User talk:Nick Thorne/Archive2

CarolineWH
FYI, Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents has been added to AN/I. Gerardw (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS Perseus image
Nick, I've reverted you. The caption does help make things clearer. However, the reality is this is a fair use image being used on a very long list type article when a main article about HMS Perseus exists. WP:NFC encourages us to link to the main article hosting the image (which is the case) and where there is substantial commentary on the image in particular. In the case of Timeline for aircraft carrier service, the fair use image is used in connection with a single sentence on the list. That's improper usage. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is an illustration of one of the key events in carrier devlopment - the steam catapult has been used in every conventional carrier since then. Illustrating that key devlopment in a timeline about carrier service is entirely appropriate. -  Nick Thorne  talk  20:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need a fair use image to do that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also note that it's inappropriate for this article. This article is just a list. There's no monologue, and only one sentence in connection with Perseus and the development of catapults. It might be appropriate for History_of_the_aircraft_carrier, though I would certainly flesh out the steam catapult section as it's currently very weak, especially for something so crucial to carrier development. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assesment of its appropriateness. However, I have no intention of engaging in an edit war over this.  I will see if I can find a free image that we can use (although I did look extensively at the time it was originally used).  If I cannot find one, then I might raise an RFC to get the community's view of the use in this case. -  Nick Thorne  talk  20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have a very hard time convincing people that we need a fair use image to support a single sentence in the timeline article. But, if you want to proceed, the place to go is Non-free content review. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll keep that in mind, but I'm not there yet. Cheers. -  Nick Thorne  talk  21:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a free alternative for the list, USS Hancock was the first U.S. ship to undergo the SCB-27C conversion that included a pair of C11 steam catapults, the British design. An image of this ship immediately following the conversion is available at File:USS Hancock (CVA-19) Mar 1954.jpg. I am not certain, but it's possible this is the first actual front line carrier fitted with catapults (Perseus being a test ship). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar
Thank you. Sometimes it seems like we talk into a vacuum on those pages, with no one really listening. I'm no guru, but I appreciate it if occasionally someone sees something of value in what I say. - Nick Thorne  talk  12:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For your comment on WQA. I realize I was not acting mature nor constructive with that editor, and its nice to get some feedback on it. I've taken what you've said into consideration, and although my responses to the editor haven't exactly shown it, I really think it would be best to try dispute resolution with them. Therefore I've left my comments as they are for now...do you suggest just posting a new notice that explains the issues with the editor, or should I just leave the notice as it is? Thanks again. --Omirocksthisworld( Drop a line ) 03:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for taking it the way it was intended. I would just sit and wait to see if someone else will take it up.  I simply do not have the time right now, sorry.  RL can be such a drag! -  Nick Thorne  talk  12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay cool. Thanks :) Omirocksthisworld( Drop a line ) 12:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, citation, reference sections
Up to now, I've followed the layout guide at Layout (under Standard appendices and footers). As you have replaced this with a different one in several articles that I've worked on recently, has there been a change to standard layouts that I've missed. If so, I'll adopt the new one and apply it; if not I'll stick with the current standard (which is in wide use), subject to a consensus (of course). Cheers. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I had no idea I have been doing this to you, I can't say I've re-done these sections on very many articles at all. I certainly have not been following you, any articles I have edited in this way would have come up as a result of the articles being on my watch list - I have all aircraft carrier article I know of on my wathc list for example.  In any case, I prefer the layout I've used for a couple of reasons, firstly it separates the in line citations from the references themselves, putting all the cite templates in one location.  It also makes the citation section easier to read, especially in articles where there are multiple references within an article to one bokk (or whatever).  Finally, it more clodely mirrors the usual way of doing things in the historical and scientific literature that I usually work with. -  Nick Thorne  talk  13:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just cos I'm paranoid doesn't mean that everyone's not out to get me.... There may or may not be advantages in your preferred way of doing things, I don't have the background to comment, but it might be an idea to put it up for comment or as a proposal. There may be counter arguments. Have a go. Save me getting a crick in me neck, looking over me shoulder!! Folks at 137 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the system I use is already one of the "approved" ones, see WP:CITESHORT. The main reason I changed it is because with the citation templates embedded in the text, it is harder to edit them, also by using the short citations, it enables you to have several different references to differing pages in the same book, eg Smith, (2002), p.24 and Smith, (2002), p.105.  With a number of the articles I have worked on I have had many references to differing pages in the same book and this way is much cleaner - for example in an article discussing aircraft carriers you might want to cite several (or many) different pages in Jane's Fighting Ships. -  Nick Thorne  talk  04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lyrebird article
I do not appreciate that Nick... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capybara123 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then don't add such material to an article again. - Nick Thorne  talk  00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Emu skeleton caption
Just as it is important to credit an author's or artist's work, it is equally important to credit the work of a company or individual, in this case, Skulls Unlimited International. The cleaning and articulation of a specimen like this borders on art and deserves recognition.Sklmsta (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, you released the image to the Commons under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal waiver. As the text on the image page itself says The author of this work has dedicated it to the public by waiving all of his or her rights to the work under copyright law and all related or neighboring legal rights he or she had in the work, to the extent allowable by law.  Consequently you waived any right to attribution for the image and placing such attribution to a commercial organisation within the Wikipedia main space therefore constitutes spam. -  Nick Thorne  talk  22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The author of the image is NOT the creator of the work. Yes, I took the photo, edited it and uploaded it to be used by everyone, however, I did not create the work. I did not clean and articulate the specimen. This is the equivalent of me "not writing the book", "not painting the picture", "not sculpting the statue", etc. If I uploaded a photo of the Mona Lisa that I took at the Louvre, would I not be allowed to credit Da Vinci as the artist? Da Vinci was commissioned to paint the Mona Lisa...making him, essentially, a "commercial organization". Skulls Unlimited was kind enough to let me photograph the specimen...I just think it's necessary to give credit where credit is due. Sklmsta (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Cunningam's Gap
Like it or not, Oz Place names no longer use the possessive apostrophe (they do retain the omission apostrophe). Cant understand why you wish to remove the h to call it Cunningam's, however (Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawker Sea Fury
Re: "Citation template"

