User talk:HolyT

 Dure     ( T )X( E )X( C ) 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

General Atomics
Please be careful when making corrections in wikilinks. While I understand the intent of what you were trying to do (Atomics rather than Atomic), by making changes inside the link, you caused the link to not work. I've reverted your changes then made the correction. If you need help, don't hesitate to ask. Akradecki 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! How do I make a proper reply to something like this? Also, how do I correct an error like that and keep the link intact?
 * The way the links work, you can do it in two parts, with total inside the brackets seperated by a vertical line, so that your link text will look like this: what you want the link to read . For the UAV list, we want to have an abreviated manufacturer's name followed by the airframe name or designation. So, the full GA name is abreviated General Atomics, just like Lockheed Martin is abreviated Lockheed. Akradecki 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Check out WP:RFPP for page protection issues. Also, don't forget to sign your comments by typing ~. Let me know if you have any questions. alphachimp 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit sumary [sic]
[sic --Holy 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)] Hello, I hope you are doing well.

Perhaps I am taking this too seriously, but your edit summary on 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game disturbed me. Please try to remember that someone wrote those sentences. Therefore, someone (In this case, me!) may get a little miffed when you say things like "Extremely awkward and misleading/confusing opening sentence. Many brain cells died when I read it, so my edit still may be a bit awkward."

Could you possibly, in the future, choice wording that is a little less disparaging the original editor and their work? Perhaps, "This seems a little clearer to me", or even just "Copyedit" or "Word choice"?

Your new wording looks fine to me, but it is no better than my original, in my opinion.

Happy editing, Johntex\talk 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, Johntex. Good point.  And thank you for your civility in view of my inappropriateness!


 * The sentence before I edited it was, "The 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game broke the all-time college football record for most consecutive wins by one team over another." Well, the game itself did not break any records.  The game ended the streak which was a record.  (Even more precisely, people don't usually speak that way; instead they would say that the result of the game was that the streak ended, the game itself having "done" nothing.  If anything, the loss by Notre Dame ended the streak.)  If someone who has no knowledge of the event were to read that sentence, he would be very confused as to how the game broke any record.  One might say that the 2006 game broke the record, but even that is very confusing.  Normally when one speaks of breaking a record, it is someone else's record, or a record set at a different time.  So the (result of the) 2006 game merely added onto the record associated with the very same streak.  The 2007 game in no way set or extended or broke any record; on the contrary, it ended a streak which was a record.  The rewording is significantly clearer.


 * Nonetheless, I apologize for being indiscreet in public. But don't worry; it would take a lot of effort using the history page for anyone to figure out that you had last edited the sentence, so I was probably the only one who even had a chance to look silly in this for my comments! Holy 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Holly, I appreciate your sentiment and your explanation. Now that I read your explanation I see that what I wrote actually was confusing, after all.  Perhaps you might want to archive this so as to minimize how silly we look!  :-)  Thanks again and have a great day! Johntex\talk 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, Johntex! Thanks for being gracious in pointing out my error and in responding. Holy 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

HMS Broke (D83)
Thanks for catching that; I don't know what I was thinking! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

