User talk:RobDuch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:04, 28 September 2022

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RobDuch.

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your endless work on coastal defense vessels. Thank you! Neopeius (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My previous barnstar of this type was awarded by someone who never communicated with me before or since lol. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ringling

https://books.google.com/books?id=J4sRtpB1UswC&pg=PA68 Qwirkle (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC) ...and, for something below water... Qwirkle (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: Coast Artillery Journal/AA Journal is on Google Books, haven't investigated which issues though. See also HathiTrust. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Commonfilth has added a few new ones. Qwirkle (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing articles

Hey RobDuch! I posted some articles on the Military History Assessment Request but haven't gotten much feedback. I saw that you've assessed some fort articles, so thought I'd reach out to you. I've expanded some of the articles and created some of the others. All are either classified as "stub" or "start", and some don't meet criteria based on "grammar" or "citations" per the MilHistBot, even though they're all cited and have proper grammar. I've never assessed an article (and think it's probably not good decorum to assess an article I created), so thought I'd see if you would (or could direct me to someone else who could). I don't expect any of these to be "B-class" in comparison to Fort Saulsbury, but thought they could at least be a "C-class" when compared to Fort Glover. The articles in question are Fort Armstrong (Alabama), Fort Bainbridge, Fort Carney, Fort Claiborne, Fort Strother, and Fort Williams (Alabama). I'm open to any suggestions and won't take any offense to positive criticism. Thanks! Dofftoubab (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I don't routinely assess articles, but I'll take a look at yours in the next few days and let you know what I think. User:MilHistBot is operated by User:Hawkeye7; you can ask him if you have questions on how the bot works. The only thing I think I know about it is that "citations" looks for a cite at the end of every paragraph. The bot has assessed some of my coast artillery unit articles as B-class, but I don't know why, as these are usually on the short side. Thank you for doing fort articles! RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look at Fort Armstrong, it seems at least a C-class. I'd add "Units", "Postwar", and "Present" sections for those sentences; I'd also link the War of 1812 in there somewhere. "Infobox military installaton" may be more suitable than "Infobox historic site", but there's no problem as is. I can't see what the "grammar" problem is. I think your "citation" quibble was that the lead sentence doesn't have a cite, seems to be resolved though. I suppose your sources have no info on when the fort was demolished. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I added those categories and it makes it look much better. Also changed the infobox to the military installation one and I like it a little more. Gonna add some of this stuff to the other fort articles and hopefully that will help those out! Dofftoubab (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed Fort Armstrong and Fort Claiborne as B-class, and Fort Strother as C-class. Fort Williams (AL) remains Start-class, though I upgraded the referencing to B-class. I would clarify that the Creek War was part of the War of 1812 and link both wars in each of these articles. Personally, I was not aware of the Native American sub-wars of the War of 1812. I've left Fort Bainbridge as a stub; when the infobox and cites are removed it's 1.7k, barely above the stub threshold of 1.5k. If you feel different, re-assess as Start-class. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 03:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks so much for your help! Dofftoubab (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maunsell

The design of these concrete structures is equal to a military grade bunker, due to the ends of the stilts, (under water) that are solidly locked into the ground.

Man, some of that thing just isn’t English; it isn’t even Terran. Qwirkle (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is shaky, they're working out much better than the Texas Towers of the 60s. This includes the long-gone Brenton Reef Tower off Newport, RI. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I remember Buzzards Bay, and you could sometimes see Chesapeake out through Story from Monroe. Qwirkle (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yah know, I just realized I was thinking about the wrong kinda Texas Tower.

In other news, Electric Boat? Nahh, electric boat. Qwirkle (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You scared me, the decapper has been active recently lol. Personal hydrofoil would be tempting if I had the money. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about that, too; the Minion of the Minuscule has been pretty busy, yup.

It’s only about 15-20 years that a boat with that kinda range would have been a displacement boat limited to hull speed. Now it looks like we might electric wing-in-ground-effect “boats” getting affordable soon. Qwirkle (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Medal of Honor recipients in non-combat incidents

See Talk. While I applaud the research, (although it may open a can of worms), I feel that the name change did not take into account the conflict with the main Medal of Honor article. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the wiki again

@Qwirkle: After a year's near-absence, I'm back. The games I've been playing are either made by pig-dogs or I'm burned out (both in the case of WoW). So I'm suspending my participation in games for a bit. I will be picking up on the HD Ches Bay article that's still in my sandbox. I'm also debating taking a major plunge; reorganizing the USN SP and ID ship articles (see List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy) into a series of listicles, similar to Lists of Empire ships, which others have advocated at WP:SHIPS for quite some time but don't have the time to do themselves. I don't want to see the bulk of these sent to the scrapyard. My wiki-efforts will be interrupted by a cruise the second half of next month, and another one most of December, with any luck. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a suggestion from a few months ago, I've put together an op-ed for the Bugle on US coast defenses and the CAC, expanded from my intro to List of coastal fortifications of the United States. It's at User:RobDuch/sandbox/list. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed accepted for the next Bugle. Read it here first. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 23:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, who the heck removed the intro sentence for Fort Monroe from Old Point Comfort? Maybe somebody thought the link in the intro was enough? But didn't notice the follow-on sentence about Lafayette, which became non sequitur? I put it back with a ref. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found CAJ Aug 1923 at DTIC here! Search the parent site on "Coast Artillery Journal" for many more issues. Couldn't find useful archive links. This is the issue with most of the HDC coats of arms included, and some regiments. (sig update from original post) RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff there. It is a little scary how much research material appears and disappears on the internet; all the while libraries and even individuals are getting rid f stuff because ”it’s online!”… and then it isn’t.

