User talk:Jinian

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, thanks for working on the Shakespeare articles. Cheers! --maveric149

---

I've just noticed that in at least some of the ship articles you are adding you are using a comma as a decimal point. That useage is not correct in English. A comma is used to break up long numbers, for example 1,000,000. A decimal point is always a full stop (period). David Newton 06:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Sorry about the copyvio flag 2 Chaffee 3 Nicholas Biddle 4 Bias 5 Nautilus 6 Categories for deletion 7 for now, let's just work together 8 Thanks for the clarification 9 my redirect and revert. 10 The Humungous Image Tagging Project 11 Article Licensing 12 Robert Carney's grandson 13 DANFS conversions 14 Catagorizing by decade 15 Iwo 16 New ship table template 17 Adminship 18 Jeff Algera and Template:delete 19 Congratulations! 20 Radio KoL 21 Kilbrack 22 Referring to ships 23 Rokia Traoré 24 Mount Whitney 25 Deletion

Sorry about the copyvio flag

Please accept my sincere apologies for flagging USS Sims (DD-409) as a copyright violation. I have reverted the page to before I placed the notice. Thanks for letting me know about my mistake! -Frazzydee 01:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chaffee

Nice job on the page.

Nicholas Biddle

Since you changed Nicholas Biddle into a disambiguation page, you really chould go ahead and disambiguate all the pages that link there. It was previously a primary topic (one Nicholas Biddle is somewhat more notable than the other), so most, if not all, of the links should be updated to whatever it was that you moved it to. Best. older≠wiser 17:16, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Bias

I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nautilus

Nice additions to the Nautilus article, 2 things though, please don't remove this article from Category:Ships named Nautilus, as it was a ship named Nautilus. Also did you use Optical character recognition to scan this data in? Would you check this phrase: "arid after provisioning" is that not supposed to be "and after provisioning"? Anyway, good job de-stubbifying the article. Looks great.Pedant 17:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

sorry, I think I'm not understanding your comment on index pages, categories. Would you really explain that? It seems like you're saying, well it seems like you are saying several different things and I'd rather ask you what you mean than try to interpret it, since you're online now. Would you mind explaining it as if I am an idiot, so I'm sure I understand? thanksPedant

Okay, and I'll do it here so that we can have the conversation in one place.

Most information about the style of ships' pages can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Index pages are discussed in section 2.1, but for brevity, it says Index articles about ships should include in their titles only the standard prefix used by that ship. Other identification should be omitted, so that a reader can easily locate the material sought; eg, name an index article simply "USS Enterprise." So, instead of an article entitled "Ships named Nautilus", to be in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like, it would be "USS Nautilus" (Moving the current page to one with this title is now on my list of things to do, after I noticed the problem.) See USS Enterprise for an example of what a ship index page looks like. Then each ship goes into the proper category based on the type of ship it was/is (destroyer/sloop/aircraft carrier/gunboat/tug, whatever).

Hope this helps. Jinian 18:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some discussion, however, Ships named Nautilus is not a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some attention regarding systemic American-centric bias, if every ship is supposed to be listed under the designation "USS". Pedant.

One, Ships named Nautilus is not intended to be an index page, it is about all ships named Nautilus. Pedant

Fine, but it's pretty redundant with the individual ships' pages.[unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No, it is not redundant. Several of those ships pages are merely copied from Ships named Nautilus. USS Nautilus is not a likely page for me to look for HMS Nautilus or Nautilus (Fulton) -- neither of which are or ever were referred to as "USS Nautilus", or or USS O-12 (SS-73) which was USS Nautilus, but was not originally named Nautilus. Pedant

Two, not all ships named Nautilus were US ships. Pedant

Your point? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

My point is that USS is a designation for United States ships. USS is not the designation for other nation's ships, nor for merchant ships, nor fictional ships. Pedant

Three, not all ships named Nautilus that were US ships were Navy ships. Pedant

Yes? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No. USS is a US naval designation, generally. Pedant

Four, not all ships that were Navy ships with the name Nautilus were named USS Nautilus. Please do not move Ships named Nautilus to USS Nautilus. Pedant

I was planning to break it into several pages, to properly disambig it. Obviously it's not as easy as just moving it, which is why I didn't just do it. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

You "didn't do it because it wasn't easy". You actually said that? Then you say, 'to properly disambig it', but there is no ambiguity in the article whatsoever. Ships named Nautilus is not a disambiguation article, but it serves the function of one far better than USS Nautilus, as it has a broader scope, and disambiguation articles should have the broadest scope possible. Pedant

USS Enterprise is not the name of HMS Enterprise, however, HMS Enterprise is a "Ship named Enterprise. Pedant

