User talk:Malo/Archive13

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 7 June 2007 and 7 November 2007:

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Thank you. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Why was my comment deleted?

Excuse me, but you have ^{some nerve} to come on here and delete my comment without consulting me. What is wrong with you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamsterman (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 June 2007

I don't know why you are upset. Could you please explain in further detail what comment you are referring to? And please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me how to end my comments. I'm hamsterman. You better get used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamsterman (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 June 2007

Google Web Accelerator blocks

Please don't use "openproxy" as your blocking reason next as you did at 64.233.178.136. Please use {{GWAblock}} as your reason instead. Please keep in mind that blocking reasons that are clear to other Wikipedia adminis are not necessarily comprehensible to outsiders and only serves to increase the workload for the unblock-en-l mailing list. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 13:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titanic ensign colour

It's good practice to cite sources in the article, rather than just leave them hidden in a talk archive. I've added citations to the article for blue ensign. Mauls 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Thenetwork moneymoney2020-cover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Thenetwork moneymoney2020-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

changing my changes

buddy,

you told me not to add nonsense referring to the Tony Danza page. However if you were to crawl out from under the liberalist fraternity you exist in, and went to urbandictionary.com you would realise my comment was in fact correct. So don't patronise me because of your incompetence.

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye the sailor editor

Re the archive. It says,

"DANFS isn't 100% accurate, in fact it doesn't think any of the Bagley class destroyers are Bagleys, instead it lists them all as Gridley class destroyers."

Lenton's American Fleet & Escort Destroyers (Doubleday, 1971) agrees, & based on launch date (Gridley 3 Sept 1936, Bagley 1 Dec), I do, too. And just to add to the confusion, Lenton lists class draft 9ft 9" (17ft full load)... Hope that didn't throw too many wrenches in the works... =D Also, the specs are often conflicting. Lenton conflicts with the specs posted on WP, & I've changed quite a few on that basis; hope he's not full of sh*t... And, on the subject of conflicts, anybody know why Lenton (for instance) lists Gleave & Niblack as Bensons & calls Livermore a class ship, when WP sez not? Also, does anybody know what the standard DC loadout was? I'm thinking for Fletchers, Sumners, Gearings, the lot. Trekphiler 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:USS_Sims_0540906.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:USS_Sims_0540906.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. David Eppstein 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is primarily a maintenance nomination, as the image has been copied over to commons but the EN version is not eligible for speedy deletion. David Eppstein 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. I've just deleted the image under CSD I8 since the main focus of the image was still a 1x1 copy. I've also updated the description under commons so that it reflects the true source of the image. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MayorJohnWMorgan.jpg

You tagged this image as deletable, because of the lack of source information. However, you neglected to check the upload summary, which contains that information. Many images have their source information in the edit/upload summary, so you have to check the revision history before you tag images for deletion. - Crockspot 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did see the supposed source of unencyclopedia. However anyone can upload images to unencyclopedia. And I don't believe that that is the true source of the image. In all likelihood this is either produced by some level of the Canadian government or a newspaper, both of which probably qualify as fair use. I'm placing the image as having no source again. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who originally uploaded it to uncyclopedia is active there, so I'll drop him a note and see if he can provide a source. - Crockspot 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applied a little google fu and found the source.[1] It does appear to have an improper license claim. Scroll down for their copyrights statement. Can we make a fair use rationale from that? - Crockspot 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source, and an appropriate license, and also wrote a fair use rationale for the John W. Morgan article. Can you check and make sure everything is kosher? - Crockspot 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, thanks for locating the original source. It seems to be fine with the way you have it now. However I would much prefer a freely licensed image of this individual. And if such an image should become available in the future, this particular image may be deleted because of it's license. Ideally, every image on wikipedia should be free of restrictions. Thanks again for your help. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

USN jack

Hello, Malo! I noticed that you took a previous copy of {{USN flag}} and spun it off as {{USN jack}}. Consensus on WP:SHIPS is that ensigns are more representative of what actually appears on a ship most of the time, and so they should be used instead of jacks. Please do not replace ensigns with jacks. TomTheHand 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, thanks for stopping by and saying something. I was under the impression that a number of bots that were meant to change the usn jacks from the raster version Image:USN-Jack.png to a vector version, but instead many of them replaced with the flag rather than the jack. I haven't been around in a while, so I'll stop for now, at least until I can figure this out. Could you point me in the direction of the discussion that decided that we should use the ensign over the jack? I've been looking through the archive but haven't found it yet. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 12:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the discussion here. I'm sorry you spent so much time replacing {{USN flag}} with {{USN jack}}. I actually created the {{USN flag}} template (which originally displayed jacks) to take much of the drama out of the jack vs. ensign debate. I felt like much of what was getting in our way was inertia. If we used a template instead of an image, and the ensign/jack consensus changed, the template could be changed easily and would affect all articles at once. TomTheHand 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Tom. I'm personally not convinced that the ensign is a better way to go, at least not in the majority of USN articles. I prefer being able to see the number of stars displayed because it is way to indicate when a vessel served. And the jack displays that better than the ensign in my opinion. But I understand that uniformity probably takes precedence over the ensign vs. jack debate. So if its ok with you, I won't change any more USN flag templates I come across and instead I'll continue just converting the old raster version USN jack to the vector version by way of the USN jack template. And if down the road we come to a more concise consensus, then it will be much easier to change a single template than all of these articles. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I noticed the {{USN jack}} fork, I redirected it to {{USN flag}}, so whichever one you use will produce the same result (currently, the ensign). You'll probably agree that there's no reason that some U.S. Navy ships should use the jack and others should use the ensign. Therefore there should only be one template, suitable for all U.S. Navy infoboxes Whether it contains the jack or the ensign should be the result of consensus. Currently consensus is that essentially all ship articles should use the ensigns of their respective navies, because the ensign is always used, while the jack is generally only displayed while the ship is in port. If the discussion you've begun here changes the consensus, then USN flag can be updated quickly to reflect it. TomTheHand 21:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Napa entry

Malo, I am Minter Dial, grandson of Lt Minter Dial who was Capt of the USS Napa before it was scuttled (end of 1941 through March 42). I have written a 300 page manuscript on my grandfather's life and have lots of information to corroborate what happened. If you don't mind, I'd like to edit and add to the entry. This would be the first time I do so on wiki so your guidance would be appreciated... and I'd be particularly interested to know how it came to be that you would post on the Napa. I also have a couple of scanned photos that have been passed on to me... I interviewed 130 people and in the process received lots of material. Your comments directly to my email are welcome: dialfamily AT hotmail DOT com. Thanks Minter (http://minterdial.blogspot.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmd2 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minter, I would be interested to see some of those scanned photos. Although I should warn you in regards to editing an article which you might be personally tied to the subject matter. Basically when editing in wikipedia you want to try and stay in the neutral point of view. Also you want to make sure that major additions and facts have reliable sources and just to clarify, there really should never be any original research. There are lots of policies to follow when editing on wikipedia, and there is always a good reason for these policies. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Simply deep (album).jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Simply deep (album).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Monitor

You might want to recheck your reversion - I had almost reverted earlier, but checked the sources, and they do seem to support 16 miles. Wonder of wonders, it looks like it was a good anon edit :) Maralia 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know which source(s) cite the distance at 16 miles. I wasn't able to find any sources which cite the exact location, so I'm inclined to believe the previous edits over an anonymous edit. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USS Monitor Center at the Mariner's Museum says 16.1 miles at [2]. CNN says 16 miles at [3]. Maralia 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're right, Thanks for saying something. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

werewolf? there wolf

I'm unclear as to why you felt it necessacary to revert my reverts of the edits to the werewolf article. I'm just trying to bring a little sanity to that mess. I created that "classical" section. It's about werewolves in ancient Greek and Roman literature and legend. So...what's your objection? Josh 11:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection was that you removed the etymology of the word from the article. But it seems that you have already restored that. Sorry I undid all of your consecutive edits in the process, I probably should have just restored the section instead. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 12:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after I wrote the above post I realized I had deleted the Etymology. And I see you've fixed it up too now, it looks good. Hopefully with the semi-protection and some more good editors that article can become better.Josh 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP Usernames

Given all the similarities between the usernames you've recently blocked (Several CamelCapped words, attacks an IP), I think it might be a better option to hardblock each name (i.e. enable autoblocking and disable account creation). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Interestingly, I just revamped it, so the vandal would not have seen his handiwork stay there very long. :) –- kungming·2 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]