User talk:Harlsbottom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Wikipedia Notices

.

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your standing for MilHist Project leadership, I award you this barnstar. BusterD 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HMS Commonwealth HS.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Re: Pennant numbers

Actually, I suspect that nobody has thought about the issue, and people have just been following whatever the first person to edit a RN article used. If our usage is non-standard, I see no reason to insist on it; but I would suggest starting a discussion at either the Maritime warfare task force or the Ships WikiProject (or even both!), as someone with more experience editing in those areas might see some subtleties that I'm missing. Kirill Lokshin 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS :-) Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Picture trouble

Actually, the image use policy states that we're unable to accept images which are released for use only on Wikipedia (as it prevents our content from being redistributable). You basically have three options:

• Try to get the guy to release the image under the GFDL or a comparable license.
• Find out the date of the photo and see if it's public domain. I'm not sure what the British laws in this regard are.
• Claim the photo as {{fairusein}} the appropriate article.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlsbottom/HMS Bellerophon

As categories are not meant to be used in articles on user sub pages (to avoid crossing namespaces), I hope you don't mind that I have put a "nowiki" tag on them. Please note also that the photo is up for CSD (deletion) as it does not have an acceptable copyright permission. If it is deleted, it can always be uploaded again with the correct GFDL or PD permission. Tyrenius 05:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WPMILHIST

Oh, I think you're perfectly well-qualified. Now, whether you'll be elected is something I can't really make any promises on, for obvious reasons; it'll really depend on how many candidates wind up in the election, and who they are. Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Re: you proposal of collaboration on Lee-Enfield and Webley derivatives: Absolutely! I'm a published writer on historic firearms in Australia, and of course have my own library- well, selection ;)- of reference material. Always wanted to visit the Royal Pattern Room, but the last time I was in the UK it wasn't open so I had to content myself with the Tower of London and their Puckle Gun... If you're not too busy, I could use some help on the Lee-Enfield article as it currently stands. Some anyonymous individual is stirring up trouble on the talk page, trying to claim the Krag-Jorgensen is a faster rifle than the Lee-Enfield, calling the editors "Fanboys", and generally acting like a rather silly person. --Commander Zulu 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assistant Military Coordinator Positions

