User talk:Snowmanradio/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Impressed

Hi. I am very impressed with the speed and quality of the edits. It is no wonder that Wikipedia is the number one! Austenlennon 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon

I think that you are referring to a few basic fixes on some pages which could be a lot better. Snowman 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Query

Please see my query on Philip Sheppard Talk page. Macdonald-ross 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Married dates go in the infobox, so their marriage ended when he died. It is confusing, but the wiki style for all these "person infoboxes". See the wiki notes on how to fill out an infobox. Snowman 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Minor Barnstar upgrade for continual worthwhile contributions; keep it up!--Red Sunset 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award the Tireless Contributor Barnstar to Snowmanradio for his continual and numerous valuable contributions to countless articles. --Red Sunset 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally unexpected, and much appreciated. Snowman 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome; I think you've earned it! --Red Sunset 21:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Week

NCurse _work 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded for your "above and beyond" editing efforts in getting F-4 Phantom operators editorially back on track during November 2007 Ahunt 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Whow, thanks, I was just putting chalk marks around the rivets that needed replacing. I guess that all the November 2007 contributors to the article have gained some skills to pass on. Snowman 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"References" heading

Copyedit from my "talk page": "I can not find the "WP:Air format" item that you referred to in an edit summary on the "B-17" page. I found "Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content", which includes a section on references. This is in regards to "bibliography" being a sub-heading of "references". Snowman 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Snow, if I can call you that? The References section is a dichotomy in Wikipedia as it is still being formulated even as we speak. One of the main issues is that the establishment of a bibliography or bibliographical record was considered "after the fact." Before actually devoting some guidance or style guidelines to developing a formal citation or reference sourcing convention, a "catch-all" section titled "references" was proposed. In publishing, the term, "references" can refer to a large body of information sources and when a peer-reviewed and authoritative work is prepared, the sources are often identified in a sub-divided sequence of foot/end notes, appendices, text and non-textual sources (including interviews). In the Wicky-wacky world we inhabit, a differentiation was eventually arrived at to "site" citations in a "notes" (in reality, an endnotes or footnotes format) section, although if there were very few inline citations, often the "references" section sufficed.

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appers once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area remains a kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. The new style I employed in the "B-17" article is one that is recently being touted as a much more streamlined and concise format that works particularly well with large references section. As a modification of the more usual separate notes and references section, the key to this format is that the two sections are preserved as sub-headings under the main heading of "References." A bonus is that the compression of fonts and font sizes is achieved in this modification which allows for a better use of space in large articles.

It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "B-17" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability. Hope that you haven't lapsed into unconsciousness by now, but I will explain more if there are some other issues. (BTW, congrats on the barnstar – I have been noticing that you are one of the "expert" editors that have worked on some of the same aviation articles that I have bookmarked. Send me an email, so we can actually make contact "name to name," just to make our interactions more personal.) FWIW Bzuk 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

I plan to read it again at the weekend. Snowman 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed different styles of references, notes and bibliography on the wiki, despite what wiki style guidelines currently say. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anaffairtoremember Kerr.png

I am not very good with the whole "wiki images" thing, but i was going to change the image's tag so it has the same as this one, plus the image is used to ilustrate Kerr's most important role, plus the image is small as a pin. Still think it should be deleted? --- Yamanbaiia (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It will only be deleted if the license in not appropriate for the wiki. -- Snowman (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom

Hi Snowman; I've been poking around the various F-4 sub-articles and the common form seems to be F-4(UK) (without the space). I don't want to change the F-4 (UK) just in case this happens to be the correct version. I'm also wondering if it's time to post a note on the main F-4 talk page re summarising the "operators" section now that the "F-4 Phantom operators" page is as complete as it can be; however, there's still a number of cite tags to deal with. WDYT? ---- Red Sunset (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the F-4 (UK) and F-4(UK) inconsistencies on the other pages too after I had changed them on the non-U.S. operators page. It was only an guess, because it looked odd. There are other variants with brackets too to go on - and there is a space before the round bracket there. May need to do web-search and read internet articles to find out. I am not sure what your aim is in putting a summary on the "F-4 talk" page. There is a signpost to the "F-4 operators" page for anyone that is interested. Plod on with citations. -- Snowman (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts were that the "operators" F-4 section could now be substantially reduced and consequently also the size of the F-4 article. This would allow removal of the repeated detailed info, and at the same time level the size of each country's coverage to give equal emphasis to each one. Posting a note on the talk page beforehand would warn interested contributors and allow for comments or suggestions, as well as advertising the need for citations where there are likely to be many editors who could help. --Red Sunset (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Light fuse and stand back. Snowman (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The featured article status of "F-4 phantom II" is under review, because of unreferenced blocks of text. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User page

I am very appreciative of your hint/advice/suggestion. I have had to revert by name back to red a couple of times,.....and I use it so I can find my name more quickly. ...So I found that more important than any- -body knowing who I am. On the talk page,.... I kind of Have a List of some of the Nice things I have done. .. --Again, I thank you for the advice..(whenever I get a message, I always wonder: "Now what?"..) so I will at some time compose some UserINFO... I recently moved near a small ARBORETUM, and i.(sic) also recently made my first 3 plant pages. I have stayed away from it, because of the depth, or study, .. one has to do. But I have some ideas for developing a nice couple Arboretum pages... thanks again. Michael, SonoranDesert guyYUMA,AZ, ..Mmcannis (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you can use the "nickname" (see "my preferences") to name some or part of the words of your name a different colour. The nickname should not take up too much space. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Amelia

Thanks for your review of this article which needs a careful check of the content since it has emerged in a kind of "patched-up" version after a large number of revisions necessitated by vandalism and POV attacks. I amassed a sizable number of reference sources on the Earhart legacy and will continue to "tweak" along with you. If we ever get really stuck, Dr. Alex Mandel, an Earhart scholar can be called upon to assist. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

I have not read anything else about her before and I see the page as a new reader. Sometimes I might make a gaff, and I would not be able to make changes without your expertise on the subject. Sometimes I misunderstand because the North American English is different from UK English, and so where possible the text needs crafting to be consistent with both. Have you thought about getting some anti-vandal wiki tools? Snowman (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Snow, this article has been beseiged by vandals in the past and has been protected, semiprotected and unprotected over the last while. It is one of those touchstone pieces that seems to draw controversy and attract the unwashed. I is Canjan so I's bean able to talk out both side of me mouth, as Canjanspeak is an amalgam of UK and USspeak. I told you that Alex will be available for consultation; as you can tell, he is a true Earhart scholar and not a "dabbler" like myself. FWIW, keep up the good work. BTW, you may have to relook at the archiving of the talk page as an important earlier set of discussions probably needs archiving first. Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

I have archived AE health in archive 10 and made an archive 9 for prior discussions. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

From Alex V Mandel: Snowman, thank you for your kind message... you asked me to present some brief info on me on the "userpage"... I checked the "Userpage" but discovered that it was - apparently - illegally used by some vandal, that was noted by another editor who deleted it (having my agreement to do it.. i just forget this story already! - please see our exchange about that on my userpage). Anyway... I am working as As. Prof. of Biophysics in Odessa State Medical University in Odessa, Ukraine... having a PhD on physics. Also i work on Naval and Aviation history (2 published books - on Russian - about the history of development of designs of the early US Battleships), and - particularly - the history of Amelia Earhart (since 80s). A member of the US Naval Institute and the US Association of the Naval aviation. Kind Regards! - Alex V Mandel (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I am aware, you can write on your user page, if you wanted to. A notice might pop up saying; "Do you really want to recreate a deleted page?" but just continue. Occasionally, pages are "salted" to make it impossible to recreate a page with the same name, but there is no reason to think that your user page has been salted. By putting Wikipedia:Userboxes on your userpage, you can say what your first language is, and what other languages you know. I expect there are hundreads of wikiboxes to cover all sorts of hobbies and statements. Sometimes when I have seen an appropriate wikibox on a user's page, I use it for my page. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowman, thank you for your kind advice - i followed it. Kind regards - sincerely, Alex V Mandel (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

