User talk:Kablammo/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kablammo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Pardon the pun. :) I had to check to make sure I wasn't the one who wrote the City of Everett 'floundered' in the first place. That would have been very embarrassing to me. Anyways, nice catch on the flounder. lol Eaglizard (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I already knew it was an IP, and not you! Thanks for the note-- glad to know it wasn't fan mail from a flounder. Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to give you a heads-up as my response got stepped on by MisaBot. The template is at {{displacement}}. Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I've posted a short comment there. I personally would limit the dp figure to long or metric tons, whichever is officially used by the navy in question. With a link to the relevant article (long ton or metric ton) there would be no cause for confusion, and, given that, there would be no need for a conversion to short tons. There do not seem to be any official uses for a short tonnage figure-- I would be interested to hear if there are. Others however may feel that the conversion to short tons is appropriate. (And what's a cheesehead doing on the bounding main?) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very nice article, and I am certainly interested in it (my grandfather was in the Newfoundland Royal Naval Reserve and would have trained on board HMS Calypso). The only image I have related to Calypso is from a plaque displayed at Signal Hill which shows a gun from the ship which was used as the noon day gun in the 1930's. It is identified as a Hotchkiss gun. It looks very similar to a QF 3 pounder Hotchkiss. The plaque is on public display outside in Canada and should be free of any copyright issues if you feel it would be of any interest. Silverchemist (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Crossroads#Arkansas_upending.3F HowardMorland (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support over at the Virginia FAC! I'm glad you think that about the article. The demographics table is an odd one however. It's a template the only works on the specific state article, and breaks if you move it to, say Demographics of Virginia. I agree, I'm not sure we need it there, but it does keep some consistency between the states. We could also look into updating it with 2006 numbers, or we could wait for next year's census. Perhaps then we'll get a simpler one that could be more use on this page, so I'm just not sure what to do about it, which is how its survived on this page for years now. Anyway, that's way too much info, so thanks again! Let me know if there's ever an FAC you'd like me to look at.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 02:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know I could do that. Well, I've spent way too long on this, but I fixed up brand new tables for race and ancestry. Thanks for your suggestion, and for saying that the article should get past FAC this week!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

... I never left, just went into silent mode. :) -Ravedave (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kablammo. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions to these articles. I was going to ask you to "fill in the blanks" on the armament, but you are already doing so. The articles are not finished yet, but your efforts are helping move them to that stage. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - please don't think I'm following you or checking up on what you're doing, nothing as organised as that... I tend to bounce around a whole load of articles like a flea... basically anything to do with British ordnance 1859 - 1918 is likely to attract me. Regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all-- I appreciate the help. Kablammo (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the last image on this page be an interesting addition? I have asked Stifle if he thinks it is PD. Kablammo (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think realistically any photo taken by a private British or Government photographer taken in 1891 can be considered to be out of copyright. The only exception would be a private photograph taken by a photographer who died after 1955 (unlike but technically possible), in which case the term of copyright is death date + 70 years. I think we can assume that a photograph of a British military disaster is an official British government photograph (i.e. Crown Copyright : = 50 years), as I don't think private photographers would have been allowed near it. And a photograph taken by a serving British serviceman would be a government photograph (i.e. Crown Copyright). So - definitely now PD. However, without details of the source or origin of the photograph I don't know whether it it is really usable.Your decision. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that superb information! Not only does it help with the main battlecruiser page, but is also enables me to finish off the changes to the Haruna's page that were preventing me from going for an FAC with that page. I'd love all the information you can give me, especially on the steel composition of the armour. That's the information that I haven't found anywhere (ie Vickers Hardened, etc). Cam ^(Chat) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at this and this source on composition, and search for Kongo. If you Google the author's name you will find a lot of information and also his qualifications. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey friend, long time since we talked. I need your advice, since you're a more experienced Wikipedian than I am. I'm having trouble with cheeseheads repeatedly editing the Eric Decker page to include an editorial comment about Decker punching a Wisconsin football player in the gonads. True or not, I don't think it's appropriate for the article. However, I don't want to be guilty of engaging in a petty edit war. What do I do? Involve an admin? Brain Rodeo (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kablammo. Thank you for your interest in my pictures of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, I have none of the HMS Calypso, and my potential return to that place can only be in many years from now. However, I invite you to follow my page on Wikimedia Commons, where I will be publishing many more photos of that beautiful Canadian Province in the near future. Tango7174 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi K, I can only go by what the source says. The book describes her as a "passenger cruiser". As she was used between NY and the Caribbean I'd say that cruise liner is a more accurate description than "ocean liner". Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it was used in the Caribbean; Bermuda is quite a way north of there, in the Atlantic. It looks like she was a passenger, cargo, and mail vessel, with high standards of accommodation, but used primarily for transportation rather than pleasure cruises. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I'm afraid I won't have the time in the next few weeks. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Source definitely states it is draught. Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MJR-- look at the term in Lloyd's, and the French article on the term. And a 46' draught would be remarkable for any vessel of the time. Kablammo (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Other Lloyds register entries have an English heading, they all say draught. Either that or I've made a huge error all over the place! :-/ Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh Flip! It is depth! Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when that happens! A lot of the secondary sources confuse it as well. Whenever I see a large draught value for a medium-tonnage ship I get suspicious, as even the Queens and contemporary battleships had shallower draughts. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just sorting out my articles sub-page. At least from that I'll know which articles to look at. Good job I created it, isn't it? Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're just too productive! And thanks for getting right on the fixes, and for a series of good articles on a long-neglected aspect of the subject of ships. Kablammo (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been through them, might've missed the odd one though. Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2009

Hi Kablammo, Thanks for the tip, but that is more info than I can deal with. That's why I generally leave the info boxes to others, except for the type and number of guns, which I do pretty much understand. :-) That's what's so cool about Wikipedia - articles keep improving through the aggregation of differing expertise. Mine is that I am pretty good at reading and transcribing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kablammo, I was just reading the great Yeats article. Congrats on that work. Wanted to mention that the article on John Keats is in a bad way (especially the absent poetry analysis section) - embarrassing for one of the world's most famous poets. If you're moved at any point, we could certainly use some help. Onwards and upwards! Best wishes. Spanglej (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ceoil is the one to talk to. I had almost no edits on Yeats (but I agree it is an excellent article). Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

At long last, I believe I have addressed your comprehensiveness concerns [1]; if you log on again soon, could you check back in? Many thanks, as you were completely right in saying the article needed a little bit on that topic. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You made my wife's day with your comment. :-)

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the issue that remains with the Little Crow image is that the "source" is still unclear ("source" being different from "author"). In general the thinking is that whoever the picture was taken from should be credited directly (i.e. whichever book or website it was copied from). I believe that this technically warrants deletion but I'm not sure (I certainly won't recommend doing so but somebody else might). The best thing would be for somebody to simply upload a new copy of the image and provide the information about where they uploaded from. Then there is no question at all.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be directly sourced. I will try to upload new images later on this week. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)