User talk:Ryan4314/Archive2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ryan4314. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It's up! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's going pretty good. I've already made one user mad at me, so I'm doing everything right (I just speedied a page she started) :) So for archiving, it pretty much depends on whether you want it automated or not. If you want to do it yourself, just cut and paste the sections you want into the archive page. To make an archive subpage, just type [[/archive]] or [[/archive 1]] or something similar into the edit form on your talk page. If you want auto archive, you'll need to have a bot do it. I have User:MiszaBot do it. If you want that, see this page for instructions. For general instructions, see this help page. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can now get rollback without becoming an admin. Twinkle and other scripts take longer, are less efficient, and use up more bandwidth. Admin-style rollback is much quicker. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given it to you. I suggest you try it, even if you prefer twinkle. You have a good history of vandal-fighting, so have fun with it! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, so does the undo feature. But I see what you're saying. I recommend rollback for super quick, high-traffic-pages reverting. Well anyway, the option is open to you if you choose. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You won't find a list of pilots anywhere. MoD policy is not to publish lists of serving personnel, the only place you might find information is in the London Gazette where awards of medals are recorded. I'm pretty sure most of the pilots were decorated - basically none of them were expected to come back. Justin talk 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From memory there was a total of 28 Harriers in the Falklands (I actually had a Argentine claim they'd shot down 60 the other day). London Gazette url, the search tools are pretty good. They don't publish the names of the recipients of campaign medals unfortunately. Justin talk 12:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Illustrious eh, thats a new one on me. The building of HMS Illustrious severely annoys me to this day. A number of my family used to work at Swan Hunters on Tyneside when we moved down from Scotland. The workers worked their bollocks off to get Illustrious finished earlier a lot of them working unpaid to get the ship ready, they got it ready months early and were then laid off. BTW are you sure that guy was British?

For info there was a GEC(?) technician who sailed with the task force on the Type 22 to keep Sea Wolf up and running. It was still a bit twitchy at the time. Justin talk 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh the Chinese laundry stayed onboard as well. Justin talk 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there… I directly took the information from the articles on John Milius and Operation Red Dawn. It seems obvious that they based the name on the movie, since also the platoons were called "Wolverine 1 & 2". But there are surely some non-WP online sources on the name of the operation. —Eickenberg (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

found an online source (USA Today) and edited the article. —Eickenberg (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I see our friend has been keeping you busy, I reverted some of his other changes as well. Justin talk 15:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a direct mention here, but that doesn't ban it. Just make sure it follows WP:EL, and it should be fine. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's an RfC? A process to create consensus. It's a community building exercise. An RfC closes when it's goals have been achieved, or the dispute has been settled, or what have you. An RfC can also close if one side of the argument backs down and quits, regardless of the current consensus. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how do you like the new sig? 1 out of 1 like it so far. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So didn't another editor (think I was a Stan. Nope). And the other editor I asked said they didn't notice either. It's kind of subtle, I only changed the characters in the large part, and even then it wasn't a stretch. Looking at your recent contribs, which are quite diverse, I can't figure out what debate we're talking about. And we've all met those editors - uncooperative, wikilawyering; *sigh*. Well, if one or more side is continually POV pushing, edit warring, trying to own the article, or doing other things along those lines, the page could be indefinitely full-protected until the debate is settled. Try WP:RPP, or the Guardian of such, User:Acalamari :) but I suggest RPP. I could take a look at it, and I'll consult with a few other admins, and we'll decide what to do with it. You might also want to try WP:ANI. But beware, you might be accused of admin abuse :) Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is basically widespread messaging rallying someone to one person's side of an argument. Asking someone to take a look at a discussion is not wrong; from WP:CANVASS: "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". If you just want an objective opinion, there's nothing wrong with it. If I can't settle it myself, I'll ask a few others to come and look at it. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, OK, It's really big :) I don't think I'll be able to really look at it today, I've got some schooling to get done. But I'll almost definitely be able to check it out tomorrow. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, administrators know about it, and if their assistance is needed, we can make another post. Participating in the ANI section is a good way to make others aware of it. High traffic complaints are more popular. But just continue discussion, and if things get really out of hand, you can take it to WP:RFARB. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Ooo-kay, well, it seems to have been archived. Uh, well, I guess the only thing to do is discuss on the talk. I think the changing of the template wording from "combatant" to "belligerent" is a step forward. The two are different enough that the US can be less considered a combatant in the sense of being directly involved in the war to having made a combative act during a war. Plus less people know what it means, so it won't offend as many people. I do believe that in this situation, one requiring further explanation than a box can deliver (no pun intended), the infobox in whole or in part should be removed. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No didn't catch that :) You're obviously not puppeteering, so just ignore comments like that. Notice also how that word was changed to "belligerent", not "co-belligerent". Justin^Contribs_{User page} 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added some comments at the peer review. Hopefully you'll find them useful, feel free to contact me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, to answer your specific questions...

