• User talk:Wwoods/archive 2004
• User talk:Wwoods/archive 2005
• User talk:Wwoods/archive 2006
• User talk:Wwoods/archive 2007

Hi. About the comment, I never implied that Major Winchester's ancestors came across the pond that recently. Also, yes, Boston Brahmin would be accurate. Thank you for the info. Also how long have you been a registered user on Wikipedia? I've only been registered for I believe a month now and I'm only learning the ropes which explains why I took this long to respond.

Hello, Wwoods/Archive 2007 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3 Clamster 00:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah. Thanks, I didn't understand it to clearly, I've self reverted my edit for you. Cheers for the info ;-) thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The reason I changed it is that (a) its namesake, Murat Reis, is multiple words and (b) the program for its decommissioning as the Razorback and recommissioning as a Turkish sub uses the multiple-word form [1]. The Arkansas Inland Maritime Museum, however, has used both Muratreis and Murat Reis (though it obviously prefers Razorback). I live in Little Rock, AR, sister city to the Razorback's current home of North Little Rock; I recall seeing it both ways when I toured the sub in 2005. -- RBBrittain 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply

There's no disputing that the namesake, Murat Reis was two words, and even DANFS gives the ship's name as Murat Reis, but the Turkish sources available to me give the ship's name as one word, and I'm inclined to think they're more authoritative on this point.

—wwoods 06:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Readded. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 19:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Wwoods, how do you do. I have added the kanji for Natsugumo, and I will proceed to add kanji for the other ships which also have missing names. There is no Natsugumo page in Wiki JPN, but instead, a general page for the Asashio class. I may translate that page later on. -- Natsugumo ( T | C) 25 January 2007

My appoligies and thank you for catching that, the only issue I saw was with references. I was pasting from my text file that I keep all my code in and didn't catch that. I have correted the issue on the talk page and I believe I made the same mistake on a few others so I'll take care if those too. Again my bad.— WilsBadKarma ^{( Talk)} 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Honestly the way I look at it is that all sources should be cited according to WP:References#How_to_cite_sources. I know thats a pain when everything is copied from DANFS but everything should be cited the same way. Sorry it took so long your message came in with another and I just happen to see it a sec ago.— WilsBadKarma ^{( Talk)} 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

the nowraps were just unnecessary, and they caused the left collums to appear much thinner on some browser windows (including mine). although i don't understand what you mean with forcing them to appear as simple alphabetical lists... these templates are simple alphabetical lists after all.... Maartentje 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

fine, whatever Maartentje 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your recent work on some of those articles. Although I did have a few questions and comments:

• Are you going to create an article on that other Slide Mountain in New York, the relatively minor one in the Adirondacks (not Big Slide, that's a High Peak)? I didn't really see the point of further disambiguating that one until and unless that article was created. But whatever ... I think, however, that it would better off following the example of North Mountain and using the range rather than the county ... seems to be what I've seen done elsewhere.

• I had long thought of creating a High Peaks navbox as you did, but decided to wait until I had created articles on at least half. But better now than never. Anyway, I had some ideas that I'm going to put in the one you created to make it better-looking than the default design (use DEC's gold-on-brown color scheme in the frame, and maybe the Rocky canister and the 3500-foot sign as images in the side pockets). Also, I thought I'd use the more commonly-used peak names (the full "Kaaterskill High Peak" and "Southwest Hunter") and maybe organize them by height from Slide to Rocky (very few people I know in the Catskills' hiking community think in terms of those geographic subdivisions, which are somewhat arbitrary), with the trailless peaks in italics. Hope you don't mind ... thanks for doing the hard work (I am not really skilled yet at template design; the ones I have created ({{ subsections}}, {{ Orange County, New York}} have just been adapted from others' designs). Think they'll work? Could even do them on the {{ High Peaks}} template. Daniel Case 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oh, also, I long ago created Slide Mountain Wilderness Area, so feel free to link to that where necessary (the inadvertent heads-up, though, has led me to create Slide Mountain Wilderness as a redirect, so thanks once again!) Daniel Case 04:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been working through the New England mountain lists, such as the New England Fifty Finest, and was looking around to other areas. I don't know much about the New York mountains, so feel free to reorganize the Catskill and {{ NY High Peaks}} templates if the layout doesn't make sense to people who do. Maybe the latter should be moved to "Adirondack High Peaks"? Until today, I didn't realize there were more "high peaks" in the state, besides the two Catskill 4000-footers. I followed peakbagger.com to break them up, copying what I'd done with the New Hampshire four-thousand footers.

Go ahead and move High Peaks to Adirondack High Peaks. I'm sure there are other regions of the country, or the world, known as the High Peaks and just because we don't have articles now doesn't mean we won't in the future.

Checking the list of names in the GNIS, I saw that there's a Slide Mountain in the Lake Placid quad which is 3500+ ft high, which seemed sufficiently notable. Checking peakbagger.com, I see it isn't very prominent, so perhaps not. For disambiguation, I've been using state, county, and topo quad if necessary. E.g. Baldy Mountain.

Actually, according to WP:MOUNTAINS (have you added yourself there?), that's the right way to do it. I just say that, I guess, because I have designs on taking Slide to featured status someday and that's an awfully long title for a mountain. But that's the rule, I guess.

Which is more correct, "XXX Wilderness" or "XXX Wilderness Area"? It seems that the latter is, but all the listings on List of U.S. Wilderness Areas are to the former.

—wwoods 10:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That list is all the federal wilderness areas, and so that's maybe the federal naming convention. But NYSDEC calls them wilderness areas in all its official documentation and on trailhead signage, so that's how it is in List of U.S. state and tribal wilderness areas. Daniel Case 16:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I found JDS in use on several US Navy sites so I assumed it was the proper prefix: RIMPAC 2006, USS Blue Ridge. FAS also confirms it. [2]- Loren 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

But globalsecurity also says, 'Until the end of World War II, Japanse warships were prefixed by HIJMS, which stands for "His Imperial Japanese Majesty's Ship".'

Wikipedia says, 'The use of ship prefixes is not universal; in particular neither the Third Reich's Kriegsmarine nor the Imperial Japanese Navy used ship prefixes. Some English-language writers use prefixes like "DKM" (for "Deutsche Kriegsmarine") and "HIJMS" (for "His Imperial Japanese Majesty's Ship") or "IJN" (for "Imperial Japanese Navy", a translation of 大日本帝国海軍 dai-nippon teikoku kaigun) for consistency with "HMS" and "USS". Other writers follow the practice of the navy and omit any prefix.'

I see that further down the page it does list

'JDS Japan Defense Ship'

I'm perfectly happy to use it — if it's correct. For one thing, it could save me a lot work, disambiguating "Japanese destroyer <Shipname>"s.

—wwoods 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I see nothing wrong with the way its used on the JSDF articles. The point is, JDS is the prefix used by JMSDF ships. Since the JMSDF wasn't around before 1945, we've only been using it on post-1945 ships. If you're working on pre-1945 stuff, then tough luck. - Loren 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The current full name of the town appears to be Verona Island. This was my mistake and I will revert my changes immediately. I was doing work cleaning up lists of Maine towns/plantations/cities and the categories and I was using the Maine.gov website as a guide, but realize now that had not caught up to the Verona Island change. Sorry. I will correct this. JackME 13:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Wwoods,

I just implemented your suggestions for all of the state template. In particular, I removed all of the {{pipe}} templates and replaced them with the {{!}} template. Also, I put in the {{nowrap|...}} template and removed the nbsp; tags. Let me know if you have other suggestions and I'll implement those too. -- CapitalR 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I reverted your changes primarily because it is against procedure to wikilink multiple occurences of the same item (say, Dave Langford); only the first appearance should be linked. I may try to clean up the format of the lead there, though. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.-- Orange Mike 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for semi-protecting the Goldberg article, there was a lot of vandalism there. I was wondering if you'd also extend the same semi-protection to the talk page where the same user has been posting homophobic slurs aimed at me. I'm not personally offended by them but I agree with the NPA policy that they have no place on wikipedia. Makgraf 06:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Pursuant to this, could you please also watchlist Lucianne Goldberg? The same vandal is persistently making the same claims about Lyndon Johnson being Jonah's father on that article as well, and the first time they did so it didn't get reverted for four days. Incidentally, the same person has also previously been involved in persistent attack edits against Canadian politicians Cheri DiNovo, Michael Prue and Frances Lankin. As DiNovo-related attack edits are still taking place, I've started blocking any involved IP number for 48 hours as soon as I see it. I'd ask you, if possible, to do the same if you come across anything. Bearcat 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Oi. Looks like that's a better format. I hope you're fixing those templates with some type of find and replace function:-)-- Fuhghettaboutit 00:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's why I even changed the single-word titles, which didn't need actually need it. I just did one find&replace-all, then fixed the first and last.

