. full bibliographic details are always included in a bibliography
  3. said bibliography is mere screen inches from the list of citations!

Note that the Chicago long-form system arose in the context of printed books, where a footnote containing a citation would usually be separated by many pages from a full bibliographic entry at the end of a chapter (at least) or book (more usually). A long-form citation does indeed make sense there. I suggest that it makes no sense at all here. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Chevrolet Vega

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is to notify you that an RfC has been opened regarding proposed edits in Chevrolet Vega. The discussion is located here.

You star, thanks. You can work out the "For" statement via talk pages, or just be BOLD and work it out iteratively.

My thoughts are that in these respects, the Vega article should be significantly edited: it should reflect clearly the Vega's legacy, it's role in the US auto industry and it's marred track record. It should be considerably more concise. It should rely less on fan trivia and less than transparent sources. And it should include less of one editors photographs, personal vehicles and promo photos from General Motors. That's the basic thrust for me. 842U (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To answer your query, yes, a citation comparing Definition to Wheel of Fortune would be very helpful. As it is, the comparison between Definition and Wheel of Fortune appears to originate from Wikipedians, and is therefore original research. That's why I removed that text. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Crash dive

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Should Crash dive be re-titled and rewritten or deleted? Jim1138 (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What about Dive (submarine)? (or something similar) Then different subtopics such as Emergency dive, Stationary dive, etc., could be added as desired? Jim1138 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Submarine operations sounds good to me. Would it be within the scope of wikipedia? I.e. properly encyclopedic? Jim1138 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the citation information. I responded to the question you asked me, and posted it on my page. If this isn't the appropriate forum, then let me know and we can discuss it elsewhere. Thanks again! Lmt 7816 (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Volkswagen Beetle

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The excellent brochure archive at http://www.thesamba.com/ includes several VW brochures from around 1968 onwards which use the name "Beetle" (and "Super Beetle"). A name used consistently to identify a model in a manufacturer's sales brochure seems pretty "official" to me. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WWI Aviation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Little bit at the end of the section about early reconnaissance bit referes to bloody April (a good deal later) - not at all sure I see the connection, in context. Early casualies in 1914/15 were in fact much lighter, and mainly due to accidents rather than enemy action. By April 1917 the case was very different, accidents being a little less frequent due to more suitable aircraft and better training (albeit both were still very rudimentary) - while the air to air war had stepped up a good deal, and anti-aircraft fire was much more destructive. Hence comparison between 1915 and 1917 casualties is most unrealistic - they are really totally different things! I'd either move the remarks to the "Bloody April" section or cut it altogether. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Schräge Musik and the Foster mounting

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

True - they are "diferent eras", and true, there are differences - but the essential thing was EXACTLY the same - the enemy was attacked from his blind spot under the tail, by guns firing upward at an angle. Incidentally, the Defiant night fighter also did exactly the same thing - although it could attack from in front or to the side as well as from behind, having a four-gun turret. Very sneaky - as the victim was typically shot down without knowing what was happening. The exact mounting used, and whether it was in the fuselage or the wings, fixed or flexible, seems to be rather less significance. Not sure if PIPE was drawing quite the right analogy - but one can certainly be made! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

sbsp

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

sorry for the editing, i try my best to improve the article, but it seems i a not very talented, i should not have touch the intro--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for your help with the Auto Avio Costruzioni 815 article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Solar cells are less efficient in space

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

I am reverting your recent edit to SBSP. It is well known and trivially citable that solar cells are less efficient in space. This is because typical solar cells are dominated by the red spectrum, and higher frequencies of light are captured with less efficiency. On the ground, sunlight has been frequency shifted downward through scattering, so the resulting spectrum is better suited to solar collection. You'll find lots on this if you look up AM1.0 and AM1.5 references.