• WP:HEAD - you've got "See Also" and "External Links" where it should be "See also" and "External links" - a minor point but the manual of style mandates this.
• Dates, when you have a full date like " July 12 1982" then link it thus... "July 12, 1982". You should check for all instances of this.

Hope that helps, again, don't hesitate to get in touch for further help. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally wikilink whole Day-month-year dates always, wikilink day-month dates usually and don't wikilink individual years (unless you pipe it to an article relevant to the article). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Those edits are down to Griffiths911, he was a crew member on Cardiff. I'm pretty sure they're accurate though much of his information isn't in the public domain. Justin talk 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its detail down in the weeds. I have offered help but he doesn't seem to want to listen to others. Justin talk 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah I'd go along with that, his edits are well written but the formatting is way off. Justin talk 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, check out his talk page, I have tried the diplomatic approach. I get the impression that he is genuinely trying but doesn't want to listen to suggestions for improvement. Justin talk 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be canvassing to ask their opinion about the best way to handle the situation or even ask for advice from an admin like John, Narson is always a good one to consult as he has much better diplomatic skills than me. I wouldn't suggest Necessary Evil as he can be a bit mission orientated at times. Personally I would let the guy burn himself out and when he loses interest clean up the articles. Justin talk 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way forward, try and keep it on the straight and narrow. Justin talk 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. What an Idiot I have been! I have been blundering my way around this thing with no or very little respect for you people. My only aim was to try and introduce more information that I have on the subject of HMS Cardiff in the Falklands war and thought you just posted away........wrong! Having read the comments made on talk pages I would be most grateful if someone would revert any work I have done and return the affected pages to a pre Griffiths911 state.

God I feel foolish, but my intentions were honourable and I am learning fast. Although I have only just worked out how to use 'talk' (albeit basics) I have 'felt' your 'guidance'. Please accept my apologies and keep up the good work.

Griffiths911 (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind encouragement.........you deserve to be far less generous. I'll be honest with you and admit that it was a discussion I had recently with the son of Christopher Griffin - (pilot Gazelle blue/blue) that made me so hasty to see updates to the Cardiff page. His name is Paul and is obviously very emotional about the whole affair. He thinks that there has been some cover up and he cannot understand why historians have not recorded details surrounding his father's fatal flight on June 6. I explained to him that I saw the missile impact with the Gazelle (night vision goggles) and that I really did know what had happened. As you can imagine, the conversation has brought back painful memories for me also and in my naivety I thought I would record this part of history myself...........for him. The pictures are mostly mine but there are a couple from Mark Edwards, an old friend, who has kindly sent them to me and has given his permission to be displayed on Wikipedia. Can I add that Cardiff's war had four distinct experiences for the crew in 1982: 1. The Boeing 707 incident. 2. The blue/blue Gazelle. 3. Canberra B-108. 4. HMS Tiger Bay - 'Islas Malvinas'. I will not do any more editing and have removed my material from the Falklands War page (forgetting to complete the 'edit summary'). I would, however, be really grateful if you would consider to improve/change what I have done to make it credible and feel free to ask me anything you need for your material.Griffiths911 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Guys, look at what I've written and keep in mind what I'm trying to say/record. Go to work and present it in a way that will stand up to the scrutiny that you are used to. I will now take on the role of providing you with answers to your questions.....'warts and all'. I am not a good writer but I have a reasonably good 'handle' on the subject matter. I repeat, I will not edit any more (It's bloody hard!) and if you need to ask anything, even stuff you think I have got wrong......... then do so.Griffiths911 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Griffiths911

