User talk:Luceyg

Welcome

Hello, Luceyg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Killiondude (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Autobiography question

Originally posted at User talk:Henrik and copied/pasted here for easier reference by Mr. Lucey. Killiondude (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple months ago I noticed my full name was in Wikipedia along with a statement thatI was an American engineer. How did that happen?

There was also an invitation to submit additional information. So, an article was recently submitted.

The stats page now shows 257 visits, most appearing to be before the article was submitted. Is that an error, or were there visits to the previous name and occupation listing?

I am a novice at the Wiki format What needs to be done to remove the Unreviewed Article Tag? User:luceyg (I think) Luceyg (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! It appears that Piszkosfred (talk · contribs) was the one who started the page. Regarding the hits the page received prior to it being created: yes, those are real "views" of the page before it was created. It didn't get very many in June, and none in July. If you could point to the place where you said you saw a few months ago that you were listed as an American engineer, I could show you who wrote that (by looking at the edit history) but it could by any number of wikipedians who edit the site.
Also, I've reviewed the article and it seems to be okay for Wikipedia and I've removed the tag at the top of the article. However, that doesn't mean the article can't go without improvements. It'd be nice to use inline citations that the software uses (See User:Chzz/help/refs-- I like how Chzz words his help documents-- and there's Help:Ref but that's a lengthy page) and more citations at specific parts in the article (where I added some [citation needed] tags).
Some reading material I strongly suggest you take a look at is WP:ASFAQ and WP:AUTO. Editing your own biography is not forbidden, but it is strongly discouraged. If you have any further questions, please ask me on my talk page or email me at KilliondudeWPgmail.com. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that this is how to respond to your guidance. Thank you for the guidance, it was very helpful. I practiced initially with the sandbox, and have been contributing to a page on the M734 Multi-Option Mortar Fuze. I am gradually gaining confidence on the Wiki language. I will read your references and practice more. Thanks for the prompt response. User:Luceyg Luceyg (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is how you can respond. :-) I've "watched" your talk page so that when I go to Special:Watchlist, I can see if you've responded or if anyone else has edited this page. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve so let me know if I can help you with anything. Killiondude (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that each new input should be at the bottom of the talk page. This input is to respond to one of the two deficiencies cited for the article. The deficiency was the need to validate the expertise claimed by the Univ of MD CALCE, and this was done by inserting a link to an independent survey performed by an industry panel of experts.

Luceyg (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Luceyg (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This input is to respond to the second deficiency cited for the article, namely the absence of a reference validating the statement that test equipment of the Army was provided to support the Navy EMPF. Two publications were cited to correct the deficiency, and a link was provided for the one that is downloadable from the internet. At the time the equipment was provided, the EMPF was located at Crane Indiana - since it has moved and management has changed, the Crane notation was added.

Luceyg (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

M734 Fuze Updates

Could you take another look at the M734 Fuze article? I saw the request for additions and have made contributions of: pictures, a description of the Safety and Arming Mechanism, a history of the R&D program, supporting Footnotes, and corrections to the External Links. The inputs were based upon my experience as the Army manager who transitioned the fuze out of R&D and into Full Scale Production. An effort was made to speak in plain English, as you requested years ago. I am now preparing a section on the most unique feature of the fuze, namely the Turbine Alternator power supply. But, since I am a novice editor to Wikipedia articles, I would like an editor's review to be certain I am on the right track, and to ask whether the rating can be improved over that of a STUB. Luceyg (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, good to see an expert coming aboard... firstly, remember this is a general encyclopaedia, and many readers may need help in following technical terms - so try to provide links to dumbed-down explanations whenever possible. Eg. " frequency modulated continuous wave"... in the introduction loses me, whereas a simplified explanation either in notes or a link could help enormously. Similarly, "Electrical power is supplied to the fuze via an air flow driven turbine alternator" needs dumbing down, - you may need to link to alternator for folks who don't even know what an alternator is. I'm no expert in modern artillery but I'll try to give you more feedback in a couple of days. But the main thing is to always give the reader a path to follow if they don't understand something but want to continue. Maybe - target the article at a smart private first class, while also providing avenues for officers' deeper interest ? But the information appears to be there i.e. what is this thing, what does it do, how does it do it and who uses it. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how to use talk pages, so forgive me for putting the comments below on your talk page as well as mine. I assume that I should use this page in the future unless something new arises.

As I understand your reply, to improve the M734 Fuze article for the broadest range of Encyclopedia readers, it could: 1) Be written with wording similar to a training manual for an educated sergeant rather than as a set of technical notes for a design engineer; and 2) Include links for readers if additional explanation is needed for a technical term, such as "alternator."

I will try to do this in three steps, the first being to complete the technical input, the second being to ask for your review and comment, and the third being to go back and simplify. At the moment, I am presently wwriting a separate description for the turbine alternator since the 1 inch size and required functions are so different from the Wiki links to "megawatt alternators" and "300ft tall wind turbines."

I will be back to ask for your help with a stage 2 review in a couple weeks.

Luceyg (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I just reread the M734 fuze article and it seems accessible to the general reader while still giving lots of technical info. Good work ! Could you add something about how it is used in action - e.g. which member of the crew sets the fuze & when etc. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review and the mortar crew suggestion. I wanted to see if I am on the right track in the editing - because I did not want to destroy the work of the first contributor since I am a novice in Wiki formatting. I will continue to reduce the complexity of the current article before adding a new section about "turbine alternators" since there is no convenient link to explanations already in Wikipedia.

Question-should I just update the article as I see fit section by section and ask for periodic reviews, or do an overall modification and email it for review?

Question-is there a way to go back and change the wording of an Edit Summary after a page has been saved?

Regards, George

Luceyg (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Help Request M734 Pictures

The M734 Fuze rewrite into the level of a Master Sergeant is complete and ready for your review and comment. One questions is how to link figure numbers in the body of text to the figure titles....for example,suppose someone enters a new picture, how can the numbering system change as it does with the footnotes. Regards, George

Luceyg (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Help Udpdate M734 Fuze Rating

The M734 Fuze article was rated as Stub-Class when I started revisions and I would appreciate your review for a G rating or higher.

My contributions as the Army manager that fielded the first production of the fuze are now complete.

Rcbutcher recommendations regarding links to technical words and style of language for broader Wiki appeal have been included.

The text has been lengthened, pictures have been added, all components of the fuze have been addressed, references added, external

links corrected, history added, next generation fuze identified.

Luceyg (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Image was deleted from the aricle

{{helpme}} Why was the image M734_S&A_Mechanism.jpg deleted in Figure 4 of the M734 Fuze article? How can it be fixed? I tried uploading the image under different names without success.

Regards, George Luceyg (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File:M734_S&A_Mechanism.jpg is available here. It is also still present in the article, so I'm not seeing that it was deleted. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The image was missing and an x in the article, but it reappeared when you replied. There is a CSD8 Tag on the exploded view of M734_Parts.jpg, so is at risk of being deleted because I did a duplicate upload somehow? How can I get the tag removed? Luceyg (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the CSD tag, all it is saying is that the file is now on Wikimedia Commons, and as such doesn't need to be hosted locally anymore. It will be deleted from the English Wikipedia, but will be present on Commons and can thus still be used in articles in the exact same was as if it were on English Wikipedia. Basically, don't worry about the CSD tag, as it won't result in any changes to the usage of the image. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 14:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vortex Ring Gun

Hi there, I'm responding to your request for feedback. I know nothing about this kind of device, but... as this is a rather obscure type of device for the "average intelligent general reader", I suggest the opening paragraph should give a simple explanation of what it did, why and when... e.g. "a 1990s attempt by the US military to adapt lethal firearms to fire an energy field generated by the gun's propellant charge, rather than the usual small projectile, to deliver a widely-spread non-lethal blow against personnel"... or something to that effect - the how should come later, not right up front. I had to read much of the article to deduce its purpose and get a basic idea of how it worked. Following the intro para, I suggest sections : Background, Development history, Technical overview, Operation in the field, Testing, Abandonment (this would normally be Deployment)... the detail appears to be there, but the "what, why, when, how" is not clearly presented. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

*Good points, thanks Luceyg (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect?

With regard to this edit - have you considered setting up a redirect for the non-period version? I just saw it as a passing comment, and don't know enough about the conventions of jr vs jr. - but its somethimg you could look into. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Kenneth Lucey Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Saturday. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Luceyg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)