Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kittybrewster (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 25 July 2010 (→Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is GregJackP's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

Wikistalk

Sources

Watson: greenhouse effect seen by looking at Mars, Venus, and Earth .... :

General agreement among skeptics and AGW proponents

Debate Bob Watson, John Christy, Michael Mann, Bjorn Lomborg

Chief scientific adviser, UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

, Observing Earth Venus Mars etc...

Cambridge University Press: Watson on greenhouse effect looking at Mars and Venus

Watson and NASA

greenhouse effect on venus (not about Watson)

Admin section

you have just added a comment to the uninvolved admin section of the enforcement page. you should quickly move it as this is considered to be a cardinal sin!! Polargeo (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done. My apologies - I thought I had hit the edit link for other users. I certainly didn't mean to place it in an admin section. Thank you for giving me a heads up and chance to correct my mistake. GregJackP Boomer! 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise to me. I completely disagree with the existance of that section. I actually disagree with the enforcement page in general but that section in particular. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

your sig

Hi. I've edited per your request on my talk. I saw a number of issues. First off, the sig exceeded the length allowed by WP:SIG. The use of subst in preferences is a means of evading this limit, which is primarily about not cluttering up pages with too much markup that others have to read around. There was also some invalid code (incorrect close of the font-element, omitted close of the outer span element), some deprecated code (the whole font-element), and a problematic typeface (Mistral).

I've gotten it down to exactly 255 characters and using correct code. The use of Mistral is poor because it is often outright illegible on some systems, and it's often not even available (I don't have it on my primary machine). When absent, is shows in the much clearer default typeface; when present, people may not be able to read it, especially if their machine is not using font-smoothing techniques (which many are not). I've changed the typeface to Papyrus, which is in the same vein, and more typically available and legible. The unclosed outer span is what achieved the effect of wrapping the box around the timestamp, however this can run amok, as it is dependent on implicit browser behaviour, appended comments would also appear in the box, and could 'leak' into subsequent post if aspects of MediaWiki are changed (and they are; I've seen other cases where changes to the code have exposed problems with old posts that were being masked by the old versions of MW).

You should paste this into your prefs and stop using the subst approach. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. Are there any other fonts that are like Mistral? I really like the cursive look, and Papyrus just doesn't look right to me (probably because I don't have good tastes ;p)... GregJackP Boomer! 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Any use of typefaces on websites is problematic, as the sites only ask for a typeface by name; the typefaces present on whomever's machine determine what actually happens (I know about embedded typefaces, but it's N/A here). Any cursive typeface will have rendering problems for most users, as they simply are not about legibility. See Category:Casual script typefaces for some others, but know that they will all have some of the same issues, and given that the sig I set is at exactly 255 characters, any name longer than 'Papyrus' will put you into sig-vio-territory, again. And note that any typeface that includes spaces in the name needs a pair of single-quotes (') around it, and they count against the 255. i.e. to add a long typeface name would require something else to be cut. You up for cutting the border and background?

I checked Mistral on a crappy Windows laptop without font smoothing, and it simply was illegible. I just looked at WP:SIG and it is silent on the subject of typefaces. Frankly this surprises me, and this should be added to that. It may-well have been discussed before. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherokee?

What clan? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Menominee, Ojibwe (Chippewa), and a minuscule amount of Choctaw, but not enrolled (blood quantum) even though I was born in Indian Country and raised that way. Sorry, not Cherokee (at least that I know of). GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I saw the Oklahoma tag and assumed Cherokee. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

RfC

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or

(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group

Good luck. I don't even want to touch it. At first I thought about adding a military infobox and a new introduction. I had started a 330th Bombardment Group page from the redirect after I moved it with the belief that I could merge it into a new page with other information... but I thought about it again and decided just to leave it as it was and include it in the Group's page as part of the history section. The belief was that in a search for "330th Bombardment Group", it would still show up as all I did when I renamed it was to expand the name... Then I remembered I wrote the page for the wing about a year ago so I merged the Bomb Group page I wrote into that and just left the whole thing as a #redirect ... his page was left prominently featured in the history section. Personally I think that's the best thing; We want to keep the information provided .. it's a detailed diary of a unit in the Pacific War.. and a very notable one.

Been writing these articles in Misplaced Pages for a few years now. and when I see that someone has spent a lot of time on one.. the last thing I want to do rewrite it. Now I will go in and move sections around and do some reformatting of basic lineage and assignments and bases, but if there is a lot of detail about the unit and it's history. Normally leave that alone. For example I was very careful when I edited the 509th Composite Group page. That was someone's labor of love and I didn't want to do too much editing to what they wrote. Created a 509th Operations Group and 509th Bomb Wing page and left what was contributed for the 509th CG alone, simply referencing the World War II page in them. NO need to fix what doesn't need fixing. And I have the same feelings about this page as I did about the 509th..

As I said good luck.. take care in all you do here as well.. Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the page and saw the split notice. Good idea. Like the names of the proposed pages also. Might take a shot at it in a little while; want to finish up what I'm working on at the moment -List of B-29 Superfortress operators- which has a lot of unit pages that need some expanding. Then I have a beach on the Atlantic Coast -Saint Simons Island- that has my name on it for a little while... Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to assist in maintaining and improving the 330th Bombardment Group page. The only reason I renamed it to 330th Bomabardment Group (VH) is that it would not let me rename it back to the original '330th Bombardment Group' but officially the (VH) is there. As far as redirecting '330th Bombardment Group' to the '330th Sustainment Wing' that is incorrect. That is like redirecting a search for horse cavalry to air cavalry. Yes the 'Sustainment Wing' is a relative to Bombardment Group, but the Bombardment Group was disbanded in 1946. Then years later, was reborn as the 'Sustainment Wing'.

1. In so far as referencing my sources, most, if not all, of the information comes directly from the website I maintain for the 330th.org. The mission summaries were taken directly from extensive research through the microfilm i had obtained from Maxwell, AFB historical archives. Some were taken from first hand accounts over the years of interviewing 330th veterans.
2. I welcome any assistance. I was taken aback when I went to look something up on the 330th Bombardment Group and was redirected back to the Sustainment Wing and found out that the 330th page was renamed. There is a heck of a lot more information in there than mission chronological's. The history of where they were based, aircraft, commanders, aircraft names and histories..,etc. Thank you so much for taking the time to assist this wonderful little piece of history.

--B29bomber (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• B29, I am glad to help, but you need to be aware of a couple of things from my perspective. First, Bwmoll3 was entirely correct in the merge and move. The 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing carries the lineage and honors of the 330th BG, and that is typically how articles in Misplaced Pages are styled. Brent was WP:BOLD in the move and I support him in that. Brent also has edited extensively on USAF/USAAF units and airfields for several years and is recognized as a subject matter expert by a lot of MilHist editors, including myself. Second, I also don't have a problem with your reversion (per WP:BRD - entirely proper, although the remove could have been handled a little better, since we are now left with a redirect from Fred squawbasker. Third, you have repeatedly referred to the article as your page - which implies ownership. Anyone can edit it, including moving the page. I'm working on the article now - and the microfilm can be used as a reference(s) using the regular citation template. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Evidence

In future, please notify me if you refer to me in an ArbCom case to which I am not a party so I can correct any misstaments. For example, you say "The 2nd was by Verbal who reverted stating that the sources were not good (sources were the Guardian, NASA, and a textbook by an Oxford professor)". This is untrue. I said the material was not supported by the sources (plus other problems) and did not state that the sources were unreliable, or "not good". Please amend, strike or remove. Verbal chat 16:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary stated (incorrectly I might note): "Reverted 1 edit by GregJackP; Material is not well sourced and is UNDUE / unbalanced. Take to talk please.." I stand by my evidence presented, and will not amend, strike, nor remove it. In addition, the post was made to show the timeline of the actions, not to show any misconduct on your part. The instructions stated that there would not be a formal list of parties, and that notification was only required for "editors whose conduct is being reviewed" - your conduct was not being reviewed as far as I know, nor did I bring up any matter that would require your conduct to be reviewed. Notification was not required. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you support the statement I quoted: "The 2nd was by Verbal who reverted stating that the sources were not good (sources were the Guardian, NASA, and a textbook by an Oxford professor)". I never stated the sources were not good, just that they did not support the material. You are with your summary of my actions "reviewing my conduct", and it is a misleading review at that. Please amend. Verbal chat 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No. EOD on my part, but if you feel the need, go ahead and address in a different forum. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please show evidence where I state that the sources are no good, or amend (ie clarify) your evidence (by quoting my edit summary in full rather than an inaccurate or ambiguous paraphrase). Thanks, Verbal chat 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my above statement, no, I will not revert nor amend my evidence as I believe that it is an accurate representation of what occurred. The diffs were presented, and the ArbCom members will make their own decisions based on the diffs. Other editors had the same interpretation of your edit summary. I am not going to discuss this further, but if you feel the need, you of course may address this in a different forum. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can claim it is accurate when the quote you give above does not say what you have summarised it as. It is not accurate at all. I don't see why you're being so combative about this. I only discovered I was mentioned in the evidence today, and I'm trying to clear up some mistakes. If I have personally offended you in some way I'm sorry. "Verbal who reverted stating that the sources were not good (sources were the Guardian, NASA, and a textbook by an Oxford professor)" is at the very least misleading, and replacing it with a quote would be much better - "Verbal who reverted stating 'Material is not well sourced and is UNDUE / unbalanced. Take to talk please..'". The parenthetical is unnecessary and creates a false impression in your version, but I see no harm in you leaving it in if you would only please quote me directly. Verbal chat 19:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Mark and Collect have graciously agreed to amend their evidence to clarify what I said and didn't say. I'd be most grateful if you would kindly reconsider, and show the good faith that many have complained is lacking in this area. Verbal chat 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor RFC/U

Hi, GregJackP. I think you've missed that the first diff cited in your view was actually Gun Powder Ma editing his own section. Kanguole 14:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing

This edit by Gun Powder Ma here at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor caused me to draft this explanation. The edit was quickly undone by Gun Powder Ma here; but it may be productive to seize this trivial edit as an opportunity to underscore what I mean in using this curious phrase.

I discovered these words on the userpage of Kraftlos; and I was surprised that it made sense to me. Conventionally, this form of word play escapes my grasp. I don't know whether Kraftlos is the originator or whether it is copied from an unattributed source.

My guess is that this is a peculiarly American formulation which parodies the words of Yogi Berra? Berra is well known for his pithy comments and witticisms which are called "Yogiisms." Yogiisms very often take the form of either an apparently obvious tautology, or a paradoxical contradiction.

Teeninvestor has explained that he is an American, the son of emigrants who came to the United States when he was six years old. Arguably, Teeninvestor will find value in this semi-Yogiism. Perhaps the point will be immediately accessible in ways that a carefully-composed, logical exposition fails to achieve? Who can say? In this RfC context, I interpret the phrase to mean that

In other words, it is important to avert a possibility that the RfC may become side-tracked or distracted by tangential issues. I hoped that this phrase would resonate in some way for Teeninvestor. More broadly, I hoped that it would contribute to prospects of a constructive outcome.

Does this help explain what I meant and what I intended? If not, please allow me to try to explain again using different words.

Do you think this phrase helps to focus attention, or is it counterproductive?

Does this phrase help or hinder the "desired outcome"? --Tenmei (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

Hi, I noticed you added your view to the above RfC. The first link you gave is of Gun Powder Ma changing his own statement, yet you say it's Teeninvestor. Did you mean to use another link? Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, I made a mistake, which I hope I have corrected by striking my entire comment. GregJackP Boomer! 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DNTTR

Kittybrewster ☎ 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)