User talk:Dual Freq

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


Archive
Archives

Archive 1 - Archived May 15, 2006
Archive 2 - Archived October 28, 2006
Archive 3 - October 2006 to February 2007
Archive 4 - March 2007 - June 2007
Archive 5 - July 2007 - March 2008
Archive 6 - April 2008 -


Add new comments below, click New Section above to start a new section, but consider using the article talk page instead.

Wisconsin[edit]

Do you want to tag that IP talk page for edit warring or should I? Nyth63 18:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

USS Donald Cook[edit]

I've made a request at "ships" for an administrator to put a long term protection on that page. Since it is apparently the target of a perhaps organized, state propaganda effort to insert ridiculous stuff (Yeah, how would they know if the ship went blind?) it should be treated as a prominent politician's biography that is under smear campaigns would be. Palmeira (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be fine. It's been over a year since the incident so I'm surprised that there is still an effort to push that POV over there. It's hard to find sources on the topic since western media just ignored the claims as ridiculous propaganda. The only way we could prove it's true is if they had attacked and seriously damaged the ship. Failing that, it's a he said-she said electronic warfare situation. WP:Red Flag I think covers it, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, especially the part about the crew resigning after the incident. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Halfstar Hires.png The Half Barnstar
Thank you for your many common sense edits to the USS PC-552 article, making the previous well-intentioned but malformed work more worthy of its subject. For improving the page, I award you with appropriate partial credit (shared with User:Ad Orientem) and this very equally shared barnstar. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well deserved. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightning Rod Photo[edit]

Hi, regarding my add of the lightning rod photo, I spent the better part of today dealing with Permissions--Wikipedia Commons/ (Stephen Philbrick/Ticket#: 2015053110008861). I was given the green light to use the photo and am wondering why you think it is promotional? If I went through the proper channels, what is the problem? My name/website appears nowhere in association with the image. Thank you, David

I have no issue with copyright, but how do you think it looks when someone is aggressively adding and re-adding images of their own artwork (which they happen to be selling) to a number of pages? It looks to me like you are trying to promote your art on wikipedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm new here as of yesterday. Talking with two other editors, as well as the person at Permissions, all of whom complimented the work and encouraged me to use it, I didn't feel I was "aggressively" adding anything. I apologize for all the edits as I am new to this. I don't understand how any of these pics are promotional as my name/website don't appear in any of the articles. Thanks again. Best regards, David

Todd Pacific Shipyards, Los Angeles Division[edit]

You might consider creating a navbox for ships built at this shipyard. See {{Lithgows ships}} for an example. Mjroots (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
{{Los Angeles SB&DDC and Todd, Los Angeles ships}} is a start, but I wasn't sure what to use for a title since the yard had 3 different names. I'll leave it alone for a bit in case anyone thinks it needs to be renamed. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked a few wikilinks to remove the ship prefix. Wouldn't alphabetical order be a better way of presenting the ships? Mjroots (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's probably better. I was going for hull sequence / build order, but I suppose it reads like I just picked the order at random. Chronological might be wrong anyway since hull 7 might not have been done before hull 8 anyway. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for your advice![edit]

Good Morning Dual Freq,

Thank you for your kinds words and advice. My confusion comes in with this: My CEO started another company, Phoenix Nuclear Labs, which is on Wikipedia. As you can see form their page, I patterned my draft, with their admin's assistance, after theirs. Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it.

PattiMoly99 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I am still getting conflicting advice from different editors. I will add the ref's back in. Thank you for your help. PattiMoly99 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Afternoon Dual Freq, I worked on the draft this afternoon. Thoughts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SHINE_Medical_Technologies#Products Again, thank you so much for your help. I know I 'write like I speak". Hard to break that habit! Have a nice weekend. PattiMoly99 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Standing by the acceptance[edit]

You have been here long enough to know that this acceptance has not been helpful, despite having been made with the correct intentions. The article was of substantially lower quality than we normally accept, and the referencing was and remains sorely lacking.

You may criticise me all you like, but that does not remove the fact that this article should not, in my view, have been accepted. Discussing it in your talk page discussion would have been like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The ship sank anyway. WP:AFD acts as a spur to concentrate the mind on refining the article to a keepable state if that can be achieved at all.

I have been less active at WP:AFC than I was some months ago, but cannot bring you to mind as a regular reviewer there. Despite your being an experienced Wikipedian, do you review many drafts? In your last 1,000 edits I see only SHINE as having been reviewed using the AFCH script. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What I do know is that your likely main issue is that it was created by a COI editor, I seriously doubt that you looked at any of the references in the <90 minutes it was live before you put it to AfD. The articles in Nature magazine and Nuclear News were the notability tipping points for me, but whatever, you didn't read them before the nomination so what does it matter to you. You couldn't be bothered to comment until you saw the article get moved. Maybe you had it in your mind that it was some kind of pump and dump stock scam or something similar. The company is not even a publicly traded company that could benefit from that type of scam anyway. Thanks for your concern regarding my wikipedia expertise, but I don't need your assistance or editor evaluation at this time. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid reviewing articles until your expertise has altered to encompass the review of references. The draft was vapourware supported by WP:BOMBARD, something an editor of your experience should have recognised. You may assume whatever you like about my motivation. You are unlikely to be correct. Your work on this draft with a new editor has put them in a now very difficult position. Fiddle Faddle 06:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, you're just trying to help by deleting the article. Got it. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If SHINE is saveable as an article there is different work to be done[edit]

I noticed that you are working hard to add references. IN part that is goo, but in part it harms the chances of the article being kept. Many of your additions are Press release and PR material, which does not do the job. More WP:BOMBARD is what you are achieving, despite doing so out of goodwill.

If the article is saveable the way to achieve it is to compare each and every reference against the rather brashly written WP:42 and either to replace references which fail or consider removing the fact they have been used to reference if a good reference cannot be found. Since the original editor's objective was and remains to create an article, concentrating on an article that is likely to succeed is far better than continuing to add faux references, all of which harm the chances of success.

As for my motives, these are simple. They are to continue to improve Wikipedia.. This is done by removal of poor material and the creation of good or better material. Please do not snipe at me as you have done above. Instead, if you feel the article can be saved, something I do not, currently, work to save it. Convince me that you have and it will be a pleasure to withdraw my deletion nomination. Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The article talk page is a good place for discussion of articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It is an excellent place. I am, however, talking to you since you are making it worse, not better. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk page. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I will make one more try. Please cease all editing activities that make this article worse. Only make it better. Please also do not review articles again without learning your trade. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You may stop any time now, your warning to me is not warranted. Others at the afd disagreed with your assessment of the sources, you could talk to them as well. Take it to the article talk page. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have, instead, raised your competence to review at the articles for creation reviewer help desk. You will have seen the ping. In order to review |competence is required. You are the editor who has caused this by your premature acceptance of appallingly referenced material. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

TimTrent, you are placing an excellent editor under attack, and I cannot let it pass without comment. Editors can certainly disagree, of course, but you are being far too aggressive here. Omnedon (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)