Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nyth83

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Packerfansam (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 15 May 2015 (→Re: UW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:59, 15 May 2015 by Packerfansam (talk | contribs) (→Re: UW)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Go to bottom

Archives (Index)

hobbyDB

Thanks again for your comments on my user page re a link on the Chevrolet page. I looked at the pages you referred me to, hobbyDB should not be classified as a fanpage, more like a database site such as IMDB, see for example https://www.hobbydb.com/static_pages/advisors. All that being said I am not pushing the point and would rather love to have a conversation on wider Misplaced Pages issues as we are effectively starting from where Misplaced Pages stops (instead of one page on Hot Wheels we already have 10,000 and will eventually end up with more than 120,000). Would you be up to a phone call as I am interested in how you got involved in Misplaced Pages, what you like and do not like and what we can learn for the hobbyDB project (we now have 500 or so contributors). I am in Boulder, Colorado and you could email me through the contact form on the hobbyDB site. Thanks! Joschik (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 04:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

USS Tench

Your edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_submarines_of_the_United_States_Navy lists USS Tench as being sold to Peru for spares in "197". I think you meant sometime in the 1970's, not sometime during the reign of Septimius Severus. ;) Leveretth (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Brian Thompson Vandal

Blocks

"Brian Thompson" name changing vandal is back on a different IP.

17:34, 25 February 2015 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) blocked 98.218.106.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Block evasion) 01:51, 22 October 2014 Discospinster (talk | contribs) blocked 98.218.106.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) 19:50, 17 September 2014 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) blocked 98.218.106.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Block evasion) 02:22, 11 September 2014 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) blocked 98.218.106.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism)

21:45, 14 October 2014 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 66.250.191.193 (talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) 18:07, 7 October 2014 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) blocked 66.250.191.193 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) 15:00, 24 September 2014 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) blocked 66.250.191.193 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Block evasion) 15:06, 29 August 2014 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) blocked 66.250.191.193 (talk) with an expiry time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism)

10:02, 12 August 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 69.140.44.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 05:40, 11 February 2015 (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: & Vandalism ) 05:40, 11 August 2014 Wtmitchell (talk | contribs) blocked 69.140.44.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) 09:28, 9 May 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 69.140.44.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Vandalism) 07:45, 28 April 2014 Darkwind (talk | contribs) blocked 69.140.44.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) 10:47, 25 March 2014 Callanecc (talk | contribs) blocked 69.140.44.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) 04:27, 18 March 2014 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked 69.140.44.225 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked) (LTA)

13:28, 30 January 2011 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) blocked 74.82.64.18 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts) 00:14, 9 January 2011 J Greb (talk | contribs) blocked 74.82.64.18 (talk) with an expiry time of 48 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) 04:28, 11 November 2010 Bsadowski1 (talk | contribs) blocked 74.82.64.18 (talk) with an expiry time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)

00:48, 8 April 2011 Wknight94 (talk | contribs) blocked 74.82.64.37 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Jvolkblum)

09:02, 9 May 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) blocked 74.82.64.69 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: & vandalism)

Difs

User:70.192.207.107:

  1. General Motors As of March of 16 Brian Thompson

User:98.218.106.225:

  1. Street & Racing Technology Brian Touche Thompson
  2. Maybach: Brian Touche Thompson

Merger discussion for Yugoslav reunification

An article that you have been involved in editing, Yugoslav reunification, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IJA (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Navy Timelines

Thanks for your interest. I was on USS Pargo (SSN-650) 1980-82 and USS Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) (Gold crew) 1983-84. I haven't edited my old ships' pages yet, so I don't know what's on them. I took a quick look at your timelines, and they're a very interesting and informative way of presenting how many ships of a given type were operational when, and how old they were. US submarines looks like a BIG step up from your other timelines, due to the sheer number of vessels involved. I did the majority of the work on post-WW2 conversions on the Balao- and Tench-class pages, and some work on the Gato-class page. You will see from the GUPPY page that sorting out the various conversions is a bit difficult.

I've been editing Misplaced Pages off and on for about a year and a half, at an increased pace since I retired last year. As you can see from my user page, in the Navy area I've specialized in destroyer and submarine class pages, which had widely varying amounts of information when I started. My goal is to get all the pages up to a useful standard, rather than produce "good articles". I have most of Friedman's books including both submarine books. For the near future I plan to improve the Sturgeon class article along the lines of the Thresher/Permit class article, then I'm likely to put in "dates and fates" tables for the early destroyer articles, something I neglected with some of them the first time through.

With a closer look at the US battleships, maybe you could put in another color for ships converted to a non-combat or non-battleship role, namely Utah and Wyoming. And with a look at the carriers, this would also apply to USS Langley (CV-1) in her career as AV-3, 1937-42. It should at least be noted that she was lost in combat.RobDuch (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

RobDuch I've been thinking about how to handle the numerous special cases like that. I added the FORE and MUSE color tags in my original userspace versions before I moved it to the article space. I think I am resisting adding too many more colors for these cases and relying on the reader to follow the links to the individual articles to read more detail about the ships. I was concerned that adding the RCOH tags may be getting to be too much already. I feel the chart is getting rather 'busy' and am thinking about toning down some of the brighter colors. My goal is for the chart to serve as a good overview and to catch readers interest in the ships and following the Wikilinks to them. For example, I did not know that there were two US built battleships that were sunk by airplane attacks BEFORE Pearl Harbor but the chart makes it apparent that something happened to them. If you have some specific suggestions for color additions and changes, I would love to have your input. Thanks for the catch on the Langley. I added the LOST info to the timeline. I am however confused about her status at that time. Between the infobox and the article text, it appears that she was decommissioned the day of her conversion on 26 Feb 1937? Was she not in commission as the AV-3? I also am unsure how best to show her status as a collier during her first commission period so for now I will just leave that part as-is. Nyth63 11:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I also have a first cousin that was a submariner. He is a year younger than me and was in the navy from 1982 to about 2002. I know he was in the nuclear program but I do not know what subs he served on. My son was a sonar tech and was in from 2010-2013. He got out for medical reasons but is eigible for re-enlistment. I have been editing wikipeda for about 2 years also and am learning new stuff all the time. I have a background in engineering and computer science and like to play with all the coding embedded in wikipedia. It appeals to my old-school (non WYSIWYG) computer experience. I have been programming since 1979. These charts are a good challenge. I have an Excel spreadsheet that I use to generate the bar data by filling in a table and using a lookup function. The Sturgeon-class was the easiest because of the table in the existing list article. Nyth63 11:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you're a programmer; I used to dabble in that but it's been years and I never got serious with it on my own. Thanks for pointing out the list of Sturgeons; I see it's linked in the class article but I'll see if it has info that needs to be in that article. Not sure if I could make a decision about colors, I notice that what you're using is easy on the eyes. Maybe a dark green for "converted to other use", as light green is already taken and you're only using the one shade of green. The only color I think is "too bright" is the red for lost ships, but it's used sparingly. My dad, a retired Navy officer, has looked at the BB timeline and thinks it would be better if the ship names were included; I agree. Langley would certainly have been recommissioned following her conversion. Ships are sometimes decommissioned for a conversion or lengthy scheduled yard period, but are always recommissioned on successful completion of the work. They might do some local ops or travel to a place associated with the ship for recommissioning, but wouldn't deploy when out of commission. DANFS is good but not perfect. I would say you could assume Langley was recommissioned when she got the AV-3 hull number; it probably occurred within a couple of months after that. The previous collier status is not completely unique; most carriers of the 20s were converted from other ship types on the ways and I think the first one or two escort carriers started as merchant ships. However, I just checked several converted carriers and couldn't find any that were converted after launching. Keep up the good work. RobDuch (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
RobDuch I did use ship names in the Timeline of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy article, but mainly because I could not make sense of the British hull numbering scheme.:) I will consider the suggestion on ship names in the BB timeline, with maybe at least adding the names of the better known ships or at least class leaders. I have been avoiding names primarily for space and clutter considerations. Some of the LA class subs have pretty long names like USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN-705). At least when you hover the mouse pointer over the hull number, a tooltip popup shows the ship name before you click on it, so the name is not completely hidden. I think the Langley article needs a correction of some type. I find it very odd that the decommission and the conversion completion are the exact same day. I would guess that it should be a recommission date and that an earlier decommission date may be missing. As regards to the other uses data, would you have time to search and give me a list of those or do you have a suggestion on an relatively efficient way of finding them all short of re-reading every individual ship article? Since there is a relatively narrow focus article like List of inactive Los Angeles-class submarines by disposition, do you think that an article like List of United States Navy ships converted to other uses might be useful? Nyth63 12:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the Langley dates as best I could, changing them to the version on the official Navy History website http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/l/langley-i.html . Whoever put the dates in the infobox earlier got confused; beware of this. I also used the "recommissioned" line, which was blank previously. There is also the HazeGray version with slightly different dates of the Langley article at http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/auxil/ac3.htm . The Navy and HazeGray versions of DANFS were transcribed by different people from different editions of the books and sometimes there's a lot of variation. The Navy site got reorganized recently, and right now essentially none of the DANFS links in Misplaced Pages have been updated. Plus the HazeGray site is a LOT easier to search. I should be able to get you a list of carriers converted from other ships in the 20s and 30s while on the ways in the next few days. Yes, it does involve the individual ship articles, but there are so few carriers in that time period that it's relatively easy. Escort carriers are another matter :) . For that matter, the first CVLs (Independence class) were converted from light cruisers on the ways, and the Japanese did several wartime conversions from completed ships. So the WW2 situation gets complicated. The subject does seem worthy of a list. RobDuch (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Carriers converted from other ships, 1920-41

Note that most of these were converted prior to launching. Given that, the info may not require inclusion on the timeline in most cases. The Japanese situation is the most confusing. Only completed ships are included (see German carrier Graf Zeppelin).

  • HMS Furious (47) Laid down as battlecruiser 8 June 1915, launched with flying-off deck 18 August 1916, rebuilt with landing deck November 1917-15 March 1918, converted as full aircraft carrier June 1921-Sept 1925.
  • HMS Argus (I49) Laid down as passenger liner 1914, launched as aircraft carrier 2 December 1917
  • HMS Eagle Laid down as Chilean battleship 20 February 1913, launched as aircraft carrier 8 June 1918
  • HMS Courageous (50) Commissioned as battlecruiser 4 November 1916, converted to aircraft carrier 29 June 1924-21 February 1928.
  • HMS Glorious Commissioned as battlecruiser January 1917, converted to aircraft carrier 1924-24 February 1930.
  • USS Langley we've already dealt with.
  • HMS Vindictive Laid down as heavy cruiser Cavendish 29 June 1916, launched as partial-deck aircraft carrier 17 January 1918, renamed Vindictive June 1918. Commissioned 1 October 1918.
  • USS Lexington (CV-2) Laid down as battlecruiser 8 January 1921, launched as aircraft carrier 3 October 1925
  • USS Saratoga (CV-3) Laid down as battlecruiser 25 September 1920, launched as aircraft carrier 7 April 1925
  • Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi Laid down as battlecruiser 6 December 1920, launched as aircraft carrier 22 April 1925
  • Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga Laid down as battleship 1920, launched as battleship 17 November 1921, converted 21 November 1923-31 March 1928. Commissioned 30 November 1929.
  • Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō Launched as submarine tender 19 June 1936, commissioned as aircraft carrier 27 December 1940.
  • Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō Commissioned as submarine tender 15 January 1939, recommissioned as aircraft carrier 30 November 1941.
  • Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūhō Commissioned as submarine tender 31 March 1934, converted to aircraft carrier 20 December 1941-30 November 1942.
  • French aircraft carrier Béarn Laid down as battleship 10 January 1914, launched as battleship prematurely to clear slipway April 1920, converted to aircraft carrier August 1923-May 1927.

RobDuch (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a troll?

Do you think I am a troll? I am perfectly not a troll, I am a human being. I hope you in the future don't consider me a troll. ---Kennster2015 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Nyth83,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Misplaced Pages Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Misplaced Pages users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Misplaced Pages Library can offer.

Thank you,

Misplaced Pages Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Model T'd off

Yeah, just when I don't use the "preview", it bites me... :( Glad I brightened your day, tho. :( ;p TREKphiler 15:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: UW

A publication such as that isn't credible, their input shouldn't be taken seriously and shouldn't be equated with something like The Princeton Review. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a publication the world at large takes seriously, for good reason. It's not a have for respectable and credible journalism. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)