User talk:Malo/Archive04

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 19 March 2006 to 30 April 2006:

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

Thank you. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

USS Galaxy
Haha, Thanks. I guess I should have Googled before removing it, but who would have thunk it. I just giggled after following the link to the Star Trek ship. :) -Dawson 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page, Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block
See here. Since two people blocked almost simultaneously, I think you'll have to unblock and reblock if you want the indefinite one to "take". Cheers. AnnH ♫ 18:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, you were right about the block conflict, and another admin has already fixed the problem. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

TJWhite sock puppets
I see you've been blocking the string of TJWhite sock puppets in the past few minutes. There's another account, User:SaveTJ, made in the same span of time that you might have missed. Vslashg (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From looking at that accounts edits, it would appear it is indeed another sockpuppet. Thanks for the heads up.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You deserve it!


I don't know if you will want to keep this award or not, but I tired of all the other fancy "barnstars" and such and made my own award. Congratulations, you're an asset to Wikipedia. PeteShanosky 03:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the award, I'm honored that you think so. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

regarding Attack on Pearl Harbor
fyi, my grandfather was in ww2 as a result of the bombing of pearl harbor. that is not my site that i linked to, it simply has footage that must be seen. if you object to that site personally please then link to another site that has the same footage so that people can see why so many americans were forced into a war they didnt want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterH2 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 March 2006
 * Well WalterH2, I objected to this link because wikipedia is not a collection of links. If you wish to make a case for the link you have added please do so at Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor where we can then come to a community consensus on wether or not this link is appropriate.  Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Biography
Thank you for checking - better. A pet peeve of mine is people seeing only the latest work of a string of vandalism. You went back and found the correct revert point. Yay! Shenme 03:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, I thought something didn't look right there. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

removal of content in North Korea article
It was an accident that I removed the economy section on North Korea. I didn't know I did such a thing until I got a message from you. At the time, I was trying repeatedly but failed to enter an interesting picture showing a satellite footage of nightlights in East Asia, where there are no almost no lights in North Korea compared with other countries around it, which is pretty pathetic. If you can fix this and include the picture. It will be much appreciated. The picture is found in the Chinese article on North Korea (they also have some other interesting pictures released to the public domain). Photo: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earthlights_in_nkorea.jpg

Thanks for the speedy revert.--141.213.196.250 06:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Added 71.50.16.177 to vandal
I just added the vandal IP 71.50.16.177 to my Vandal Fighter blacklist to help you out.--Mboverload 06:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks I just blocked this IP for vandalism. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

help on Novosel article
Dear Sir; First, Thanks for the help on the USS Maloy article! I have completed an article on a personal hero of mine a Medal of Honor awardee Michael J. Novosel. This morning I am looking at the article and noticed that a gentleman added his name to the article a webcomic artist named Brian Clevinger. After looking at CWO Novosel's death notice is seems that Mr. Clevinger is in fact a grandson.

The problem I have is with him adding his name to the first paragraph of his grandfather's article. I do not feel this is a proper place to include family member names either famous or not.

Without this becoming a major issue or a flame war, what would be the best course of action for this matter?

Thank you for your patience and time in this matter, and wish me luck as I learn something everyday about adding and editing articles for wikipedia.
 * Cj, I'd be glad to help you however I can. I want to remind you that we don't own the articles we create or contribute to.  That said, there are a couple of civil and reasonable ways to handle this.  Personally I don't think we should remove such information, if it is verifiable.  However I think the article itself needs to be cleaned up a bit and I might try moving some things around.  Let me know what you think of my edits to the article and we can go from there. One last thing, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and while it is nice to know that people are remembered, it is very important to remain in a neutral point of view. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well after thinking about it some more, I decided to remove the information for now. That is at least until it is verified in some way.  I believe it will be shortly, but until then I have left a message on the talk pages of the two articles asking that someone out there verify this claim of relationship. See Talk:Michael J. Novosel and Talk:Brian_Clevinger. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

IAV: 205.213.44.1
Hola Malo,

Just checking up on a vandalism report I submitted. You closed it with the explanation: no vandalism in hours, not warned, list not empty. I'm curious on a couple of counts: Thanks, Cleduc 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't warn because there was already a "final warning" message there. How many final warnings do they get, and why would they take any "final warning" seriously if "final warnings" are not final?
 * I sensed there was a pattern -- it seemed to be the same editor.
 * What does "list not empty" mean?
 * There generally is a rule of thumb regarding such warnings. Typically I prefer to see such warnings within the last 24 hours, and then see the user vandalize after the warning, before I would block.  Hence previous warning for such shared IPs don't necessarily apply to the same user.  At the time it was listed on WP:AIV, that IP had only vandalized one article today and had not been warned in 3 days.  As for the "list not empty", that is just a note for other users who watch the noticeboard, we like to use this as a quick way to notify each other whether or not there are still exist IPs or users to be blocked.  At the time I removed that IP, there still existed other IPs on the noticeboard, hence I ended my summary with list not empty. I hope this answers your questions.  Thanks for stopping by. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Gambier Bay
You're right. I didn't even think to check the official Navy site. Consider my face red, and the AfD withdrawn. Thanks :) Pat Payne 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: USS Harlan County (LST-1196)
Malo, thanks for formatting the information I provided ... looks much better. I added some additional information to the ship article, and also added the URL you requested to the USS Harlan County image. This provides a direct link back to the Dept. of Defense image file (Let me know if this is adequate). Thanks again Eljackso 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

talk pages
since when was there a rule that dictates what i can and CANNOT do on MY OWN talk page?