Your comment on the checkin seems to suggest two problems. For one, there's a difference between efficiency and capacity. But more important, you state something about "14 times", which is far from the truth. There are 8760 hours in a year, solar panels on a fixed mounting will generate about 2300 kWh/kWp or about 3.7 times less power. Do you have a source for the 14 times? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I see it, it's right in the very first part of the LEAD! But it's 144% there, which actually sounds about right. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's low too. Basically the way you do this for ground mount system is you...
take the number of hours in a year, 8760
take 1/2 of that off, for night
take off whatever the local microclimate suggests for the last 20 years of cloud cover
to whatever's left, apply a geometric function that reduces power by the COS of the angle between the panels and the sun - no adjustment for trackers
What you're left with is the number of hours of "bright direct sunlight" per year. Most of the world expresses this as a number of hours per year, but the US also commonly uses the similar hours per day.
Here in Toronto, the number is about 1650. In the Nevada deserts and Mohave it's about 2600.
So 144% is definitely too low, and 14 times is definitely too high. But it's not stated what else is being factored in. 1/2 will be lost on the way to the ground, but that's not enough to explain it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The atmosphere is clear. Look up! Attenuation is on the order of a few percent (scattering is around 10 to 15%). Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your post. The comparison is between space and earth. In space you have no night time, no weather, and no pointing issues (assuming your sat always faces the sun). Thus if you use the same calculation, there are no adjustments and the kWh/kWp/year is 8760, or in US measurements, you get 24 hours of peak sun a day. On earth if you account for night time, real weather and use a fixed array, you get around 6.5 hours of peak sun a day. That's 3.7 times better in space. Not 14 times better, not 144% better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Firearms in the Signpost

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Firearms for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know if I'm supposed to put this here, if not please delete it, but tell where I should put my thank 'you!'

I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia formatting and culture, any help would be much appreciated! You all have a wonderful world here, I am happy to help create and build in it! StoneJamison 22:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Visual arts

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I'm thinking now that Category:Art_media is actually the best for articles like Hot road and Custom car; they all are physical things relating to art. Just so you know, there are very few articles in the top level of Category:Visual_arts, those (should) apply to just about every sub-genre of the visual arts. Just because something is artistic, doesn't necessarily may it the stereotypical example of a art. Sound OK? Clubmarx (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ophiuchus

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let you know that recent discussion on Ophiuchus, in which you participated, has been taken to DR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ophiuchus.2C_Ophiuchus_.28astrology.29
There was a similar silly ongoing argument with the same editor on Algol, and it's not usefull to waste further time on it.
This editor has an agenda of bringing more astrology in a lot of astronomy pages, something he was discussing here: [1] and [2] and [3]
MakeSense64 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

American Icon: The Hot Rod tv series, good news!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Trek,

The American Icon tv series about the origins of hotrodding finally made it onto IMDb.com, [4]. This means that the individual episodes can now be added and then the famous people who were featured in each episode like Art Crisman and Roy Brizio! Plus we can directly reference the info as well, whoo hoo! --Scalhotrod (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dragons

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Trek - thanks for updating the warship articles in my sandbox - but since the project's live you can add the info direct into article-space. :-) Regards, The Land (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (July)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 01:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Local assistance request

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#1950s Canadian train crash documents (hard request) there's a request that you may be able to help with, if interested. Please have a look.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The memory is the first thing to ... ummm ... errr ... go. Yeah, that's it.

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"I can't remember it, Miss Ilsa. I'm a little rusty on it." Also, two sentences starting with "When" is clunky, and Bogart's quote has an extra word in it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Maverick

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Trekphiler, with all due respect (and I see that you've made valuable contributions to Wikipedia and that you're not even remotely a vandal), you really don't see any connection between Roger Moore having earlier played Garner's character in recycled Maverick scripts on The Alaskans and the series Maverick? The information is on The Alaskans page in depth but only a scant few readers of the Maverick page will ever see the page devoted to The Alaskans, truly one of the most obscure series around. It's rather eerie that Roger Moore continuously mouthed James Garner's dialogue with recycled James Garner scripts on a different series then replaced James Garner on Maverick, and interesting and rather important that Warner Bros. recycled the same scripts through every one of their series, a fact not mentioned elsewhere in the article (the same script routinely appeared, as close to word for word as possible, in all the Warner Bros. series, including all the westerns and then updated for every detective show (77 Sunset Strip, Hawaiian Eye, Bourbon Street Beat, and Surfside Six). This recycling has been lost to the mists of time (Warner Bros. certainly isn't going to publicize it even now) and most people today simply can't believe it but it's true (imagine if Deep Space Nine had used a recycled script from The Next Generation!). Unthinkable today but common practice in the early '60s. As a child, I used to watch these shows with my father and wonder how he could almost always predict exactly what was going to happen next, thinking he must be a lot smarter than I ever gave him credit for. It took decades but now I know. Hope you'll reconsider and change your mind about this, and thanks for taking the time to read my message. (Oh, and forgive my silly Wiki monicker, I was trying to cheer myself up the afternoon I came up with that one.) Upsmiler (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the custom of endlessly recycling scripts intact, while changing as little as humanly possible, is mentioned all over the place, in interviews with Moore, on Moore's official website, in any number of Archive of American Television interviews of various producers, actors, and writers, and so forth. It's common knowledge to anyone who was in the industry at the time or even watching television back then if they remember, it's not a secret, and I certainly have no axe to grind with the Warners, who not only came from my hometown but gave us my favorite television series (Maverick) and all those great movies from the '30s (just saw The Bowery at the Film Forum here in New York a few days ago--what an extravagant treat). I noticed that you corrected someone to "Warner Bros." Do you work for Warner Bros.? (That would explain this.) It's amazing when you see some of the episodes back to back, or back to back to back to back to back to back as the case may be. There's at least one blog online devoted to tracking which scripts appear on what series in which order. The Maverick scripts tend to be most likely to be original although there's at least one Cheyenne script that turned up after Huggins left the show based on the one that introduced Diane Brewster as Samantha Crawford (she first appeared on Cheyenne). In any case, it's no secret, it's common knowledge. Don't be too literal-minded about "a kind of audition," that phrase wasn't meant literally in the sense that they were feeding Garner scripts to Moore to audition him for "Maverick," of course that's preposterous. In any case, I'm going to drop the whole matter. Do what you like, I haven't the time to go back and forth endlessly and the last thing I want to do is get into some sort of adversarial dynamic with anybody over a mere Wikipedia article. This is one of those situations of you either get it or you don't, and I'll settle for wishing you well in all your endeavors, and I mean that quite sincerely. Upsmiler (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Maverick