—wwoods 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

By the way, are you an admin? If not, would you like to be? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. —wwoods 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I was considering trying to become an administrator. I'm not sure if I would pass the review though. I haven't participated that much in some of the community "clean-up" activities like the AfD voting pages or the Community noticeboard and I've had a few "run-ins" with other established editors, including a couple of the more well-known administrators. If you think I could pass the admin review, however, I would accept the nomination. Cla68 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmm. I don't think the lack of community participation is a show-stopper; I don't do that much myself. I thought to ask when I saw you reverting vandalism – not for the first time – and wondered if you didn't have access to the admin tools. I don't know about your disputes with other admins, so I don't know how they'll feel... If you want to try, I'll push the button. Here's what happened to me:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wwoods

There's a standard set of questions. Don't forget to mention all those Featured Articles. :-)

—wwoods 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure. I'm ready to give it a try and see how it goes. Thank you for the support. Cla68 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

If you look at the nomination review now, I think you'll see what I mean by my "run-ins" comment. I don't think it's going to pass now. Anyway, thanks for the support and vote of confidence. Cla68 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah. And it had been going so well ... up till yesterday. Okay, better luck next time. —wwoods 07:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have a question, why do you revert say something says (12) as in episodes of a tv show, you change it to (12) (List of episodes). I have to keep changing them back, The numberlink is better than an unlinked number and next to it (List of episodes)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 53180 ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 April 2007

I don't agree that linking the number is better than having the explicit link to the list of episodes. The latter way, using the template parameter created for that purpose, is clearer, and doesn't require guessing what clicking on the number might lead to.

—wwoods 05:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. ja:広島市への原子爆弾投下 is the article of the "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima" and ja:長崎市への原子爆弾投下 is the article of the "Atomic bombings of Nagasaki" And now, they have the argument to unify these articles or not..

I noticed an old talk page question of yours and answered it: here. Hope that helps. It was in the article, but I'm dropping a note off here just in case you didn't notice. Carcharoth 10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Apparently someone added the name of the older magazine back in '05, but didn't bother to say so on the talk page.

—wwoods 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

What bothers me about the move is that "Jay Peak" is a significant enough landmark in northern Vermont that it deserves it's own article with an unambiguous name. It's been upstaged (pre-empted) by a article-grab by, essentially, a developer. Sort of like having "Yellowstone Park" taken over by Yogi Bear and "Jellystone" and therefore the real park being forced into a disambiguated article that no one expects and is forced through because of the article-grab by a commercial enterprise. Student7 03:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Mmm. My inclination is to effectively disambiguate both the mountain and the ski area. The latter is now at Jay Peak Resort, so it's not being favored over the mountain. I'm not familiar with the area, but I'm quite willing to believe that locals are generally referring to the mountain when they say "Jay Peak" — and hikers too, but skiers in the Northeast probably mean the ski area. The existing Wikipedia links to Jay Peak were split about evenly between the two. I don't see the appended "_(Vermont)" as implying any denigration; plenty of substantial mountains are similarly disambiguated, e.g. Mount Marcy (New York) and Mount Washington (New Hampshire), the highest peaks of their states.

—wwoods 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Changes look good. Thanks. Student7 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know the answer to either question! Sorry! I am as startled as you about the "indefinite boundaries." Is there difficult terrain where surveyors can't accurately lay a line? Rhetorical question. Not familiar with Cold Hollow Mtn at all. Until you mentioned it, I would have sworn it was a movie with Rene Zellweger! Student7 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice quick work there. I just went through the same thing today, changing Henrys Fork River to Henrys Fork. Pfly 07:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Moving Campbell Hill, Ohio to Campbell Hill (Logan County, Ohio) strikes me as a bit of needless disambiguation. I've reverted the move and subsequent edits, as there really is no need to disambiguate Campbell Hill from any other summit named "Campbell Hill" in Ohio. Indeed, I'm not aware of any other "Campbell Hill" in the United States or the world that would merit inclusion in Wikipedia; however, as this summit has been listed as "Campbell Hill, Ohio" here for some time, I'm assuming the benefit of doubt in allowing for other places named "Campbell Hill" outside Ohio. -- SwissCelt 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

If you check the GNIS, http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/ , you'll find there are three "Campbell Hill"s in Ohio, and 23 listed in the US (although the two in Wyoming seem to be the same one listed twice, for some reason). As for the disambiguation, <Name>, <Location> would be the name of a town, e.g. Campbell Hill, Illinois; for geographic features, it's <Name> (<Location>), with the location as specific as necessary. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Naming conventions.

—wwoods 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

As I stated, there really is no need to disambiguate Campbell Hill from any other summit named "Campbell Hill" in Ohio. Moreover, the key here is "would merit inclusion in Wikipedia". If these 22 other geologic features merit inclusion in Wikipedia, why have articles not been written on them? More to the point, why do these other features merit inclusion in Wikipedia? -- SwissCelt 11:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is a work in progress; not all articles have even been started. Who knows which of them merit inclusion? If you were starting with that list, would you have picked out this Campbell Hill as noteworthy?

—wwoods 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It's the highest point in Ohio. Of course I would. -- SwissCelt 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I meant, if you looked at the GNIS list. If you click through to the appropriate page, yes it does say that. Did you check all the others? And there are scads of reasons why a feature might be notable.

Anyway, I'm okay with putting the hill at Campbell Hill (Ohio), and making Campbell Hill a disambig page.

—wwoods 18:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. We can defer the questions of notability and disambiguation for now, and simply move the article to Campbell Hill (Ohio). I've proposed doing such at Talk:Campbell Hill, Ohio, and I'd appreciate your input. Thanks! -- SwissCelt 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment. I have tried to answer it on my talk page. I think whether I observe Newton 1 & 2 as holding in a frame depends on my relative motion to that frame - if the motion is non-uniform then the velocities of the objects in that frame will change without a force. So I think the definition Newton and 1 and 2 holding is equivalent to saying the frame is in uniform motion relative to me. I also think Newton 1 & 2 hold in all frames for someone in that frame, so the inertial/non-inertial distinction boilds down to relative motion. Is that a satisfactory answer? AnnabelBuxton 19:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for moving the page from "Campbell Hill, Ohio" to Campbell Hill (Ohio). I'm glad we could work out our differences, and I look forward to collaborating with you again. Slainte! -- SwissCelt 11:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Any edits I have made to the article have been immidiately reverted. I do not wish to impose my own views on the article. However in its current form it does not in any way reflect the complexity or interest inherent in the problem. As an example of a recent paper which relates to your question, so may interest you please see [ Moving Observers in An Isotropic Universe]. The paper itself can be downloaded [ Pdf version]. This paper differs from my own view - but illustrates the inherent and enduring interest of the problem. My major objection to the wikipedia article in its current form is it solves the paradox by mistating it. i.e. by stating a non-paradox in place of the interesting one(s). How can I go about getting the article expanded to reflect the varying points of view? I don't wan't to get involved in a reverting war. Any advice you can give me would be much appreciated AnnabelBuxton 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

A little over three weeks ago, you left a message on my talk page suggesting that Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics be modified so that the header bar is 30 pixels high, to better match the Career section. I went ahead and made the change and wanted to let you know. TomTheHand 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice! I, for one, was feeling fairly intimidated by the prospect of 1100 or so LST's, importing DANFS, sorting out who went where, etc. Rmasbury 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's a lot to do. Heck, I did most of the Fletcher class destroyers, and that was a lot. This was the first time I tried using the new ship infoboxes — seems to work well. If you want to do more LSTs, I learned from this to check http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/ for a page at the name, if there is one, as well as the number.

Any opinion on whether the correct name is Buk Han or Bukhanbong? I changed it to the former, but I know DANFS isn't infallible.

—wwoods 06:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

DANFS is quite fallible. I have a feeling that Bong in Korean means "ship" or something similar to the Japanese Maru. As Globalsecurity points out, there's a lot of maneuvering room in Korean transliteration. I had a much easier time with the Argentine ships; at least I can read Spanish and I know what a barque is.

It didn't occur to me to check both the name and number before in DANFS; thanks for clueing me in. The infobox is much nicer.

I started on LST's because my father served on the LST-1000 at Okinawa and has reached the stage in his life where he's very nostalgic for when he was 18 and chugging around the Pacific in a flat-bottomed boat. I expect this will be a very long-term project. Rmasbury 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 09:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I wish I could help you. I remember the image. I seem to remember it came from a US government website, and that I had to crop it a little because the original had all the "extra" stuff from the outside of the negative still on it. That makes me think I found it at the Library of Congress, because I've had that problem with most of the images I've pulled from there, but I can't find it anymore. Sorry. Gentgeen 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed this edit and wanted to ask about it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) states:

Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

I think that section of the MoS should apply to infobox section headings as well, so I think the C in "Characteristics" should be lower case, per the MoS. What do you think? TomTheHand 18:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm happy with that rule in section headings, but I just think the table looks better with both words capitalized. However, if you disagree, I suppose I'll get used to it.