also, what's it to you? Drmagic 23:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know Talk page guidelines pretty clearly explains how talk pages are supposed to be used. I'd ask that you please not remove messages that others have left for you as it is considered to be misrepresenting of them.
 * This is the same message I left on your talk page however you felt the need to remove that one too.  The first link dicates what is inappropriate for talk pages, as I have tried to explain to you.  As for what it is to me, well I am another wikipedia user that is concerned with your conduct.  We do have policies on the way in which all wikipedians should conduct themselves.  In particular the one on civility comes to mind.  Please be aware that I am trying to help you.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i read the guidelines. nowhere does it say i am PROHIBITED from deleting any content of my talk page. it simply SUGGESTS "archiving" rather than "deleting".

that being said, i will do as i please with my own page. as for a perceived lack of civility, you haven't seen me call you names or use profanity. until i do, consider me "civil". Drmagic
 * No you can't do that. Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context. (See MeatBall:ContextSwizzling).  -- taken from Talk_page_guidelines
 * Hence you can edit your own words, but do not edit what others have said. Doing so is an attempt to hide the truth.  If you would like you can archive your talk page, for that I would like to direct you to How to archive a talk page.  As for the issue of civility, it is not confined to use the profanity or name calling.  In particular I am looking at the attitude and Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice as I feel you did in this edit.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

USS Rankin
Thanks for partially wickifying my recent article. Now that I see how to do it, I've pretty much finished the job. Though it's simple once you know how, I couldn't have done it without your example. Lou Sander 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I was glad to help. If you are interested in contributing to other such ship entries, you might want to check out WikiProject_Ships.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tolland class AKAs
Here's a site with some info on the subject. His list of ships may or may not be the same as yours: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/aka-64.htm

For the most part his information seems to be correct, but I'm no authority. I think the part about the 40-story building transporting Humvees was lifted from my site at www.ussrankin.org, but I don't have a problem with that. The business about classes in AKAs never made a lot of sense to me, since a lot of the early ones were one-of-a-kind, and since I never heard it mentioned when I was a junior officer on the Rankin from 1961-63. But it looks like the shipbuilders settled on a pattern with the Tolland, and that does make sense. I've seen the Rankin listed as "Rankin class" in Jane's Fighting Ships, but have wondered where that came from. I think that even in the last days of the Rankin there were a few earlier AKAs still in commission, so why would they rename the class after something other than the earliest member?

I do know that the USS Tulare (AKA-112) and the later AKA/LKAs were very different ships than the Rankin and the few others I was familiar with.

I don't know of any authoritative source of information about classes of ships; I wish I knew of one.

Tolland Class Again
Nuts! I forgot the tildes. That might mean my post is gone. In case it is gone, here it is again:

Here's a site with some info on the subject. His list of ships may or may not be the same as yours: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/aka-64.htm

For the most part his information seems to be correct, but I'm no authority. I think the part about the 40-story building transporting Humvees was lifted from my site at www.ussrankin.org, but I don't have a problem with that. The business about classes in AKAs never made a lot of sense to me, since a lot of the early ones were one-of-a-kind, and since I never heard it mentioned when I was a junior officer on the Rankin from 1961-63. But it looks like the shipbuilders settled on a pattern with the Tolland, and that does make sense. I've seen the Rankin listed as "Rankin class" in Jane's Fighting Ships, but have wondered where that came from. I think that even in the last days of the Rankin there were a few earlier AKAs still in commission, so why would they rename the class after something other than the earliest member?

I do know that the USS Tulare (AKA-112) and the later AKA/LKAs were very different ships than the Rankin and the few others I was familiar with.

I don't know of any authoritative source of information about classes of ships; I wish I knew of one.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malo"

Regards and sorry for any errers, Lou Sander 02:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Lou, I based my list of Tolland class ship on the list found at http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/02idx.htm Which I believe bases it's list upon the DANFS entries of each ship.  Now those entries are not always perfect, but it is what I'm going with for now.  For example the list on http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/aka-64-unit.htm shows the USS Ottawa (AKA-101) as a Tolland class.  However the DANFS entry and Navsource entry both list it as an Andromeda class.
 * As for the existance of the Rankin class, this is very likely to be possible. From working with other types of ship classes in the US Navy, it seems that as some classes are phased out, (in this case the tolland) sometimes a few select ships get a major overhaul which on occassion drasticly changes the ship in some distinct way.  This seems to be grounds for the creation of a new class sometimes.  In this case the Rankin was likely the first such vessel to undergo this transformation, which would make it the lead ship of the class.  Take a look at USS Charles Lawrence (DE-53) for an example of this.  The Charles Lawrence was changed from the destroyer escort into a high speed transport.   This is likely also symbolized by the change from the AKA (attack cargo ship) designation to the LKA (amphibious cargo ship).   I'll try and do some digging and see what I can find.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ship Classes
I don't know how to answer your message to me, except by going to your page and posting a new entry. There's probably a better way. I also don't know what makes the "You've got a message" notification (or whatever it is) appear when I visit a page.