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks, Trekphiler, and I'm not peeved by the reuse of scripts, I'm sort of enthralled by it, it's so peculiar to realize that so very many episodes were "remakes" (to put it charitably) of earlier episodes in other series. The writer credit often went to "W. Hermanos" in these and other instances, a Spanish variation of "Warner Brothers," of course. (In his Archive of American Television interview, James Garner laughingly notes that W. Hermanos was the most prolific writer on the lot.) In any case, thanks for being so gracious and I also hope that we find ourselves harmoniously collaborating on articles in the future; I have a feeling we will and I look forward to it. As for edit wars, I always try to avoid them like the plague but in this case I'm glad it led to our correspondence. And I got a kick out of the title "Branded Maverick." Upsmiler (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! And yes, I did know about Samuel Maverick not branding his cattle and unbranded cattle presumed to be "Mavericks." James Garner gives a good rendition of that story in his online Archive of American Television interview and that history was very well-known back when the original series was at its height. That's why I got such a kick out of your using that for a heading, because it had simply never occurred to me to put that adjective together with that noun. By the way, both Garner's Archive interview and Roy Huggins' are fascinating. Huggins started as a novelist and created the 77 Sunset Strip character Stuart Bailey as his version of Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe (coincidentally, Marlowe was later played in a film by James Garner), and back in the '40s there was a movie based on the character with Franchot Tone in the part later played by Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.. Anyway, Huggins talked about how much he enjoyed Jack Kelly as a person, discussing how funny he was "offscreen," but insisted that while being filmed, Kelly dropped a funny line "like a load of coal." Intriguing and informative interview. Upsmiler (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, like Maverick, The Rockford Files was created by Roy Huggins, who pulled the name "Rockford" out of a studio telephone directory at the last minute. The series was absolutely intended as an updated version of Bret Maverick and worked better as that than the actual updated version of Bret Maverick presented in the new series Bret Maverick after The Rockford Files left the air. And you are absolutely right about the respective wardrobes of the two series. The Maverick outfits were timeless and looked perfect on Garner and Kelly while the ugly '70s Rockford wardrobe didn't even look right at the time, much less now. At least Garner did usually wear a suit jacket, though, even if it was often....plaid. Upsmiler (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I just followed your link to the article on Samuel Maverick and was astonished at the length and scholarship of it. His page seems longer and more well-researched than most U.S. Presidents, I'm going to go back and read through the whole thing when I get some time. Don't know the engine number of Rockford's car but I have to admit that I'm looking forward to his new autobiography coming out soon, The Garner Files. I understand that he's hanging on by a thread trying to live to see its publication. After eschewing writing a book for decades, he says he wants to offer his side of the story but I'm imagining it's also to provide some extra money for his family, not that they're likely to need it. We often see actors doing unexpected things toward the very end of their lives, like John Wayne's bank commercials. One more thought about the costumes Garner and Kelly wore in Maverick compared with The Rockford Files: I think the outfits in the '70s TV-movie The New Maverick were superb, especially Garner's and Kelly's hats. For the Bret Maverick television series a couple of years later, though, Garner's hat was much more conservative with a narrower brim, which didn't suit him. (He also completely forgot to wear it on the back of his head most of the time.) Also, in the original series, the white suit with the huge white hat that Garner wore early on in episodes like "According to Hoyle" looked better on him than the usual black one. Nothing he wore on The Rockford Files could compete with his earlier series; in one episode, with Tom Selleck, Garner purposely dressed even sloppier to look like an "unmade bed" next to the elegant Selleck, who was playing "Lance White," a variation of the chronically lucky "Waco Williams" in Maverick. Stephen J. Cannell (don't get too much sun!) loved to purloin ideas from the original series for The Rockford Files, always vocally giving credit where it was due. Upsmiler (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Samuel Maverick article, I'll second that, wow...! Nicely done.
