User talk:David Newton

Hello there David, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela 12:42 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Archive 1

Unlawful combatant

Hello, David, Your entire addition to "unlawful combatant" was removed by a critic. I restored most of it except the arguable opinion, which you might want to rewrite.

You were right to try to achieve some balance. As it was, it was a more-or-less straight POV piece for opponents of the concept. Cecropia 01:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)|

Dave------

I cannot find your new page on amphbious assaults. Can you give me the exact title? Paul, in Saudi

Administrator

Congratulations - you are now an administrator!. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list to see what this entails. Secretlondon 23:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:bird

Hey, I noticed you reverted an edit to Brain made by User:bird, and thought you should know: This user apparently become extremely agitated lately and is reverting all his edits, sometimes blanking pages, and seems to indicate (on his (rapidly-changing) and my talk page, for instance) that the material he has added was delibrately false. Quite the unusual occurrence. I'm not quite sure what to think of the situation. (edited Fennec 16:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC))

typical of wikipedians, my statements are misrepresented. I stated that I later reconsidered the amount of research and the originality of the articles and determined that I could not in good faith publicly endorse the content as accurate. Fennec would rather discount my concerns for the benefit of the thrilling day of on-line combat a few user are enjoying at my expense. USER:bird

Ouch, the Bird affair has gone quite far away. You did well, I hoped it would not have gone so far. Pfortuny 21:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AWM Official Histories

Hi David. Yes, I know about the PDF volumes on the AWM site. I've linked to Vols. I & II on the Battle of Gallipoli page. I could go as far as linking to the individual chapters for each of the battle articles. I've got my own hardcopy of Vol VII on the Sinai & Palestine campaign which is what I've been basing my articles on. The only problem I've encountered with these PDFs is that they are black & white scans so the photographic plates don't come up looking so good. Congratulations on your adminship. Geoff 21:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I was actually contemplating transcribing the Australian WW1 histories when the AWM made the PDFs available. As far as I can make out they are still under copyright. Late last year I had transcribed the unit history of my grandfather's unit (producing HTML and PDF versions) but a). it's never been published so is still under copyright and b). the unit is so minor and obscure (3rd Light Horse Field Ambulance) that there wouldn't be much interest in it. Geoff 00:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting my user page. You are a vandal and are committing acts of aggression toward me. USER:Bird

Further information on User:Bird and the Bird/Brain affair is now available at User talk:Bird/Brain and stuff. - Fennec 14:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David - can you please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Table (again). I'm on the verge of losing my patience with the constant attempts at "table proliferation" and would appreciate the comments of third parties there (whether you agree with me or not) --Rlandmann 04:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So I'm thinking about doing some ship table updating - which of the new-format tables do you think would be a good examplar for cloning? Stan 16:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You mentioned using the new table format, but whichever ship(s) you did it for, it's sufficiently far back in your contributions list that I didn't see one. So I'm just fishing for a suggestion as to which ship article to look at. Stan 05:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm not sure if your subpage is the right place to move Bird's rants to, but it didn't seem appropriate to leave attacks on the village pump and I needed somewere to put it. Please let me know if there is a better place, or if User talk:David Newton/Bird Dispute is ok for it. Thanks. Angela . 23:06, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hey David, just a quick heads up, since youre the Admin that seems most involved in the brain dispute, I believe that User:SoCal is a Bird Sock puppet, check the subpages of brain, hes been slowly removing content from brain subpages claiming factual inaccuracy, see Neopallium,Paleopallium,Frontal lobe etc. Theon 05:26, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

KJV Copyright

David -- I left a response to your claim that the KJV copyright is bogus at the King James Version of the Bible talk page. Just thought I would want to give you a heads up. -- iHoshie 10:42, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft footers

Hi David - since you're the WP Aircraft table-guru, I wonder if you could take a look at F-100 Super Sabre and F-105 Thunderchief. The little edit boxes are forcing the main table to the left, causing the footer to overlap with it (in my browser anyway - Win XP/IE6/1024x768). Any idea how we can fix/prevent this? --Rlandmann 13:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Gsl applied a fix to the F-100 Super Sabre and also used it on his Fairey Fulmar contributions. It unfortunately pushes the footer to the bottom even when an article has a short text and a long data table, but I think it's better than risking the previous problem. I'll update the sample footers on the WikiProject page accordingly. --Rlandmann 10:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio; apologies.