I have moved "AE sandbox/" to "User:Snowmanradio/sandbox" since it was patently not a Wikipedia article. If you wish to move it into the talk: namespace associated with an existing article, that would probably be acceptable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have not made many subdirectories before, thanks. Snowman (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to page archive. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Old requests

In view of your many contributions to Anatomy, please consider creating one or more of the requested articles at Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year#Anatomy. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 02:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• One or two on the list look slightly interesting, which I might work on. I checked one and there were no red links from main pages going to it. I guess that they have been requested, but they are not very important. Snowman (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:person infobox

Sorry and thanks for fixing it.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle

Tell me more about twinkling, the Wiky kind... Bzuk (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

It is good. Follow the link and read the wiki page. If you are interested and need help to set it up, let me know tomorrow - it is late here now. The one thing that I wish I knew before I got it was that some of the buttons do not have a "Do you really want to do that?" notice. I have got used to it now, and I find one button presses make it quick. Snowman (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I use IE and Norton; both of which are not really compatible with "Twinkle" and would need some careful setting up, but thanks for the pointer. --RedSunset | Talk 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It only works with the Mozilla Firefox browser, which is not very difficult to set up. I use an alternative to Norton, so I do not know much about Norton. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting a page you created

If you wish to delete a page you created, put {{db-author}} at the top of the page --Closedmouth (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lateral aperture was one of the pages that has been requested, but not sorted out, for more than one year."

Just wondering what this is referring to. The page doesn't seem to be listed anywhere at WP:RM; I have a feeling I'm missing something --Closedmouth (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• You have not missed anything, but you are looking on the wrong page; see Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year#Anatomy and view yesterdays page. Also see "Old pages" above. I have made a deletion request using the template that you have indicated. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

William Tallon

Just like say thanks for your help with the William Tallon article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that someone can provide a photograph for the page. Snowman 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carr

I reverted a bit further back on the Jimmy Carr article. You may want to do your AWB stuff again. Mannafredo (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok and well spotted. Snowman (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

US Distinquished Flying Cross

Technically, it should be U.S. but it doesn't matter that much, leave it the same for now. Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

OK, I think there is a request-approval process and a bot corrects the pages. Snowman 15:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rethink, I think it would be best to change it for consistency, as a lot of pages have been changed. Snowman 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the article title uses US, without piping you will get a red link to it if you use U.S. --Red Sunset 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I known, the category itself has to be given a new name, a request-approval process. Snowman 18:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ has pointed out that "US" is now acceptable Snowman! See edit histories of recently ammended articles. --Red Sunset 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Have they made up their minds now? Is that throughout the whole wiki? Snowman (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea, I just happened to notice a few edit summaries by BillCJ and thought I'd better give you a "Heads up" on the situation. Perhaps it would be better not to make any further changes until we know for sure. --Red Sunset 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message; I have not had any other notifications. I am not going to make any more changes on US. According to the discussion on the talk page for "F-4 phantom operators" a few weeks ago U.S. is being used rather than US, and this aught to hold for the "F-4 phantom" page. No one has advanced the discussion on the talk page beyond this. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

US

You may not be aware that this issue has been discussed in depth at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (abbreviations) The current consensus view per WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations is:

In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. When referring to the country in a longer abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned along with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US or U.S. can be too informal, and many editors avoid it especially at first mention of the country (France and the United States, not France and the US). When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.). The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. USA and U.S.A. are not used unless quoted or part of a proper name (Team USA).

