Jump to content

User talk:Sp33dyphil: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message
Line 179: Line 179:
==[[McDonnell XF-85 Goblin]]==
==[[McDonnell XF-85 Goblin]]==
Thanx for the thanks; it was a bit of a reappraisal based on a solid piece of research that I just came across. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 01:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC).
Thanx for the thanks; it was a bit of a reappraisal based on a solid piece of research that I just came across. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 01:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for the help with my user page - not certain I want the medal but 'tis a minor quibble; what is for certain is that you've left it better than you've found it :) <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">[[User:Egg Centric|Egg]] [[User_talk:Egg Centric|Centric]]</span> 19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 19:50, 17 July 2011

Welcome message

Welcome!

Hello, Sp33dyphil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to know how you use it. I read the page but still a bit confused. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I can't expect an answer. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought that was a comment. OK, you type in the title, and the tool loads the references. If the results are all white, then there's nothing to change. If you see a red link that hasn't been tagged with {{Dead link}}, you press "Save changes" at the top right hand side. Another page will load, showing the differences. Press save. If you like to repair a damaged link "Green", you right click on the url, and press "open in new tab". You copy the new url, return to the tool, press on the the box with the damaged link, and press "Replace link". You paste the url into the pop-up, and press "save changes". Manually change the access dates, and press save. You can chat to me directly via [1] Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Any other queries, just bring it up. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Just thought i would send this for the effort you put into aviation articles JetBlast (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comma lesson

See rule 12 and rule 15. [2]

You DO use a comma when there are two independant clauses (the subject is repeated). You don't if the subject is not repeated.

EX: I went to the cocktail party, and I put a lampshade on my head and danced around.

First "and" requires a comma. Second and does not. And if you put it there, it will be wrong. Same applies with "but" and other coordinating conjuctions. It's right there in the specs. Rules 12 and 15.

TCO (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hawker Siddeley Harrier

Hi, as you've expressed interest in the article and doing work upon it, thought I should fill you in on the details. I've been pottering around on this article since January this year. I made it the informal collaborative article for March, which extrensively redeveloped the article, from about 22 kb to upwards of 65-70 kb. I've been trimming and adding, tuning and improving it since then, and thanks to some very involved reviewers at MilHist, giving the article a very different kind of formalisation to that typically provided from doing it over purely through the aviation front, the article has finally emerged as an A-class. The article is sort of complete and good to go, but if you have books or missing content, now would be the time to raise it on the talk page, or add it yourself into the article, as I'm planning to nominate the article at the FAC in the coming days. Speaking of which, did you know you're about to make Wiki-history; you're the first person in almost two years to successfully navagate an article up to FA level. It happens to rarely that most aviation editors never produce a single one, I had personally given up hope of seeing one created myself. It is just as much a credit to your persistance as it is to the quality of your ability to read into and impliment key overhauls of content. I didn't think I'd ever see the A330 article look so good; nor did I ever expect a single European aircraft to get that kind of attention. It is rare indeed; I hope you will be very satisified when this milestone is accomplished. Got to cut this short now, life calls me away for another series of demands... Kyteto (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I've had this book for a long time, but when I wasn't a Wikipedian. I thought I'd try giving an aircraft like the A330, which is quite unique, a go. I'm even surprised myself that I was able to expand and improve the article, given my offline commitments – schoolwork and others. Please keep in mind that the current state of the article is due to other's effort as well, not only myself. Anyway, I'll be looking over Hawker Siddeley Harrier over the next few days, to spot any minor discrepancies. Should the article receive FA status, what article do you think we should work on next? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm close...

Gotta sleep, but will be done early tomorrow. Then, I'll go to Sandy, show her the diff and try to move this thing ahead.TCO (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canpark's new Barnstar

If you are not going to be objective, you should not assess your friend's articles. Mztourist (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table looks good

Like it better how it looks now anyway. Better to be showing it, works well. Like it smaller. Kudos.TCO (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better, it's smaller, and doesn't stand out as much. I like it. Thanks for coming up with the idea. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

F-22 Raptor

Hello. I saw a photo of F-22 Raptor on your page, so I think you are going to get it to GA/Fa status. Am I right? Claptonn (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the F-22 Raptor, but the Lockheed YF-22. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the YF-23

Hi there. Long story short, I saw the YF-23 article hit the GOCE requests page as a potential FA, so I did an FA style image review for it. Both of the links at File:Yf-23 1.jpg are dead, meaning that the image is pretty much unsourced. Just letting you know ahead of time. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. The other image is fine.[reply]

Interestingly, your replacement image is actually the exact same image as the old one, rotated 180 degrees, with less cropping, and slightly lighter. They both had to have come from the same negative. The old one is credited to the Navy, the new one to the Air Force. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche helicopter

Why did you add all the redundant weapons information when it is already listed in a lower section? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwings

Wikiwings
For amazing work reorganizing and rewriting Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche. - Ahunt (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More of an aviation cobra, then...


(P.s. I am a reptile guy, check my Featured List: U.S. state reptiles) TCO (reviews needed) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disney bomb

The last issues for GA nom of Disney bomb article were addressed. See Disney bomb#GA Review. Ready for GA nom IMHO. Please have a look at it. Suggestions are always welcome. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re GA reviews

I replied on my talk page, I guess you haven't seen it. I've reviewed one of your articles so far (only one minor issue holding up promotion). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see the review I did here? I figured I'd do them one at a time so you weren't overwhelmed. Is there anything else I need to do for this review? Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - the only thing I see holding up promotion is whether the ejectionsite website qualifies as a WP:RS or not. Can you tell me if the author's work has been cited elsewhere (like in books) or he is considered to be an expert in the field? Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the XF-104 article looks good for GA now. Good work! Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note - I have also reviewed Lockheed YF-22. The article is in excellent shape, so I passed it with no concerns. I would suggest, however, that some of the images hosted here (which are all works of the US Government and therefore PD) should be uploaded and added to the article, particularly at least one in-flight photo. Great work otherwise! Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still like it...and think it will make it.

That is good work. You are doing good stuff and learning how to do what they want. Have a really good feeling about how you are improving the aviation articles on Wiki. TCO (reviews needed) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Superjet 100

Could you please read Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Mediacenter_links before tagging the links as dead again? Nanobear (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Espionage

User:Sp33dyphil, I am back from my "WikiBreak". Would like to know your thoughts and ideas about improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage. It would be appreciated, you can reply on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making both Lockheed XF-104 and Lockheed YF-22 certified "Good Articles"! Your work is much appreciated.

Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin

Thanx for the thanks; it was a bit of a reappraisal based on a solid piece of research that I just came across. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for the help with my user page - not certain I want the medal but 'tis a minor quibble; what is for certain is that you've left it better than you've found it :) Egg Centric 19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sp33dyphil&oldid=439998036"