User talk:Trekphiler Information & User talk:Trekphiler Links at HealthHaven.com

This user helps out newcomers.

An early wiki.

[edit] Re:Sipowiczed

Hi Trekphiler. I guess I was thinking of the Cosworth DFV, which the Cosworth article indicates was built on "a custom Cosworth cylinder block and crankcase" (in contrast to the earlier FVA, which indeed was based on a Ford block). It's also my understanding that the subsequent "Ford" and "Cosworth" F1 engines were designed and built completely by Cosworth (although I'm less confident about that). P.S. I'm interested in your use of the term "Sipowiczed" - I'm familiar with the character (although I never watched the show), but I've never heard anyone use his name as a verb before. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Sydney-Kormoran battle

Thank you for your comments and edits to Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran (or whatever the title may be when you look at the article next). I have responded to your comments played around with your changes... feel free to wander by and see if they still meet your intentions. -- saberwyn 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: In the crosshairs

A crashed enemy aircraft is first of all a good source of intelligence - which is why the Brits routinely posted a sentry to guard it until an intelligence officer had had a chance to go over it. Nonetheless, many items of equipment were "souvenired" anyway. While there might not have been a systematic effort to link crashes with victory claims it certainly happened - in Reach for the Sky there is mention of Bader reporting shooting at a German reconnaisance aircraft that he believed had got away - and being credited with the kill when its wreck was discovered. The German (and especially the Nazi) mindset WAS a little different - not only did propaganda come before intelligence but they seem to have been convinced by their own propaganda very often. (Adolf Galland is good on this subject.) tracking references can be a pain - will do so when I have a moment!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Message on Talkpage

You say my edit to the Future of F1 section was unconstructive, I corrected a title so that it worked, what was unconstructive about that edit. Please check your facts before responding like that. After you reverted my edit someone else came along and removed the typo again, you going to revert that one too? --81.151.235.127 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That history shows you introducing a needless letter, I removed it and then you reverted it back, if you didn't notice the next edit was someone removing the same letter again. I'm afraid to say its seems like it a mistake on your part. --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, sorry if I seemed a bit hostile my day/week hasn't been that great either. Anyways see you around Wikipedia ;) --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It was quite ;P, and funny story I do have an account Mollsmolyneux, just it doesn't stay signed in like it used to so when I make edits I forget to sign in, very annoying. --81.151.235.127 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the corrections to my edits on the USS Monitor article. It was something of an eye-opener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollingsworth (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arvia'juaq and Qikiqtaarjuk National Historic Site

Can you take a look and see if I have made it a bit more understandable. Because Qikiqtaarjuk just means "little island" it was a bit difficult to research. There is a second Qikiqtaarjuk, featured in Atanarjuat and associated with Inuit legends, which was also a separate island but now forms part of Igloolik Island. The join between Igloolik Island and Qikiqtaarjuk was caused by post-glacial rebound (isostatic rebound), see here, and I suspect that the same has happened here but can't confirm that. If it's still not clear please let me know what needs to be done. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How the historic site became a peninsula is the one thing I can't source. I can source that it was an island and that the name means "little island" but nothing gives the reason. By the way Qikiqtaarjuk is not a place on the peninsula but the name for the entire peninsula. How about if it says; "Qikiqtaarjuk (ᕿᑭᖅᑖᕐᔪᒃ), Inuktituk for little island, like Arvia'juaq, contains many Paallirmiut artifacts and both are considered ritual, spiritual, and sacred sites and is associated with the Inuit hero figure, Kiviuq."

Thanks. Can you give the article a quick look and see how it is. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you've helped greatly. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Re [1]

Werdnabot was disabled; see User talk:Werdnabot. Try User:MiszaBot III instead. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Read here. :) And it's Christmas for me; Merry Christmas to you as well! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed your archiving. Now stop complaining, Grinch. :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sm u-6 to sm u-112: editing style

hi Trekphiler, greetings! I saw your actions on SM U-108, deleting the Room 40 sources. I agree, I think this corresponds to the original idea of a "dynamic" editing project. Once the content of the original sources of Room 40 have been transmitted into a more normal "narrative" history telling with footnotes, they become - formally - superfluous.

2 logical consequences I see from this (pls compare SM U-108 with SM U-92):

1) I didnt delete the Room 40 citations on U-92 for some simple reasons:
- 1a) Even after the Room 40 contents have already been transferred into a more sequential (one after the other) narrative history -
- 1b) I have added some nice details from "Handelskrieg"
- So, if I do not want to add 10 footnotes for each half-sentence taken from Room 40, and another 10 footnotes for each detail taken from "Handelskrieg", I left the transcribed text from Room 40 without too much notes, and made footnotes only to the additional info from "Handelskrieg". So, visibly, it should be clear to the reader that the Room 40 stuff in the cite box right is the basis of the article, and every additional info from elsewhere is footnoted. Not really "scientifically pure", but practical and defendable. Even in science you have some "freedom of style", its more like a twinkle: as long as you feed hungry readers with interesting stuff, as more you have the right to decorate the dinner like you want ;-)) If you prefer with your readers a more protestant cool, Lutherian style, its ok also.
  I think we can agree here: its about different edition styles, not another war of religions :-)))
- 1c) I always wanted to show 2 things with the Room 40 sources: The details of German Sub-war in WWI as a template for them for WWII, and the "cleverness"/enlightenment of Room 40 as direct predecessor of Bletchley Park and Ultra in WWII (another template!). Therefore I shy away to simply delete stuff from Room 40, even if it should become superfluous for simple editing reasons like discussed above. But I have to confess: for a "poor" sub like U-108 I think its ok. But I think for U-9, U-20, U-21, and the U-3x and U-6x boats etc, the most famous, which really were active for 3 or 4 years, which really wrote (Naval) history, we should let survive some more "baroque" or "rokokko" colours form the sources here for the readers. Would you delete some nice original ULTRA-messages on an article about any famous WWII sub/ship/action/object ?
  What do you think ? I would be interested in getting in some more discussion with people from Ship project about ideas like this.
2) I see now, that my original Newbie idea to create some 80 or 350 stubs with Room 40 info, was a little bit too pre-mature and hasty for the "objectively existing Wiki reality" (means: for the sh... existing in this our world - old joke from the the East German Socialist Republik, "DDR", 1949-1989). I think, its better to concentrate on the edition of a douzend of selected subs first, in exchange with other contributors, and than add, little by little, boat after boat. I will add all details I posess (Room 40, Handelskrieg, etc.) to every German WWI sub, where other contributors start from now on, as much as my time will allow.

I wish you a merry Julfest! --Hans Joachim Koerver 23:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for DC-8 (piston airliner)

On December 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article DC-8 (piston airliner), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents