User talk:Dfred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Where to get the marlinspike you use?[edit]

I love your articles, but I also love the marlin(e)spike that you used for the photo accompanying the Marlinespike hitch article. Do you know if there is any way to get one of those online? A link would be very much appreciated if you have one. Torfason (talk)

Awesome, thanks so much for the info (on my talk page). Torfason (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent revert at article "Bowline"[edit]

In the edit summary here, you write, "unfortunately the suffix trick doesn't work with an intervening apostrophe". I don't understand, what's this "suffix trick" you're speaking of? The link goes to the article about the person proper, not any possessive property of his (and in cases where you do include the apostrophe in the link, it's because it's part of a [proper] name, as with "McDonald's"). If you meant to point to his work A Sea Grammar / A Seaman's Grammar, you ought to link that (there currently doesn't exist an article for that, though). As an aside, to avoid redirection, "John Smith (explorer)" should be used in place of "John Smith of Jamestown", anyway. Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there ὁ οἶστρος! Sorry for my confusing terminology, I'm quite sure "suffix trick" isn't the real name for it. All I meant was the behavior where [[apple]]s renders as apples -- with the 's' included in the highlighted link text. I actually looked for guidance on the apostrophe question (though perhaps not hard enough) in the MOS before reverting. Having it outside the link text just looks wrong to my eye, but I suppose that doesn't mean much if that the way it should be... Is this documented somewhere?
As far as the possessive phrasing itself, it is intended in the same way one might say "Shakespeare's Hamlet". I had thought that was an acceptable usage.
Thanks for pointing out the issue with the book title. Some later printings used different titles, including the one I linked to in the ref, but I agree using the original name would be an improvement. (Especially since the link appears to be dead.) I'll change book title and make a direct link to John Smith (explorer). The latter issue I think was caused by the page being moved since the link was originally added. Regards, --Dfred (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hm, with me, it's the other way around, it looks wrong (and feels illogical) to me as part of the linked area, but I, too, couldn't point to a section in the MoS where it's dealt with. Still, I thought that's how it's usually handled – ain't 100% sure about it, though.
I don't think there's anything wrong with "Shakespeare's Hamlet", only that, again, if I wikilinked both terms, I'd keep "'s" outside the brackets, rendering it like this: "Shakespeare's Hamlet".
I didn't mean to imply you chose the wrong book title. Both seem to be in use, and I don't know the usage of which is appropriate. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I definitely understand your point... and now that I look around, it does appear the more common way of doing it. But I suppose my objection is from a typographic perspective. The unhighlighted 's looks as if it is just dangling there. While I do think there is logic to the reasoning that the link is referring to the article/person proper, might it also follow that cars and shuffled should be preferred? After all these are just different forms of the base word. Why should the possessive form be singled out and excluded from the link? In the end it is no a big deal either way, but strange there is apparently no solid guidance on this. Best, --Dfred (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think that compares. Even something like the following (second link) seems perfectly fine to me:
"(Their 2004 film The Ladykillers is based on a 1955 British black comedy film of the same name)."
(from the article for No Country for Old Men)
Why? Because it's still the subject per se that's referenced, as opposed to something by / of the subject, expressed by the 's.
You could bring it up at WT:MoS, though. Going by past experiences, I'm rather sure they'd just loooooooove to fight over it over there... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems likely, doesn't it...  :) --Dfred (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam, Library[edit]

Hi Dfred, sorry you had a bad experience with HighBeam and then furthered by a newsletter you didn't want to receive. We mainly wanted people to know that the donations like HighBeam are part of a larger initiative which will continue to provide more and diverse free research opportunities in the future. Anyways, apologies for the inconvenience or frustration. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uni Knot[edit]

Thanks for helping out. You provided some valuable information about infobox images. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Debian timeline[edit]

I added Debian Squeeze 6.0.8 to the {{Timeline Debian GNU/Linux}} template, just like you did last October 30. You immediately reverted your change, and I don't know why. Your comment at the time was "reverting due to messed-up legend; timeline experts take a look...". Well, I'm no expert, but it looks fine to me. Let me know if the current version needs more attention. Larry Doolittle (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Constrictor knot in surgery[edit]

I thought you might be interested in recent work on the constrictor knot's use as a ligature in surgery. The research article has reportedly received unprecedented interest. Perhaps it could be included in the usage section of the constrictor knot article.--Umdolofia (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the pointer! --Dfred (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)