And therefore has it's own page. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Lots of pages actually, the point of categorisation is to simplify searching and cross referencing... how would you navigate from HMS Enterprize (1709) to USS Enterprise (1799)? Pedant

Five, Ships named Nautilus is not as you term it, a problem. It was written by 2 experts on the name Nautilus, the Officer-in-charge of the Historic ship Nautilus, and the curator of the United States Naval Submarine Force Museum, Groton, Connecticut.Pedant

It's completely different format and structure than every other page about ships on Wikipedia. That's the problem, not the text. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It's not about ships. Its about the naval history of the name Nautilus in fiction and the real world. Pedant

Six, There are however problems with USS Nautilus, it contains innaccurate data and weasel words as presently written.Pedant

Fix it then. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

I don't intend to. I had 'fixed' it by changing it to a redirect. However, you pointed out that the structure that is in common use at this point is to have an article with that title. So I reverted to the earlier version. It doesn't however serve the purpose of, or have the scope of the article Ships named Nautilus. It links to less pages. I don't think the article serves the purpose it's intended to, as disambiguation pages should have the broadest scope possible.Pedant

Seven, These two articles are separate articles each of whose existence does not depend on the other's.Pedant

Huh? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Ships named Nautilus is a good article and is accurate, NPOV, has room for expansion and serves a purpose. USS Nautilus does not adequately serve the purpose it is intended to, and because of its name, is limited in scope, and can never adequately replace Ships named Nautilus. Except for it being as you say: "in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like" USS Nautilus is an inferior article, in terms of scope only, ie, every fact in USS Nautilus, can be (and probably is) in Ships named Nautilus, but the same does not hold true in reverse. HMS Nautilus, Captain Nemo's Nautilus, and USS O-12 (SS-73) are not likely to be looked for at USS Nautilus

Eight, there are more than one ways to categorize articles: articles and categories may be part of more than one categorization scheme. If you were going to look up for example the Nautilus whose keel was laid down in 1916, you can go to Category:Ships>Category:Ships by name>Category:Ships named Nautilus>Ships named NautilusPedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

This is the only category in the "ships by name" category. Look for my request to delete it and make your case to the community on that page. Jinian 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It is not the only category in Category:Ships by name. You listed it for deletion while I was still populating it. I won't be doing any work on any categories until we get this straightened out.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Might be a good idea to wait for the community to decide on this new category scheme you've developed. There's a lot of other good work to be done that won't have to be undone. If the community agrees with this, you can always to the work later. Jinian 20:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you did not exhaust the discussion before you placed categories in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. You did not inform me that you had done so for 42 minutes, while I was still working. I consider your behavior to be rude and obstructive, and I will no longer discuss this on your talk page. Since you listed these categories on CfD, I will continue this there if necessary, but I think my point is made, that it is valid, and that community consensus will support it. I'm disappointed to find you taking an adversarial position, as I had looked forward to collaborating with you.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

for now, let's just work together

Since you are interested in Naval History and ships, can we work together, rather than against each other. I propose we just leave the categories issue for now, and let it be decided by the community at large, with no hard feelings.

I looked over your Lady Washington article, do you have any information on the Irish brigantine "Lady Washington", that travelled between Belfast and Charleston in 1803?

Or the sloop "Lady Washington" that ran from Charelston to St. Augustine?

Or the 87 ft, 99 ton trading brig "Washington" that was built on the Essex in Massachusetts, built around 1750, re-named as the "Lady Washington" around 1770, the first to round Cape Horn and land in the Pacific Northwest of North America and traded in the waters around Puget Sound and the west coast of the North American continent in the 1790s?

Or the square-rigged "Lady Washington", replica of the same tall ship, built in Aberdeen and aunched in 1989 "Lady Washington", the official tall ship of Washington State? nice pic of the replica at sail here (http://www.experiencewashington.com/byways/images/24POI/ladywashington.jpg) and here (http://www.opbba.com/op/areaphotos/big/graysharbor/lady.jpg) and at dockside (http://www.remtech1.com/images/ladywashington1_large.jpg)

There are a lot of different vessels named Lady Washington, maybe we need a disambiguation page? But then as far as I can find, there were none that were ever called USS Lady Washington, can you point me to your source for the information on USS Lady Washington please? I think that the Coninental Army and Navy never called their ships "USS" anything. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I'm trying to find more information to complete the USS Lady Washington articlePedant 23:26, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

I answered on my page... If you want to just leave the discussion there, thats fine, I'll drop you a note if I respond.Pedant 03:58, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

Thanks. So the Lady Washington wasn't ever the USS Lady Washington? Did you find some reference where she was referred to as the USS Lady Washington? That's the one question I asked several times. If you did, where was that reference? Thanks again.Pedant 16:41, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

my redirect and revert.

Like I said before, it looked like a page that was not according to the standard discussed on the project page, and when I found out it actually had become a custom for ships to be listed that way, though I still don't see the rationale for the making of an article titled USS Nautilus instead of Nautilus or Nautilus (disambiguation).

As soon as I found out such a title was in fact customary, regardless that it is not the way it was recommended on the project page and is different from the way wikipedia in general disambiguates, I immediately restored it. It's certainly not my intent to damage the wikipedia in any way.

I'm glad you don't troll for people to attack, though. That would be bad. You seemed to me to abruptly stop responding to questions and to cease discussing things rationally, and it seemed pretty rude to wait more than 40 minutes before telling me you had listed the new categories to be deleted. If I were going to take an extreme measure like that, I would have discussed it with you first, not afterwards, certainly not almost an hour later. My impression was that you were aggressive and rude, as I said before. I hope we can have better interactions in the future, and I intend to do whatever it takes to make that hope come true.Pedant 05:35, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Robert Carney's grandson

Great job on your Robert Carney article! I asked the grandson of Robert Carney (Judge Robert Carney) to edit the article, but he said that it looks like whoever wrote this article knows more about his grandfather than he does. --NoPetrol 21:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. All of the information came from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, so that author is the knowledgable one. I am but the mere lifter of un-copyrighted material. Jinian 22:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DANFS conversions

I see that you have been converting DANFS entries to Wikipedia articles. You might be interested in my comments on DANFS conversions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions. Gdr 13:12, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Catagorizing by decade

Moved from user page Howdy Jinian.

The catagorization by decade / major war debate has been around for awhile, and is currently pretty inconsistant (aircraft are currently by decade, AFVs are by major war(s)).

I'm an advocate of the decade catagorization myself (and, if it helps, I was probably the first person to start categorizing by major war(s) with WWII AFVs) as I've found it's more accurate, as the major war(s) route has, IMO, far to many loopholes (used by irregular forces; around at the time, but not used; used in 2+ wars; not used in any wars etc.).

For major wars, I personally recommend the use of a list page instead.

This is all just my opinion though, and should probably be voted on before anything is set in stone. There's been a limited discussion of this on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weaponry, but nothing has been officially adopted, so far as I know. Oberiko 23:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iwo

Hiya, Jinian. You're right that Iwo will be doing more than just flagship duties, but as Mt. Whitney's going to be out of the picture entirely, it's accurate to say "replaced." I'm going to try rewording. Bbpen 22:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New ship table template

I've spent the last few days working on a new ship table template to enable us to centralise the editing of things like weapons outfits for a particular class of ships in one template (so with the Fletchers or Gearings or other big classes you only have to edit in one place to alter a mistake rather than in dozens or hundreds). Please have a look at the WikiProject Ships page's talk section and see what you think. I haven't written the instructions for using it yet, and I want to see whether there are any table cells people would like me to include that aren't present yet. There are two example tables, one with all the optional cells present, and the other with some excluded. David Newton 14:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Jinian. I nominated you for an admin. Just go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jinian and indicate your acceptance and answer a few questions. -- Darwinek 10:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Algera and Template:delete

I removed the delete tag from Jeff Algera as the article does not actually meet any of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. However, if you would still like to nominate the article for vfd, I'm pretty sure that it would be voted to be deleted. In the future, please familiarize yourself with the criteria and cite it using the deletebecause template. It makes the Admins' jobs a lot easier when going through CAT:CSD. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio KoL

You merged the information from Radio KoL and then tagged it for deletion. However the current Wikipedia policy states that the merged articles should be kept as redirects and their history should be preserved (per GFDL). Please change it to redirect. See also Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, section "How articles should be merged", if you don't believe me. Grue 06:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. Grue 10:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kilbrack

I noticed that you deleted the page called kilbrack. Was there a discussion for this deletion? I can't find it. Borb 19:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Referring to ships

Hi, I was curious about this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Francis_du_Pont&diff=9480853&oldid=8645402)—why is it proper style to leave the article out when referring to ships? It reads a little awkward to my landlubber eyes. Thanks! Postdlf 08:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Rokia Traoré

The article Rokia Traoré was not a speedy deletion candidate and should not have been deleted. It was listed on WP:VFU and was undeleted. User:Brockert/sig 01:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mount Whitney

Oops, sorry about that - I thought I was editing the LaSalle article that early in the morning :). User:Conradrock/sig

Deletion

I think you were a little hasty deleting IRCON International Ltd.. Unfortunately the site was down and I couldn't add further details to it. The company is a subsidiary of the Indian Railways and I had created the page to prevent a red link from showing up there. I agree that the choice of words could have been better though. I've restored the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)