User talk:HopsonRoad: Difference between revisions
7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) Happy new year (wikilove) |
|||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
It appears the pro-inclusion editors aren't overly interested in working things out at the Dispute board, nor continuing discussion at article's talkpage. It appears that a Rfc will be required. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC) |
It appears the pro-inclusion editors aren't overly interested in working things out at the Dispute board, nor continuing discussion at article's talkpage. It appears that a Rfc will be required. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Happy New Year, HopsonRoad == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:PostcardNewYearsDayJan1st1910.jpg|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''To an awesome Wikipedian''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Another year; another edit. Onward and upward. Best wishes/ <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 20:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 1 January 2017
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4
Catamaran
Thank you for the correction! de:Madras-Katamaran this is the one. it is called "Kattamaram" in malayalam (and Tamil as well, I guess) which is a native way of fishing vessel. I can see about the early Tamilnadu usage about these things from the catamaran page as well. Do let me know if this image will add some additional information or do we need a separate page for this one? --Manuspanicker (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the interesting link to de:Madras-Katamaran, Manuspanicker. The German article says that the craft is not a catamaran, despite the name, but is a type of Floss, German for "raft". So, the German article is off-base about the picture, too, since a raft consists of multiple floats—usually logs—bound together, as can bee seen at the German article on the topic, de:Floß. The image clearly depicts a dugout canoe. The article describes the derivation of Katamaran as coming from the Tamil word for a craft, consisting of logs bound together. Thanks for the interesting excursion! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- :) The picture is 3 long slightly bent logs bound together to float in sea, which is used for fishing in my native. and it is called "Kattamaram", you can see the ml link there (ml:കട്ടമരം, you may not understand this lang, that's why the de link!). Thanks for the reply. they talk about the same thing. I felt the dug-out is more the kayak type, which is very diff than this. this one is very primitive and the the name is also from the same lines. any way nice to have a conversation! tc. --Manuspanicker (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- So it is, Manuspanicker. Even so, the effect is to create a single hull, not two. It appears to be a dugout canoe made of multiple logs, bound together, that have a "cockpit" for the occupant. Is the "cockpit" caulked so that water doesn't rise up through the joints between logs, I wonder. The Mayalam article suggests that bentonite is used. It's neither a raft nor a catamaran, but a kattamaram! I note that the German article has an "n" at the end of the word, Katamaran. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- :) The picture is 3 long slightly bent logs bound together to float in sea, which is used for fishing in my native. and it is called "Kattamaram", you can see the ml link there (ml:കട്ടമരം, you may not understand this lang, that's why the de link!). Thanks for the reply. they talk about the same thing. I felt the dug-out is more the kayak type, which is very diff than this. this one is very primitive and the the name is also from the same lines. any way nice to have a conversation! tc. --Manuspanicker (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- As to whether the topic merits an article, I would hope that it would draw on one or more references from which the material was summarized. The references that I see in the German and Malayam articles look like they would mention the type of craft only in passing, not necessarily as something of note. It should be called, Kattamaram, if written. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello HR. I know I sent a ping but I wanted to add a written thanks for this. If it keeps getting changed would you consider adding that as a full fledged reference? If you do like the idea I think you should do the honors as you did the research. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, MarnetteD, I put the reference on the term, "Chair," since it was a terminology issue. A reference for his tenure belongs in the text. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good HR. Thanks for taking the time to look into this and for adding the ref. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Disruptive editor
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I've asked for help, regarding the activities of User:New Speech Killer, before, who has a different view of the meaning of "plurality" than is generally accepted in the English-speaking world, which he (I presume) imposes on articles with that term in the title, as is seen at Plurality (voting): Revision history, where he also shows up as IP users 131.104.138.183 and 216.16.241.140. He also refuses to use Talk pages at the pertinent articles to achieve consensus; instead, he leaves abusive edit comments and postings in the Talk pages of various editors. See, for example, here and here. He is very resistant to courtesy and observing the protocols of WP. Also his English is difficult to follow. He has received respectful guidance from a number of editors at his talk page, which only tends to upset him. Please assist in this matter. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I do believe that New Speech Killer is editing against consensus, at least the rough consensus that's emerged from what discussions I've seen spread about the article and user talk pages. I have left the user an edit warring warning. Comments like
Consensus is not a good think, the good thinks is objectivity and honesty. I believe you know that the best consensus is between mafia like members.
from your second example above concern me, since reaching consensus is what Wikipedia is all about. If this activity continues, you may be better off adjusting your template to an {{admin help}} template, or taking it to WP:ANI. Cheers, Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi HopsonRoad - help?
Hi HopsonRoad! You were so kind in welcoming me to editing Wikipedia a few years ago! So I just wanted to let you know, I'm actually now reading up to truly understand the editing process. Previously, I've just been fixing minor grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. errors.
If you could look at the "Burt Baskin" (of Baskin-Robbins ice cream fame) talk page and see what I've written and let me know what you think, I'd be very appreciative! Of course, if you don't have time, I understand. I was listening to the "Food Revolution Summit" last week with John Robbins, who is Baskin's nephew, which is why I looked up his page, and it seems there are some issues on the article. Thanks, and thanks again for your welcome when I joined Wikipedia! Best. -Betsey (named after a character in David Copperfield). BetseyTrotwood (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again HR - Thank You for your answer on the Burt Baskin talk page! I will proceed and try to "be bold"! (I had just seen that page "be bold" yesterday after I asked the question, so thanks for reinforcing that!) You're a peach, HR! -BT (my real initials :) ) BetseyTrotwood (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piloting (navigation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Help,visual editor
hello, how can I activate visual editing?i hate this text editor.At Last ... (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bolt rope, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mast and Boom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tack (sailing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sailing vessel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Nantucket in the Revolutionary War
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please look in on Nantucket in the Revolutionary War. The editor appears to be a student, working on a history project, who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. The article doesn't yet demonstrate attributes of notability, in my opinion. I've tried to explain this in the Talk page, but have received no reply from the editor. User:HopsonRoad 13:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- And what do you want others to do about that? My advice would be to leave a note at the new user's talk page pointing them towards the article's talk page (they may not be familiar with that system); I'll do so. Other than that, I'd say the regular editing processes should be used. If you feel there isn't enough coverage of Nantucket's Revolutionary War history to establish notability, then unfortunately AFD would be the place to go. Personally I would expect that at least some such coverage exists; in fact, the "references" section gives two books explicitly dealing with this period of Nantucket history. Huon (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Huon, You did exactly what I feel is appropriate at this stage. Thank you. I wasn't looking for AFD, merely to help guide the editor towards making the case for notability in the lead and consequently, the article. If the article appears to not be shaping up, properly, can a different user request that it become a draft, as you offered at User talk:Conrad.troast? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, HopsonRoad. 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)
HopsonRoad, I just fixed the top section of your individual reassessment page; it was not displaying properly, so I used the standard coding for that section.
Please don't forget to notify the WikiProjects related to this article, as is specified in the WP:GAR instructions; it is a good way to find people who can help address the issues you've raised, since the original editors may not still be around (especially in the case of an article that became a GA so long ago). Many thanks, and I'm glad you were willing to take on this reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Possessive nouns
Hi,
I'm writing to ask why exactly you undid this edit I made to the Jeffrey Jones article over a month ago. [[1]] I was always taught to add an "s" after an apostrophe even when someone's first or last name ends with an "s". Although I understand that omitting an "s" after the apostrophe for names like Jones is acceptable nowadays according to the Chicago manual of style, I was told that adding "another possessive S after a word ending in S" is preferred' according to that same manual. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while so it's possible that I may be missing something here but I would really appreciate it if you could elaborate more as to why you reverted this edit. Thank you. Shaneymike (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Use the apostrophe to show possession. To show possession with a singular noun, add an apostrophe plus the letter s.
Examples:
a woman's hat
the boss's wife
Mrs. Chang's house"
But most people would pronounce an added s in "Jones's," so we'd write it as we say it: Mr. Jones's golf clubs.
Just to show you where I'm coming from.Shaneymike (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking in, Shaneymike. In the link that you provided it stated, "One method, common in newspapers and magazines, is to add an apostrophe + s ('s) to common nouns ending in s, but only a stand-alone apostrophe to proper nouns ending in s.
- Examples:
- the class's hours
- Mr. Jones' golf clubs
- the canvas's size
- Texas' weather
- Care must be taken to place the apostrophe outside the word in question. For instance, if talking about a pen belonging to Mr. Hastings, many people would wrongly write Mr. Hasting's pen (his name is not Mr. Hasting).
- Correct: Mr. Hastings' pen
- It also says that your approach is acceptable. However, I was applying the standard used in journalism, as described, above. If you like Jones's better, I won't quibble! User:HopsonRoad 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Move closures
Hi HopsonRoad, while I think that it's great that you want to improve the cold-weather warfare article, and are clearly putting a lot of time and effort in to editing it it might be a good idea to review Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, as the nominator of the move there was a clear conflict of interest and you closed the discussion after it has only been up for three days as opposed to the full seven day listing as required. Furthermore as you are not an admin per the policy WP:RMNAC you should have identified yourself (it may also be worthwhile looking at the essay WP:NAC). While I did of course support the move in the RM, and see no reason to make an issue out of it for petty bureaucratic reasons (WP:IGNORE is a policy too of course) it may be a good idea to not make a habit of making moves in this manner and instead be a little more cautious in the future. Ebonelm (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your gentle message, Ebonelm. My feeling was that, since there was no opposition to the new, alternate target move and if I had, perchance, chosen that alternate target name in the first place, there would have been no intervening administrative action. In other cases, when I made a name change, there were no bells going off, just the need to explain the move. It was only when the originally proposed target name was already a redirect, that bells rang. Since there was sufficient opportunity to comment and no apparent controversy about the new, alternate target name, I proceeded. I will certainly take your advice to heart, in the future. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 04:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Vermont gubernatorial elections
Howdy. Is Vermont the only state that requires 50%+ result for election? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking in, GoodDay. Of the states where governors have won with a plurality, it appears that Vermont and Mississippi require legislative action. User:HopsonRoad 22:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Check out how it was done at the 1999 Mississippi gubernatorial election article. PS - Gotta luv those 5 states that hold their gov elections in odd-numbered years. Going against the grain :) GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- And an example of where the 1% Reform party vote doesn't earn a place in the infobox, GoodDay! User:HopsonRoad 02:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Check out how it was done at the 1999 Mississippi gubernatorial election article. PS - Gotta luv those 5 states that hold their gov elections in odd-numbered years. Going against the grain :) GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears the pro-inclusion editors aren't overly interested in working things out at the Dispute board, nor continuing discussion at article's talkpage. It appears that a Rfc will be required. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year, HopsonRoad
To an awesome Wikipedian | |
Another year; another edit. Onward and upward. Best wishes/ 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC) |