Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:03, 4 July 2008

Hello, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Here's some tips:

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page
• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Misplaced Pages policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 12:22, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Archives

User talk:PHG/Archives1
User talk:PHG/Archives2
User talk:PHG/Archives3
User talk:PHG/Archives4

Siamese revolution (1688)

On 6 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siamese revolution (1688), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrads. It's a really good article--Work permit (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:KeyingMedal.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:KeyingMedal.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Misplaced Pages have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murayama Tōan, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japan-Thailand relations, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Japanese Battleship Satsuma

Hi. I'm afraid I take exception to your two added specific references to the Battleship article on Satsuma. Here's why; the Sandler reference isn't itself cited, and there's nothing to suggest that he performed any original research into the genesis of the Satsuma design. With the second reference, Hugill would have you believe that the Satsuma and Aki were the same, when in reality there were substantial differences between them and they're listed in the same class for convenience, as with H.M.S. Queen Mary and the Lion class. Hugill cited Gibbons Encyclopedia of Battleships, which is hardly the most reliable of sources. The Sondhaus reference mentions the oft-quoted myth that Satsuma was waiting on imported guns, but doesn't source it.

As I've laid out before, on the Dreadnought article discussion it might have been, it is very difficult to generalise about the Satsuma because there is so little information about her. What is known is this; the Japanese naval constructor Wasaburô Kaneda prepared a plan for a battleship with 8 twelve-inch guns. Contrary to what Breyer suggests, this was never even taken before the Japanese Admiralty for approval. The 12 twelve-inch gun ships were approved under the 1904 Wartime Warship Construction Program, at which time the Tsukuba and Kurama classes were approved. The Japanese were already aware that they wouldn't be able to afford enough foreign-made (Armstrong) 12-inch guns with the number of ships being laid down in 1905, nor would they be able to manufacture enough of their new 45 caliber 41st (Year) Type 30-cm IV guns, which is what both Satsuma and Aki were eventually fitted with. There is no record of Japan making enquires to arm the two ships with Armstrong guns. There is no proof that the reason for Satsuma's prolonged construction period was due to a radical re-design. Antony Preston, who has been used a source for Satsuma being laid down all-big-gun on Misplaced Pages manages to contradict himself in his Battleships and his Battleships of World War I on the subject, and of course his earlier works are unreferenced.

Unmentioned anywhere other than Military Industries of Japan published after WWI is that with the commencement of the Russo-Japanese War Japan could no longer import ships and guns anyway due to neutrality laws, with the result that in 1904 she resolved to construct everything to do with her ships in Japan - Kongo being an exception to this rule nearly a decade later.

Of course, the above is just background. The main part is that I have seen no source give a reference, let alone a valid one that Satsuma was laid down as an all-big-gun ship. With a featured article one would have thought that such uncertainty wouldn't be good enough for inclusion. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves Jane's Battleships of the Twentieth Century" isn't referenced. That book is essentially a mass-market coffee table edition, and just because it has the Jane's name on the front I'd hardly call it reliable. I have the original 1906 and 1914 editions of Jane's Fighting Ships and no mention to any other armament than the as-built configuration is mentioned. As to my source, admittedly the only source I have is from Cassiers, an American engineering journal which features an announcement in January, 1905 of the IJN to lay down a battleship of 4 twelve-inch guns and 10 ten-inch guns. From November, 1905 there is an item in The New York Times referring to the construction in Japan of a battleship of 12 ten-inch guns. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ants images

Hi, I asked a question about some of your (rather nice) pictures of ants here commons:User_talk:PHGCOM#ants. Hope you can help. GameKeeper (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the compliment! I confirm I am the creator and copyright holder of these photographs, and I will be delighted if they are used in the ants article. Cheers PHG (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Random question

I am asking you because you are a prior editor of the article Roman trade with India whose name was just changed to Roman trade with modern India. I am wondering if you agree with this name change, as it took me by surprise. Do you think the new name, and the reasoning behind the name change, is correct? Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Siamese method

On 29 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siamese method, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jehochman 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Faire use rationale properly described I believe. PHG (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

We are back at WP:RFAR. You are invited to make a statement. Jehochman 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)