This may be of some interest to you. Have you guys heard of a magazine called FlyPast? Well, last June I got a letter I had written to them about the shooting down of B-108 published. I think the magazine is well respected and just thought you might be able to use it as a reference. On the other hand if you have never heard of them. FlyPast July 2007 - p.92 flypost

Thanks. I have a hard copy and scanned copy. How the hell do I email/post jpeg's in 'talk'? Bloody hell, couldn't you guys made things simpler LOL.Griffiths911 (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Griffiths911

1981 but that's all I remember.Griffiths911 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Griffiths911

You really are making me think. I have dug out the hard copy of that picture (looking for info written on the back - blank) but I do remember it being 1981 and in the Atlantic. She looks immaculate so we must have just sailed from Portsmouth.Griffiths911 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at Wiki commons and read it through. Ryan, can't I just email you a shed load of pics with a description of what's going on and you upload and do the 'necessary'. I find the whole thing bloody confusing......the upload procedure on the page you directed me to looks exactly the same as the other procedure I followed! I took hundreds of pics on my trusty Olympus OM10 (the dogs nads at that time). I was a radar operator so was 'close' to the command and control aspect of things. I was also a part time diver and because the army did not bring their diving kit south we (Cardiff's ship diving team) were invited ashore to do all sorts of crappy stuff for dear pongo. I went ashore in Ajax Bay and whilst there took a dozen or so pics of the temporary British graveyard.........bloody miserable place. But I did get a picture of Colonel 'H' Jones's initial resting place (a huge grave with 15 paras interred in it) it had big white-washed stones all around it. I also did a diving job in Port Stanley and took pics of 2 para guarding POW's (I have at least 15 of them).........the 2 para lads were quite brutal with their charges but that's all I have to say about that. Just take charge of me Ryan and let me know what you want me to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffiths911 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've sussed it. On Wiki commons I've uploaded a pic of HMS Cardiff's Operations Room........the tired looking dude is me on watch at 03:00 in the morning. Was well dodgy doing photography in the ops room back then (court martial job)and we were not allowed to keep journals/diaries - strict or what! I've used the destination filename HMS Cardiff (D108). See if you can find it.........cause I bloody can't. And thanks for the look at me sat on the deck of the focsle. I dont know of any sites that detail what Cardiff was up to prior to 1982 but I'll have a look around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffiths911 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Second one uploaded...........if I've done it right you should be able to find itGriffiths911 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm uploading a variety of stuff......it doesn't scratch the surface of the ammount I have available. I'm making sure that I only upload the pics that are mine........I pointed the OM10 and took the snap. The black and white ones were a bit of an experiment at the time. We had an official phot bod onboard and he left his bag on the flight deck one day, so I stole a film out of his bag (forgive me Leading Seaman Middleton). Anyway I don't like the black & white stuff but others might? I am also aware that I am giving these pictures away to the............world, I suppose. Good. They've been in my loft bloody long enough LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.39.37 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The white ones are war shots. The red ones are the posy plastic ones that we put on the launcher when we enter harbour......they are not real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.39.37 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We really can learn from each other Ryan. With your skills and my subject knowledge you should be able to present a really good article. Let's take our time and get it right eh? Griffiths911 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's really spooky. I looked at that article and thought the medal looked terrible. I have a pic of my gongs....only problem is it is mounted next to another (Former Yugoslavia). I can email you a pic. How do I do that?Griffiths911 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is great, really great. I'm more than happy to upload the pics now I've sussed out how to do it. Still no rush at the moment?Griffiths911 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff and Port Howard. As you know, the Arg surrendered on the 14 June. But there was a garrison of about 700 Arg troops on West Falkland (Port Howard) that had to be dealt with. So on the 15 June Cardiff sailed close to Port Howard with battle ensigns flying (exactly like the signal I posted on Wiki commons states). We were training all our weapons ashore just in case they decided to have a go. Our captain went ashore and got the helo to bring back 300 Arg tin hats for the lads..........he got in a bit of bother for that as it is against the Geneva Convention to remove protective clothing from the POWs. I'll email you a picture of our captain ashore organising things. You wont be able to use it though as it is Crown Copyright (taken by our ship's photographer, Leading Seaman Middleton).Griffiths911 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this: Excerpt from the book

