User talk:Nick Thorne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome! to Wikipedia!

Hello Nick Thorne, this is Exir Kamalabadi, and I hope that you are having fun with Wikipedia. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Don't be afraid. Be bold! If you do something wrong, there is always someone who will clean up the mess.

Here are some links that you may find helpful:

Here are also some tips that you might find useful:

Finally, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page when you need help!

Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T'rima kasih

Thank you for adding id:Allah Anak to God the Son.

Tuhan memberkati Alastair Haines (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Nick. If you are who I think you are then we served together (well, sort of) and I also know your father through radio things. See me over at my user page (Peter Ellis), or leave a message at Peter Ellis talk. Best wishes, 203.10.231.231 06:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow - thanks for the picture of final approach to Melbourne. Seeing that has cemented in my mind my decision never to become a naval aviator!!! Hammersfan, 10.02 GMT, 03/02/06.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Just so you know, when you want to redirect a page (when you want something to a "see such and such") instead of keeping two articles the syntax #REDIRECT [[page name here]] is the accepted syntax. You got the bot auto warning because the redirect didn't match the pattern, I know its good faith and I've fixed it for you. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message :) -- Tawker 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC) -- Tawker 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what page you're looking at but you put in "See Trout Cod" instead of #REDIRECT [[Trout Cod]] - anything but the redirect version would not redirect and would be auto reverted. Could you provide a link to this page? -- Tawker 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we might be talking at cross purposes here. My original attempt to change involved me merging the contents into the target page and replacing the contents of the source page Trout cod with a link to the target in the following form "See Trout Cod". The bot reversed this change. I made a complaint on the bot talk page using the link provided in the vandalism message. After that I thought about it and realised that there had to be a way to do what i was attempting and re-read the info from the bot and the rest of its talk page and then figured I haD TO DO A REDIRECT, SO i LOOKED UP REDIRECT THROUGH THE NORMAL wIKI SEARCH FUNCTION AND GOT TO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect i THEN CUT AND PASTED THE FIRST EXAMPLE FROM THAT PAGE TO THE (Sorry about that, wretched caps lock key...) source page (substituting the correct page ref for the example one) and received a second message from the bot complaining about the redirect syntax and stating that it had corrected it for me. I'm still not sure what's wrong here, I would have thought it reasonable to cut and paste from the help page. Either the bot picked up my edit incorrectly, or the text on the help page is incorrect. Either way, I guess I have acheived what I set out to do, but I'm still alittle miffed that the bot killed me on the first attempt, since I did actually replace the original page with a link to a more complete page with an almost identiocal title. Frankly all this would not have happenned (the duplication of pages and hence my attempt to fix it) if Wikipedia did not have this idiotic UNIX like sensitivity to case in document names, but that is a topic for another discussion on another day! <grin>

Ok, I still don't totally see where the info on the redirect page was. I see this diff which didn't have the word redirect in it at all, I'm still trying to find out where the help page is screwed up, I'm still at a loss for that one. All I can see is somehow your edit said See instead of #REDIRECT - it really is super hard to make the bot intelligent in that regard, I know Wikipedia can be a little crazy in its cases (but if you want a nightmare look at Wiktionary where Test and test are two unique words). Anyways, I'll take another look at the help page and try and figure out how you got confused, sorry about it accusing you of being a vandal, events like this are pretty rare considering how many edits the bot makes :) -- Tawker 06:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I work in IT, so I have an appreciation of how hard it is to write an all encompassing utility like your bot. For what its worth one approach might be to look at the new page contents and if it contains a Wiki link and is less than say 5 words, then maybe the page could be marked for human attention, ot alternatively, reverse the edit, but instead of sending a vandalism message send a message directing the editor to the redirect help page for advice on how to do that sort of change. Just a thought and I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. BTW I'm over the initial action of the bot now. <grin>

[edit] Flatheads

Nick, guilty as charged. It certainly wasn't meant to be impolite, I must have been tired & not thinking straight. I could have taken care of the fixes if you'd just pointed it out - redirects only take a few seconds each. Anyway, the net result is good & clear in the Galaxiid page, thanks for keeping an eye on things. We both seem to have an interest in freshwater fish in our respective countries. Bodes well. Cheers GrahamBould 05:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarves

Oh dear, I seem to have done it again. There was a problem with two fishes with the same name 'dwarf galaxias', one in each country - the names were pointing incorrectly. On my way to work now, let me know what we should do about this & I'll take care of it tonight. Apologies GrahamBould 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Have checked again, & the NZ dwarf galaxias has only that common name (nothing else even on Google). If the Aussie dwarf is mainly known as that too then may I suggest that they be renamed as "Dwarf galaxias (Australia)" & "Dwarf galaxias (New Zealand)". If you agree please let me know & I can take care of it. Thanks for pointing this out, your local knowledge is certainly helpfull. GrahamBould 09:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Graham, sounds like a sensible solution to me, of course as yet there is no Wiki page for the Aussie fish, but that can be fixed. In fact I was planning to put one up soon anyway but I've been a bit busy with work. There is a taxonomic summary on the Native Fish Australia web site which lists all the most common names for Aussie freshwater fish, if that is of any use to you. I would say in future if you see a name that conflicts with a New Zealand one, it would pay to check then. Alternatively I am happy to help out as required. BTW, I was under the impression that the NZ fish was called the "dwarf inanga" (but I profess no encyclopedic knowledge of NZ fishes), if that is the same fish, perhaps that name could be used and this would avoid any conflict.Nick Thorne 05:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Taranto

Hi, I replied on the talk page. Sijo Ripa 02:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey Nick,

I just noticed you the fauna by country category discussion, and recognised your name! I am Evan from the frogs.org.au forum, I had no idea you were a Wikipedian! Good to know. --liquidGhoul 14:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You definitely seem to know about freshwater fish, so I am glad you are contributing. Check out the Category:Frogs of Australia, which has all the work that I, User:Tnarg 12345 and User:Froggydarb have been doing on Australian frogs. If you have any frog photos which are not represented by a photo or article, we are very happy to create the article so you can upload and add the photo. --liquidGhoul 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawker Sea Fury

In response to: Hawker Sea Fury

Back on 15 Dec 2006 you edited the Hawker Sea Fury page changing the line in the intro to read that it was "one of the fastest production single piston engined aircraft ever built". This topic has been discussed in the talk page before and it was decided to leave the entry as "the fastest production..." If you have evidence of a faster aeroplane I would be interested to hear about it, otherwise I think it reasonable to leave the entry as it now is. Sorry I did not pick up on this easlier but I assume I missed it in multiple updates of the page and only noticed it today because of another update. Nick Thorne 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick- I am being generous, these are the acknowledged specifications for Second World War fighters:

  • Hawker Sea Fury FB11: Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
  • Dornier Do 335: Maximum speed: 474 mph (765 km/h) at 21, 325 ft (6,500 m)
  • Focke-Wulf Ta-152 H-1: Maximum speed: 472 mph at 41,000 ft (759 km/h) at 41, 500 ft (12,500m) (using GM-1 boost)
  • North American F-82: Maximum speed: 461 mph at 21,000 ft (742 km/h at 6,400 m)
  • North American P-51H: Maximum speed: 487 mph (784 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

As you can see, the Sea Fury is fast but not the fastest production single piston-engined aircraft ever built. Bzuk 04:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new naming guidelines for fish species articles.

