User talk:Dual Freq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 - Archived May 15, 2006
Archive 2 - Archived October 28, 2006
The Original Barnstar
I'd like to present you with this Barnstar for stepping up to the plate and creating all of the missing US Navy Jacks! You started within two hours of my request on WP:SHIPS and filled in every gap. It was greatly appreciated. TomTheHand 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


The Editor's Barnstar
For cleaning up the citation mess I created on the page USS Wisconsin (BB-64) I hearby award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Feel free to add new comments below.

[edit] Refs

I was going to question your recent edit to move the reference after the period. But I find I've been doing it wrong all along. :( It took me a lot of digging to confirm though. It should be on WP:CITE, but is only on sub articles. I've requested the rule be added to WP:CITE. And you could use WP:CITE instead of MOS when you next clean up after me. ;) I'm guessing it's going to take me a while to finish cleaning up after myself. --J Clear 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags which is part of WP:MOS, I didn't want to dig for the ref, but I didn't think it would be contested. Sometimes it's hard to find those things, I was bit by it before so I remember the guideline, but not where its from. --Dual Freq 18:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's one of the sub articles I vaugely referred to. And you do have to dig for it. I didn't intend to gig you for not looking it up before ... well at least not much. ;) Nice to know I wasn't the only one. --J Clear 18:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Rush Limbaugh#A case for semi-protection

I would recommend you take your argument to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection so that an administrator who has not been involved in the Fox-Limbaugh dispute that prompted much of the vandalism can make the needed judgment call. Copying the list of anon edit links from your argument to the request should be enough to justify semi-protection for a week or two. --Allen3 talk 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd bring it up there first to see if there were some other opinions. --Dual Freq 00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter

Thanks for the info about 3RR. I will respect that and refrain from reverting more than two times in a 24-hour period. Ward3001 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image help at Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin

Thanks a bundle. That's been bugging me for weeks. Tomertalk 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. You could try using Template:Infobox City like on Madison, Wisconsin, might be a bit easier to edit than that table. --Dual Freq 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support and the kind words. We haven't crossed paths much since the lighthouse days, but I do see your signature around. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you were up for admin, good luck with it. It looks like a difficult and largely thankless job. --Dual Freq 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leukemia Cure a thon

Sorry. Not quite sure how I managed to revert your recent edit. Apologies. Thanks for correcting it. Caper13 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I figured it was accidental. --Dual Freq 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illinois 11th congressional district election, 2006

Thank you for your edit to this page. The paragraph you edited was copied directly from United States House elections, 2006; you might want to edit it there as well. John Broughton | Talk 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they want in those two pages, but it certainly was not NPOV in its original form. It looked like a list of reasons to vote for Pavich, not an article describing the congressional race. It certainly could use more work, but I wouldn't know where to start. --Dual Freq 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The article on the 11th congressional district is very raw - per the template on the talk page and the italicized comment in the article, it's due for extensive work, hopefully in the near future, and my intent is to provide a lot of help/guidance to those editing this and similar pages. So my note to you was just to let you know that if you didn't like the lead paragraph in that article, which I copied from another article (and you then edited), you probably would want to visit that other page as well. Sorry if that wasn't clear. John Broughton | Talk 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limbaugh TV appearances

Take a look at what I did with this section earlier today before Eleesomerary apparently reverted it. I removed all the irrelevant (and of questionable accuracy) detail and summarized it to a list. Also removed the reference to a Saturday night live skit who's only connection to Limbaugh is about 4 seconds of him taking drugs. If you want to not even include Letterman in the list of appearances, I am willing to be convinced of the idea, though I don't see the harm in listing it as long as it doesn't turn into a paragraph about the appearance (because it is'tt important enough to warrant a descriptive paragraph). What do you think. I'd like to tighten up this area and remove the attacks and puffery from it. Caper13 05:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [1]

I saw the list, although I agree in principle with the notability issue, I'm not sure about making lists in articles. I'm afraid if the article has a list it will encourage editors to add every single insignificant pop-culture reference or show that Limbaugh has been parodied on. I've seen articles with huge lists of pop-culture refs and they just seem to get longer and longer and no one wants to remove individual items. I think prose is better in this situation, but only notable items should be included. As far as notable TV, The WKRP thing might deserve mention along with the shows he actually was guest starred on like Hearts Afire, and The Drew Carey Show. The guest hosting gig for Pat Sajak's show is probably notable, but maybe not the incident in the article. The rest aren't very notable, who hasn't been parodied on the Simpsons or SNL. --Dual Freq 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thats a valid point, especially for something that could be completely excised from the article without really affecting anything. I deleted the reference to SNL in the new version as he is not the subject of the skit and is only present for a few seconds.Caper13 04:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk- page signatures

Should you ever again come across a talk-page entry of mine that I've overlooked signing, I'd much rather that you just notified me of it, so that I can take care of it myself. (Chances are that I'll notice my own omission before too long, anyhow.) Thanks. Lonewolf BC 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, everybody forgets a signature every now and then, I was just clarifying the talk page. I did think it was ironic that you signed for someone else but didn't sign for yourself in that edit. [2] That's what Template:Unsigned2 is for, it's not an insult, just a signature. --Dual Freq 11:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Yes, that was a bit ironic. I guess it was the distraction of messing around with that that caused me to forget my own signing. However, maybe it's just me, but I find that the use of that template carries a slight implication that someone was trying (most ineffectively) to hide their identity -- well, their WP identity, that is. I don't suppose that you meant it so, but that is part of the reason I'd prefer to sign for myself, should a like circumstance happen again. Anyhow, 'nuff said. -- Lonewolf BC 04:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)  ;-)

[edit] WAAS cleanup in progress

I've been working on a pretty significant cleanup of WAAS in my personal sandbox. Would you mind taking a look and telling me what you think? User:Davandron/WAAS

It's at the 90% complete point; I haven't tried to tackle the history section and I have some references to add. I'm also on the fence regarding the accuracy comparison info belonging or not belonging.

Comments can go on my talk page, the sandbox's discussion, or here (I'll watch all three). Thanks! Davandron | Talk 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illinois universities

Thanks for the polite edit summary. [3] My main point was/is that the Illinois article doesn't need to be a list article for universities as it was in the past. It already points to the main list and in the past 6 months or year anons routinely add / subtract their favorite / least favorite school from the deliberately short list. I was simply restoring the article to the balance that it had prior to some anon swapping in SIU. Illinois is a 45k article that is already list heavy. --Dual Freq 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Feel free to trim things down. I was merely correcting a factual error, but then I went a bit further, attempting (perhaps unnecessarily) to clarify things. Unschool 08:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

The Editor's Barnstar
For cleaning up the citation mess I created on the page USS Wisconsin (BB-64) I hearby award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cite references backlinks

I added the e's through the h's to the Mediawiki namespace file. Gentgeen 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dual Freq 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IIH

Nope, I don't mind, I did intentionally make it different because I thought that the PNG version was slightly "bulky" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knox-class frigates

I see that you have been working on some of the Knox-class frigates. I have also been making these pages somewhat of a project lately, since most of them are stubs, as you know. One thing I have been doing is searching USN archives for more pictures. I have a few yet to post and I would like to find pictures for all of them if they exist. Just this morning I discovered the (somewhat small) group of pictures on Commons, including the one that you discovered that I had duplicated: Image:Knox FFs x 4.jpg. One thing we need to do is to eventually put {{infobox ship}} on all of these pages. Is there any particular area that you are working on? I don’t want to duplicate efforts with you. •DanMS 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ has a bunch of images, I normally upload the full / highest resolution image they have. I created commons:Category:Knox class frigates and uploaded a bunch of the images listed there, I'm not saying they are perfect, but I think they are good examples of captions for DOD images. As for the recent edits, sometimes I go through the pages linked to Image:IIH.png or the newer Image:Insert image here.svg and replace that image with an image of the ship. I could probably help with those sometime, I guess I'd put links to appropriate http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/index.htm and http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/ pages. Do you have an example infobox with the typical Knox class characteristics, weapons, sensors etc? I suppose there are some minor variations, but it would be nice to get one master one to copy from then fill in the correct dates from NVR. Should be able to put those in fairly quickly one you have a good one to copy. --Dual Freq 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see an example infobox, so I tried to make one at USS Reasoner (FF-1063). I'll have an image there shortly. --Dual Freq 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope we are not working at cross-purposes! I just posted an infobox at USS Roark (FF-1053). I filled it out as much as I could for now, subject to verification. •DanMS 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The sensors and armament may be problematic. The AN/SPS-10 was replaced by the AN/SPS-67 in the 1980s, unfortunately it will be impossible to tell which had what radar, since it sounds like initially the -67 used the old -10 antenna.[4] I assume all were upgraded prior to decommissioning, but saying "all" is a pretty broad brush to paint with. Lots of other little variations, too. 1052-1083 had BPDMS, the rest did not. Some had CIWS, I thought they all received CIWS, but this image of Knox's decommissioning shows the BPDMS still installed, no CIWS. 37 of them had variable depth sonar, the rest may have had towed array sonar instead. I guess I'm partial to the one that I made, but yours has more detailed propulsion, displacement and length. I guess the rest is just a question of using feet or ' and spelling out one or 1x and inclusion of MK designations for launchers. I do recommend wikilinking the weapons that have articles. Also the date in the flag template is the decommissioning year. --Dual Freq 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to collaborate on this, why don’t I take the low numbers (1052–1074) and you take the high numbers (1075–1097) so that we don’t work against each other. You can fill in any extra info that you find later. It sounds like you know of more sources than I know right now. I just now completed USS Knox (FF-1052). Also, I didn’t understand the comment about the flag year. •DanMS 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see in the picture of Reasoner that the BPDMS/Sea Sparrow launcher was replaced with CIWS. It may be that in some cases we will have to use the latest pictures to see if the CIWS was installed. •DanMS 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can do the high ones. I plan on assuming most details are the same and changing just the dates, pic and builder. The weapon system thing can be corrected later if there is an oddball out there. --Dual Freq 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

I have not done anything with Commons besides use the images there. How does it work? Does one create an account and log in just the same as Wikipedia? Do I use the same account name? Do you recommend uploading images to Commons rather than to Wikipedia? •DanMS 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons is where all public domain images are preferred to be uploaded. If you upload them here, someone else will eventually copy them over. That's why I upload them to commons, so someone else won't have to move them later. Uploading them to commons allows other projects to use the same file, like French, German or any other language version of Wikipedia. You have to create a commons account, I just used the same name that I used here. Passwords don't have to match each other either. The big problem with commons is image name, you have to use a name that is not used on wikipedia or you won't be able to see the commons image. It's only happened to me once, so if there is no image of a Frigate here, your pretty much safe to use what ever name you want. --Dual Freq 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knox Again

It looks like you are making good progress with the infoboxes for the Knox frigates. If you want to do the rest of them that I was going to do, go ahead. Although I would get to them eventually, I have some other pages that I am working on at the moment, so go ahead and finish the frigates if you like. •DanMS 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It'll probably take the rest of the week since I'll be slowing down once the work week begins. I'll continue down the list and do as many as I have time for. The CIWS / BPDMS issue is pretty easy to figure out, but the variable depth sonar will be harder to find out. I'll have to go through them at a later date if I can find out which ships had tower array and which had VDS. There are still plenty to do, I don't want to take away a project of yours. --Dual Freq 21:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I do not feel a proprietary interest in the Knox pages. It was just something I saw that needed to be done. If I get the time, I will start from the bottom (1052) and work upwards until I get to where you left off, if you have not finished by then. •DanMS 00:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All now have images. Infoboxes and external links next up. --Dual Freq 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like all the infoboxes are fairly standardized now, there is still the matter of the Variable depth sonar to sort out. I'm going to have to do some reading to see which had it and which didn't. Navsource says AN/SQS-35 IVDS in FF-1052, 1056, 1063-1071, 1073-1076, 1078-1097, but I should probably confirm it. Also some are missing mottos yet, any idea where to find the rest? --Dual Freq 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright violation at David George Ouellet

David George Ouellet may be a copyright violation. See Talk:David George Ouellet. -Will Pittenger 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PD-USGov-Navy --Dual Freq 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't aware of the source. You might use Ref tags in addition to those templates. That way we know what comes from where. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illinois and Kentucky

Please do not remove content without stating a reason. It tends to look like vandalism. EASports 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of WP:Trivia from those pages. If you would like to add something real there, feel free, but removal of trivia about a cartoon is not vandalism. It's not "content" and I fully intend to remove it again. --Dual Freq 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:NGE Illinois and Kentucky.jpg The names appeared on screen in one episode. It's hardly unsourced. EASports 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you forgot to add your fancruft to Soviet battlecruiser Kirov. --Dual Freq 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The name Kirov appears onscreen but the ship is not otherwise involved in the plot. However, I'll add it if it makes you happy. EASports 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think our time would be better spent looking for real things to add to the articles rather than arguing over an appearance in a single episode of a cartoon. --Dual Freq 02:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, provided that said appearance is given at least a brief mention. It certainly doesn't require the paragraph that was there previously. I wonder if there are any other fictional histories involving these two ships? EASports 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your time.--MONGO 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argonaut (shipbuilder)

I suppose it could be deleted, I can't find my sources anymore. It doesn't appear to have much importance. I don't really remember why I wrote it. ;). Thanks for asking for my opinion. Have a nice day! Johann...[ T...C ] 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/a/User_talk%7EDual_Freq_8bb2.html"