   I found myself mulling over  a  discussion in our class in  History and
   Moral  Philosophy. Mr. Dubois was talking  about the disorders that preceded
   the  breakup  of the  North  American  republic,  back in the  XXth century.
   According to him, there was a time just before they went down the drain when
   such crimes as Dillinger's were  as common as dogfights. The  Terror had not
   been just in  North America -- Russia and  the British Isles had it, too, as
   well as other  places. But  it  reached its  peak  in  North America shortly
   before things went to pieces.
   "Law-abiding  people,"  Dubois  had told us,  "hardly  dared  go into a
   public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children,
   armed with chains, knives,  homemade guns,  bludgeons .  .  . to  be hurt at
   least, robbed most certainly, injured  for  life probably -- or even killed.
   This went on for years, right up to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American
   Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. Murder, drug addiction, larceny, assault,
   and vandalism were commonplace.

Terrorism IS mentioned, and there was no need for you to delete the entire paragraph. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I was going to reply to your message to me when I saw the above. I recommend that both of you move the discussion to Talk:Terran Federation where it would get more exposure from other editors of the article. I copied your reply there (without attribution - I generally don't use other people's names without permission) and I'm also going to copy the above (also without attribution) over to the Talk page and add some comments of my own. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article is fine, I put in some suggested changes but no biggies. Justin talk 08:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would put in a reference to the Type 82 and CVAO1. The evolution of the Type 42 is intricately linked to the cancellation of the CVAO1 and the termination of the Type 82 programme. Just my 2c worth. Justin talk 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bugger, I was working on it before you did that. I'll have another go tomorrow. Justin talk 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Drop me a line when you're ready and I would be happy to give you my two cents on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff, I certainly will keep an eye on it. Thanks. I noticed you have an interest in farsi too... Раскольников/Raskolnikov (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the format is {{subst:prod|Reason}} where you write in the reason, usually briefly. See WP:PRODSUM for examples. The article on Terra Foundation will of course be defended at AfD, so as prod was useless anyway, since any editor can freely remove it. For anything controversial, PROD is only effective if nobody notices it. DGG (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page: Hi, are you gonna turn the article into a wikitionary type explanation now? I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you're asking. Travellingcari (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha now, unfortunately I don't know how to recreate it as a redirect to another site. I only know how to do it on Wikipedia. Never mind, done! I didn't know I was supposed to. Thanks for that Travellingcari (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL sorry, you didn't "have to", I think I just misunderstood your nom, good move anyway. I see you know Stan (or Justin as he goes by now) how do u you know him? He was my adopter)Ryan4314 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(add) OMFG how stupid am I? Thought I saw Stan's comment on Cari's page (hence the reply on my own page!) Ryan4314 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was easy enough to do and hopefully prevents someone from recreating the same OR that was there. I do? Probably from AfD or something. I don't recognise the screen name off hand. Travellingcari (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What's up? How's everything going? Need my help for anything? Just as a side point, why don't you want the sysop bit? Justin^(c)_(u) 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely understand. Except for the Groupthink part. Groupthink: good or bad? I think I might rewrite that article actually, it looks biased. Thanks for brining this to the attention of the "polic force" :)