Harlsbottom Good Morning! As you may have noted, I voted for you for one of the assistant's positions, and you had kindly done the same for me. Assuming you are one of the six - a reasonable assumption, I beleive! - what period of naval history interests you the most? (Yout interest in the British navy is obvious, but I wondered what era interestd you the most?) Though I have worked primarily on land battle articles, I also have a keen interest in naval warfare, especially the naval aspect of the Punic Wars, and (naturally!) Admiral Lord Nelson and the whole era of British rule of the seas which followed France's destruction as a naval power. I had wondered if an article was possible on the various types of warships, particularly the sail powered warships, with some sort of box to compare firepower, et al. (Ship of the Line versus Frigates, etc.) I am interested in your thoughts on these issues. One thing you said when you entered the race for an assistant's slot, and I believe it true, even if it knocks me out of a slot - sheer number of edits should not be a definitive measure of an editor's contributions. (Though before I voted for you, I went and read some of your work, which was impressive!) I hope you win one of the slots because you bring a "fresh" perspective, in addition to a knowledgable one. Whether I also win or not, I hope to work on an article, or several, with you in the future. I also wanted to run by you an idea which has been in my mind for sometime. When an editor or editors are preparing to post an entirely new article, (which, for instance, I will be doing in the next month or so comparing all types of bows, compound, {Hunnish, Muslim, and Mongol}, longbows, English, Japanese and Mongol, crossbows, {Chinese, European}, instead of simply posting it, and taking the normal flack one always gets with a new article, I have asked Wandalstouring, who is a really fabulous expert on weaponry, to proofread it for factual accuracy, article structure, and anything else he can see to improve the draft. I will also ask Rex, and at least one or two other good editors, (including yourself), and once they have all critiqued it, try to address these issues before the article is formally posted for the first time. It seems to me that this informal "peer" or "expert" review on drafts would save a lot of needless argument when the article is posted. I personally would like to see the assistant coordinators make sure all of the new articles are vetted this way - again, thoughts? Thanks, and good luck on the election! old windy bear 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the support, old windy bear. I voted for you (and Kirill as well) because you are obviously devoted to the cause, and have an amazing breadth of knowledge which has obviously served the community well. My knowledge on all things historical is pretty broad (vast detail here and there and overview on certain periods) but I'm always willing to find more subjects and master them. My naval interest at the moment is limited to 20th Century Royal and Imperial Navies (which I've nearly got mastered I think) as well as good knowledge of other navies throughout histories. I did learn about the naval wars of Ancient and Roman times a couple of years back, but I'd have to refresh myself on that now, alas. I like your idea. It might give fiddlers nothing to fiddle with once an article's been uploaded, but it means that the end-product is as good as possible, which is what we all aim for. I can see that you'll be made a coordinator for sure, and we'll just have to wait and see whether I get in. Cheers, --Harlsbottom 19:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, please don't think I was knocking you on edit counts! I was merely pointing out my smaller number so that noone else did. I can only dream of having 3500+ posts at this time! --Harlsbottom 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Harlsbottom Greetings again! I did not in any way take offense at the edit count comment. I actually thought you made a valid point in that a simple numerical count does not validate the quality of a person's work or their ability to work with others. I went and looked at some of your edits - and found a superior mind doing first rate work. I hope you will be with wikipedia for a long time, because you have a lot to offer, and you will pile the numbers up as the time passes! I did appreciate your vote - I have tried hard to help the community and this project in particular, as I believe you will. I am pleased you like my idea of "pre-editing" precisely for the reason you named - it will remove a lot of the na sayers reasons to bellow! And no matter how good a person is, two minds are always better! I hope I get one of the assistant's positions, but whether I do or not, I will keep working to better wikipedia. I do think you have a good chance, and would make a fine assistant, which is why I voted for you. We do need fresh perspectives, and your work is simply first rate - so you are the ideal candidate for a "new voice." In any event, I will be asking you for help in editing articles with a naval component in the future! Take care, old windy bear 19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Simon. Hope you've had a good time in USA. You seem to produce quite a lot of stuff for Wikipedia - good work! Personally I don't have a lot of time for this Wikipedia malarky. Thomas Wales --AlbertW 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambigous image permission

Hi, you have uploaded Image:WimberleyUCD.JPG and tagged it with either {{No rights reserved}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but the upload summary only says that the image is used with permission. Can you please clearify wether or not the copyright holder actualy explicitly said that anyone can use the image for any purpose (including commercial use)? Often people will give permission for something to be used on Wikipedia, but unfortunately this alone does not mean that it becomes free content (wich it needs to be in order for us to use it), so if all we have is the permission to use the image on Wikipedia we regretfully have to delete it unless we can justify it's use under our fair use policy. If you need to ask the copyright holder to clearify please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission first to make sure you ask for the right things.

Please look into this ASAP as I have tagged the image as "no licence" in the meantime, meaning it will get deleted in 7 days time unless the license is clearified. If you didn't get to read this before after the image was deleted don't worry; if you get the required copyright release "after the fact" we can always undelete the image. Just ask the deleting admin (check the deletion log) politely to do so, or post a undelete request at Wikipedia:Deletion review along with the nessesary copyright info. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Just thought I'd say hi, I was impressed with the quote from the Lady at the top of your userpage, looking through your interests you are a fellow after my own heart. I'd be interested in helping to draw up a list of shipbuilders, would probably be good to do it as a subpage of the WP:SHIP namespace. Emoscopes ^Talk 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of good stuff in H. T. Lenton, British and Empire Warships of World War II. However, it isnt in a very accessible format, i.e. it's listed by ship and not by yard, and the names are often Lenton's own shortenings, I often have to refer to the google to get the full name of the company. As for funnel bands, I'm afraid I only have references for WW2 destroyers (Lenton again!). I presume you're barking up the right tree though. Emoscopes ^Talk 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ghazni

Hi There,

Just created this article, Battle of Ghazni during the First Anglo-Afghan War. I was wondering if you could fix up anything which is incorrect or add to this battle or link this battle to other articles so that it generates traffic. Thankyou. Mercenary2k 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Dreadnought (1906) Collaboration