Hi Nick - Thanks for your contributions to the fish species article name discussion which is underway at WP:FISH. I assume based on your comments you support the new proposal (5.04)? Wondering if you had any comments on it's impletation and structure? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. Yes, I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. Certainly there are plenty of fish for which there is a well established common name, but I would suspect that probably the majority of species are not in this category. As you would knopw the plethora of small fish are often dismissed by terms like "bait fish" or "minnow" and many people who consider themselves knowledgeable about fish such as anglers etc/ Often these people actually know very little about species other than those within their area of interest. I run the Native Fish Australia web site (www.nativefish.asn.au), hence my interest in some of these species and I am used to referring to some species using common names and others by Latin names. Classic examples are Murray cod which is almost always referred to by its common name and Galaxias fuscus (which is often referrred to as just fuscus which is usually referred to by the Latin name, although the common name "barred galaxias" does have some currency. When writing about these species I often use a combination of the common name and the scientific name in an article. I see it as providing an educational function. Anyway, enough of that.
Anyway, WRT implementation I think we need to be careful. Probably we should publish some guidlines for interpreting th policy. I would not want to see a sudden effort by unskilled editors to change the names of existing articles. This needs to be done by editors who are familiar with the issues ofrenaming. I've been on both sides of unintended consequences from artice renamings and have learnt the hard way how to do it. I am sure the same applies to many other editors. I think we can summarise the rules for easy use by most editors as follows: Use the common name if there is a reasonable universally recognised common name, otherwise use the scientific name. If in doubt refer the matter to the Fish Project or just create the article and raise the issue of the article's name on the talk page. We should remind editors that the audience for Wikipedia extends outside the USA, and any particular interest group such as aquarists, anglers and indeed fish biologists. Nick Thorne 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nick - Thanks, hopefully we can convince the remaining editors that this proposal is a positive step forward. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming and projects

I also appreciated your comments regarding fish naming guidelines and STRONGLY agree with the concepts of careful renaming combined with review and discussion by interested parties. I particularly agree with you commentary on this page, specifically: We should remind editors that the audience for Wikipedia extends outside the USA, and any particular interest group such as aquariasts, anglers and indeed fish biologists. As a longtime reefkeeping enthusiast and coral propagator, I have used ReefCentral and message boards for longer than Wiki has been in existence and this audience is significant (especially for those newly exposed to the fun), though usually most are silent lurkers.

Since you have an interest in fish, you might enjoy these two relatively new projects:

I will enjoy watching the survey discussion and hope to apply learnings to the naming of corals. ChicagoPimp 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple spotted gudgeons

Hi Nick - Wondering if you had any photos of purple spotted or peacock gudgeons we could use at Gudgeon (fish)? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, sorry mate. The only photos I have of these fish are copyright to Neil Armstrong, provided for the NFA web site. I do not have the authority to release them to the public domain. Nick Thorne 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Freshwater fish of Australia

Hi, I am very slowly trawling all australian categories for applying australia project tags and I found a missive in the above category that really dosnt belong there. As it was added in 2005 - have you added that info elsewhere - as by rights the category talk page is not the place for it and it should go. It would be much appreciated if you could find an article to put the info in (if you havent already) - thank you SatuSuro 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The following is on the talk page of the category - I could be very very wrong and misguided but category talk pages are not the place for this - what I am hping is that youve put it somewhere else as well:-

The Australian continent, which is larger than the continental United States, has relatively few freshwater fishes, only some 280 species or so. A large proportion of these species are endemic to Australia. Australia is unique in that the Percicthyidae (Temperate Perches) family and other families suspected in reality to lie within it (eg Gadopsidae, Nannopercidae) have risen to prominence in and dominate many of its freshwater systems, in contrast to the Northern Hemisphere where freshwater fish faunas are overwhelmingly dominated by the Cyprinidae (Carp) family. (Not a single Cyprinid species is native to Australia. Unfortunately due to the illegal introduction of Carp (Cyprinus carpio) the Cyprinidae family is now present in a destructive form in Australia.) The Galaxiidae have also risen to unusual prominence in Australia, with the bulk of the world's Galaxias species found in Australia and its neighbouring land mass New Zealand. The most important freshwater system in Australia is the Murray-Darling Basin which drains approximately 13% of the continent and is home to some of Australia's most significant freshwater fish species including the iconic Murray Cod, Australia's largest. Australian freshwater fish have not fared well since European settlement of Australia in 1788. The majority of Australian freshwater fishes are poorly understood and are under threat due to human activities such clearing of riparian vegetation and siltation associated with agricultural practices, snag removal, overfishing, river regulation through dams and weirs, introduced fish and diseases. Two native fish populations that may have been separate species or sub-species, Richmond River Cod and Brisbane River Cod, have already been lost, and a number of other species are listed as endangered or critically endangered.

Cheers SatuSuro 00:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First, the above info is not on the Category Talk page at all, it is on the main article for the Category. Given that this information is clearly related to the group "freshwater fish of Australia" as a whole, where else do you propose that it should be placed, and how would that be better than at the natural level (this category) to which the info applies? If you are using some "official" Wiki policy, please provide a link to that policy so that I can read it for myself. If this is simply your opinion that the info should not be on the Category page, then I respect your right to that opinion, but I beg to differ - in my opinion, this is the appropriate place for it. Nick Thorne talk 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It is normal to include some information at the top of the category, but this is an unusually long discussion. Why don't you put it in an article, Freshwater fishes of Australia, and replace it in the category with use of the {{catmore}} template? Hesperian 00:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My sincerest apology for a start - it was on the main page not the talk page - obviously too much tagging late at night. sorry about that, got confused.
1. OK. For a start category pages are basically a way of organising articles into groups - they are not articles. The amount of text there is what some editors would remove without even asking you. I thought I'd check first.
2. Policy is not necessarily what we are after. Precedence is - try all the Australia project category pages and there is no precedent for that level of information on the page. If you find one please show me.
3. I suggest the admins comment above should be followed- which is whay I was trying to contact you in the first place - to get tthe information to an article space - users of wikipedia do not look for category pages for info.
Thats all - I was trying to ascertain if you had the info elsewhere - we could cleanup the category page. However as no other australian category pages have that level of information, you need to be alerted to the fact that if I dont remove it- some of the less communicative will clear it without consultation. Cheers SatuSuro 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Now I get the Talk page stuff, you had me completely confused there for a bit!.
OK, I will create an article for this info. Nick Thorne talk 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies - I am trying to tag every australian category and no only do I confuse fellow editors but my family as well - will be glad when I dont see another red lettered discussion tag above an australian category page :( SatuSuro 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey, I guess u were saying hello? Lol I figured that Kurt Leyman was those things you said because despite my arguments and sources he says that I don't have any and despite the fact that I have proof showing the history of the page he thinks that his version of the article is the original.

However, this is exactly the kind of user you don't lose to. So I am not going to win. Sooner or later, some of the more experienced editors will come. I have already attempted to alert an admin about it because even a dim wit knows that the Fall of Constantinople and the end of the Roman Empire was a decisive moment in time. Such foolishness and persistance can only beaten by its own game; so I won't be giving up in this millenia. Tourskin 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of introduced fish in Australia

Thanks for your help on the List of introduced fish in Australia! I am currently attempting to get it listed as a Featured List, and any help would be appreciated. Abbott75 ☺ 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Murray cod

You're most welcome. VanTucky Talk 22:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murray cod

You're welcome. I'm currently working on an extended list of things to do on the talk page, but I thought it would be easier for me to fix those little things than to write notes on the talk page telling you to do it! Cheers, Jude. 21:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, thank you for letting me know. Leave me a message on my talk page when you finish with the fixes, and I'll promote the article to GA status. Cheers, Jude. 22:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
My apologies about the commas. It's fine if it takes you a little while to finish the references. I left a notes on the talk page regarding the aquariums, and one other issue. Cheers, Jude. 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. If/when you nominate it for FA, let me know, so I can support it. Cheers, Jude. 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

