Wikipedia:User talk:Trekphiler

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at User talk:Trekphiler. (more info)

Gnome-help.svg This user helps out newcomers.



An early wiki.
Archive 2
Open Me

Here are a few good links for newcomers:


Contents

Your help SM U-44, SM-U71, SM U-108

Trekphiler, please: why do you change the content of a CITATION ? Doyou know the differencebetween a CITATION and PLAIN TEXT ? Would you change anything in a citation from the bible or from the Magna Charta or from the American Constitution, only because its not according with nowadays Wiki standards ? Why do you delete texts in other peoples Wiki-conform articles, and without asking ? What is the value writing 1 January as "1 January", when it was written "1st January" in the ORIGINAL text ? Someone new to wiki (me I am a M.A. in history, working with my clear name here) gets annouyed very easily by this. For scientists a citation is HOLY - you can answer to it, you can add another view etc, whatever you want, but you have not to MANIPULATE it. If this continues, I will retire all my 100 submarine articles written in the last 4 weeks (and I could write another 250, if one would let me work quietly . I cannot see the value of your actions for SM U-44 or SM U-77 or SM U-108 for the end-users. Maybe its only to augments your scores ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe what Achim is here calling a "citation" actually means a "quotation". I think there is a way for you two to work together, I just have to finish running through Achim's contributions so I can get up-to-steam on the complete nature of the conflict here. Thanks for archiving your page by the way. Works much better.Wjhonson (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through about half of his contribs. Here is what I think so far. When he states that he is "reverting to original text" I believe what he means, is that he misquoted the underlying document originally and is now trying to fix it by quoting it exactly. If we want exact quotes, then I agree with him, that those should not be changed, however if we want to paraphrase the document, than I agree with you that we can use a smoother presentation. I'm wondering if his full quotations would not live better on our sister project WikiSource and then could be cited to the articles here? Just a thought as a possible way forward for you two to work together. I'll cc him this thought as well, he may be unaware of WikiSource.Wjhonson (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
He has now modified the presentation method on SM U-92 as an example, showing the actual page images, and then the transcription, to make it clear that what follows is a verbatim transcription of the image, so anyone can verify that for themselves. Looks like a possible way forward. Then any other comment can go into a new section citing sources which discuss these documents or other related documents from a secondary source perspective. What do you think?Wjhonson (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the reason for putting up the image is "See I'm right". I think, that he is putting up the image, so that others can check that his transcription is accurate, that's all.Wjhonson (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well look at this one I just mocked up here. It allows Achim to have the verbatim exact transcription, and you to have to flowing prose version as well. The entire transcription could I suppose be put into a footnote, but that would be a very large footnote. I suppose typically things like this are put in appendixes, but I've never seen that used here.Wjhonson (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Trekphiler look at what Achim did here SM U-51. It's beautiful. I would not object to all of them being done in this way. Looks better than my stodgy table.Wjhonson (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Please have a look at SM U-14 now, also [[SM U-18}} and SM U-22.

Please dont fell sorry about the reset: me I said originally "abcd". Then you said "ab_d".--Hans Joachim Koerver 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Then I went to "ab__". So, we are on the new design now, entries get standardizd for the community, no style mix. And a future basis for co-contributors. I am not good in jokes; but one I remember: "Life is nothing. So if you loose nothing, what have you lost at the end ? :-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SM U-19 guns

Hi, I see you added the armament details. Were the guns indeed 86 mm ? I've never heard of this calibre in German service, but the photos appear to match an "8.8 cm" L/45 gun mentioned in http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_88mm-45_skc13.htm regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Wingman? Gregario...

Sorry I dont understand what you say about P-39 wingman....

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Can you explain this please? --John (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading Hitler, but the delay in releasing forces suggests ambivalence about dropping Sealinon entire; changing it to suggest there was less (or no) ambivalence, which the previous, IMO, does, is a mistake. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I already got that from your edit summary. What I don't really see is how this is conveyed by the form of words you prefer. Maybe this needs to go to article talk. --John (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm reading "however...not until" as suggesting delay which the plain on [date] doesn't. Disagree? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree. Rather than use this elaborate form of words which most people will not understand, why not just state that there was a delay? Should be easy to find a ref for that too. --John (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about the fact of the delay (not in doubt) than the reason, & finding a source expressly saying it was because Hitler still hoped to carry off an invasion may take some doing. Neither am I so fanatic about it I have any intention of making an extensive search for said source. ;D If any of the standard sources make a passing ref to Hitler wanting to maintain, which IIRC a couple do, a reword & ref will do it; otherwise, a more explicit passage, like, "Forces were retained until [date], after the beginning of Barbarossa" (which gets the point across, IMO, without being too explicit about why, absent a source), does it. K? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Something like that would be fine. Better to state it than to imply it, in my opinion. --John (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sipowiczed

Hi Trekphiler. I guess I was thinking of the Cosworth DFV, which the Cosworth article indicates was built on "a custom Cosworth cylinder block and crankcase" (in contrast to the earlier FVA, which indeed was based on a Ford block). It's also my understanding that the subsequent "Ford" and "Cosworth" F1 engines were designed and built completely by Cosworth (although I'm less confident about that). P.S. I'm interested in your use of the term "Sipowiczed" - I'm familiar with the character (although I never watched the show), but I've never heard anyone use his name as a verb before. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sydney-Kormoran battle

Thank you for your comments and edits to Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran (or whatever the title may be when you look at the article next). I have responded to your comments played around with your changes... feel free to wander by and see if they still meet your intentions. -- saberwyn 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: In the crosshairs

A crashed enemy aircraft is first of all a good source of intelligence - which is why the Brits routinely posted a sentry to guard it until an intelligence officer had had a chance to go over it. Nonetheless, many items of equipment were "souvenired" anyway. While there might not have been a systematic effort to link crashes with victory claims it certainly happened - in Reach for the Sky there is mention of Bader reporting shooting at a German reconnaisance aircraft that he believed had got away - and being credited with the kill when its wreck was discovered. The German (and especially the Nazi) mindset WAS a little different - not only did propaganda come before intelligence but they seem to have been convinced by their own propaganda very often. (Adolf Galland is good on this subject.) tracking references can be a pain - will do so when I have a moment!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Message on Talkpage

You say my edit to the Future of F1 section was unconstructive, I corrected a title so that it worked, what was unconstructive about that edit. Please check your facts before responding like that. After you reverted my edit someone else came along and removed the typo again, you going to revert that one too? --81.151.235.127 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That history shows you introducing a needless letter, I removed it and then you reverted it back, if you didn't notice the next edit was someone removing the same letter again. I'm afraid to say its seems like it a mistake on your part. --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem, sorry if I seemed a bit hostile my day/week hasn't been that great either. Anyways see you around Wikipedia ;) --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It was quite ;P, and funny story I do have an account Mollsmolyneux, just it doesn't stay signed in like it used to so when I make edits I forget to sign in, very annoying. --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 W The content appearing above is a local copy of the User talk:Trekphiler page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text).

The version shown above has Revision ID: 332954223 and was last updated December 21, 2009, 12:58 am.

Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.
Retrieved from "http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:GWArtMirrorPage"
Sea Level Explorer
Random image
Toolbox