User talk:Daniel Chiswick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updated DYK query On 24 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Paris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Nice article! Yours, Smee 08:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC) .

Contents

[edit] Thank you

Hi, Daniel. I appreciate your awarding me the "Barnstar of Dilligence." I meant to respond earlier but got cought up in a heated discussion. Anyways, thank you-I really do appreciate it. BTW: The Superpower article is improved considerably over the past couple of weeks-good job staying neutral and sourcing statements. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American intervention since 1950

American military intervention since 1950.
American military intervention since 1950.

This is the map I was talking about earlier. I think a map of US intervention is indeed needed for the American empire article but as you've noticed this particular map is getting challenged for sources. Rather than abandoning the map do you know any of the sources that were consulted in creating it? If you can't remember that's ok it just means the sourcing would have to start from scratch. But before doing all that I just thought I'd check to see if you can remember any of it off hand. I've already found sourcing for one intervention on it which I hadn't previously known anything about so I'm optimistic we can eventually source the whole thing even if there currently are a few gaps. Thanks!Zebulin 03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the documentary "Why we fight" as reference because they showed a map showing American intervention. I have lost interest in that article and I do not really want to bother with it, but I would be glad to help in any way I can. User:Daniel Chiswick 10 June, 2007.

thanks! is it this Documentary? from 2005? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/ ?Zebulin 05:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's it. You can watch it on google video, but I am not sure what part it is on because I have not seen it in a while. User:Daniel Chiswick 10, June 2007

[edit] Ship articles

Hello Daniel. Good job on the ship articles! You may want to consider using a different template for passenger ships. Template:Infobox Commercial Ship has been created specifically for passenger ships, and distinguished between the often-confused concepts of displacement and tonnage. (Other templates do not allow a gross tonnage field to be substituted for displacement.) For more modern ships, the new infobox is also better as most newer ships are not launched. Template talk:Infobox Commercial Ship gives more background. Kablammo 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Your recent article on the SS Malolo is looking good. I have made some tweaks to it. Some of your text however reads too close to your cited source, and to avoid claims of copyvio it would be good to put it in your own words. I have not done that but will defer to you. I think the article would be a good candidate for Did you know. Regards, Kablammo 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been my pleasure. You've done a lot of good work on these articles. And you seem to know something about templates; if you have any suggestions on the infobox you may want to post them on the talk page. Best wishes. Kablammo 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinatra...

I'm not too fussed either way, but is there a guideline that biographical articles should be American rather than Italian American :) ?Gareth E Kegg 11:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, that's why I changed it from Italian-American to just American. Daniel Chiswick 11:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Account delition

I understand your concern. While I can delete your user page, I cannot migrate your account (only a bureaucrat and not an admin can do that). You will need to go to here and request a new username - something more abstract (unless you want to retire?). In the meantime I can delete your user and page. Regards Signaturebrendel 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin

Hi. I don't think your recent unexplained edit here is very helpful, as we both know what'll happen next. Before the whole thing blows into a war again, can I ask you a question. Would you be able to tolerate the other map if it was placed elsewhere in the article, but not in the city infobox? I admit that I veer towards the opposite choice from yours, as I don't see how you've answered this point, but it's overall a rather good article, so it would be a pity for this business to drag on forever... athinaios (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to reply to this, feel free to delete it from your userpage. Sorry to have bothered you. athinaios (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have lost interest, it is a petty argument which I do not have time for. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. In your absence, it has come to a conclusion at last, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. athinaios (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WLA

Wikiproject:WikiProject_Los_Angeles This user wants you to join WikiProject Los Angeles.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aging of Europe

At this point we've both reverted thrice. Four reverts to a page in 24-hours is a violation of the WP:3RR rule. Jose João (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ming Dynasty and possible sub-articles

Well, nothing's written in stone here, but this is a comment made in the FAC discussion by User:Gimmetrow

I don't see a pressing need to split the article. Even if "Government" or "Society" were split out, the summary would be fairly long for completeness.

Gimmetrow raises an excellent point. You postulate that the Ming Dynasty article is too long; actually, the readable prose is about 66 KB as of now, while 100 KB is considered unacceptable, and 60 KB is considered the point where one should begin considering splitting the article into sub-articles. So really this article falls at roughly the point where one should consider splitting the article; not where one is fully obligated by wiki policy to split it apart.

Thanks for offering your help to improve the article, but do you own or have available any scholarly sources on the Ming Dynasty? If you have scholarly sources on hand, and really would like to see a History of the Ming Dynasty article, then let's discuss what could possibly be ripped out of the existing narrative that is the history section and summarized instead. Although seemingly cluttered to you, I was trying to follow a linear organization as best as possible while also speaking in generalities about the historical course and trends of the dynasty. In fact, I was considering making a History of the Ming Dynasty article, but for completely different reasons than yours. I actually wanted to keep all of the existing information and expand upon it with a History of the Ming Dynasty article that would be as large as the main Ming Dynasty article is now.