I know of both DANFS and Navsource. What I don't know of is a place where one can find authoritative info about a class of ship -- What is a class? What ships are in what classes? What do they have in common, and how do they differ? etc. Lou Sander 03:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with answering your questions here on my talk page, I just wasn't sure if you would check my talk page and see my responses. As for an authoritative source, well I can't say as I have really come across one yet.  You would think that the DANFS would be, since it is produced by the US Navy, however it isn't perfect.  I would go as far to say that it is the best we have right now.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

USS Skagit, LCPL
I've responded to your invitation by adding these two pages. There's an image under LCPL that should be in the Wiki Commons under Landing Craft, but I didn't know how to get it there. Lou Sander 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC) BTW, there is some discussion of class ambiguity on the USS Skagit web site at http://www.geocities.com/uss_skagit/AndromedaClassShips.html Scroll down near the bottom of the page. I believe with some certainty that the redesignation of the Rankin as LKA (and other redesignations in 1969) had to do with the Navy wanting all amphibious ship types to start with "L". There were definitely no major changes to Rankin at that time.
 * About the LCPL, before it is uploaded to commons, it has to be licensed under a free use license, such as public domain or GDFL. I am curious as to where this image originates.  On the description I believe you have the source as the site  www.ussrankin.org  I was wondering if the image source goes back further than this.  As for the classes, I guess the major change then was not to the ship, but in the Navy's designation there of. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on further sourcing it. Lou Sander 18:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Beach Jumpers, USS York County
Inspired by you, I've also added these two. I think I'm getting good at this. Maybe no more ships, though, since I've now done all of them that I served aboard. I've read a lot of encyclopedias, and I'm a pretty good and rapid writer, so this stuff is right down my line. Glad I found it. Lou Sander 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Titanic pic
I really don't see why people get their shorts in a knot over fair use images. They're copyrighted but allowed for non-commercial purposes, which this is. Also, the Smithsonian is a government run institution (or used to be). The fact that it's a duplicate was an issue. The photo needs to be renamed some how because it's mispelled. And I like the Titanic pic, personally, but then again, I'm fascinated by the subject and therefore biased to it. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 23:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For me it is a matter of legality. The image itself clearly has a copyright symbol on it.  When images and works are produced by the US Government then they are typically in the public domain, however the Smithsonian also houses other works, works that may not have actually made by a government agency.  The other thing is the fact that the userboxes project prohibits the use of images without a free license.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

USS Iowa
Thank you very much, we actually reverted at the same time (great minds think alike). I didnt realize the picture was already there. Maybe we can work on a future page together. Thanks Again, you are very helpful Caf3623 02:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anoyomous
Wtf dude.Sargentbear is a real name of a person online :|.How in the hell is that considerd vandalism.Im just stating people who name themselves as bear online in popular colture.I don't see how that could be considerd fucking spam when it's just naming of bears in any entertainment(tv,online,etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.235.124 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 April 2006
 * I have responded on your talk page. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request
My user name has been recently blocked due to my IP address coinciding with a blocked user. However, I have been using AOL for the past several days, and I can attest that that user has not been using my computer. Is is possible for me to become unblocked? Hurricanehink 14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response, and it appears you are right. It must have been a brief IP conflict, for everything is working fine now. I'm on my grandparent's computer, and will only be using it for another few hours, so you can probably just forget this happened. Sorry to bother you, and thanks for the quick help. Hurricanehink 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A coon called Sanders deserved it
I warned this user last month about an irrelevant change he made in the cast list for The Care Bears Movie, and again when he broke two rules of Wikipedia's Sandbox. Now that you've finally taken action against him, I'm so glad he'll never come back.

Along with thousands more, he just doesn't get our aim at creating an encyclopedia, and doesn't see before him the benefits of joining the community. He really needs some counselling from Tenderheart Bear or Dr. Phil... --Slgrandson 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about block you made...
Was there a reason for 31 hours? Was it just some random number? Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark)  00:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * well i think that User:Drini/31 hours explains most of it. However I also like the 31 hour block because it tends to keep vandals who are at school from vandalizing again for (effectively) two school days. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sounds sound. See ya. -- LV (Dark Mark)  00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was just looking into blocking him, when I saw you had already done so. That's why I was wondering why the 31. But thanks! I'll try my best, and won't hesitate to ask questions if I'm stumped. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark)  02:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's weird
I posted that comment, I am almost sure, to a user, but I may have been mistaken...maybe a bug or glitch...Sorry about that!

No, my edit history shows I did post it on the template page...oops...sorry!--MONGO 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)