I wish you had a better place to put this, though. As I wrote someone earlier this year I’ve pretty well given up on Wikipedia. Good work likes yours serves to validate the tendentious agenda-driven slop that makes up too much of it. In the last few months, I’ve seen people praised for wholly imaginary achievements based on their gender, solid cites set aside because they contradicted some cranks “research”, laughably inaccurate commercial claims on their way to highlighting on the main page, to say nothing of the usual MoS pettifoggery.

What put the icing on it was someone putting an anniversary reminder for some WikiMeritBadge, right after they’d given it out to someone for adding obvious Agenda Driven Bullshit On Wikipedia. ADBOW, whether commercial, political, social, religious, or just simple crankery, should be squamped on sight, you ask me; it shouldn’t instead lead to certification as an “awesome wikipedian”.

At least part of the appeal the site has to many wikiteurs is the sort of instant gratification that leads to addictions; it’s been harder to quit than I expected. I beat cigarettes, though, and I expect to kick this too, eventually. Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem (IMHO) is that WP hit critical mass a long time ago, and it has gained ironclad street cred by being the first (and in many cases only) source checked by everything from Google to Alexa. All of the numerous attempts to create an alternative site have failed, including Jimbo and Larry's respective latest projects as of last year. An acquaintance has pointed out that WP will eventually become Memory Alpha when we leave Earth. However, like the planet Jupiter, it is damned hard to change the direction in which it is traveling. Although most of the long-timers are really trying to improve WP quality, there are many self- and agenda-serving individuals that keep popping up. Well-written BS can look quite convincing, esp since wikiteurs are supposed to pride themselves on not being an expert in anything. My relatively narrow wiki-focus keeps me insulated from anything resembling recent events, and almost all quackery/POV-pushing. As a gamer since I was 16 (pinball, arcade games, computer lab in college, getting my own comp) I know all about the need for a short reward cycle. It's certainly a lot of why I keep coming back. I've gone back to World of Warships for a bit; some would think it sad, though I have a lot of company. A couple of days' effort should finish HD Chesapeake. Main issue on that article is trimming down the pre-history; Endicott period is the shortest section in it so far. Fortunately, if I follow the coast I shouldn't have another really long or complex HD article until I get to San Francisco. (update) Many congrats on beating cigarettes, I'm in the third week of a weight loss program that's actually working. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 04:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; any particular take on the weight loss program? My attempt to bring Wiki up to 2007 on that subject had interesting consequences.Qwirkle (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Optavia (link is to parent company) and is sadly rather expensive, at $400/month for "fuelings", or 100-cal snacks. The idea is you eat five snacks at 2-3 hour intervals, and once a day a "lean and green" meal of 5-7 oz. lean meat accompanied by lower-carb green veg. It's a bit like Atkins, but with minimal fat and a more reasonable amount of carbs. My personal trainer is paying for mine by giving me free sessions. Its literature has mildly cult-like overtones, and your first self-survey includes "financial health". One part is that losing weight is only the first step, the other steps are to make the weight loss permanent and improve health in other areas. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How goes the battle? I recently had to take another run at the Newcastle diet, and am finally on the downhill stretch. Qwirkle (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost 55 lbs since August, down from 308. I plan to keep going until I've lost 90-100 lbs. I've been usually losing 4 lbs a week. I've only broken the diet twice, for a pizza a couple of months ago and for Thanksgiving just now. Since my meals are supposed to be a generous portion of lean meat (or egg white omelet w/o cheese) and a salad, I've been able to stick with it in several restaurants and even on a Viking Mediterranean cruise. I've been focusing on games recently; WoW, WoWS, and just yesterday WoT. I'm unlikely to get back on the wiki until after New Years. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Kaufmann at Internet Archive

Fortress America and Maginot Line Qwirkle (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's so nice to have these readily available. I added 2 countries and 1 continent to my user page, since I just got back from a Nile cruise in Egypt with a side trip to Jordan. The best unexpected tour was crawling inside the Great Pyramid. Something I noticed on the wiki: again, somebody couldn't resist turning a short article into a long list article. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of stuff good to see readily available: Christopher Schwarz on campaign furniture. Damned if I can understand how some of this stuff ever became a rarity, especially among the many groups who move too damned much. Qwirkle (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a regimental adjutant in the Civil War, I'm sure my gggrandpa had some of these items. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 17:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from the author stating that the Ebook version of Fortress Europe is on Google Books several months before the print version will be released, for $36.99. There's a previous book by this name also. Does not include the Atlantic Wall, and the author thinks this will be his last fort book. Just thought you should know. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, good. (Although pity about the “last” part.) One thing I’ve been looking for for years is some coverage of the light mobile sinking turrets (used in some of the Tchermann works in Alsace or Lorraine, IMS.) Don't remember if they were

standard fahrpanzers or a modified version. Qwirkle (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked through FE. Godalmighty, that’s beautiful work. The only niggling complaint I could make is that I wish this had been available back in the day… Qwirkle (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boston fort pix

@Qwirkle: It's been a while, and for a change I found a Digital Commonwealth photo collection linked on FB. Besides CAC forts, has a German WW1 210mm Morser formerly on Boston Common, and an Atomic Annie on its top carriage, presumably freshly mounted at Watertown. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere

Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?

In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth

Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees

News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me

In focus: Thinking inside the box

Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...

Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now

Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth

Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.

Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links

Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come

Essay: Delete the junk!

Gallery: A Fringe Affair (but not the show by Edward W. Feery that was on this year)

Humour: CommonsComix No. 1

From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]