I think what your main problem with adminship stems from a misunderstanding of adminship in the first place. Admins aren't allowed the "I know I'm in the right" attitude. Hell, I'm wrong on a daily basis. Perhaps you've had a disagreement with an admin or two like this? And admins aren't allowed to enforce their personal opinion or OR (I think I'll block you for having said that :) jk) just because they think their right, when others obviously disagree. That's a violation of consensus, which admins are given the tools to uphold. If an admin ever does that, ask the folks on ANI. You might want to take a look at WP:ADMIN, as well as WP:ANOT. No single person (or group of about 1500 people) runs the place. Admins are just needed to clean up the crap. Which brings me to the explanation of the "Janitor" metaphor; you seem a bit confused about it. If you look at ANOT, and on my userpage, and on most other admins' pages, you will see the wikilogo with a mop through it. This symbolizes the administrative tools (speaking from experience, much less exciting than preconceived, yet not in any way disappointing) as something used to clean stuff up. Nothing more, nothing less. A mop. Justin^(c)_(u) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But one main reason why we lose a lot of admins is because right after they get the bit, they realize it's really nothing so special. But yeah, there are a bunch of admins who think they're lords of the wiki. But you'd stir up a lot of controversy if you used "I'm an admin" as an argument in a dispute. Anyway, this is getting too heated. We seem to have slightly different views of admins, but there are exceptions. BTW, it's really great that you've written a few articles. Sorry I didn't reply to that before. Try putting one through peer review, see what you can do to get them to GA. I'm thinking about putting History of timekeeping devices (it was moved from just plain History of timekeeping) through GAN. Happy editing! Justin^(c)_(u) 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, instead of trying to define what a B class is and working towards that, try just working towards GA standards. That will surely get it to B before putting it up for nomination. An article can meet the GA requirements and still be a B-class article before a nomination. Justin^(c)_(u) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's deletion review. That would be the best way to go. I think what that admin means is that merging requires an admin to perform a very precise task, which, if done right, is doable; if done wrong, I've heard it takes a long time to undo, and is even more precise, and in certain cases, impossible. However, I've heard that it doesn't always need to be done, but I'm not sure about what criteria affects the situation. I've done it before, and it was a success. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) (And hi to you, J-stan. Hope everything is going well!) I was drawn to your page from the deletion review. As an admin who has cleaned up a fair number of merges, I just wanted to note that this kind is actually fairly easy. This is not a history merge, but a simple moving of information from one article into another. What you do is copy & paste information from Article A into Article B, making sure to use an edit summary such as "Material merged from Article A" at Article B when you do so. That satisfies the requirements of GFDL. Then you blank Article A, replacing its context with "#REDIRECT ARTICLE B {{R from merge}}". This makes sure that Article A is not deleted, since we must have it for GFDL compliance. Generally, as my edit summary at Article A, I'd use "Material merged to Article B." As I mentioned at the deletion review, you may wish to propose the merger if you expect it will be controversial. I have, as I've indicated, done a lot of these, so if my attempt at a "simple" explanation actually makes things harder, please let me know at my talk page. :D It all boils down to being sure to give a direct link to the source and making sure that the source is not accidentally deleted. You can see Help:Merging and moving pages for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all! So, I took a look at the DRV, and it seems pretty clear cut. The AfD stands. I think that the best thing is to do what you can with it, regardless of subtle OR. It's not ideal, but it is a solution. The policies stand as representative of consensus, so saying consensus overrides policy is incorrect. Remember the first policy. And the second one. One other thing you could do is take it to the general public; I know you hate admins, but they do get stuff done. On that note, don't think all admins are "my buddies". I have sworn enemies! :) So the only real problem with taking it to ANI is that you could be accused of forum shopping (a.k.a. asking the other parent), which is not good. If you do, come forward with everything related to the problem. You can't be accused of anything. But remember, Wikiality is truth by consensus. Wikipedia is information by consensus. If all else fails, these guys could really use the help. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I am a girl, there are a lot of people who would be quite confused (not to mention quite a put off to a certain young woman). As far as I know, there is no official complaints department (although what else is DRV? ANI? DR? LOL! OMG! BBQ!), so that sucks. But just imagine if there were a centralized complaints department. I pissed off two editors in my first week as an admin. And thank you for thinking of me as someone you can bitch to. People seem to find me easy to bitch to. Very little of it about me, so that's good. BTW, don't go see Jumper. It sucks. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Hope that helps, VanTucky 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Email me any time, if you have any difficulty you can access it through my wiki profile. Justin talk 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I thought his change was wrong, I saw that program when it was on, thought I remembered bombing at goose green. Silly rabbits. Edits are for kids. Narson (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