David. You are correct. I mistook the copyright notice at [1] as applying to the entire content of the site. Clearly the US government document which it uses as a source is in the public domain, and you were perfectly OK in quoting it.

Next time, instead of rudely reverting me and shouting at me on my talk page, would be so kind as to make a statement at Wikipedia:Possible copyright violations and my talk page, per Wikipedia policy? If you had done that, I would have glady reverted my own error. Furthermore, when quoting extensively from a source on the web, it's easy to be mistaken for a copyright violation, especially in an unclear case like this (a government document used on a private site), so it would be helpful if you could include a notice of the source; if I had seen one on the article, I would never have put the copyvio notice up. I watch Special:newpages frequently, and you might be amazed at the relatively high number of submissions we get that are blatant copyright violations. Thanks... -- Seth Ilys 22:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

HMS Glamorgan

Hi there, I notice we have both written a page on this ship within the last few weeks. My page had more info, tho yours was structured better so I merged the both of them in HMS Glamorgan, which has more links to it than with the number added. There is only one RN ship named Glamorgan so this should be OK.

I like your other articles on ships and hope they can be expanded with more info soon. Astrotrain (March 14th 21:45)

RE: Spartan, mmmmm, I thought I had done the page on the correct one, I must have re-directed the wrong page from the Swiftsure page is the only reason I can think of.

Mediation request

Hello David. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. -- sannse (talk) 11:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I didn't think that you would come to an agreement with them, but it was good of you to try. It was a somewhat odd meditation. I ask for it, and then take no further part in it! Well, if Bird is still causing problems, then it's time to take it to arbitration. Last I checked, Bird's edits after the ban expired were reasonable; some wikifications of dates. I guess we can live in hope! David Newton 17:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit of an unusual one, and perhaps taking that approach was a mistake on my part. I hoped a kind of pre-mediation might lead to a basis for further discussion. Mediation on Wikipedia is still very much a work in progress! -- sannse (talk) 19:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RE: Crown copyright. Having a _very_ brief look - we can't presume not for profit - we may be but our users may not be. An image with a non-commercial restriction needs flagging differently. They are not as free as others with no restrictions. Secretlondon 23:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David, welcome at the Dutch Wikipedia. But please, do not use User:David Newton as this is not a Dutch user name, but [[Gebruiker:David Newton]]. I changed the link on your user page down here, but not on your other user pages (were you did the same). User:David Newton on Dutch wikipedia is an ordinary article and is now on the list of pages to be removed. Ellywa 06:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I assumed it was just a mistake. Ellywa 06:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great work on organizing the ship classes! I notice you've moved some of the reclassified destroyers to their previous designations. It's kind of a knotty problem what to call them, but following some of the carrier names, I've generally been favoring the designation in use the longest. So for instance the Truxtun spent 7 years as a DLGN and 20 years as a CGN, so it's "more familiar" as a CGN. I suppose I should formally propose it as a rule in the Wikiproject eh? :-) Stan 13:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding USN Photos

David:

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Honestly, I didn't know what I was doing. I've corrected the beforementioned articles, and I've added additional photos correctly. I'm sorry you had to deal with that. Thanks again. Ex1le 00:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Essex/Ticonderoga class distinctions

David:

I appreciate your insight into the distinction between the "long hull" and "sort hull" class carriers. I broke up the classes into the Ticonderoga and Essex distinctly, based on the official distinctions as classified in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

I was actually surprised to learn of the official distinction myself as my father actually served on the Antietam, Yorktown and Princeton in the 50s and he simply referred to them as Essex class carriers. I would however advocate that we actually make the official distinction, and add references within each classes page. I am going to add an expansion to the temporary stub of the Ticonderoga class which can cover the points you bring up and the other internal changes made which distinguish the Essex from the related Ticonderoga class. Another reason I followed this course is there were more than a few references within the already posted entries of several of the later modified Ticonderoga class ships which referred to them being Ticonderoga class already, no doubt since the bulk of those texts for the individual ships were also culled from the DANFS. Lestatdelc 01:37, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Bird / Brain

I am not sure, but it may be Bird back in business. I was not involved, so you might have a better idea. A section appears to have disappeared from Brain. Ebeisher 04:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you think about taking some of the best features of the standard aircraft table and using them for ships? Bobblewik 17:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi again - I'm trying to get the ball rolling on a standard data box for aero engines - if you'd like to make any suggestions, take a look here.

Would appreciate your input on the dispute here --Rlandmann 22:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey there. I see on the low degree of compliance page that you sent the standard letter to voyagenow.com on March 14th. Did they ever reply? I'd really like to see these people brought into line. They've taken a fair bit of the articles I've contributed to. If you have other things to do, I'll be glad to take it on. Regards. Blimpguy 21:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HMS Glorious

Hi David, I merged your HMS Glorious (77) article with the original HMS Glorious seeing as people were continuing to edit it. To retain the edit history I merged everything into the latter article however the I guess "HMS Glorious" should be the redirect (or a disambig page if more than one ship) and "HMS Glorious (77)" should be the article (otherwise the MediaWiki footer doesn't work). I figure that as an admin you can delete the existing "HMS Glorious (77)" article and then move the "HMS Glorious" to it so that the edit history isn't lost. Geoff/Gsl 07:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: BAE Systems etc

Hi David - thanks for your message. I have been creating many pages which appear to already have better information elsewhere perhaps. The reason for my so doing, is to beef up the financial info on the 'pedia (an area of speciality). I have created pages for the legal financial names of these companies, which often differ slightly from the more-recognisable names. In one of your examples, you mentioned BAE Systems - the legal name of the financial company is "BAE Systems plc", and "BAE Systems" is mentioned in the annual report as being a subsidiary of this. Such as with Marks & Spencer plc and Marks and Spencer Group plc - they are 2 entirely separate entities. My plan is to add a standard header to the top of the pages I am creating which will inform people where to go for info on the particular information they require. It would however be incorrect and misleading to have a link from the FTSE 100 page to BAE SYSTEMS, as this is a different entity to the company listed at the LSE. I'm interested to hear any suggestions you may have on how I can improve my plans, I do feel that the business info we have is very negligle and would like to improve it with public domain info from annual reports such as some basic fundamentals, board structure, executives etc... Calexico (Talk) 17:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments - more work will go into the headers (which as you noticed are misleading at the moment and I won't move any info that's already on an existing page as that would be needless and unneccessary. I will, however, if you don't mind - get your opinion on the work I do...:-) Calexico (Talk) 18:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HMS Finisterre

Hi. I understand your a moderator (?). Is it possible that you could delete HMS Finisterre (1944)? I created it accidentally and have now decided to change from using years for the Battles to using their pennants. Thanks in advance. I've already moved the text to HMS Finisterre (R55).

Old Empty Tables

I notice that over the last month or so you have been deleting certain versions of the standard table and reducing them to simply a picture. Why are you doing this? I feel it is not helpful at all. If you are going to alter things, then it would be better to put in the standard table, rather than just delete most of it. David Newton 10:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

When its empty and uses the old table code, it serves no purpose other then to add clutter and make the page ugly. Most of the time the stats aren't available on the page either. It is helpfull to remove them, as the correct standard table code can be added if somone wants to fill these in, even partially. Iv been doing this for more then a month, and will continue do so when I come across them. Note that I have also have updated many pages to full standard table look, and have done a 1-2 tables as well. However, totally empty non-standard tables have no place on these pages. Greyengine5 14:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

PD images

Hi David, as far as I know, all works prior to 1923 are public domain. As Weierstraß died 1897, that qualifies. The source page here doesn't give the photographer for that image, but they give it for others; so I figure they don't know the photographer. Also, as the photo was taken at least 106 years ago, and the photographer probably was older than 18 at the time, it would make him the oldest human alive. Still scared of being sued? :-) --Magnus Manske 12:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I checked our public domain article, and it has the 70-year-rule - "for works copyrighted after 1977". Is something missing in the article, then? --Magnus Manske 16:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC) (who doesn't know a lot about the legal details)[reply]

Bristol Blenheim

FYI, on the Bristol Blenheim page, the right side table headed "Bristol Blenheim" overprints the footer table headed "Royal Air Force squadrons" on browsers at screen resolutions from about 1400 pixels wide or more (I tried in Mozilla and Internet Explorer). The armaments stuff is thus obscured by the right side of the "Royal Air Force squadrons" table. I guess it could be sorted out by DIV formatting, especially by someone who understood what theyw ere doing. i.e. probably not by me. Thought you might want to know. best wishes --Tagishsimon