Hi there - looks like you're making some aircraft contributions. You might want to take a look at WikiProject Aircraft, which is where you can find links to naming conventions and templates for the data tables. You might even want to put your name down as a participant. Cheers --Rlandmann 01:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry. See Talk:supercarrier for proposal. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Strategic Bombing
Nice edit on Strategic bombing. Stargoat 21:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maritime Geography
Hey, thanks for GulfMex_WaterTypes.png! Well done! --the Epopt 00:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Embraer E-Jets
Good job on consolidating and rewriting these articles. ElBenevolente 19:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please go here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg and change your comment to whatever you want it to be... I just copied it from your other comment temporarily... — マイケル ₪ 17:47, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I've explained what was missed in the fair use analysis for this image on VfD. You might find that and the case I've mentioned helpful - I particularly recommend reading the full decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation and ideally some other fair use decisions - it's tough to understand how to apply fair use until you've read some decisions which do. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music may alsobe of interest and if you're really keen on musical fair use you might visit Columbia Law Library's music copyright site Jamesday 11:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Date conventions
BTW, we've generally been following the DD-MM-YY convention for US articles on military subjects, since that's how the US military does things. Changing USS Constitution just makes an old oddball more consistent with the hundreds of others. Stan 17:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
EADS trainer
Hi. I think the name of the EADS HEAT trainer is "Mako", not "Meko" (see www.eads.net) . But I wanted to check that with you before moving the entire article. Do you agree ? --Iediteverything 12:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Clips
They're against policy because they're MP3s, see Wikipedia:Sound. I wasn't addressing whether they're against policy on fair use, sorry if that wasn't clear. --Michael Snow 21:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
He he, I guess I’m inspired today. --GeneralPatton 21:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IBM logo
You added IBM's logo Image:IBM logo.jpg a little while back. That is a registered trademark of IBM. You should probably assert fair use and tag it like the Microsoft logo here Image:Microsoft.JPG. Autiger 22:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't mean to actually pull those in; unlinked. Autiger 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Action Directe
Why have you italicized Action Directe in the Action Directe (gang) article? --Edcolins 21:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. Is there some sort of Wikipedia convention or style guideline for this, or is it a general written convention even outside Wikipedia? I never italicize names of foreign origins... Maybe I should? --Edcolins 22:26, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Alright! Good to know that... --Edcolins 22:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Image tagging re: Image:Battleship row.jpg
I saw your note from June on Image:Battleship row.jpg that I created. I suggest you read the Copyright FAQ that James and I wrote. Basically, taking something and modifying it creatively creates a new copyright on it. And the in the future, *do not* tag images when you are unsure of their status. →Raul654 00:16, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Username
Hey Joseph, so there I am reading my issue of Flight International and the picture of SpaceShipOne seems to stand out, why does the registration seem so familiar to me? So that's the reason behind your username, am I the 1st to notice or just the person who took the longest to work it out? Mark 19:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lacrosse
When deciding whether to change a redirect to a disambiguation page, you must first determine whether the current page being redirected to is used in the majority of references. If it is, the suggested approach is to keep the redirect but add a link at the top of the page redirected to, pointing to a disambiguation page. In the case of Lacrosse, almost all of the current links to the page refer to the sport. Thus, I believe keeping the redirect to sports is the preferred solution. Also, if you decide to change a redirect to disambiguation, it is YOUR responsibility to fix all the links. If you are not up to this responsibility, then don't change the redirect to disambiguation. Add your concerns to the discussion page instead. RedWolf 02:35, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Skadden
Thanks for the addition and comment. Skadden is a LARGE firm (as I am sure you are aware), so it is definitely not a vanity page. Anyone in law or investment banking has heard of Skadden. All information in the article is factual and NPOV. I don't state anything like "prestigious", "respected" or "best". Overall, it looks like a lot of work is needed on law firms pages (see all the red links at List of law firms), not a task I desire to undertake. Take care. Nelson Ricardo 04:04, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Blohm & Voss
I know that the company now refers to itself as "Blohm + Voss", but note that this is a relatively new development in typography. Certainly, whilst the company was manufacturing aircraft it was "Blohm & Voss", as can be seen in the company logo of the time. I agree that the name used in the article on the company should reflect current usage (and if we could have + in the article title, it should be moved there), but I'm not sure it belongs on WWII-era articles... --Rlandmann 02:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I was wondering about that change too - my usual habit has been to favor the name used at the time of construction, while relying on link/redir to connect to current name. Otherwise you get articles on sailing ships that were constructed by "Nuclear Hydrofoils Inc", :-) reads a bit anachronistically. Stan 13:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See my response at User talk:Rlandmann. -Joseph 14:26, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
featured tag
Hi there - {{featured}} only goes on the talk pages of featured articles. --mav 01:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stop the script from switching to supercripts
Please for the love of gawd. :( It makes baby jesus cry. Superscripts should only be used when writing formulas. Each browser behaves differently with these and some of them fuck up the document's format. So please, if you can, stop running that in your script. —Joseph | Talk 04:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
N328KF wrote:
I sympathize with your plight, but superscript is HTML compliant. If I'm doing everything by per specification, doesn't that mean you should get a better browser. No offense, this is pure discussion.
Yeah, it is, the same way that <frame> and target=_blank are, and <blink> was.. but we don't use them, do we? ;-) You see, it really doesn't matter what browser you have, super and subscripts will always fuck up the rendering because of their natural behavior: they are, should, and will always be placed in the outside boundary of a text line. That is why it is recommended to use them on mathematical formulas only. The real questions is: are the sub/superscripts necessary for other type of texts? does the use of sub/superscripts in other cases (non-mathematical) justifies the rendering consequences? —Joseph | Talk 15:35, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
N328KF wrote:
Just what browser are you using? Gecko-based browsers and IE seem to be fine with it.
They seem fine cuz Wikipedia's Monobook Skin uses a bigger line-height, which prevents these problems for superscripts on the first level. Switch to the Classic skin which uses the standard line-height and check out if it renders it in the same way. At least Mozila doesn't. ;-) See [1] for an example of what I'm trying to tell you about the sub/sub behavior. (I gotta go now, talk ta ya later) —Joseph | Talk 16:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Link?
Well, I took that from the existing phrasing "nearly as accurately". Could you please refer me to a link that "exactly" duplicates the memo using MS Word, taking into account that the bottoms of the letters are not level with the baseline? Thanks. Wolfman 04:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. But I don't see it right up top, and that's a lot of links to wade through. Would you mind just pointing me directly to the Word file someone has created that exactly duplicates the memo. Wolfman 04:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks my bad. I got distracted by looking at his list of links there, instead of the text itself. Will have a look. Wolfman 04:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, we'll have to leave it to the experts. Those certainly don't look the same to me. In particular, look at the baseline. For example, checkout the bottom of 'd' & 'b' in the word 'feedback'. Also, look at where the 'th' is in the memo, compared to the Word Doc. There are lots of things like that. But, whatever. I personally don't much care. Just trying to provide some balance to the article with minimal effort. Wolfman 04:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)