You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there, and perhaps you can influence the consensus. There may be a simple explanation, but I am puzzled by your ignorance of current MOS standards while taking it upon yourself to make large wholesale "corrections" to articles. - BillCJ (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

May I say that I think that there is probably a better way to say that to a British editor. Perhaps you can understand my confusion, because recent discussion on the talk pages for "F-4 phantom operators" still says unchallenged (when I just checked) that U.S. is being used, which should be relevant to the "F-4 phantom" page at least. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Both styles (US and U.S.) are applicable to Wikipedia and generally are accepted usage. Where Bill's radar became activated was exactly what he indicated in that whenever "single issue" revisions are made, they often seem to be the work of a troll or vandal, neither of which you represent. Generally speaking, "U.S." is the standard for most publishing style guides wherein USA is also now in the accepted "popular" vernacular. Although the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) does indicate that "US" is more or less the same as "U.S.," a confusion for "us" is the reason for it not being widely used in publishing. FWIW, I stick with "U.S." as it is still the convention for all government offices including the U.S. Postal Service. Bzuk (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

The Pink Lady

If you look through "Category:Individual aircraft", you'll see that Name (aircraft) is the general pattern when an aircraft name needs to be disambiguated. Specific types are used on occasions where more than one aircraft has borne a particular name (see some of the B-29s whose names are shared with F-111s). If you're aware of another aircraft that has been named The Pink Lady, then the (B-17) disambiguator is correct; otherwise it should be (aircraft) for consistency. Not everyone knows what a B-17 is... --Rlandmann (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So should it be changed to "Pink Lady (aircraft)", to save confusion with other pages named "Pink Lady"? There are quite a few B-17 pages that might need changing. I would like to be sure 100% sure. "Category:World War II notable aircraft" shows a several with just the (plane number) rather than (aircraft). Snowman (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If we had any other pages named The Pink Lady (and it looks like one day we might, because of the musical), but for now we don't, and there's no need to disambiguate it. As a general rule, page names aren't pre-emptively disambiguated, since the idea is that new articles or new edits should link to an existing article automatically wherever possible, without the editor necessarily knowing that the article even exists.

Consider: Somebody writes up an event at which The Pink Lady makes an appearance, and wikifies the comment. The way this article was originally named (in good faith, I'm sure), that's going to result in a redlink. It may even lead to someone writing a duplicate article.

Move it to "The Pink Lady (aircraft)" if you absolutely have to; but if you do, then please create a disamiguation page at "The Pink Lady" and create a redlink to "The Pink Lady (musical)". --Rlandmann (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already several pages named "Pink Lady (xyz)" and there is a dab page for "Pink Lady" on which "The Pink Lady" is listed. I think that "The Pink Lady" was redirected to "Pink Lady", so there were no navigation problems before your page move. I do not mind about the name of the page particularly (pending confirmation of wiki policy from wiki project aircaraft), but I think that the redirects and the dab page should make navigation easy. Really, when you moved the paged you should have sorted out the redirects being the person that moved the page. Your page move left several redirects and a double redirect which was corrected with a bot. The music links go to the aircraft too. Snowman (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No arguments there. I moved the page in the context of undoing a whole bunch of page moves made by an editor with idiosyncratic ideas about naming, and missed the chaos this caused in this particular instance. However - there's no reason to remove redirects. Redirects are good - they help when content is merged or split in the future. It's double-redirects that cause problems, and I admit I should have found and fixed that one. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, I have tidied up the two theatre musical links for you, by making them red links "The Pink Lady (theatre 1911)" and "The Pink Lady (theatre 1912)". I think that "Pink Lady" could be a dab page for both "The Pink Lady" and "Pink Lady", in which case the aircraft becomes "The Pink Lady (aircraft)", and "The Pink Lady" is redirected to "Pink Lady". There could be a separate dab for "The Pink Lady", but I think it is less confusing if it was on the same dab as "Pink Lady". Do you think their needs to be two dab pages or one? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There! Hopefully that's fixed things up now. As penance, I've also created a redlink to the musical from the existing article about its composer. Thanks for alerting me to the problem! :) -Rlandmann (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

page names

Copyedit from my talk page: "Several individual named aircraft have had name changes today, including "Shoo Shoo Baby (aircraft)" and "The Pink Lady (aircraft)". A lot of the named B-17 aircraft use the name pattern "Aircraft Name (B-17)", but "Aircraft Name (aircraft)" is probably clearer for most readers. I started many of the stubs. Is there a wiki standard or wikiproject aircraft style for this? I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Snow, I have to agree with Rudi here as it is the standard protocol to identify individual aircraft as "aircraft." Okay, that was facetious and pithy but the standard naming procedure is to use the individual name and then (aircraft) to differentiate from any other uses, the disambiguation factor. However, I have actually created or worked on two articles: "Spirit of St. Louis" and "Tallmantz Phoenix P-1" that are exceptions to the rule. See also "Nine-O-Nine", so it isn't always a stand-pat situation. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC).

The general convention on Wikipedia - not just within WP:AIR - is that bracketed information is only included to disambiguate from other articles. When there's no other thing called "Enola Gay" or "Nine-O-Nine", there's no need to include it in an article name. When a name is overwhelmingly and primarily used to refer to a particular thing (as "Spirit of St. Louis" does to the aircraft), then it's not bracketed either: rather the disambiguation page receives the brackets (as "XYZ (disambiguation)"). You can find the relevant guideline under "Page naming conventions" within Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

Finally, note that "Tallmantz Phoenix P-1" differs from all the other examples we've discussed since it's an article about an aircraft type (albeit a type with only a single example built). Nevertheless, the same disambiguation rules apply: "Bushmaster 2000 (aircraft)" (type with two aircraft built) is so named in order to disambiguate it from the paintball gun here: "Bushmaster 2000 (paintball marker)".

So - to sum up:

• No other thing by that name or no other thing so prominent by that name -> no brackets (eg "Enola Gay", "Spirit of St. Louis")
• Something else other than an aircraft of the same name -> (aircraft) (eg "The Pink Lady (aircraft)"
• Other aircraft of the same name -> (aircraft type) (eg "Memphis Belle (B-17)")
• Other aircraft types of the same name -> (year) (eg "Sukhoi Su-9 (1946)" to disambiguate from the later, unrelated, better-known "Sukhoi Su-9").

Hope this helps! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Brianga (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackbird

I think you are right about the juvenile, but it's surprising how few images of this abundant species other than adult merula males are available. I would also have hoped that an image of one of the lowland Indian races would have been posted by now, but at least we have maximus.

I noticed you added "upright" to the blackbird and kestrel image - I haven't come across that before, what does it do? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It changes it from landscape to portrate (upright) format, and the sizes of the portrate and landscape images are equivalent. Try it with and without and "show preview" and see the difference. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edward T. Maloney

Thank you Snowman for your assistance in integrating / straightening out this article. It had been bothering me for quite some time that the original article was listed incorrectly, but I didn't possess the facility with the editing protocols to properly correct the original error on my genesis entry. Now it is done, and Ah can rest easy. Mark Sublette (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that administrator(s) did not do a good job on it after the first deletion request. The main page was deleted, but the talk page was not. I left tags as memos. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Phantom lead paras

I had intended to re-use the sandbox - as you can see from the edit history, it has been used previously.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This situation is ridiculous - now you are saying that Sandboxes cannot be used because of copyright reasons! This absurd ruling virtually stops anyone making any extensive changes to an article that take longer than a session to right, and will merely result in more rubbish being posted and more articles being speedied because people will not be able to do any work in sandboxes.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is a misunderstanding; of course sandboxes can be used. Frequently they are moved to the appropriate page (a new page) and the edit history is moved too. You "copied and pasted" without giving any indication where the new text came from. The edit history will prove how the text was developed, and this is needed for copyright reasons and has to be linked to the F-4 Phantom II page. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do what you like - bear in mind that that sandbox was previously used in the creation of "Vickers Valparaiso" so presumably something will be needed to be done about the edit history of that article - and presumably all the other articles which I have prepared in my sandboxes (approx 50 articles - I assume these will have to be deleted)- see User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox, User:Nigel Ish/sandbox2 and User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox3. Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards sandbox_4 the last 4 edits should be linked with with "F-4 Phantom II" and all the other edits upto 6 August should be linked to "Vickers Valparaiso". If "Vickers Valparaiso" had been made with a move the edit history of sandbox_4 would have been reset to zero again, but again a copy and past was used without any indication of where the text came form. It is more complicated than I thought so I will leave a message at the "Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen" for an administrator to think about. Snowman (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously - do what you want - if you feel that it is more important to spend time and effort in this sort of nonsense rather than improving articles - then feel free to do what ever you want to the sandboxes or the articles created from them. I will, of course refrain from working on the draft articles in progress in my sandboxes, until someone tells me that it is allowed - and of course if I can be bothered after being jerked about like this.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not write the wiki rules. Read the wiki guidelines on merging and you will see how to merge your sandboxes. It is not difficult. Snowman (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the wiki guidelines on merging (which does not mention merging info from sandboxes), the source page must be left as a redirect - how does this wrk with a sandbox?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually leave a redirect, but I have not merged from a sandbox. I do not know how it applied to a sandbox, perhaps we should ask for this to be added to the guideline. Extrapolating, I guess that it might be ok to make a page from the sandbox and then merge that. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have checked User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox, and I am the only editor, and it includes no blocks brought in from other articles, so according to [1] this shouldn't present any copyright issues. I will check my other sandboxes to see if they are OK as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox3. User:Nigel Ish/sandbox2 is a littyle more complex - the first few edits were an attempt to create an article for the Klemm L25 - including a cut and paste from the BA Swallow article and some stuff copied (and translated by Google) of the German Wiki page on the aircraft, which in the end never went anywhere, and was replaced by a copy and paste from the Talk:Aeritalia F-104S page in an attempt to develop a Operators of F-104 Starfighter page . This is still WIP, but hopefully can be finished sometime.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is too soon to be sure, but it looks like some progress has been made at the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Paxman

Please explain why you felt that the current event tag was not relevant, and why you removed my change - thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The tag is mainly used when there are a lot of edits to a page and the content is likely to change considerably. If you are referring to the repeat of "Who do you think you are?" on BBC2 TV this morning, I think that this is not important enough for such a tag, and in any case there has only been a few edits to the page today. Snowman (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So, as an edit conflict had occured at least twice within minutes, why was the tag irrelevent ? What has the importance or otherwise of the TV programme got to do with it ? Now an answer to my second question would be appreciated, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts happen quite often, it was just a coincidence at that time, it would not have happened again, if you had edited that page every five mins for the last 3 hours. The "current event" has passed now and the tag should be removed anyway. I thought that your point that he was brought up in Worcestershire was not well made. He would have lived with his parents in Yorkshire prior to going to school. I guess he would have started that school (probably a boarding school) at age 5 or 7, and then he moved on the another school in Surrey, which was mentioned in the same sentence. Where he was brought up is quite complex, as he moved to several locations as a child. He also talked about Yorkshire on TV. I know that JP, said that he was brought up in Worcestershire in the TV program, but it was a statement made in jest, I thought. Snowman (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... your opinions differ from mine. I rarely have edit conflicts and have never had two on a single edit (edit-preview-conflict-merge-preview-conflict-merge-save). As such I felt that the current tag acted as useful warning for anyone else, ie what it's designed for. Sure, it should be removed once the liklihood of conflicts diminishes. I thought that his comment about being brought up in Worcestershire was made in the same tone as his other autobiographical comments - I didn't think that it was made in jest, given that I think that it's up to you to come up with some overriding proof to justify the removal. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 10:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He was brought up in Yorkshire up to school age? I have nothing else to say at this juncture. Snowman