—wwoods 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Eh... I honestly don't know. I have Template:Infobox Ship Characteristics using a lower case C because of the MoS, but I don't know if I really agree with the MoS. TomTheHand 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi -- That's a really interesting question you've put there. I suspect, by looking at the arrangement of the peaks, that they probably are referred to by some people as Vermont's own "Presidential Range". I would feel safe in saying that four of the peaks are named for presidents; for the fifth (Lincoln), I'd want to see a citation that it was named for Abraham Lincoln and not Lincoln in England, the way Mount Lincoln in New Hampshire is. (Weighing in favor of the presidential connection is the fact that there's a Mount Abraham just south of Lincoln; weighing against it is that the peak is in the town of Lincoln, Vermont, which has a good chance of being named for the area in England.) Why not throw in a request for a citation on the Presidential Range article and see what the Vermonters can come up with? Perhaps the Green Mountain Club would have some literature on it? -- Ken Gallager 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Tnx. Responded at Talk:Presidential Range (Green Mountains).
-- Jerzy• t 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the restoration of HMS Thunder Child's box. Please consider restoring the box in Fall of London (War of the Worlds) for the same reason. A Man In Black ( t  c) has already violated WP:3RR, deleting my additions, but I'm refraining from blocking him and (no doubt vainly) hoping to avoid an edit war. ➥the Epopt 05:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I saw that one too, and quite a few other pages he'd edited. I raised the question on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes, in hopes of getting some consensus that there is in fact no policy that "has counseled the removal of such infoboxes since last July".

—wwoods 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

As I now realize, I suppose I could've clicked undo on the history entry that changed the captain's name. Is that an acceptable thing to do? And are drive-by vandals a significant problem? I need to get busy and read all the articles about Wikidom that you so kindly listed for me.

I'm excited about the resources here concerning U.S. submarines in WW2 but I'm also quickly realizing that the quality of the articles in some instances is a little weak. So, an opportunity to shine by correcting and improving the articles, right? I have joined Wikiproject Ships (thanks for the pointer).

And thanks for taking the time to say hello.

-- JM8Austin 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• "Undo". That's one way; it wouldn't have quite sufficed in this case, since the name had a typo in it: William H.Brockman, Jr., rather than William H. Brockman, Jr..

• Vandalism is a chronic problem, though it varies tremendously in seriousness. The usual sort doesn't last long, but this was sneaky — just changing a name. I guess you're the first person who knew the right name to look at that article in several months.

• "An opportunity to shine". Right! It might be worthwhile taking a run through the subs with names beginning with "B". That section of DANFS had a lot of weak articles until a couple of years ago, and some of our older articles may not have been updated yet.

—wwoods 07:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you think enough time has passed that it would be okay for me to give an RfA another shot? Cla68 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mm, four months; worth a try. You've got my support. What would help more, of course, would be the support — or at least neutrality — of a couple of the people who opposed you the last time. Maybe run your candidacy by them? At worst, you'll know where they stand.

—wwoods 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Good idea. I'll do that. Cla68 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It has been suggested that I wait awhile longer so that's what I'm going to do. Thank you for your support. Cla68 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

Sorry about that -- I must've been looking at the wrong revision when I changed "early 2000's" to "between 2000 and 2005". Some anonymous user kept changing the dates to "between 2004 and 2005", which is more specific than what we know from the book.

Also, I agree that James could probably be called James Potter II; in fact, I said so on the discussion page. I've never edited that one way or another. When you edit just James' section (as opposed to editing the whole page), the Edit Summary field defaults to contain that comment that someone put at the beginning of the section. So that may be why you thought that.

The only problem I see with referring to him as James Potter II is that there might have been more James'es earlier in the line, so Harry's son might be James III, IV, or whatever. But I'd just as soon assume that we can use II unless we hear otherwise. Not a big deal to me, though, so I'm not getting involved in that one.

Seansinc 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cassini_Interplanet_traject.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Why have you removed Einstein's quote from the Herbert Dingle page? --- Swanzsteve 07:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Because it's simply not true that, "[t]here is no resolution of the twin paradox within special relativity." The resolution is straightforward, and has been understood for a long time, if perhaps not by Einstein back in the early days. And it's misleading to claim that "Einstein conceded Dingle's point in 1918"; Einstein wasn't responding to an argument Dingle made in the 1960s.