America-Class Amphibious Assault Ships
I noticed that you have again moved America class amphibious assault ship. As I mentioned on the talk page when I moved it, every other ship class article is named without the hyphen. In fact, for Template:Infobox ship to work correctly, the class name must not have a hyphen. Unless you think every other ship class article on Wikipedia should be moved, please move it back. Eastshire (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships) carefully (as I mentioned in my comments when I made the move). The relevant part, under "Ship classes," reads, "Articles about a ship class should be named (Lead ship name) "class" (type); for example, Ohio-class submarine." You can help me to rename these pages according to that standard! The standard is consistent with universal conventions for hyphenation. Thanks! (If you can figure out a way to rename the incorrectly-hyphenated templates, please let me know.) Holy (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Holy, read that first sentence again. "should be named (Lead ship name) 'class' " not (Lead ship name)-"class". Also, you'll notice that the class used in the example is in fact not hyphenated Ohio class submarine. Further, the naming convention goes on to say "Uses of the class as a noun are not hyphenated" and the article name is a noun. Eastshire (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you really read the Wikipedia standards article? That section alone has EIGHT examples of hyphenated class names used as adjectives, in PRECISELY the format that class page names appear. The example you cite IS IN FACT HYPHENATED on the standards page. (If the page for the Ohio-class submarine does not use hyphenation correctly, I will correct it, as it does not comply with the clearly stated Wikipedia standard.) In the title, e.g., "Forrestal-class aircraft carrier," the noun is "aircraft carrier," which is modified by the adjective (technically a noun modifier) "Forrestal-class." The hyphen is there to show that the entire phrase "Forrestal-class" modifies the noun. Please read that section carefully again. EVERY example cited in that section shows a hyphenated class name modifying a common noun. It would be utterly impossible to make it any clearer. When a class name is used by itself as a noun, it isn't to be hyphenated: e.g., "The Midway class is obsolete. The newest class is the Ford class." BUT: "Midway-class aircraft carriers are obsolete. Ford-class carriers are the way of the future." Holy (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. I also hovered over each link to see the actual article names. None of the article names are hyphenated. You seem to be the only editor convinced that the article names should be hyphenated. "When it's you against the world, back the world." Eastshire (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's a published Wikipedia standard against a world of pages that don't follow the standard. When that's the case, I back the published Wikipedia standard—which is, by definition, agreed on by all editors.  If you look at those very pages and read the contents, you will find that, by and large, the correct (i.e., in accordance with the Wikipedia standards page) hyphenation standard is applied. Holy (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By definition, standards are the consensus of the editors, which is not to say agreed on by all editors. That's a significant difference in and of its self. Beyond that, the defacto standard is to not hyphenate the name of the article. Please provide examples of class articles not moved by you where the article name includes the hyphen. Eastshire (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, look at this! WP:SHIPNAME (Actually, I saw this a long time ago. Good job on all those editors fixing so many article titles AND making the policy, which was already clear, even clearer.) Holy (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Senior enlisted advisor ranks and positional titles
The senior enlisted advisor ranks are not just ranks. They are also the tiles of the position of office they hold which is why they are capitalized. I would normally agree with you in any other case when it pertains to ranks because they hold positions that do not share the same name 99% of the time, but like the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard is a positional title not just a rank which makes these senior enlisted advisors unique. The only reason I know this is because I use to work with the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, in the Office of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy. Only the top senior enlisted advisors in each military branch are the only people who share ranks with positional titles. All other ranks do not apply. Neovu79 (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are creating a rule of capitalization out of whole cloth. The concept that you are relying on has no basis in any style guide in the English-speaking world, including Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Your personal experience with people who capitalized certain terms that were important to their organization has no bearing on the issue. Such over-capitalization is commonplace, even rampant, in the military and business worlds. See my complete response at Talk:Master_Chief_Petty_Officer_of_the_Coast_Guard Holy (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington Navy Yard shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navy Reserve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Your reversion at National Do Not Call Registry warrants this kitten.

GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC) 