Biographies of living people need to be accurate. The existing reference number four (on the line you edited) says that he grew up in Yorkshire. I think that I have given a full explanation of why I changed your edit, so I am puzzled why you had to change it back. I plan to ask an administrator for another opinion; however, you might like to change it back yourself. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're puzzled; we both agree (above) that he said he was brought up in Worcestershire. I have chosen to take his words literaly; you have chosen to make a pov interpretation that he didn't really mean it. As your previous comment cited no source I presumed that it was opinion. If we had a detailed autobiographical account of the locations, it would be convincing evidence one way or another. As it is, we appear to have a conflict between a primary (Paxman) & secondary source (a journalist), given that, it is my contention that some highly accurate and credible evidence needs to be produced to override the former, which I don't believe you have produced. I'm perfectly happy for admin involvement and perhaps this debate should now be moved to Talk:Jeremy_Paxman with a link back to here. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In the TV program I feel sure that he was jesting and commenting at a tangent to where his family history really belonged to. The remark needs to be put in context, and putting spoken remarks in context is not always POV, in my opinion. He also jests in the program, which is recorded in the reference listed by Kay Hayward, when he seems to be pursued that he is not a Yorkshire man and is a Suffolk boy instead. I am perfectly willing to start discussion on the article talk page.Snowman (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What you feel has no place in an encyclopedia. It's difficult to understand what you propose, taking WP guidelines into account, without an example - put it on the talk page where anyone who's interested can pick it over. -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs) 14:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting a comment in context can often have a lot of agreement. Reference 4 has been on the page a long time as a source for the line you edited. There is a another opinion on the JP talk page with some discussion, which anyone can contribute to. I have made an administrator aware of this discussion and asked him to watch the JP page. I have nothing else to add at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oral health and dental topics

The guideline Wikipedia:Lists, pertaining to the organization of lists states: "The most basic form of organization is alphabetical". You may want to reconsider your nom.

The Transhumanist 05:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The page deletion has gained some support, so I think you are being too presumptive; let the page deletion discussion run its course. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackbird

That's a good image! and definitely a juv Jimfbleak (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

also thanks for reverting the userpage vandalism! Jimfbleak (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of "Woodway Park School and Community College"

An editor has nominated "Woodway Park School and Community College", an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodway Park School and Community College and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wellington

Just a heads up re your ref to the RAF museum's surviving Wellington: Defiant page leads to document detailing the history of a BP Defiant. --Red Sunset 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I must have had too many pages open on the desktop. Now fixed. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

House Martin

Why have you sprinkle cn tags all through the intro to House Martin? It's all reffed in the main text. Still, it will fail FA for sure if they stay there, so I'll repeat all the refs in the lead in 10 minutes or so, when i've had a coffee (I dare not remove the cn tags myself because of CoI). thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since it's at FAC, you should raise the point there so that other editors can comment on whether double-referencing in lead and body of article is necessary Jimfbleak (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Introductions are supposed to have references too, and the article is now under the microscope. With more ref points it will have a better chance of getting its FA. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's criticised for being over-referenced now, would you object if I removed some of the surplus refs? I don't want to get in an edit war on this while it's at FAC. It might be helpful if you could identify which cn tags were the most important to you in terms of content that might be challenged. Thanks, Jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic is addressed in the FAC discussion. Snowman (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Song Thrush

just idle curiosity this time - with websites like RSPB, I just copy and paste the link from my browser - I'm not clear why they need to be amended (not a problem, just expected pasted url to be correct by definition) Jimfbleak (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this; I understand that a copied link is not necessarily the same as the url that appears at the top of the browser, because links are redirected by some websites. The tool called, "dispenser's link checker", detects this sort of thing and all FAs are beginning to be tested with it. There is a link to it on my user page in the tools section. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

F-4 operators

Thanks, I'll just concentrate on summarising the non-U.S. sections on the main F-4 page for the moment; all of the information that I'll be removing is already on the operators page. The merged page will be looked at later. My greatest fear is making sure that I retain the correct cites as some I am unable to check, but most seem to be Baugher and Goebel which are unfortunately now regarded as not being reliable. Cheers. --Red Sunset 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ok. postponed Snowman (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)