—wwoods 13:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I found the article Hibakusha in the need to be Wikify bin and just fixed up the article enough to get it out of there and removed the tag. Any information I added I got from the referenced citations with I see I added (from your diff). Other than that, I am no expert on the subject and I don't know the Japanese language so I am not much good at helping you out with your question. You are probably right, as I just don't know. Regards, Mattisse 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I want to know that i was some sort of pride to categorize your images on commons :). Yours images from navt.mil has a good names and link to source - it`s a great thing. Also yours Fletcher`s are nice job :). For me is much bigger work because i must translate text like that - but you are doing great job. :)

PS. I was moved images of all american battleships and submarines from en wiki to commons (on free licence). Now i am thinking about destroyers - so watch to your watchlist some day :) Pmgpmg 21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

What do you think about trying to get this up to featured article status? Maybe with some help from the other wp:milhist folks? Raul654 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I dunno. As you see, I've finally gotten around to citing the quotes, but not much has changed since ... two years ago (!) ... FAC/Surrender of Japan. Maybe try going one step up to Good Article, and see what happens?

—wwoods 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed you semi-protected Theory of relativity to stop or slow down linkspammer Cauiszip.

I just left a message at Vsmith's talk page with a list of all the spammed articles: Theory of relativity‎, Agatha Christie‎, Charlie Chaplin‎, Pablo Picasso‎, Cubism, Principle of relativity‎, Mass–energy equivalence‎, General relativity‎, Albert Einstein‎, Mathematics of general relativity‎, Special relativity‎, The Einstein Theory of Relativity‎, Principle of relativity‎, History of gravitational theory‎, Annus Mirabilis Papers‎.

I guess that semi-protecting all these articles in not really an option? :-) What about blacklisting? Cheers, DVdm 08:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

(Cross posted to User talk:Grant65 and User talk:Wwoods)

Can you verify this? I don't have that reference handy, but I am suspicious of that claim. Raul654 22:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Moved from my talk page:

Hi. You've been converting ranges like

5,500 nautical miles at 15 kt

to

5,500 nautical miles (10,190 km) at 15 knots (28 km/h)

when the metric conversion is already on the next line:

(10,000 km at 30 km/h)

—wwoods 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for spotting this. I usually catch this. Sorry for missing it. Can you give an example and I will look into it a bit more. I appreciate it. Lightmouse 15:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's a couple: USS Bryant (DD-665) and USS Porterfield (DD-682).

I personally think that, in the infobox, "General Characteristics" looks better than "General characteristics", but that's another subject.

—wwoods 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the examples. I will keep a closer watch for those in future.

With "General c/C haracteristics", both forms are used on Wikipedia. I was merely trying to make articles consistent by choosing one form. The format "General characteristics" is compliant with guidance in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) and I happen to prefer that form. However, guidance can always be changed. If you would like to propose alternative guidance, I would be interested in watching the debate. Thanks again for the useful feedback. Lightmouse 09:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Ahoy. This video of U.S. wartime news flicks features a film of the holy-crap variety about the bombing of the USS Franklin, from 2:35 onwards. The talk page was far too inactive to make a question and expect a reply in reasonable time, but since you probably know more about this matter than me, i.e. anything, is there any particular reason not to add a link to the article?

YouTube videos are disliked because of their tendency to have copyright issues. Note, though, that the article is illustrated with stills of the same events, which are template'd as public domain for being taken by a U.S. Navy employee during his duties, which would also be the case with this footage. -- Kizor 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know offhand, so I passed your question over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Interesting film!

—wwoods 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Neat. Thank you, I'll make sure to use that avenue for any such questions in the future. -- Kizor 13:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

On the talk page of this blank page, I have carefully cribbed the only mention of this ship from TR's book. It seems to then disappear until Fulton 2 rises full-grown. A bit of a mystery. Paul, in Saudi 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Why are you going in and changing coor to coord. I've started a discussion on an issue related to this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. Currently only Coor is being scraped by Google Earth. hjuk 08:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi W, just noticed your last revert and your semi-protecting the article. Do you think that Dr. Seaweed, Brigadier Armstrong, Nurse_Hilditch are really newbies? Looking at their contribs I strongly get the impression that they are sockpuppets, perhaps of yet another Dingle "contributor"? Can this somehow be investigated? Cheers - DVdm 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

See also this inviting message from "newbie" 61.7.166.72 - DVdm 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I suspect you're right; certainly they made a bee-line for Dingle. I just wanted a word less provocative than "vandal" for the edit summary. What is it about Dingle that brings out these repeated outbreaks — is it the wrong phase of the Moon or something?