Thoughts or suggestions on how we would go about condensing all of this information further? I'm having trouble seeing how more bare-bones the article could get after I purged about 6 KB of questionable fluff in the body and intro.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I feel the same way about making sub-articles, but you must be very specific in what you think has to be cut from the existing article (if anything at all) that would not hurt the existing narrative or clarity of the events described in the article. Each sub-section under "History" is fairly short, as you may have noticed; shortening each sub-section further would kind of dumb everything down and erase any good detail left standing after the purge I made earlier. If we're going to get anything accomplished, you're going to have to share ideas about what must be taken out (at this piont, I see every little sub-section as a small summarization of much larger sections in a History article that hopefully will come about).--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Daniel Chiswick! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Daniel Chiswick, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

Here are some tasks you can do:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! -- Agathoclea (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IUP

Despite being warned about your continued violations of WP:IUP on Kate Beckinsale, you chose to blank the warning and then continue your violations. You have now been blocked to give you a chance to read and understand our policies. --Yamla (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Well I only reverted twice, not thrice so you shouldn't have blocked me. Also according to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages I am allowed to blank my talk page, it's not encouraged but it's allowed. Now I would appreciate it if you unblocked me. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh hello? Aren't you going to respond? Or am I going to have to report you when this block is over? You overreacted by blocked me because I only reverted twice.

Hello? What kind of admins are you? You don't even respond to people's messages on their talk page. I wasn't blocked for a valid reason, and I would like to be unblocked because this isn't fair and I am going to report it. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Ships

WikiProject Ships
Hello Daniel Chiswick! I noticed your contributions to a ship article, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Ships, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of ships of all kinds.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

I saw you've worked on quite a few ship articles and thought you might be interested. -MBK004 03:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP and explain

Can you explain why you are making undiscussed changes on RMS Titanic? -MBK004 03:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am restoring some things that were on the page when it was a featured article, I am not done yet and some of the the things I deleted I will re-add. I am explaining my edits as I go along, and I will make my edits known on the talk page when I'm finished. I am just trying to get this article's quality back to featured status. Also some sections are too long and some are too short, so I am shortening and summarizing some and merging others. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the article with {{inuse}}, so you won't get an edit conflict. Please remove it when you're done, and also when other editors see what you've done, you may expect to have to enter a discussion on the talk page of the article. -MBK004 03:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to remove the tag. If you decide to make more edits, please revert me so you won't have an edit conflict. -MBK004 04:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide more details of the reasons for the changes on the article's talk page? The edit summaries were vague when provided, and missing from most of the edits. I'm not arguing against the revision (the article was suffering from bloat), but as many of the sections have been reverted to their June 29, 2005 content, I think it would be good to have better explanation given before we just throw out 2.5 years worth of multiple contributor's efforts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, you destroyed the template after me & others spent so much time making it palatable to people visiting Wikipedia for valid info on the Titanic. You spent a lot of time wrecking this page without discussing any changes. You said you're going to explain why the changes. That's what the summaries & talk pages are for. You're making random edits & deletions, almost two pages worth. I just returned to this page and see the mess it's in. Koplimek

I did that because the article was becoming too long and needed to be cleaned up, and also because wikipedia articles are not books and the sections were way to long so I merged some and cut others. The same basic information is still on the article, but in a more summarized form. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this and similar edits, could I ask you to restore the dates to International Dating format, as per WP:DATE? --Pete (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter
Issue II - March 2008
From the editor

This is the second issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you think anything should be featured in the next issue, please leave a note at the Newsdesk
Other areas where you can help
  • Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page.
  • More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics:
    • Transportation in Germany
    • German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians)
    • German Democratic Republic

Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it).

  • Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news
  • Cities and municipalities task force

The task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities is happy to announce that there are now (at least) stub articles for all municipalities of Germany. Now the task force is looking for help in fleshing these out a little bit. The current phase of activity for the task force is to copy in infoboxes from the articles in German Wikipedia. If you want to help, even just for a few articles, look at the instructions and links here

  • Article Assessment:

There are now way over 26.000 articles tagged as part of our Wikiproject and many still need either an importance or a quality assessment. Also there are many more out there that do need to be tagged like approx 8000 municipalities. If you would like to help take a browse through Articles needing Importance assessment or Articles needing a basic quality assessment.

- - Newsletter Bot Talk 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - - Newsletter Bot Talk 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RMS Titanic thumb sizes

I reverted the changes you made to the thumb sizes in the RMS Titanic article, per WP:MOS which mentions that "Some users need to configure their systems to display large text; forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult". If you have a personal preference for larger thumb sizes, you can force larger in the Files tab of your My Preferences settings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hey

hey, i saw the contributions you made to the titanic page, and though the stuff was cool; just thought i'd let you know :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.130.222 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The page really needed it, thanks : ) Daniel Chiswick (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quesion on RMS Titanic photo

I have a question about the picture that you've posted in the Article of RMS Titanic, which URL is: [[1]] I was looking for the specific information of where and when(date) the picture was taken. Since the note says the picture has been in the public domain, I've tried to look up the database through the website of the Library of Congress, but there was no such information. I would really appreciate if you can let me know about these information. Thank You

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.248.159.3 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture was taken in 1912. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Al bowlly.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Al bowlly.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)