for the pretty picture of the carrier! -- saberwyn 08:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's been the problem, the only images I could previously find of the carrier itself, with no or compatible copyright, have been from the War Memorial (and they're all early career and greyscale) or the one released US Navy image (which is in the infobox). So anything you can provide is a BIG bonus!
As for Trackers, there is an image of a Tracker about to launch on Commons, but I didn't use it because it was almost identical to the Skyhawk launch image in the article, and there are only three aircraft images: Skyhawk, your approach inside a Tracker (which also illustrate's the carrier's size and the insanity of trying to land a Tracker on her), and some assorted Sea Venoms on the tarmac pre-Melbourne commissioning. As the first half of the article is very image heavy compared to the rest of it, I held off adding the other image.
However, if you can get more pretty pictures of the carrier in late service to balance out the weight (and hopefully put something in colour in the infobox), it shouldn't be a problem to add more plane pics. -- saberwyn 02:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. HMAS Brisbane (D 41) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking very nice now. I think the number of photos is about right, although if you come across any real gems we can always wedge in a few more or chop and change a few. -- saberwyn 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Its all cool. Misinterpreting it as being the superstructure is probably what I've done. I have the misfortune of being born after the carrier was sold to China, so I've never actually seen it. As for landing on that postage stamp of a flight deck, anyone willing to do it has my undying respect. It doesn't really matter if its one or three metres, that's still a hell of a lot closer than what I'd like a wing to be to something solid.
In other news,you've probably noticed the nice shiny A-class the article now has. I'm busy with work and a uni assignment at the minute (which is also why I'm a few days behind replying to you), but I'll be posting it up for FAC by the end of next week. Fingers crossed. -- saberwyn 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Around and around we go

We appear to be dancing around each other with edits to the Melbourne article (I think I've edit-conflicted with you a few times). So, I'm going to back off for a while, leave you to fix what you think needs fixing. Can you give me a heads up when you think you're done for the moment? -- saberwyn 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Image categories in the Commons

Yeah, I agree that the categories used in Wikicommons are a mess and it's hard to navigate and find related material. This is especially the case as the search function doesn't work very well. The general rule is to only use the most specific categories, and I never use the high level categories (like 'navy' or 'East Timor') if I can avoid it as they tend to be too vauge. Thanks for adding those fantastic photos of HMAS Melbourne and her air group by the way. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and other shennanigans

What's the appropriate terminology for a plane on the catapult and ready to fire? Because it would be applicable to Melbourne's FA status.

Just to let you know, following the discussions at FAC btween you and Roger Davies, me and Roger Davies, plus some email correspondance between myself and Maralia, I've decided to drop the 'blame' line from the intro, because it would just be too complicated and too much heartache to find a single-sentance summary to the two different post-collision happenings, and everything is in the body of the text anyway. Thank you for all the effort you've put in to helping get this article... I think your contributions (especially your images) have made a lot of difference.

As an aside, is there any chance you have a top-down photograph of the carrier that you can upload, either a 'clean' version of the image you used to show me the various measurements for the Tracker landings, or a similar image showing the entire flight deck (but not from as far up as your shot in the article from the radar operator's seat). I don't want to put it in the article, but I have an idea that requires such an image. Can you help? -- saberwyn 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Whenever is cool, its not urget. You can upload them straight to Commons... add them as additional images in the category, because at a point later down the track I've got a crazy idea of doing up a Commons gallery page for her, so the images can be sorted (for example, one section for aircraft, others for different points of her career, another for the collisions) captioned, and annotated, sort of a graphic 'article'. Also, for my nefarious scheme to work, I need them licensed in the same way as the other images you've uploaded. -- saberwyn 09:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qld Lungfish and "living fossils"

hey, if you wouldn't mind, can you take a look at Category Talk:Living fossils and make any comments you think are pertinent? i'm looking to fix up the category (and the article itself, sooner or later), and i'd appreciate any new perspectives. unless of course, you aaren't keen on it,in which case i wish you good day! :) - Metanoid (talk, email) 20:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Carrier angled decks

Many thanks for the help in setting up the section properly