I believe there are ways to check editor's IP addresses, but I don't know how.

—wwoods 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

See noticeboard. Perhaps you could add some remarks there? Cheers - DVdm 18:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Wwoods, I was very sorry to see that you chose once again to back up DVdm. I'd be most grateful if would would kindly explain exactly what was wrong with the version as it existed before you reverted in DVdm's favour.

Can you point to a single factual inaccuracy? Was there any incoherence? The article was segragated into two parts. There was a biographical introduction, followed by a section on the reasons why the man is famous.

Can't you see what is going on here? Dingle is famous because he challenged Einstein. DVdm is uncomfortable with this fact and wants it drowned out. Hence he wants to beef the article up with biographical details and to make sure that it contains a comment to the extent that Dingle was wrong. DVdm is clearly a single purpose user. You can see that most of his entries are to do with Special relativity. He is clearly pushing a POV and you are supporting him.

The article which you reverted was very well written and contained absolutely no comments about whether Dingle was right or wrong. It outlined the history of the controversy and you have just deleted all that to pander to DVdm's POV.

I intend to take this matter higher because we cannot have a situation in which DVdm continues to vandalize this article and then go running to you to get the article frozen his way. ( Brigadier Armstrong 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) reply

• Talk:Herbert Dingle#Why the Currently Protected Article is Bad explains better than I could why the current version of the article is, well, bad.
• I agree that Dingle's dispute about relativity is what makes him noteworthy, although to say he was "famous" is pushing it. He's got one fan in Thailand, but I wonder how many people have even heard of him.
• Biographical details are a good thing in a biographical article.
• Dingle was wrong, and the article should say so.
• DVdm does specialize in relativity articles, but someone with your record has no basis for complaining about that. Why don't you try working on " Military History. Wargaming and model aircraft" for a while?

—wwoods 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You state that Dingle was wrong. That is your own opinion. The section Talk:Herbert Dingle#Why the Currently Protected Article is Bad does not explain why the article is bad. Those arguments are specious and merely push Denveron's own POV which is obviously your own POV too.

By the way, I don't object to a biographical section. I think we are all agreed on that. But there would be elements that would only want a biographical section. I think that we're also agreed that the only reason why Dingle is known 'in physics circles' is because of his dispute with relativity. I agree that the term famous is pushing it, but that of course depends on the context of the sentence eg. 'he is most famous for his - - - - '. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is actually very famous.

I would suspect that you, just like DVdm and Denveron have got some undisclosed motive for why you wish to dilute the existence of the Dingle controversy and to point the finger of error at him.

I personally don't take much interest in the clock paradox but I do believe that Einstein was wrong for that very reason, amongst other reasons. I was requested to help out on this article by somebody else. I do know about the Dingle controversy and I could see immediately that elements such as DVdm were hovering over this article jealously with the intent of undermining Dingle's position in this interesting little historical dispute.

If there was no truth in Dingle's argument, I doubt if people like DVdm and others would be bothering too much about it. ( Brigadier Armstrong 08:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)) reply

Just noticed Mark 14 torpedo. Only 1 gripe, really: it should be Mark XIV, per standard nomenclature at the time... Trekphiler 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, fine; let's move it (again). —wwoods 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

re: good job, but what in WP:NOVELS guidelines makes you think the tablized titles will stand up? Better to add to a talk sub-page/outline, where we can all pitch in with information. Glad to see you're still interested in the series. I've been starting to put together a character list article matching the three books with characters lists syntax, that is section headings by Surname, first middle, titles and so forth, as Virginia DeMarce is rather firm on such (I gather from an email from Rick Boatright, which was not all that nice! <g>). Also, trying to take one short story a day and add synopses and characters, but sadly missing as much time to work as I'd like. Give a review of Assiti Shards effect (rewrite per talk page comments).