Hi Bzuk, any particular reason for removing the citation template for the reference I added to the Hawker Sea Fury page? I only just noticed. No biggie, I'm not upset or anything, just wondering. - Nick Thorne  talk  05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)"

In a few words, yes:
 * 1) Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers.
 * 2) Cite templates were intended for neophytes and newcomers (certainly not you!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
 * 3) Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
 * 4) Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
 * 5) Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
 * 6) The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.

Please contact me for more information on the @%$#*# cite templates which I tried fruitlessly years ago to have their developers revise into the more standard publishing format of the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide, most often used in the referencing of biographies, histories (aircraft profiles such as the Hawker Sea Fury) and social sciences. I established the MLA style guide for the bibliographic notations of the Hawker Sea Fury article so that further submissions would have a consistent style guide to follow. The actual cites themselves are written in Harvard Citation style of "author(s) (last name only) date (most recent publishing date), page accession format."
 * BTW, I can rewrite the cite templates into proper formatting, but it takes so much editing that it isn't worth it, so I find that writing in text is the easiest and most efficient solution: simple, identify all the key elements of the reference notation: author, title, publisher, date. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

"British" Royal Navy
The tenditious IP user is wrong to revert: "British" and "UK" have been in there for a long time now. The IP needs a consesus to remove it, not the other way around. I know you disagree with the usage, but please don't compound the problem here by supporting tenditious single-issue user. It's not appreciated in the least bit. I know I'm riskiong 3RR here, but if it'll get the page protecrted so the IP can't edit it, it's a risk I'm willing to take, since he can't be blocked because he uses dyunamic IPs. - BilCat (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment
You stated they way I feel over the whole thing. I'm now drafting up a RfC/U but this is the first RfC I've done but unsure if you've filed any in the past as I would like some help with it. Bidgee (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology
Regarding my earlier comments at the Talk page of the Bidgee RFC... Upon reflection (and some sleep), I acknowledge that I have no way of knowing the degree to which you would have objected to a section in your name in different circumstances. I have therefore withdrawn that comment. Sorry.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Macchi photo
Hi there, I've already used your fine image File:RAAF Macchi MB-326 No A7-047 1980.jpg in one RAAF article and am about to do so in another, but I was wondering if you can provide any further info such as the flying unit (e.g. 2FTS or CFS) or at least where it was taken. If so, perhaps you could add it to the Commons file image. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian. I have added some additional info to the Commons description.  Given that the photo was taken off Fremantle, it would have been operating from 2FTS at the time. -  Nick Thorne  talk  21:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing RfC
RE:Requests for comment/Bidgee, there is a proposal to close due to Bidgee's retirement. As an outside view, would you have any problem with this saga ending? I will close in about 12 hours if no objections raised. Worm <font color="#000">TT  21:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RAFS (RealAviatorsFlewStoofs)
Nick, I have a roster of over 6000 S-2 drivers including 144 RAN pilots...check our web page and contact me http://www.r-a-f-s.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.196.101 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made my stand clear.
I have no intention to "troll" anyone, have got better things to do in my life. But it's disappointing to see some Indian editors with prejudices getting into serial editing. Thank you. KevinBraun 08:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.