One of your google books references is available in html format at [[1]]. Hope that helps, the HMS Cardiff article is coming on nicely. Justin talk 00:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily what I do if such cases is present the article in question to the associated project, and leave it to them to decide whether or not it falls within their scope. To be honest, I hadn't really conidered the possibility of notifying the Vietnam project about New Jersey since I did think her time on the gunline was of any particular note, although the Vietnam project obviosly disagrees. PS Sorry for my long delayed response, I have been doing the Texas Two Step in an effort to get completely caught up in school and as a result had to turn my attention elsewhere for a while. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just was looking at the barnstar page, and I noticed your name! Really great concept, those kinds of edits should be definitely awarded. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your edit summary asking if a conversion from {{Cite web}} to {{Cite book}} was done correctly. It looks much better. One way to sometimes speed things up is to use the ISBN to Cite book creator. It's not guaranteed to find all the info all the time, but it seems to work fairly often in practice. Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will set aside some time this week to read it when I get caught up this week, I'm still not 100% caught up yet. I do look forward to reading it and providing feed back for you since I am sure your goal is FA status. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you, my school work backlog grew enough that I had to focus on it exclusively for a few days. In answer to your questions:

1. I would just add it this information to the construction section. You will note that the section "reactiviation" on the Wisconsin page deals principle with the modernization and recomission of the battleship yet does make mention of the shakedown cruise and fleet exercise Wisconsin participated in before her mobilization for desert storm.
2. You can do one of three things with the Post Falklands War section: 1) merge it, as you said; 2) expand it by reseraching the interwar years and seeing if any info turns up on the destoryer; 3) turn the section into a subsection by putting three equal signs before and after the section name (incidentally, I did this with the battleship New Jersey for her post war years).
3. As many as you think nessicary. Do be mindful of both resultion settings and time frames when adding pictures, and if there is a category or page on the commons for your images make sure you include that in the article as well. Be careful with commons links though, many people dislike seeing a large number of images in an article if the commons repository provides a place for the "excess" images.

If you need anything else, just drop me a line. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I have made a couple of changes to the barnstar image and uploaded a new one. I noticed that there were some artifacts from where it appears the start had been scaled up. While I was at it I added some transparency to show off the cross in the background a little more. I hope you don't mine? If so just revert the change. Fosnez (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah it looks better now, to be honest I'm not very good with image software. I'll reccomend you, if anyone else needs some images fixed. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, let mw know on my talk page if there is anything else. Fosnez (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just starting it up, feel free to make suggestions any time you feel like it. I'm just working out the layout at the moment. Justin talk 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah i'll leave you to it, contributions in the re-write stage can be more of a hindrence than being helpful. I'll wait until it goes onto the mainspace. I will say though, you've certainly got your work cut out for you haven't you, I looked at WP:TIMELINE and it seems there are no FA miliary timelines for you to rip off, like I did with the Cardiff article (USS Wisconsin) Ryan4314 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Ryan, it's [[User talk:J-stan|''<strong><span style="color:Black;">Jus</span><span style="color:Red;">tin</span></strong>'']]^{[[Wikipedia:Gmail group|<span style="color:#808080;">(Gmail?)</span>]]}_{[[User:J-stan|(u)]]}. Looks pretty confusing, so I'll break it down. Just taking my first part, right after "User talk:J-stan|" (Justin), the first part you'll notice is a tag with "Strong" written in it. All that does is it makes it bold. Notice at the very end of that string, you'll notice that another tag has "Strong" in it, but it's preceded by a slash (I can't remember which is a backslash and which is a foreslash, but it's "/"). This ends the strong font. Any text following this will not be bolded, and this is absolutely necessary. However, if you want, just change this to the three apostrophes. Something went wrong with my sig one day and someone just told me to change it to strong. Now, after that, comes a "font color" tag. this just changes the color of the font. All the basic colors could just be written in, between quotes, and it should work fine. Some of the other colors must be written as HTML, so that will be a bit harder (there's a page in the mainspace about these colors, I can't find it right now). After you've written the text you want in that color, you must finish it with a tag with "/font" in it. This seems really confusing, and I actually copied mine from someone else, and over time, it became completely different. Would you like me to make one for you? By the way, your name in my sig would look like this: Ryan4314 -- Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, me neither :) It's fine, I can handle him. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Found that page, it's Web colors. You'd want something under Web_colors#X11_color_names. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I like the new sig! So sorry I couldn't be on hand. I need to get rid of this wretched thing! Perhaps you've heard of it: a life? :) Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ryan. Just to note that you can submit a request for copyedit at WP:MHL and/or WP:LoCE. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You can make a precise request asking for a copyedit to improve article "flow" . I agree with you. Trying to improve prose flow can be so frustrating - but there are always editors ready to provide assistance :-). SoLando (Talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration is exactly the essence of Wikipedia. Your request will hopefully yield a response and I'll continue to copyedit the article if you have no objections. Regards, SoLando (Talk)

Hello, Ryan4314 ...

In the role of Some Other Editor, might I trouble you for feedback on my {{Oldprodfull}} template? Please see Talk:Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido for an example of it in use ... would you use it when you initiate, second, or contest a PROD? Is it Too Nerdy for the "average" Wikipedian?

On a slightly different note, are you a deletionist or an inclusionist, and what do you think of my WP:FLAG-PROTOCOLS, e.g.. WP:FLAG-BIO?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)}

I don't usually copy-edit directly, but I've gone through the section you specified. The prose needs a massage throughout, and yes, you're right to suspect that the integration of ideas into the sentences is sometimes faulty (not a huge problem, though—see my corrections). Please ensure that MOS is followed and that the the raw info in the linked date items is consistent, if you must link them at all—99% of readers see the raw version, blue-splashed of course. Tony (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for dropping an air burst 1000 lb would be to use blast and fragmentation to take out soft skinned vehicles, aircraft, helicopters and personnel. If you dropped them amongst stores and equipment you blow hydraulic lines, trigger secondary explosions and generally cause mayhem. Justin talk 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Low level raids by Harriers would have been useless, dropping a retarded bomb (you'd need retarders to avoid fragging the release aircraft) would have impacted on the surface at a very shallow angle, so they wouldn't have penetrated. A surface burst would have done minimal damage. Sharkey Ward's criticism of the Black Buck raid has more to do with macho bullshit and inter-service rivalry. Justin talk 20:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Those comments on the Sea Harrier bombing in formation from altitude are bullshit, the SHAR didn't have the systems to do that. Justin talk 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, 50,000 ft in a Sea Harrier with two 1000 lb bomb, 2 drop tanks, 30 mm cannon in two pods, plus all the pylons etc. The thing is most books on aircraft quote the clean performance of the aircraft. With all that crap hanging off the aircraft it is not capable of anywhere near that performance. The maximum ceiling would be significantly reduced. Plus the Sea Harrier Blue Fox radar was not configured for blind bombing from altitude, over land the radar was confused by ground clutter as its performance was optimised for the open ocean. It is complete and utter bullshit to claim the Harrier could fly that mission. Justin talk 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I'm an aeronuatical engineer, with 20 years experience in weapon systems and a post-graduate degree in missile guidance and control. Does that answer the question? Justin talk 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that WP:SHIPS has deprecated all infoboxes except for {{Infobox Ship Begin}} and since USS Wisconsin (BB-64) uses {{Infobox Ship}}, the infobox needs to be replaced. There is quite a backlog of articles without infoboxes altogether, along with those needing conversion. For more reference, see these two categories:

• Category:Ship articles without infoboxes
• Category:Ship articles needing infobox conversion

I don't have a problem with the current infobox, it is actually better than most, but the infobox is deprecated, and must be replaced. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The only differences are the capabilities for extra information; the new infobox can display more than the old, and since it incorporates both civilian and military ships along with the classes, it effectively replaces approximately 5 different infoboxes. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ring of Power is there just as another topic for a fan to look since the Watcher may have been affected by it when it attacked the Company of the ring. But the removal of dwarvs I guess that was acceptable. LOTRrules (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm using Internet Explorer too and I can't see the problem with the "refs" bit - can you explain it further? LOTRrules (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I see you've commented on Insurgency in the past, I put an invitation, on its talk page, to look at a rewrite in my sandbox at User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Insurgency, and see if that is a valid improvement. Thanks!

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see Operation Black Buck is on your to do list, the article had been irritating me for a while as it contained a lot of POV edits that were incorrect. I've had a bash at correcting them before I take a wiki break, have a look and tell me what you think. Justin talk 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you drop me an email with respect to the Cardiff image , just tried but you've not got one specified. Cheers.

ALR (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got some background on the Cardiff weapon photo that I'll pass privately.

ALR (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Use email this user in the toolbox on the left of the screen. ALR (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded last night at about 2230Z, unfortunately I'd been having DSL snags for a while. ALR (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)