User talk:Trekphiler: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:31, 6 November 2006

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Aha, art

Aha, you actually meant "art". My apologies. Go ahead, man, you certainly seem to know about it (I don't). Just a brief note: You might consider starting to contribute to Aviation in World War I (creating a new section). That page (as it seems to me) would certainly gain from more contributions in general. If you continue there, instead of making a new article, the chances that people help out/contribute is bigger. Place a note on its talk page too. Then, maybe later, when there is an abundance of info, a new subarticle can be created. I generally think that a longer article (up to a certain point) are better than many small ones. But, then again, I am a mergist. Just some thoughts, though. Good luck! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 19:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again...

On the WWI talk page (section "Coverage") you said "I see no mention of the crucial influence of the U-boat campaign & how near it brought Britain to defeat. Nor do I see (as usual) any mention of the Japanese contributions to convoy escort in the Med. Nor any reference to commerce raiding, which was also important to RN defense of trade."

You might want to contribute to the sub-page Naval warfare of World War I. It is far from extensive, and could be lacking in these respects.

PS. Just a hint: If you plan on continually contributing to wikipedia, you might consider placing just a little text on your userpage. This would make your name in talk pages turn from "red" to "blue", which by others probably would be considered more suitable (currently, if people want to contact you, they are immediately transferred to the creation/editing of your userpage). If you want ideas or help, I will gladly help out. Just give me a message on my talk page. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 13:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A userpage shell

I have created a shell for your userpage. Some brief notes:

Generally: click "edit" on your userpage to see what I have done
Personal details: This is totally up to you and your concerns about your own privacy. You may naturally remain anonymous.
Languages: I have added the so-called Babel template (in your case: {{babel-2|en|tlh-0}}). Learn more about it here: Wikipedia:Babel.
Images: Images (for all wikipedias) are stored in the so-called Wikimedia commons (I have added some useful links to this on your userpage). Click "edit" on your userpage and you can see the code which rendered the ballon image.
Sandbox: I prefer personal sandboxes, so I have created a subpage below your userpage (User:Trekphiler/Sandbox). In this way, no others will mess with your sandbox. Here you can play with anything (guess that is why it is called a sandbox :)) I've also added a link to your own sandbox on your userpage.
User talk pages: I've noticed on my talk page that you probably manually add messages. The easiest (and best) method is just:

Click the "+" button next to "edit this page"
Enter a headline in the little edit-box, write the message, and click "save page".

In this way, all messages will be formatted in the same way, making them easier to find & view.

Well, I think that's all. I hope it has been useful. Don't be afraid reading wikipedia help pages - they are well-written and not exhausting.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sig and Babel

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier, I was having a "weekend away". The flag I was using was initially the larger image that appears on the UK articles in Wikipe4dia, until someone advised I used this current one because it takes up less space. I cannot advise where to find a maple leaf equivalent.

Also I see someone else has posted the link for babel above. -- Francs 2000 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Projects

If anybody's watching {I'm getting paranoid... ;)}, I've done a Howell torpedo page that could use some help. I've proposed a nose art page. I'm also in the middle of an edit of the flying aces WW2 list (which is way bigger than I expected...) I've seen an article online of the US aces, but my copy doesn't have the original source attached anymore (somehow...). If anybody's seen it (also ref on flying aces talk page), do include it. Trekphiler 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yamschikova

Half the articles cite 17 victories, the other half 3. I don't know which is correct. Yamschikova is not well known for her WW2 activities (which to me suggests that 3 is the correct number of victories... it's not likely that the highest-scoring ace would be so low-profile). She is more famous for her post-war career as a test-pilot and the first woman in the world to fly jets.

Two articles (in Russian):

HTH. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Rider and George Barris

According to George Barris's own website, Barris only made the convertible version of KITT. Michael Scheffe designed and built the original KITT (which Universal made a few of them) and one was redressed for KARR. This was already mentioned on KITT's page in the Trivia section BTW. Cyberia23 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Oh, and Barris also made the super-pursuit KITT too. (I forgot about that one). Cyberia23 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal peer review

Thanks for your contributions to Panama Canal; I thought you would be interested to know that it is up for a peer review. Comments welcome. — Johantheghost 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I've responded in Talk:Panama Canal. — Johantheghost 16:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles

You're welcome, comrade. Happy Holidays :) --Cjmarsicano 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes!