AI takeover
I am not sure what to do about this article. Whoever wrote certain sections in this article kind of messed it up. Do you think that they should be discarded? RES2773 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)RES2773
 * The "Concerns" section has a few sources in the first few subparagraphs and then no sources for a while. A lot of what's written has the feel of a personal reflection, which almost sounds like a SciFi nerd who is secretly hoping that the robots will take over some day, just so that his favorite SF movies can come true. Without going back to the article and dissecting it further, I think many would agree with me that lots of text in that area does not sound encyclopedic, even if some of the assertions are written in equally speculative sources elsewhere. Much of this text (say, 90%) can probably be cut down to a few well-sourced, not-too-speculative (or fantastical) sentences. Sorry to complain and not work, but I'm not much of a content contributor; I do mostly minor copy-editing. Holy (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Shays' Rebellion in multiple articles
Are you sure the spelling should be changed? If so, on what basis? The linked WP article uses Shays' Rebellion with no equivocation. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a matter of certainty. Current style standards permit both forms. However, from a scan of the sources used in the "Shays' Rebellion" article, ALL BUT ONE of them—among those which contain the name in the citation—use "Shays's." My best arguments for "Shays's" are (1) usage in sources (though this was not a thorough investigation) and (2) Shays' is pronounced \shayz\; Shays's is pronounced \shayzez\ (not using rigorous notation here, obviously). The spoken pronunciation of "Shays'" would lead someone to think that the rebellion was "Shay's Rebellion," which is clearly not correct. The spoken pronunciation of "Shays's" leads unambiguously to thinking that the name is "Shays's Rebellion." Thank you for the comment. Holy (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanations. I can see the logic of your edits, or at least some of it, but the changed usage is decidedly inconsistent with that of the main article and its title. Could you bring the proposed change to Talk:Shays' Rebellion for discussion? I suggest that the edits made to the various other articles be undone until such time as consensus may be achieved on that talk page for a consistent WP-wide name change. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. v/r - TP 23:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving common nouns to lower case
I gave you some help, as you requested. I even moved the stinkin' page. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack  22:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I hope the Wolf user doesn't come back with revisions and objections without argument. Holy (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A new section at WT:MOSCAPS may interest you. Chris the speller yack  14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jupiter's moons in fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyllene. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW
Strikethrough is applied by using good ole fashioned HTML: TEXT Timothy Joseph Wood  21:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Oxford comma's
Thank you for your message. As far as I can see, you placed three (Oxford) comma's which I then mistakenly removed. I then reverted my removal, which placed the three comma's back again. I'm not quite sure what the issue is now. Please let me know if there is something you do not agree with. Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was hard to tell what transpired because of the intervening edit (or edit's). At the time I wrote you, yours was the last edit, and there were still several serial comma's missing that I had previously added for consistency. I couldn't piece together from the history who had deleted or added back in which one's. Thanks for explaining! Cheer's! (Just joking around with the apostrophe's, by the way.) Holy (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncommanded bank angle
Hi Holy, thanks for sharing the details of your training. I'm talking this discussion off line from Talk:Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380, because I'm interested in it from a flight dynamics point of view, while I don't think it is pertinent to the discussion of the accident anymore. One difference between your experience and what happened on Flight 1380, I think is the fact that they were still climbing, and because of that the asymmetric thrust is much greater than in level flight (my back of the envelope calculation gives 55% greater). Another difference that possibly contributes to that, is that a commanded throttle to zero might be less abrupt than an engine failure. Finally the loss of the cowling abated lift on the left wing starting an early roll, that was compounded by the yaw, contributing to a sudden increase in the right wing's angle of attack. Another point I wanted to make is regarding your earlier statement about rolling 45 degrees for quick descent; the main reason is not to compensate for the reduced g, but because a nose dive would increase speed too much. The maneuver I've actually learned to lose excess altitude when air brakes were not enough and one needed to flight in a straight line, was to apply at the same time rudder in one direction and ailerons in the other direction, and alternating it as in a wagging maneuver; albeit it was in a glider, so it may not apply to aircraft with completely different aerodynamic coefficient derivatives. Thanks for the engaging discussion.--Gciriani (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gciriani, thanks for discussion, too! I think your points are all relevant. One just doesn't know the differences between bringing the throttle to idle and an actual engine failure, because every engine failure is different. But, it's easy to determine (from flight test and engineering analysis) what throttle setting corresponds to a engine producing no power, in various circumstances (e.g., windmilling prop, feathered prop, windmilling turbofan). But again, an engine that is torn apart is a different and unpredictable matter. As for climbing, well, as I said, we practiced engine power loss in simulated takeoff conditions, so we had fairly high AOA (for the low speed) and takeoff power set (close to or equal to climb power), and while there certainly was a noticeable yaw that you have to react to quickly (still, fairly easy for almost any pilot), there just wasn't, in my experience, any significant induced roll. Consider flying with all engines operating normally. Now step on the rudder. You yaw right away, but the induced roll takes a while to get going. Still, the actual circumstances of this particular engine failure are all that matter here, and they were unique, so we can't apply experience alone to understand with certainty what happened. As for the 45-degree bank angle for an intentional emergency descent, you are correct that the main reason is that you get a higher rate of descent than wings level. As I initially indicated, my idea about making the ride more comfortable is only speculation. As for slipping (roll one direction and apply top rudder), yes, that is a good technique for losing altitude that I also learned. It just wasn't ever mentioned as part of an emergency descent procedure for the aircraft that I flew. I guess if you're already steeply nose down and in a high angle of bank, you're already getting a great rate of descent, and applying cross-controls just increases your stall speed and the complexity of the maneuver. Cheers! Holy (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics
Hi HolyT, Thank you for your edits to 2020 Summer Olympics, particularly sorting out the Event scheduling section, which I was going to do at some point but I've been sitting on it for ages as I couldn't really work out how to tackle it. That big bracketed multi-clause had me stumped! You don't seem to be a fan of "due to" – any particular reason for that? It's never really bothered me but I might be able to learn something from you... Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rodney Baggins, sorry for my extended delay in replying and thank you for your kind words and for asking. I probably shouldn't be bothered by "due to" as much as I am, since it is (regrettably) becoming acceptable to use it as a catch-all conjunctive phrase, but I do have reasons. You can find thorough explanations on line. (Here's one, but it's very easy to find others that may be even better: https://www.rd.com/culture/difference-between-due-to-and-because-of/#:~:text=Technically%20speaking%2C%20%E2%80%9Cdue%20to%E2%80%9D,and%20come%20after%20a%20noun.&text=%E2%80%9CCancellation%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20noun%2C,was%20canceled%20because%20of%20rain.) The short answer is that (1) "due" is an adjective; thus, "due to" is an adjectival phrase that should only be used to modify a noun. I think that Wikipedia should have a higher level of formality in its writing than most writing, and so we should try to apply consistent usages. (2) I find that "due to" often replaces simpler phrases or words such as "by" and "for" and when it does, it doesn't add to the meaning or precision, but rather muddles it. (3) I think that authors use it in a very lazy way when they don't know the precise connection (usually some kind of cause-and-effect connection) between two ideas in a sentence or they don't care to write more crisply and precisely. Examples:


 * Many people died due to coronavirus.
 * Did they die from (or of) coronavirus? That would be straightforward. Coronavirus was their cause of death. But "due to" makes an uncertain connection. Did the people die as a result of various events associated with coronavirus, and all these events conspired in some way or ways to cause their death? Does the author even know?


 * The event was canceled due to there being adverse weather conditions.
 * Again, did the weather cause a series of things to happen in some way that the author doesn't care to describe or know about, and those events caused the cancellation?

Better: Even better: Or even
 * The event was canceled because there were adverse weather conditions.
 * The event was canceled by (or for) adverse weather conditions.
 * The event was canceled by (or for) weather.
 * In all those alternatives, the connection is clear.
 * However, "due to" is usually perfectly fine and precise when it's used as an adjectival phrase (its original usage, universally considered to be correct): My late arrival was due to traffic.
 * Cheers! Holy (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EDIT: These are probably not great examples, but if you look in my contribution history, a lot of my "ce usage" edits correct "due to" errors that come in all sorts of sentences, and I use a variety of methods to fix them. Holy (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is/Are
You claim that "is a team" is "much more common to say" in the US but most US team articles here use "are". Even if it's due to the plural nature of most team names (Giants / Yankees), using "are" for the Washington Football Team isn't really incorrect either right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Dissident93 Let me clarify with an example: A British sportscaster, referring to a U.S. soccer team, such as Chicago, would say, "Chicago are winning." A U.S. sportscaster would say, "Chicago is winning." BUT you raise a good point: We in the U.S. DO say "The Miami Heat are winning" and "The Orlando Magic are champions." So, how does this apply to the Washington Football Team? I don't know. The back-and-forth between singular and plural is really jarring. Maybe it should be "the Washington Football Team" are, but then, when we refer to the "team" in general (lowercase), we should switch back to singular, which still seems jarring. What do you think? Thanks for writing. Holy (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Logarithmic scale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rule of nines. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Castling notation
Chess notation is not PGN, so 0-0 and 0-0-0 are valid notations for castling and they don't need to be fixed. In fact it would be best if you left this alone in articles, see WP:CHESSNOTATION which has been the established practice for chess articles for more than a decade. Quale (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. I should mention that not everyone agrees that this is the best, some editors have argued that chess articles should use PGN.  I see some advantages to that, but don't necessarily think it would be better.  It sounds like that isn't a critical issue to you, but you could discuss it on WT:CHESS if you think wikipedia should use PGN.  (Using PGN would affect a few other things in our game notation.) Quale (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)