James Garner bio coming out soon, way cool! I think I'll go watch my DVD copy of "Support Your Local Sheriff!" --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Roy Huggins used to say that Juanita Bartlett was literally the only writer who ever took one of his scripts and actually improved it. I think Garner's the most underrated actor around, possibly because he used to tell reporters during Maverick's stunning heyday (Bret Maverick was a national craze like Davy Crockett and Elvis Presley during the series' first two seasons) that he couldn't act and that he'd learn if he had to, but so far he hadn't had to. This while he was turning out some of the finest performances ever recorded on film. He fell out with Huggins, unfortunately, which is why Huggins didn't work on the later Bret Maverick series despite Garner swallowing his pride and requesting that Huggins do so. Garner sided with another producer (a woman whose name I can't recall offhand) over Huggins during The Rockford Files and Huggins wound up leaving early on. Huggins would always tell people, "I have a love-hate relationship with James Garner. I love him and he hates me." Upsmiler (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it was Meta Rosenberg, one of Garner's partners in Cherokee Productions, who's interesting in her Archive of American Television interview about how she used Garner to wrest control of The Rockford Files away from Roy Huggins. Juanita Bartlett started out as Meta Rosenberg's secretary, and Rosenberg encouraged her to begin writing scripts. Upsmiler (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, The Rockford Files has to be the most superbly written television series although I do think even it pales in comparison to many of the episodes in the first two seasons of Maverick, which had an untoppable classic feel somehow lacking in other series. I guess the best place to see many of the Rockford episodes nowadays is on Hulu.com, NBC/Universal's (or whatever they're called at the moment) website. Maverick is tougher since Time Warner steadfastly refuses to market whole seasons of the show for some reason and it's not online for viewing anywhere except for an episode or two on youtube. Sometimes I wonder if someone there realizes how much better that show was than anything else in their catalog and they're trying to think of something different to do with them. But that's probably unlikely. Oh, and I wonder what the new version of The Rockford Files will be like. I have to admit that I don't think much of the actor they chose as the series' lead but of course I haven't seen him play the part yet. And Noah Beery, Jr. will be missed. I ran into the daughter of the blonde who played Rockford's lawyer, Gretchen Corbett, at the Museum of Television and Radio here in New York about fifteen years ago. She's also an actress (Winslow Corbett), albeit a less successful one so far than her mother. She was going through the library looking for performances by her mother that she hadn't seen. By the way, the senior Corbett was fired from the show when she asked for more money than they wanted to pay, which really hurt the series, I think. Too bad they couldn't reach an accord and bring her back, as happens all the time in television. My closing observation about The Rockford Files has to be to remark that James Garner had death written all over his face in the closing episode. I've seen that look many times, usually on terminal cancer patients, and if he hadn't quit under doctor's orders (the doctors told him he'd soon be dead if he continued), I'm sure he never would have made it through the rest of the season. Upsmiler (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
There's only one DVD out with just three episodes of the original Maverick so far, and there's a lot of speculation about why that is, one hell of a lot of it. Whole seasons of every two-bit television show extant are on the market now but no Maverick except this one DVD. The most eagerly discussed episode, "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres," is on it (the first half of the Newman-Redford movie The Sting stole the whole plotline but didn't do it a hundredth as well) as well as the one with Clint Eastwood as the villain (Duel at Sundown), along with "Pappy," in which Garner plays a dual role. By the way, don't miss the Discussion page for both of those first two episodes' articles! "Columbia House" put out all but two of the Garner episodes on VHS back in the '90s and they're available secondhand online but I don't know if they'd play if you're in a different country, assuming you have a VHS player. I'm guessing you're in Britain? I'm in New York City myself, which I love. Upsmiler (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

IMDb entries for American Icon: the Hot Rod series

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Well, I went and did it today. I sat and watched all the episodes I had DVR'd, wrote down who was in each episode, and then submitted the updates to the IMDb admins. Not surprisingly Vic Edelbrock Jr., Dean Jeffries, and "TV Tommy" Ivo already had entries that I could cite. Interestingly, Alex Xydias, Pete Chapouris, Dick Messer (Petersen Museum), and Jimmy Shine (SoCal Speedshop) already had entries. Speaking of Chapouris, while I was checking out Jeffries IMDb profile I noticed his car building credits and then went searching for Pete's entry for the California Kid. It wasn't there! So I submitted that too.

OK, time to devote some effort to the Brizio bio.... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IMDB auto accepted about 70% of my updates. Someone is probably working to verify all the "1st appearance" credits that I requested, but it's on its way to being a fantastic resource for most of the rod & custom articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Unit names...

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

This is probably a stupid question, but... are the unit names for military formations (i.e. 3rd Army) supposed to be written alphabetically as opposed to numerically (i.e. Third Army instead of 3rd Army)? I′ve seen them both ways, and I′m starting to wonder if I′ve been writing them wrong all this time... Magus732 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's another thing; is it really appropriate to use 3d or 2d instead of 3rd or 2nd? I've always thought that it looked really sloppy, and I've never seen any publications, of any kind, that use that system of lettering for ordinal numbers (i.e. 2d, 3d). Magus732 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it should be opened for discussion? Magus732 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not that it offends me, I just want to be sure of which way is correct according to the rules, you know? I don't want someone coming along later saying "Why'd you change that!? The rules say it was fine! Rharr!" and then they start tearing into an otherwise perfectly good article... Magus732 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (August)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Maverick Deletions

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm less sure. (Even Anders, who I've heard of.) Don't need to answer or defend your position; I'll just ask you think about it & consider removing. If they stay, I can live with it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, click on their links and have a look. Marie Windsor, the "Queen of the Bs," looms infinitely larger than Dawn Wells or Sherry Jackson and will as long as film noir eclipses Gilligan's Island, and the same goes for noir leading lady Coleen Gray of Kiss of Death who appeared as John Wayne's fiancee in Red River. Errol Flynn lookalike Patric Knowles was the highly billed leading man for Universal Horror movies like The Wolf Man and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, and played Flynn's brother in The Charge of the Light Brigade and Will Scarlet in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1939), not to mention his dozens of other movies. Abby Dalton played the nurse on the smash hit sitcom Hennesey with Jackie Cooper as well as Joey Bishop's wife on The Joey Bishop Show and was a household word throughout the '60s. There was practically nobody in the United States who did not know precisely who Abby Dalton was, and it seemed like the most normal thing in the world to see James Garner and Clint Eastwood fist-fighting over her in Maverick. I'd normally have kept Playboy centerfold/actress Saundra Edwards for sheer macabre novelty; her career ended after she startled her husband one evening with a lethal shotgun blast to his chest, but she's not as famous these days as someone like Marie Windsor. Upsmiler (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Scarcely chastened; it was an extremely good call to narrow down that encyclopedic list! Upsmiler (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that; your contributions are always intriguing and insightful and I always enjoy communicating with you enormously. Upsmiler (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry, this was boneheaded. I'll be more careful. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mavericked

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
By the way, you made a great catch with the Western (genre) mistake, I can't imagine who thought to use "movie" for a television series. And thanks for asking for my viewpoints!
It's hard to think of a better term than "array" for those series because of the strength it imparts; here are the salient definitions from Dictionary.com:
>a large and impressive grouping or organization of things: "He couldn't dismiss the array of facts."
>a large group, number, or quantity of people or things: an impressive array of scholars; an imposing array of books.
"Family" sounds a bit treacly by comparison in this particular context, I think, and the studio had a startling amount of these westerns on the air simultaneously. And if we call that a family, it was a legendarily dysfunctional one to put the very best face on it.
"Noted" is good for Huggins because it blithely communicates that the matter isn't in question while "contends" would make it seem that he was pleading a case for it; I don't feel at all strongly about that, though, although the phrase should be "contends that...." In fact, "contends that" is perfectly good, come to think of it, and I'll restore that right now.
James Garner still stars in the episodes of Maverick in the same way Clark Gable stars in Gone With the Wind. When you watch it on media, they star in it at that moment. To make it past tense almost indicates that Garner's been digitally removed from the series with a different actor substituted for him (Robert Colbert? Larry Hagman?). (He starred in it but doesn't star in it any more.) Clark Gable stars in Gone With the Wind (every time you watch it, he's starring in it) but Victor Fleming directed the movie (past tense). He directed it but he is in no way continuing to direct it, while Gable continues to star in it (present tense). It's subtle point but it imparts a vitality and immediacy to the writing. Upsmiler (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and updates made

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your suggestions, all were helpful, and most are addressed. 3rd New Hampshire Regiment and The Light Infantry Division at Yorktown (1781) are now respectable. I've shored up the citations in Scammell's 1781 Light Infantry Regiment as well. All of these feel ready for a more serious review; I'll look on the project page to figure that out. Thanks again Cfrye66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

stevens

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Obviously it was accidentally deleted while I was cleaning up a poorly written and poorly sourced article. It was a redundant source used twice in the same paragraph, i was probably going to use a named source to avoid repetition and deleted the second one instead of the first.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 The Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

hello,

do you have any books about that dude?--♫GoP♫TCN 21:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons stated on Talk:Otis Redding/GA1. Do you know someone who have books about him?--♫GoP♫TCN 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comic book collecting

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Hi there. I was just recent changes patrolling and came across your apparent edit war with various users (including this guy) on Comic book collecting. For what it's worth I think you're right to pull that load of cruft out of the article, but do you think it might be useful to take this further? Start a discussion on the talk page, try to establish some consensus, and if the editor still proves uncooperative then perhaps to dispute resolution or ANI? Warn the IP first and then take it from there; it's going to be the best way to sort this and put it in the past. Let me know if I can help. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That relentless IP has just spammed the article again (sigh). Dunno what you want to do about it. I'll back you up if you take it to ANI or RPP or whatever. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Good call. I'll keep an eye on it too. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's alright I'm capable of ignoring it, it doesn't really bother me. Just jumped the gun. I wonder what his motivation is in RL... Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It's issues like this which are gradually converting me to the POV that everyone should have to register to edit. Tracking gypsy IPs is such a pain. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Trekphiler! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential flame war

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

Please allow me to intercede in the disagreement concerning the latest edits on Flying ace. I am an impartial party, even though I have often edited the said article in the past. I believe the present situation needs an even-handed intermediary.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Maverick photo

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Trekphiler, great photo of Jack Kelly and Julie Adams you added yesterday! It's good to finally have a Wikipedia Commons photograph like this. I added it to Julie Adams' page a moment ago since it had no pictures and needs one badly. It's so damnably hard to illustrate Wikipedia with photographs even if the principals are long dead and the company itself behind the endeavor dissolved decades ago (not the case, of course, with Warner Bros., as far as the dissolution part). Thanks for finding that and enriching these pages with a picture that presumably won't be taken down, at least permanently (there's usually a feint from somebody at any photograph but if the picture is on Wikipedia Commons, it's always a quick restoration to put back in). Upsmiler (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (October)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 20:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

Editwarring on talk

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Consider this my last notification. You are not supposed to reinstate something I remove from my own talk page (like I didn't on yours). If you do it again I'll have to report you. I don't care what opinions you have about anything. I gave you a standard warning template which is a requirement so that you can stop edit warring incase you were doing it in good faith. This was for your own good. Warnings are not threats and I see that the template has been rewritten to a considerably polite text. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And, yet again, I have to be in the wrong. Couldn't possibly be somebody overreacting. Oh, no. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You are not understanding what my reaction was about. Its ok to debate about stuff, but when you move referenced content out of the reference tags, it implies that the content wasn't in those references. That is the only thing which I aimed to revert and warned you as per wikipedia policy. The warning is a standard action after 3 reverts and is not an overreaction. You can confirm this from WP:3RR. I have no personal bias against you, infact we just met on this article. It is very likely that when you revert (in future on some other article) editors will post warning templates to your talk page to warn you. You must not take these warnings as a personal threat, instead see why were you given the warning (if some one warns you without a reason or in response to your own warning he is wrong and that should be considered as a personal attack - but I gave you a reason, didn't I?). Lets not fight over some thing as small as this. We talk to other people in a civil manor around here (and if that's not followed, users get blocked). I didn't even report you still, and you can see the way I'm talking to you now? Am I flaming? Just compare the difference of tone in my comment and your comment above (I'm not blaming you here just giving an example). I linked a few articles for you to read in this comment and all my previous comments. Those were not to show you down, but to make you understand the way things work. You should really get a quick look. Hope you get my point now. Happy starting over. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hullo. In case you've also done this in other articles, please do not italicize taxonomic ranks higher than a genus. Only genera and lower ranks (subgenera, sections, species, and subspecies) names should be italicized. Everything else (subtribe, tribe, subfamily, family, superfamily, infraorder, suborder, order, superorder, etc.) is written with a capitalized first letter (as it is a formal noun), but should be in normal font. Cheers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For example, these should be italicized: Homo sapiens sapiens (subspecies), Homo sapiens (species), Homo (genus); but the following should not be italicized: Hominini (tribe), Homininae (subfamily), Hominidae (family), Hominoidea (superfamily), Catarrhini (parvorder), Simiiformes (infraorder), Haplorrhini (suborder), Primates (order), Mammalia (class), Chordata (phylum), Animalia (kingdom), etc.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Carter" in lubrication

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I only found one "Carter" when I searched for lubricant makers. If it is possible to track down the correct company, the best solution is to confirm and then fix the links, rather than restoring the errant disambig links. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pattersonellidae

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

i was just assessing fish articles when i came across this stub. it looks like you're the only other user in the history, so i was wondering what had happened- the article had no context at all except a pair of project tags added in the article space. is there some bigger picture that im missing? Ryan shell (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

its not the current revision that concerns me, it was your revision that made me so curious. as it is the article is in great shape for a stub -Ryan shell (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Happy, happy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Happy Holidays to you and yours my learned friend! My apologies for being so scarce, but we will continue our gearheaded quest in the not too distant future... :) Chris, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

United States dollar

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What? A few hundred years of using it, every official document uses it and the phrase "legal tender" printed on the bills isn't enough? And I also want a cite that jumping into water without clothes will get you wet. I'm not convinced about that! Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Trekphiler! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

  1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
  2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
  3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
  4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out. 

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FurrySings

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I understand you were speaking in the abstract when you told FurrySings here that (s)he was right. I'd probably give the same advice, if the actions described by FurrySings actually took place. But it is my opinion that FurrySings is mistaken, as I've pointed out here. FurrySings' claims that all the edits were "to say something negative about Krugman or to take out something positive" is demonstrably false.

I fear that FurrySings is continuing to revert, and refusing to engage in consensus discussions at the talk page of the article in the mistaken belief that (s)he has been told it is OK to continue reverting.

If you have a moment, would you check the discussion, and see if you still think it is wise for FurrySings to continue reverting. Of course, I've been wrong before, so if you think my proposal to discuss each edit is flawed, please let me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

Military Historian of the Year

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Canadian comics

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The Golden Age of Comics page says "One event cited for the beginning of the Golden Age was the 1938 debut of Superman in Action Comics #1, published by a predecessor of modern-day DC Comics. Superman's creation made comic books into a major industry." So if it didn't kick off the Golden Age, then that article needs to be modified, too.

John Bell makes a big deal of the fact that American comics were in colour---it's their most distinguishing feature, which is where the term "Canadian Whites" comes from. That fact (?) that the American comics were on better paper doesn't seem to be the deciding factor (and, honestly, would it?). Do you have evidence otherwise? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, John Bell (the reference being used) claims it was the colour that made the difference. To claim otherwise would require a counter-source (please note that this isn't contradicting that the paper quality was poorer, but that the deciding factor was overwhelmingly the colour. Bell doesn't split hairs over this).
As for Superman, I don't understand what you mean. It never said that Action was the first comic book. Anyways, what I said above stands---if what is said on the Golden Age of Comics page isn't true, then it needs to be fixed. If it doesn't need to be fixed, then the sentence in Canadian Comics as it was should stand. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 08:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any feedback on the way I've reworded it now?
There's still a lot of work to be done on the articel, and I don't want to discourage anyone from contributing. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

BotA

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thanks for the feedback. I can’t really disagree with any of it, though I've put some comments here. Much appreciated! Xyl 54 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding; I've been a bit distracted. I've finally posted this (here) and put a discussion topic on the talkpage, in case anyone is unhappy with it. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trekphiler/Archive_5&oldid=1144590276"