Hi. I read your pertinent comments on the Peer Review for Dreadnought from a while back. Since little seems to have been done on the article, would you be interested in a collaboration? This has to be one of the most important pages for Wikipedia yet it doesn't meet that standard in accuracy or content. I've sidelined all my Wikipedia stuff in favour of other internet projects, but this is something I'd like to see fixed. --Harlsbottom 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks; like you, I've got tied up with other stuff, but I'm keen to see this key article brought up to scratch. Do you intend to nominate this as a Collaboration of the fortnight, or just to get a few guys together and start plugging away?

Regards, John Moore 309 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I've taken the liberty of copying this thread to your Talk Page.

It's probably a good idea to nominate it for collaberation. It ought to generate more interest than the latest Review did (how anyone thought it would serve as a featured article I cannot imagine). On the discussion page Carom had some sound thoughts on transferring the American all-gun warship information (out of place in my opinion to a development page, but little seems to have come of it. Start plugging away sounds good. I'm armed with my Warrior to Dreadnought, The Grand Fleet, (D.K. Brown, as I believe you know) Battleships at War (B.R. Coward), Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland (John Brooks) and the Battleships of World War One (Antony Preston) as well as a few other unmentionables. --Harlsbottom 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Copied back to my discussion page)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

Thanks much for the vote! --Petercorless 01:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert J. Rowcliff

Thank for your incredible editing of my contribution on Rear Admiral Rowcliff. The article looks great and reads so much better. I am pretty new to this stuff but I have been studying the tutorials.

Again thanks so much. (Jarvisrb 16:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Template:British Shipbuilders evolution

Hello, Harlsbottom. I have been working on improving the template Template:British Shipbuilders evolution and was rather pleased with the results, but appear to have incurred the wrath of some busybody who has proposed it as "listcruft" at templates for deletion. You were very helpful a while back when I was organising the information regarding UK shipyards that lead me to develop the template. I would appreciate any input that you might have at TFD (positive or otherwise, if I am being too protective of my "baby" perhaps its about time I saw the light). Emoscopes ^Talk 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A true gent, sir, I doff my shipbuilding cap to you :) Emoscopes ^Talk 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, you may be interested to have a look at my aircraft drawings at deviantART (no, I amn't one of those deviantART poetry-writing types, it's just a convenient way to upload my work to scrutiny :> ) As for the workings of a large-calibre gun turret, I think illustration might be more useful than animation, my animation skills are strictly limited to animated gifs, and I really don't have the patience for all that stop-frame stuff, however a series of 3 or 4 images might illustrate the point well. I might consider a very large animation (MB-size plus) as a personal project, and we could always external link to it, but seeing as it would require the basic drawings to be done anyway, might as well start there. It would be interesting to show the differences between pre- and post-Jutland turrets, illustrating how there was a fatal lack of flash-tightness. I think a 15 inch turret would be best, the 16 inch Nelson type and 14 inch KGV types were rather unique and horrifically complicated in their design and internal workings, would just obscure the matter.

As for shipyards, there are two ways to go about it - by shipyard and by shipbuilding company. I am tempted to go about it the former way as shipbuilding companies change name and ownership far more frequently than shipyards themselves are established and closed. I think the company approach leads to a plethora of minor articles, I am always tempted to create pages about the most well-known name and forget about the short-lived names. The exception is where the yard is still extant, where I believe policy dictates it should be known by its current name (like the daft BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions, with precedence over Yarrow Shipbuilders Limited).

Emoscopes ^Talk 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turret animation

I found a good description of the operation of the 15 inch turret in Roskill's HMS Warspite, I think I'm going to have a bash at this animation, I have a simplified cutaway drawing complete with annotations. I'll let you know how progress goes. P.S. I believe I stumbled across you on facebook - a fiew friends of mine are involved in the Conservative Future too. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! See Gun turret :) What a way to spend a friday night hehe Emoscopes ^Talk 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that, sir, is beautiful! Works wonders for the gun turret page. Your surrendering of a Friday evening is much appreciated. Harlsbottom 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)