User talk:Prmacn

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Categories
Hi- There is no need to make a section called Categories above the Categories on each page. I see you have done this for the MIT Presidents. Please remove them. Thanks! Nationalparks 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The advantages are: 1) If you use categories a lot as I do, it gives you quick access to them from the Table of Contents. 2) You are less likely to conflict with someone editing the content of a page if you are just maintaining categories. 3) It is less content to edit so if the server fails when saving a page (which it does occasionally), there is less risk to the contents of the article. Done by Prmacn

Categories
Hello. When adding categories to an article or category, be sure to only add it to the highest level. Since Category:World War II anti-tank guns is descended from Category:World War II military equipment, you should not add the same parent category to both. Oberiko 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the future, please discuss any large military-related categorization change ideas you have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history before you implement. Oberiko 22:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And do not change people's comments or headings they add, it misrepresents the person. Oberiko 14:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism
It's not vandalism, but how best-practices for categories go. Otherwise you could place Manhatten project under Category:Sceince, Category:Technology, Category:American military equipment Category:Nuclear weapons, Category:Bombs etc. I'm sticking with convention. Oberiko 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Best practices for categories state that cannonical hiearchies should be avoided, but that the categories should form an acyclic graph. The reality is that cycles in the graph are very difficult to detect manually, and even with a computer. Niether are they generally problematic when each node has many choices. The real issue is the ideal number of choices in each category and whether they are real choices or just recursions.


 * I don't know all the problems with a Category Science and Technology of World War II yet, that was one reason for creating it. One problem is the Manhattan project is organizationally just one project of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). The OSRD was a advancement of the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC). The scientific background for applications of technology in World War II generally predated the war.


 * I am more interested in ballistics at the moment, which was part of a different division of the OSRD than was the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project has good coverage in Wikipedia and is only one application of ballistics which was used in anti-aircraft, artillary and aerial bombing. Enabling technologies for ballistics were proximity fuses, analog computers, optics, mathamatical filters, ballistic algorithms, etc.


 * Anyhow I got permission from the World War II project as you requested to put in a category of this type. They would like me to give more consideration to the name. I presume that should I create this category that you won't just rip it out again.

--Prmacn 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?
Hello, Prmacn. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You can learn more about ways you can contribute and find articles you might like to work on by going to the Community Portal. I hope you find this useful. -- SuggestBot 13:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

International Rubber Regulation Agreement
G'day Prmacn,

International Rubber Regulation Agreement is looking good already! Great work. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks fuddle; I wish I could have gotten more information. --Prmacn 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

ITS & Homeland Security
I noticed you added reference to Homeland Security in the Intelligent Transportation Systems page. This is an area of interest for me, and I was wondering if you had any further information (articles?) that expands on the creation/reliance of ITS systems for secruity purposes. Thanks! --mtz206 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can get an overview of this issue from the Intelligent Transportation Society of America web page. The Society is the non-governmental organization that represents the Federal Department of Transportation on ITS matters. The articles can be found in www.itsa.org/homeland.html, in particular you might look at:, ,.


 * This is a boon to ITS, but also people making ITS products. See: Automatic number plate recognition,, , ,.


 * --Prmacn 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --mtz206 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)