Taking a long hard look in 1632 series and especially the templates cat should raise some interest in you. The Cites templates need some (easyish) changes to make most useful, as {{ Cite GG03}} and {{ Cite 1632}}, and most will currently not show the note as need to take out the <ref> blocks as until (maybe) version release 1.4 such will not be handled by the preprocessor per traffic at Bugzilla. ttfn // Fra nkB 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In new ADK articles, please avoid disambiguations by wikilinking to Ausable River (New York). Thanks  :-) Gjs238 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oops; my bad. —wwoods 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for protecting Paul Revere! It was badly needed. There are 3 or 4 other articles that suffer similar depredations. I requested semi-protection for some of them (via the RFP channel) a while ago and was given two weeks' worth. While that provided a welcome respite, the problem came back almost immediately after protection expired. Obviously some longer term (or permanent) semi-protection would be beneficial. Keeping these pages clean can waste as much as an hour a day of volunteered editing time that could be put to better use, and it gets tiring and tiresome admonishing and cleaning up after the 10-12 year-olds. Could I ask you to look at the histories of a few other regularly-vandalized pages and, if you decide it is appropriate, protect them too? Thank you in advance. These are my candidates: April Morning, Battle of Bunker Hill, Battles of Lexington and Concord, Patriot (American Revolution). Hertz1888 ( talk) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

What a blessed relief. Thank you again for your help. I hope the situation never reverts to what it was. Very best, Hertz1888 ( talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I appeal to you once again for relief on behalf of myself and fellow editors. Two additional articles, American Revolution and American Revolutionary War, are being heavily hit by IP vandals, and the frequency of attacks seems only to be increasing. Keeping up with the volume is proving very difficult, and is time-consuming. Constructive edits are very rare. Perpetual semi-protection would be a wonderful thing. Thanks again for your help. Hertz1888 ( talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I've noticed an inconsistency between DANFS and my two print sources (Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines Through 1945 and K. Jack Bauer's Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy). For USS Redfin (SS-272), DANFS gives the date laid down as 16 February 1942, while my sources both give 3 September 1942, which seems more likely given the launch date of 4 April 1943 (which all sources agree on).

I only see a mailing address on the DANFS web site, but I seem to remember you e-mailing them in the past. Would you use your e-mail contact and notify them about this? TomTheHand 19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Odd. The old DANFS page had an email address on it: shiphistory@navy.mil. I haven't summited any corrections recently, but give it a try. If it bounces back, I've got a personal eddress I could try.

Navsource.org also says "Laid down, 3 September 1942, at Manitowoc Shipbuilding Co."

—wwoods ( talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Do you usually identify yourself as an editor on Wikipedia, or keep it to bare facts? TomTheHand ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I probably did the first couple of times, but generally I just give the name of the ship, the URL of the DANFS page, a quote of what it says, and whatever I think is wrong. With URLs for online sources, but I suppose they've got copies of Friedman and Bauer within reach. Sometimes I've gotten an email response, but usually not.

—wwoods ( talk) 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Wwoods, I see you've shown some interest in the A Canticle for Leibowitz article in the past. I'm interested in bringing it to GA status soon and am soliciting your help. A number of revisions have been made in the past few weeks to position it for a successful nomination process. Would you mind reviewing the article and make suggestions/changes to assist in the process? Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed you going through the infobox I recently update, looks good but why are you using the special format "x" symbol instead of a regular lower case "x"? I through Military History group abandoned that in nomeclature? Thanks! Koalorka ( talk) 01:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh? I hadn't heard that in WikiProject Ships. C.f. HMS Royal Oak (08) and Iowa class battleship.

—wwoods ( talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Doesn't look like it's been brought up here yet, and changing it all is a daunting task. I don't want to stir the pot without even consensus, but I will bring it up on the project page. We just got rid of those annoying little symbols on Wiki Firearms and Armored Vehicles. But any other edits I make will not require clean-up, I'll use the symbol. One more question through, why do you guys link off the various dates in the infobox? It seems, hmmm irelevant, since rarely does it have anything to do with maritime issues. Thanks. Koalorka ( talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

"'Cause we've always done it this way!", I guess. :-) It does allow people to have dates appear in the form they've set their preferences to.

—wwoods ( talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

10-4 on that. If it's an accepted standard, I'll respect it. Koalorka ( talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, User:Ken Gallager has suggested that I ask you to contribute to the discussion RE: deletion of List of mountains in New Hampshire. Care to?-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 14:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, yes, the wind farm issue. It has brought the mountain into the public spotlight in a way that touches on a number of currently noteworthy political and environmental issues. That (in my opinion) seems to make it a higher priority. I've been doing a lot of work on a variety of mountains and hiking trails in New England, so I can't promise that I'm going to significanlty edit or footnote this particular article anytime soon, but I'll make sure to at least note the significance of the Wind Farm in the article today.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 16:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply