User talk:Swid/Archive2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Swid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Swid. Would you be willing to get involved in my debate on the with the creator of the North Omaha article on it's NPOV and accuracy? Some help with explaining Wikipedia vandalism, NPOV, and other policies would be helpful too. Thanks. Equinox137 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Swid. Equinox137 02:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to call you to task on a comment you made on the Omaha talk page: "large portions of the North Omaha-related articles read more like tourism brochures or community empowerment pamphlets instead of encyclopedia articles." Could you point out a few of these and suggest or make some edits so I can get an idea of what you're talking about? I am not an expert at writing WP articles, but I do want to get better. Thanks. - Freechild 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The local institutions section contains many instances of what I consider "peacock words", something that is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia (see here and here for details). Given the enormous amount of work you've put into North O-related articles, using subjective phrases and flowery descriptions detracts from the large amounts of sound, sourced information you've placed in those articles. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input there. I cleaned up this section; any advice is appreciated. - Freechild 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw your travel box thing about where you've traveled to, and I see you've never been to Utah! You really should, it's better than that snobby "Colorado". Just kidding, but seriously, you should come to Utah. Okay, now I have some important questions/comments to ask/tell you:

• How did you do in the National Geography Bee in '94?
• Is it true Nebraska is as boring as watching grass die?
• Even though I have no idea who Henry Clay is, I consider him famous since he has an article on Wikipedia. So, cool, that you're related to him!

That is all...The Runescape Junkie

First off, thanks for finding my user page interesting! As to your questions/comments, here goes...

• One of my goals in life is to visit every state in U.S. I've heard the skiing in Utah is excellent; if you want an excuse to shake your fist at Colorado, blame it for existing between our states of residence.
• I answered one fewer question correctly than the individuals who won the preliminary round I was in.
• Nebraska isn't boring, as long as you manage to visit places that aren't along I-80. That being said, Nebraska is best appreciated for its sublime, understated beauty.
• It's highly probable that I'm related to other famous Americans, as about half of my ancestry arrived in the U.S. during the 17th and 18th centuries.

– Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix to my userpage! I was busy IRL so I didn't spot it. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you!

Yeah, I know it's a form but you can help balance out the glut of Oklahoma and Colorado fans on there. Join us, it'll be worthwile.--ChicosBailBonds 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Oh, and I-80 is pretty much boring here too, especially when you go west of Salt Lake. It's just flat and white. On the right conditions it could blind you. Thanks again!The Runescape Junkie 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a few more things. First, the Arkansas and Arizona flags are mixed up. Second, it's not only the skiing that makes Utah, well, Utah (besides the fact that on one of the license plates it states that Utah has "the Greatest Snow on Earth"), but it's also in Southeastern Utah that's nice to see here. For example, Delicate Arch, in Arches National Park, near Moab. And there's also a lot more of the little things that make Utah, Utah. The Runescape Junkie 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I added the {{citationneeded}} to the Ashfall Fossil Beds item in the Supervolcano article. The eruption is listed among the VEI-8 eruptions, but is not listed in VEI as being a VEI-8 eruption, so that's the fact I was hoping someone could support. Is there a better way I could have marked it to make it understandable to other editors? -- Cjensen 05:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that makes more sense now. I guess it would have been slightly clearer if the note was placed directly next to the Bruneau-Jarbidge text itself, but it's basically a matter of interpretation only.

For what it's worth, here's the only scholarly reference I could find on that particular eruption (from the Bulletin of Volcanology):

So, the the Bruneau-Jarbidge eruption that produced the Ashfall Fossil Beds has not yet been assigned an VEI number; presumably it will be if/when someone gets around to investigating the event in more detail. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The RSJ - ^SPEAK has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I'm giving these messages to everyone I know, and it's not the wrong kind of WikiLove (lol)... Cheers!

Hi Swid - I've changed this back to how it was before, as the text size of the new format you'd changed to was so minuscule, and the box too wide. If you want to re-do the edits, can you keep the box visually as it is (i.e., 45% page width, with two compact lines of larger text, rather than one long line of minute text) - thanks, MPF 09:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesse, Are you the original author of this resolution chart? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Resolution_chart.svg

I have some questions about this chart, and the description... "It does not accuratly reflect the screen shape (aspect ratio) of these formats, which is always stretched or squeezed to 4:3 or 16:9. The table assumes an average vertical detail loss of .75x due to interlace. The actual loss is variable due to content, motion, opinion on acceptable levels of flicker, and possible success of deinterlacing. 1920x1080i is not included because all common use of 1080i is filtered to 1440 or less."

I don't understand why interlace artifacts are discussed or factored in to this chart. It would seem to be better to reference this as a separate discussion. The resolution of HDTV is identical for interlaced or progressive scan formats for the same signal type (1920x1080 or 1280x720).

I don't understand the justification for the statement "all common use of 1080i is filtered to 1440 or less". 1080i is defined by SMPTE 274M, and is broadcast in the US using ATSC. Neither of these specifications filter the horizontal resolution to 1440. Only HDV uses anamorphic pixels to record 1440x1080 as 1920x1080. Most of the broadcast 1080i material is shot and edited with full 1920x1080 resolution equipment.

This chart has been placed on many different wikipedia pages, and I am interested in working with the author(s) to improve it.

Thank you!

Tom Vaughan Tvaughan1 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Swid:

Yes it would have been natural to list the two island groups separately. I did try originally but gave up; depending on the screen width the result may appear awkward with much space between the two groups, for the text is not necessarily restricted to stay to the right of the picture. Best, Apcbg 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the point in providing links to 'main' articles that actually contain less information that the article in question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I B Wright (talk • contribs) .

I placed the Main templates in that article for two reasons: 1) to provide readers with a clearly-recognizable link to related articles of relevance, and 2) as a subtle encouragement for editors to rectify the current situation, where, as you noted, the "main" articles are not as long as the sections in the Battle of the Beams article. I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of either radio navigation systems or of WWII UK military history to pare down the sections, merge into the narrower articles, and write an elegant summary for each of the sections myself.

If nothing else, I succeeded in having at least one person notice the situation you mentioned... – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 19:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fair comment. I'd do the job myself except I just don't have the time at present. If someone else doesn't, that may change.

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Happy Hour (comic), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Happy Hour (comic). If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 11:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that's solved then! I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that you would have created this article (it didn't look in line with your other contributions at first glance), but I didn't look at the history more carefully. We'll see if anyone complains in the next week , and otherwise it'll be a good riddance. Fram 15:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Consistent with your "nudge," I have gone back to insert source material, either URLs or book citations, for my Blue Network entry. It may not be according to Hoyle or Harvard University citing, precisely, but it should make it pretty obvious where I got the material. I'll be adding stuff as soon as I can find things that make the article more interesting.

Eric O. Costello 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Swid. You still haven't visited Utah? No, just kidding. Just wanted to see how you were doing since it's been so long. Hope you have a good New Year - The RSJ Sign my autograph book 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Swid!

I noticed you have the Nebraska Roads website. I have committed some time and energy to writing some articles on various Nebraska highways, but I can never get access to your website. I wouldn't mind using it as a source, if I only knew what was on it. DandyDan2007 13:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused...does clicking on (for example) http://www.nebraskaroads.com/ and http://www.nebraskaroads.com/roads/ not result in a page being loaded for you? – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, I just don't do the obvious. It works. I just discovered it just before you wrote. I think somewhere, there is a faulty link to your site. I'll have to look it over sometime. DandyDan2007 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I found the faulty link. It is the one at the State Highway Links page of RV Droz's us-highways.com site. I wrote him an email asking him to fix the link. DandyDan2007 09:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you changed many of the Nebraska pages to reflect that the county numbering system was related to the number of vehicles that were registered instead of the county population. I had always believed, perhaps erroniously, that it was population. Where is the documentation regarding it being vehicle registration based versus the couny population? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianmcfa (talk • contribs) 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

While I couldn't find anything on the Nebraska DMV or anything in the Nebraska state statutes that referred to the origination of the county numbering system, but the Nebraska State Historical Society agrees with me in that it is based on vehicle registration. If you like, I'd be more than happy to confirm with the the DMV. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find but everything that I remember says that it was population based. Of course number of cars and population is probably directly proportional so it might be a moot point anyway. Since I see you're in Lincoln, double checking with the DMV might be a good thing. Brianmcfa

I looked around some more... You're right! I guess that's my new thing learned for today. Brianmcfa

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1	10 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is challenged Important deletion debates Featured subproject Featured member From the editor
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 20:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

File:New Jersey blank.svg The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2	24 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is upheld Deletion debates Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article Featured subproject U.S. Roads IRC channel created Featured member Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you do? Your editions are bad. Why do you remove the part of content? LUCPOL 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? I did not remove any content; I simply removed a couple redundant sentences and rewrote several sections and headings to bring them in line with standard written English. While it's understandable that editors who create articles are justifiably proud of them and that they want to make sure that no one edits them maliciously; however, that doesn't mean that one should take ownership of the article to the point that constructive edits are reverted. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Swid, I think the blog userbox doesn't have "http://" in the url parameter, so I took it out. Hopefully the link works better. And thanks for any thoughts you have at the Omaha page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 3	10 March 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Inactivity? Deletion debates Article Improvement Drive Featured subproject Good and Featured Articles Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Swid, could I bother you to answer the question I posted here? Thanks. - Freechild 08:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the statement that Kentucky was the only state represented by stars on both the Union and Confederate flags. Is this just because the statement was uncited, or do you know for sure that this isn't the case? I was relatively sure I had read this somewhere, and was going to source it later, but if you have the info, please share. Acdixon 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the Confederates states were removed from the Union flag during the Civil War. Therefore, *every* Confederate state had a star representing it on the Union flag. Also, Kentucky's status was not unique in the Civil War; Missouri also had rival Confederate and Union governments. I hope that clears things up for you. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't imagine where I read whatever it was that had me confused. Thanks for the correction. Acdixon 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Swid, can you tell where the Template:Nebraska-geo-stub link goes to so that I can see a list of those articles? Love to have something random to work on.

Hey Swid, I wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the DYKs I've had up lately - its cool to know you're out there looking after the state. – Freechild (BoomCha) 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)