Hey bro,

Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes - that'll have all the info you need :)

Have a great holiday,
CJ Marsicano 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! If you'd like to see how I did my tabular userbox layout, you can check out User:GeekGirlSarah/Userboxes in the source. It's just a multicolumn table... feel free to copypaste, whatever! ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always remember to stop and eat the flowers! Good luck with your layout! ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neckarsulm Radwerke

Daimler's first true car had its chassis supplied by Christian Schmidt of Neckarsulm Radwerke. Trekphiler 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats interesting, more from internet:

NSU automotive manufacture starting from 1905, before motorcycles, bicycles, 1873 as factory for cord machines of Christian Schmidt and Heinrich Scholl based, most important motorcycle factory of the world in the Vorkriegszeit

So... are you meaning the first motorcycle (1885) or the modified stagecoach (1886) ???--Zzzzzzus 12:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus This Schmidt is from AUDI isnt he?--Zzzzzzus 13:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus[reply]

List of military figures

Maybe you should rename it to List of military figures by nickname to identify its true contents. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Simulations

Thanks for the input - ~~somehow I've missed that particular Dupuy book. I'll have to look out for it!~~:Just noticed I've got it on the shelf! :-p EyeSerene 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Field exercises: they are included as one extreme of the simulation spectrum (with computerised at the other). I'm working on a diagram that will go into that section to hopefully make the entire spectrum clearer. I take your point, though, that they can be carried out as part of the experimental validation process for an existing model... maybe I should stick that in somewhere! They are also wargames of course, but I'm deliberately trying to avoid using that term.
Re your edits: I have altered tham slightly to conform with the article's style. You might want to check that I haven't altered the facts as well ;-)
Re Len Deighton: not sure about the validity of the source - is the book fictional? Also not sure what you mean by 'unanticipated capacity'; capacity for what?
Re Lanchester: I agree this does need more development (particularly with respect to OA/OR). I haven't done it yet 'cos I didn't want to just end up reproducing the Wiki Lanchester article but it's in the pipeline!

Thanks again EyeSerene 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Military Simulations[reply]

Cheers for the continued interest - progress is slow at the moment (busy period at work!). I've added a diagram (& amended the text a bit) that should make my case for including exercises as a form of simulation clearer (I hope!). I'm fairly happy with the first 3 sections, but the 'Simulation & reality' is not really working hence my trying to divide it up a bit (it was turning into a list of criticisms). It's still not great though (not counting continuity/citation errors that have crept in by rearranging paragraphs). Maybe it would be a good idea to hive off some of the material into a 'Training' article - what I'm trying to avoid though is (a) taking too much out so the article becomes too abstract, and (b) making it too long. It has already grown past what I thought it would when I started it (but it's my first, so I guess that's a lesson learned!) Re more examples: any ideas? I've found it hard to find examples that are non-US/NATO/cold war as so much is either still classified or limited to academic papers. I know the Russians, Germans & others use modelling extensively but unfortunately I'm no linguist ;-) EyeSerene 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the 'drills were bloodless battles; battles were bloody drills' quote is normally accredited to Josephus (& sometimes Patton, though he just pinched it!) EyeSerene 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RCN convoys

Hi Trekphiler,

Thanks for your encouragement and info. I've put in a request for Milner's book at our local library. It must be a fairly recent publication as I've not seen it with his other books at my branch. I requested a peer review and Kirill has responded with a helpful critique. He has asked for more inline footnotes, but as I explained to him, in many cases, paragraphs that do not have specific citations were paraphrased from several sources writing on the same subject, while those with citations were single source rewrites. As it's presented now the page has 5400 words and 22 footnotes. Have you any thoughts on this? Thanks. Alberg22 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Up to spec

Hey. Thanks for changing the characteristics in the U-1A article. I will go through some of my U-boat books and see if I can find any info on the boat's max depth. The number currently in the article is from the website uboat.net. -- Underneath-it-All 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brescia GP and Formula One

Hi. You're technically correct that Brescia is the second exception to Monza's hosting the Italian GP. I wonder if we've got the wording wrong in the article around that piece, though. The article is on Formula One, and of course F1 wasn't devised until 1946, so Brescia can't be an exception in the sense of this article. Any thoughts on how we should re-word? 82.109.66.148 14:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 Hey. Thanks for changing the characteristics in the U-1A article. I will go through some of my U-boat books and see if I can find any info on the boat's max depth. The number currently in the article is from the website ''uboat.net''. -- [[User:Underneath-it-All|Underneath-it-All]] 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
+== Brescia GP and [[Formula One]] ==
+Hi. You're technically correct that Brescia is the second exception to Monza's hosting the Italian GP. I wonder if we've got the wording wrong in the article around that piece, though. The article is on Formula One, and of course F1 wasn't devised until 1946, so Brescia can't be an exception ''in the sense of this article''. Any thoughts on how we should re-word? [[User:82.109.66.148|82.109.66.148]] 14:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)