Jump to content

User talk:Bobblewik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobblewik (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 29 July 2005 (→[[William Tranter]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Special pages

Units of length, area, volume, power, mass, energy

Limiting the use of metric units

Style, links, United Kingdom, Wikipedia administration


Love

hello

Hey, there, did anyone ever say: Hello, welcome to Wikipedia? Looks like you've plunged right in and are fixing all those thousands of missing metric measurements. They tried to convert us Americans but some of us are hopeless. So good job!

Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

And, while you're at it, if you'd like to do more metric conversion, please do at Dog agility. Thanks! Elf | Talk 18:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for google conversion tip! Good one. I responded on dog agility page. Thanks again. Elf | Talk 19:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Long overdue Barnstar

For tireless, and usually thankless, efforts to bring consistent units to the entire encyclopedia. And for always engaging in productive, positive and informed discourse. Duk

I would have cited your 15,000th edit but the database wouldn't let me find it. You kick ass! Duk 21:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I think this is it; Your 15,000th edit! --Duk 22:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much! The sentiment behind the token means a lot to me and is much appreciated. I have seen barnstars around and wondered about them. I have now read a couple of articles about them. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
File:Herooflabor.jpg

To continue the theme of wikilove from above, for all your efforts on making units consistent throughout Wikipedia, visible only through your repeated appearance in my watchlist, you are hereby my hero of the day and here is a gold star (and I hope you won't take offence at being awarded an ex-Soviet honour). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't take offence. Thank you very much. It makes the effort worthwhile. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

YF-17 Cobra and others

YF-17 Cobra (and others)

Thanx for doing all those metrics! I was just too lazy to sit here and look up the conversion factors myself :-)
serak 05:19, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cup holders

Thank you for the rather entertaining Telegraph link. —Morven 20:42, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I noticed your interesting new article and did a google search to see what Rolls Royce might say about cup holders. I remembered US customer demand for cup holders being discussed by one of Rolls Royce senior sales staff on a Chicago radio show. That article was one of the early results and it was so amusing that I couldn't resist adding it.
Bobblewik 21:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say thank you so much for the revisions to PLSS. I couldn't make a table that pretty with a gun to my head. Keep up the great work! jengod 19:18, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you due props for converting non-metric to metric. It's especially helpful in articles like Public Land Survey System. Keep up the good work! :) jengod 22:45, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Hi Bobblewik, thanks for the latest units updating, Columbia Basin Project and Grand Coulee.

Check out this free units converter. It might be more convenient than google. I've used it for years.

Duk 02:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank your for the positive feedback. It is nice to hear. I took a look at the converter. It looks interesting. So far I have found the google converter to be very good and flexible but it is always useful to know about alternatives. Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Illegal enemy combatant

Nice edits to Illegal enemy combatant! It is such a tricky subject. -- Viajero 20:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Indeed it is tricky. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As you are a contributer to the page Illegal enemy combatant please see the merge templage that I have put on the article and the section Talk:Illegal enemy combatant#Merge with Unlawful combatant section United States -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apology

Bobblewik, I want to apologize for the remarks I made about your motives when you made your proposal on the MoS units talk page. I was wrong to say those things, and I've apologized for them on that page too. I accept that you're acting in good faith, and I shouldn't let my disagreement over the content issue spill over into personal comments. I hope we'll find a way to disagree amicably in the future. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, apology accepted. Robust debate about the issues will hopefully lead to a solution. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Bobblewik input

WikiProject aircraft

Would appreciate your input on the dispute here --Rlandmann 22:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

SI doesn't define "billion," does it?

Please comment at Talk:Billion#An_egocentric_attitude_of_the_United_States where a user asserts that SI defines "billion" to be 1012. My belief is that SI says nothing whatsoever about the meanings of words such as billion, trillion, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A page ripe for you

I've just finished the Geography of India which has many units. I've &nbsp'd all the units, but I don't know if all are according to the MoS. Please could you have a look; I'm sure you'll relish this page :). BTW check out this site: http://www.joshmadison.com/software/convert/ This person has a real cool units convertor for windows.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the tip. Take a look at the edits that I made. I don't worry too much about &nbsp myself, but I know that others welcome it. I generally use the symbolic form when in parentheses thus (20 ft) rather than (20 feet). I also use the symbolic form in tables. I hope that suits you. Feel free to modify anything that I have done.
As far as converters is concerned, I do appreciate it when people point them out to me. So far I can manage with the Google converter (just do a google search for '20 feet' and see what it does) if Google can't do it immediately, I look for official references and do simple multiplication on Google. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you have access to a Unix/Linux machine, you may want to try units. It can convert some 2000 units. It directly converts, for instance, "furlongs per fortnight" into m/s, "2 hours + 23 minutes + 32 seconds" into seconds, or "2 ft 3 ft 12 ft" into stere (from the manual). Rl 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The Google converter can do that too. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the page certification. I've also corrected Mount Abu's elevation.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Old question of yours

Well, not that old, really, but since it's been a while since you posted this question, I'd thought I'd bring my follow-up question to your attention. --John Owens (talk) 05:13, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)


units of speed

In tables like that for USS Norman Scott (DD-690), I don't really think it's necessary to put the metric equivalent for the assumed speed in the range--it's just a figure of merit, and anyone can see that the assumed speed is almost half the max speed, which is the line above, and which is converted. It's certainly wrong to do it to two significant figures, i.e. 15 knots ~~> 30 km/h.

Also, converting weapons calibers is tricky, since the English-unit values aren't necessarily precise to the millimetre. —wwoods 09:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Units of speed for ships

About measures in the Sven Foyn article.
One thing is "kW" for horsepower, another is "km/h" for knots. This is an article about a person that lived and died a hundred years ago, and the measures you use were not used at that time. When it comes to "km/h" at sea, its still not used. Ulflarsen 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The question of metric units in ship articles is quite a big one. I have taken the liberty of raising the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Are_metric_measures_not_permitted.3F. Bobblewik  (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

units of time

units of inverse time

Regarding your edit to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, 'fps' is the accepted abbreviation for 'frames per second' (particularly in CG), not 'frames/s'. (If you really wanted to go SI, Hz would have been right — and it's the norm when referring to television). A quick scan of your contribs list doesn't turn up anything else where you might have changed this... but that's a mightily impressive list you've got. Keep up the good work! -- Perey 19:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have done some previous changes from fps to frame/s, but not recently. Only a few anyway. If you want to track them down, search for 'frame/s'. The SI form Hz would certainly work for me, but I was being conservative with my change. I know that 'fps' is accepted by some, but I do not regard that as reason to believe that 'frame/s' is unacceptable. I tried to do a web search to see if the term 'frame/s' is in use, but I failed. I won't promise to close my options but, in consideration of your response, I will certainly be less inclined to modify 'fps' to 'frame/s'. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

units involving light

lumens

Could you eyeball Lux and Talk:Lux?

An anon has edited Lux, changing phrases like "1000 lumens" to "1000 lumen" on the grounds that "Symbols are written in singular, e.g. 25 kg (not "25 kgs"). Similarly it is lumen not lumens." I'm pretty sure he's wrong about that—that is, it applies tot he symbols, but not to the fully-spelled-out unit names—and have cited an NIST style guide on the talk page.

What I'm much less certain of is his use of "klx," "μlx", &c. These are presumably valid combinations of an SI prefix and symbol. What bothers me is that I've never, never, never seen them in use. I've always just seen the base unit, with the value in scientific notation. E.g. instead of saying "direct sunlight is about 100,000 lux," in a scientific or technical context you'd see "direct sunlight is about 105 lux," but never "direct sunlight is 100 klx." But I'm no SI guru. What if anything can be said about the use of such constructions? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have responded on Talk:Lux. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Miscellany

Hi Bobblewik, Yes, Miles do mean statute miles and not nautical miles for space shuttle distances traveled. However orbital altitudes are given in nautical miles. And thanks for the help on shuttle missions, if you want to add new missions, please use the template that can be found here. Theon 15:36, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, this begs the question (especially considering recent snafus) why they are still using miles at all?

WhiteDragon 04:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Bobblewik

NASA gives distances in miles and nautical miles, at least in the official mission summaries. Click on the external link in any shuttle mission to see where im getting my info from (its public domain). (also you can sign your name using three tildes (~) or sign with date using four tildes) Theon 16:19, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)


While updating all the ship articles to the new table code would be good, I think it'd be best to coordinate this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships first, since they have a defined standard for them. I've therefore reverted your table changes to the 3 or so ship articles, not because I think it's a bad idea in general, but because such a wide-ranging change should have consensus before we do it. —Morven 06:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discuss it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships —Morven 19:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Same happened with some Album articles where you changed "sec" to "s". Discuss it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums --KeyStorm 17:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics in two modes

I think I disagree with a lot of your changes [1], but I'd like to discuss them rather than try to hog the page. And in some cases, I'm neutral; in others, I think you've done okay.

  • If you want to go and fix the units, that's fine.
  • I don't really see the importance of lowercasing the section heads, but I don't object.
  • Maybe my biggest objection is rooted in the how-to nature of the piece; you seem to have another take on it. This is not an article; it does not need to conform to any particular encyclopedic style. "I" is me, of course; I'd rather say "I" than use elaborate circumlocutions. This page is intended to be an exposition of my working methods -- and I don't presume that anybody else does things exactly the same way. For instance, "I rarely begin a new project from scratch in Photoshop; I'm more likely to import a digital camera photo to start with, or start a project in FreeHand and export it to Photoshop." That's all about how I work. Somebody else might have a totally different take on the matter.
If somebody else comes along and wants to detail his -- or her -- working methods, then that's fine, too. But this is the way I do it, and I don't want to try to pretend anybody else works the same way.
  • Related to this is the issue of color -- color in language, that is. This is a dry, dry subject, like all technical subjects; there is not much room for color, or flavor, or chatty talk, or whatever you like to call it. But why take out what little there is? This is not an article at all; no image is being upheld. Why take out "Avoid staring at progress bars."? It's a sincere recommendation, and a real hazard to be avoided.
  • You deleted several section heads at the bottom of the page. Maybe it's not clear, but that is where I intend to put in work -- in fact, the main body of the page. Everything you see so far is preliminary; it's an introduction to the meat. Granted it's not there yet, but that's where it goes. Those are titles for techniques I intend to demonstrate here.
  • I have not the first idea what you mean about "in which jurisdiction?". Anybody can go to eBay and buy all the used software he can pay for, and pretty cheap, too. Sometimes the old version is fine for your purposes; sometimes you want to pay to upgrade -- but still cheaper than buying new.
  • Mostly I don't care too much about the he/she thing; I think it's silly, but I tolerate it. But I have to draw the line at The Mouse. Mickey Mouse is a he -- there's not much question about it, just ask Minnie.

I think what bothers me most about your edits is that they are all about form, not about substance. If you want to gain favor with me, think about substantial contributions. Another big, important thing with me is comment on the talk page. If you offer a little rationale, that might put your edits in a different light.

You should understand that I invested a great deal of effort in this piece, and all that only by way of preparation for the actual expositions -- the example workflows, the step-by-step demonstrations of how to get work out of your box. All that work is still undone, and the main reason is that within a couple weeks of beginning, the piece was crapped on by a certain user, who went on to crap on a lot of smaller things I've done, too. Now, maybe he's cooled out, but so has my enthusiasm for the piece.

So, if you want it to be completed, you need to complete it yourself (assuming you're an experienced graphics arts professional); or, if you expect me to complete it, be more encouraging in your edits. It's not my thing; you can do what you like with it -- but that cuts both ways.

One way or another, I expect this tutorial will get moved to Wikibooks. If you don't feel qualified to make substantial contributions, you might see if you can figure out how to do the interwiki move without breaking everything. Personally, I think it's a fantasy; interwiki moves are destructive. But maybe you can figure out something I cannot.

Good Luck! — Xiong熊talk* 19:41, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. I started editing the units and that is my main focus. All the rest is secondary to me. In fact even the unit edits are not so important for me. So feel free to revert everything, I will not be upset.
I got drawn into editing the content first with the phrase toss off. It is sexual slang in British English and I am pretty sure that you would not like it to be there if you knew what it meant. I am sure that the article is improved by removing it.
Then I noticed the phrase "Older versions of popular applications can often be picked up, legally". I remarked on the jurisdiction because that presumably relates to law in the United States. We cannot say that laws in other countries are the same. Since it says 'can often be', it is sufficiently qualified to remain, but I just wanted to remark on it.
As far as the 'I is you', then perhaps it would be worth saying so in the article. Wikipedia doesn't have a concept of 'I' that I am aware of.
I agree with you about Mickey Mouse.
In summary, I do appreciate the effort that you have put in. I can understand how annoying it is to have your work modified. In some articles, I stand fully by my edits, in this one they were an attempt at improvement but I am not worried if they are undone. So feel free to put it back the way you want. I will not mind at all if you to undo some or all of my edits. They are not important to me in this article. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert your edits. Maybe you're still missing my point. Right now, the value of the entire tutorial hovers near zero. It's always possible that somebody else will come in and add the examples, the actual instruction blocks I planned out; somehow, I doubt it -- I think it more likely that the whole thing will get shoved into the Bit Bucket. Right at the moment, my thought is that all effort expended on this tutorial is wasted -- that there are more Wikipedians interested in kicking over castles than helping to build them. I'm not going to waste my time shoring up a large and difficult project if the community has no interest in preserving and developing it. Show me that your interest is a constructive one. — Xiong熊talk* 09:45, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing your point. I am sorry if I don't quite understand. I don't think your efforts are wasted, it looked like a reasonable contribution to me.
As to your unhappiness with Wikipedia in general, please do not take it out on me. I am not responsible for the actions of others.
You asked me to show you that my interest is constructive. I would like you to accept that I act in good faith. I do not have to explicitly sell myself to you and you do not have to sell yourself to me. We both Assume good faith about each other. If you want to judge me, look at my contributions and form your own opinion. If you think I am operating in bad faith, then complain about me to others.
In a final attempt to make you feel better, I recommend that you undo the edits that you don't like. I am not your enemy. Please be happy and assume good faith. Bobblewik  (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xiong your page looks very interesting and a very worthy contribution as a resource for someone trying to understand computer aided graphic art. But why would you want to stop working on something because of minor edits from Bobblewik? Surely by doing this you are spiting yourself more than the wikipedia community? That is your time and effort in that page don't abandon such a good start for the sake of editorial control. All authors who publish have to compromise with the copy editor, or in science with their fellow authors. Think of the big picture. Alternatively host it on a seperate web site and write a smaller page on wikipedia with a link to that page. Either way you should not let copy editing be a factor that kills a project. David D. 17:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Metrics in US State template

Please see this discussion. Would you be willing to tackle the process of adding standard measurements. It seems unintuitive to me that US states have their areas (etc) listed in km rather than miles. I would prefer both. Apparently, it would be just switching 48 states. I'd be willing to split the task with you -- 24 each doesn't seem too bad, 48 seems collossal. What do you think? Avriette 02:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your request. My priority is ensuring that metric units are included. This is a huge task already. I do not want to increase the scope to ensuring that non-metric units are included. So I am sorry I don't want to take this on, but thanks for asking. Regards Bobblewik  (talk) 15:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Hi. What is with all these text templates for planes? Most of the information is included in the infobox. Plus, an empty template is not needed, I think. There may be some use if it contains the data, but if it is only an placeholder, then I think we can wait until someone actually fills out the data. If there was some previous discussion of the template, please let me know. I have reverted Rumpler Taube for now. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 23:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris. The template is from [[2]] and issues about aircraft articles are discussed on [[3]]. There has been a lot of discussion of the format of aircraft articles. Converting to the format involves adding the template and migrating the data from within the article. Some of us have been doing that. However, it is easier to add the template to multiple articles first, so that is what I did. To be honest, I don't agree with all aspects of the template (for example the use of bold and the inclusion of rows that are merely the division of two other rows) but that template is the current one.
I would be more than happy if you raised this subject over there. I sympathise with you that 'work in progress' artefacts are not usually a good thing. In this case, I plead guilty to thinking that it is a good thing, but if you are willing to discuss it in the project page, I am open to debate. I look forward to seeing you there. Thanks for raising the topic. Bobblewik  (talk) 10:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft specification sections

Hi again Bobblewik. Could you please stop removing lines from the data sections of articles that reflect the current standard, as you did at Vickers F.B.5 and AD Scout. At the same time, if you're going to the time and trouble of replacing the obsolete blue tables with a text-based data section as you did at Supermarine Attacker, it's just as easy to use the standard one.

Actually, I'd really appreciate any help you can offer with the latter task - I made a stab at it a couple of months ago (working backwards through the List of aircraft), but have been bogged down since then with providing specifications for and standardising new entries. Thanks --Rlandmann 13:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK. I will keep to the standard table as you suggest. I was going through the aircraft by date. I will try to do more conversions from tables to text sections. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Temperature lapse rate

Like environmental lapse rate, the adiabatic lapse rate is also a temperature lapse rate. Maybe others as well, AFAIK. Or maybe they are two names for the same thing. Maybe you should revert your name change, and discuss it so that those who know the details can sort it out. Perhaps what we should have is a disambiguation (for now, perhaps expandible in the future) temperature lapse rate article, or perhaps what should be done is to merge adiabatic lapse rate with this article, retaining a redirect there, and restore the distinguishing name environmental lapse rate to that section if they are indeed different. I'd say let someone else make that choice. Gene Nygaard 18:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt. I started dealing with the units on that article. When I examined the content and found it to be about the temperature lapse rate, I decided to move it.
A pro-metric edit by somebody else had been reverted with the phrase:
rv - it's expressed per 1000 ft, even though that's not an SI unit, thats the way it is...
I knew that was not true. I looked on the web for an original source for the ISA but could not find one. I was even wondering whether the original values are in mK/m but from what secondary sources say, I doubt it now.
I did see some stuff about adiabatic lapse rate but did not research further.
I think the name environmental lapse rate is definitely worse than temperature lapse rate. I can't see any benefit in moving it back. However, if you think there is merit in that approach, go ahead. I won't object. I don't agree but I don't care much as long as the units are correct.
The content is merely a subset of what is said in Standard conditions for temperature and pressure. So I am not even sure whether it merits an entire article to itself. Perhaps it merely needs to be a redirect to an improved combined article. Bobblewik  (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am 103

Hi Bobblewik, I must have mis-understood your comments on my suggested compromises. Could you clear something up for me - would you be happy with one of them? If we just used it and let it stand for now? Dan100 (Talk) 22:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Happy, no. Tolerate, conditional yes. The condition is that the issue is mentioned in talk:Manual of Style so that we can document the metric guidelines for this or any other article. There are plenty of people that edit units who need to know the constraints. There is currently nothing documented to stop the same removal war happening again here or in any other article. Bobblewik  (talk) 11:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Hi - I agree referring to the host as "the game host" avoids identifying the host's gender, but in this case don't you think using the actual host's name (and gender) makes the article more readable? I don't mind so much making the player anonymous (although I'm reasonably certain "Jane" was used specifically so that "she" would unambiguously refer to the player and "he" would unambiguously refer to the host), but I don't really see the point in using "the host" rather than "Monty". -- Rick Block (talk) 00:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I passed by this article a while back. I had never heard of the American game show and did not really understand why there was an article explaining a game show. It was readable but I didn't understand the message. Just now, I noticed some of the references to sex that were nothing to do with the 'Jane' example and decided to de-sex it all.
Then when I got into it, I started to notice that it was not really about how an obscure game show worked. Once I read the article as an interesting statistical paradox, mentally replacing 'Monty' with <term for player that knows where the prize is>, I started to get it.
It is not a big deal for me. Feel free modify it, or revert, as you think best. I won't mind. Thanks for mentioning it. Bobblewik  (talk) 01:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikilinking dates

re: W. Mark Felt

I have reverted your removal of date wikilinks. I felt that you should know - could I also ask what you meant by "reduce low added value links"? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have the same question. Why are you removing wikilinks for dates? I recall some discussion on whether dates should be wikilinked and the consensus being afirmative, but that was some 18 or so months ago, IIRC. If there has been a change in reccomended style that I've missed, could you please give me a pointer to it? If this is just your own personal decision that date wikilinks should be removed, could you please hold off until there has been some discussion on the question? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 03:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning it. I meant that the articles such as 1974 are of little value to the reader. Linking to them many times makes the individual value even lower. The reason why some dates are within brackets is mainly so that date preferences work. Thus 3 September 1980 will be converted into September 3, 1980. It is not really a 'link' at all. The link function is merely an additional part of the implementation.
Dates that are not subject to regional variation (such as year only) do not have preferences. So the issue is not about dates, the issue is about dates subject to preferences and dates not subject to preferences. A year only should be treated just like any other term in the article like burglary. This issue is mentioned in the Manual of Style.
I know that some people link all instances of year only. I don't really know why. I hope that I have made you think about this issue. This issue is mentioned in the Manual of Style. But if you think links to the year articles are important, then that is fine by me. Be bold with your edits and put the article back how you like it. Bobblewik  (talk) 03:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Units etc

Hi, Bobblewik. You recently changed "four inches (10 centimetres)" to "4 inches (100mm)" on The Ashes. I think it is a little unnecessary to always use SI units in preference to their commonplace equivilents outside science articles. Apart from anything, it is unusual for the measurement to be that accurate anyway. In addition, is there a reason that you changed four to 4? Cheers, smoddy 15:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I usually put units in parentheses entirely in symbol form. This partly keeps it compact, makes the job of translators easier and simplifies the text for those not familiar with English. Thus '(ten centimetres)' -> '(10 cm)'. That was why I chose to edit the article. Whilst I was there, I chose to change it from cm to mm and I also changed 'four' -> '4'. That edit is not a big deal for me. Feel free to put it the way you think is best. Thanks for mentioning it. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cheers for the explanation – you seem to be doing a great job with units! smoddy 16:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BQM-74

Hi again Bobblewik. Two comments on your last edit to this article: 1. Expressing thrust in lb rather than lbf is a very widely used convention in aerospace circles and publications. Since the vast majority of our articles here use lb, it probably makes more sense to follow this convention ourselves. 2. I'm not sure why you changed the metric conversion for 40,000 ft. 40,000 ft is 12,195 m - I could understand rounding to 12,200 m but to 12,000? Cheers --Rlandmann 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I am sure that lots of people would have an opinion on this. Could we discuss the issue in a generic talk page?
2. I am never very comfortable with conversions of altitude. In this case, the article mentioned a range expressed by the manufacturers. This depends on when the rocket motor runs out of fuel. It also depends on the number and extent of direction changes during the flight to follow an uncooperative target. Just like a service ceiling, the boundary from fully functioning to non-functioning is not sharply defined. It is a manufacturer nominal specification which is variable in operation.
I did first round it to 12,200 m because this is usually the precision I use for aircraft. But then I changed my mind because it seemed excessive precision given the very wide operating range to almost ground level. But it was a somewhat arbitrary decision. Feel free to put the value you think is best. Thanks for the questions. Bobblewik  (talk) 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1. I've asked for comments on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page.
2. I hear your misgivings and agree with them. Indeed, all our performance specifications are subject to the same kinds of qualification - speed, range, climb are all highly variable. We simply have to accept published figures at their face value; indeed, since the figures provided by manufacturers/users of these vehicles are already "somewhat arbitrary", I feel that converting them is really more like a "translation" than anything else. If we were following rules about significant figures, then 40,000 ft would simply be 10,000 m, even further away! --Rlandmann 05:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

google units

what is this "units possibly using google converter" i keep seeing? you should make the edit summary a link to a short description. keep in mind that google converter is wrong sometimes, notably with calculations involving kbps. convert with care. - Omegatron 13:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I do a *lot* of conversions rapidly. I do try to take account of the many constraints that people request but it is impossible to comply with all of them. In general, think that I do convert with care. However, there is always room for improvement so I am keen to here more. I don't understand what you mean by a 'link'. Are you suggesting that I put a web page in there?
No, I mean write up a little thing on your user page and then enter your edit summary as [[User:Bobblewick#Conversions|units, possibly using Google converter]], like I do for [[User:Omegatron#Spell_checker|Spell checker]] - using US English - Omegatron
I am editing pages at an extremely fast pace and it is easier to use an identical summary. I thought that you were suggesting different summaries for each page but it is clear that you aren't. Know that I understand it, your suggestion is an excellent idea. I will do it. Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am also interested in what you say about it being wrong. I know that the google horsepower conversion is only the American one. I have never tried google with kbps but would be interested to hear of the issue. Can you expand on that? Bobblewik  (talk) 14:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah. As you might know, units like kilobit are ambiguous and can mean either 1024 bits or 1000 bits (which google calculator doesn't mention; it just assumes the 1024 values). In context of kbps, it is always 1000 bits, though, and google still returns 1024. Other calculations like this have the same problem, so just be careful. There might be other errors lurking... - Omegatron 14:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I did not know that google did that. Interesting. Thanks. I have not used google to convert kbps at all. I have done plenty of replacements of the *unit term* 'kbps' to 'kbit/s' and 'Kbps' to 'kbit/s' (note lower case 'k'). I have done the same with mbps and gbps. I have also tried to convert 'K', 'kb' and 'KB' to 'kB' where I am fairly sure that is what was intended. I cannot recall an instance where I modified the associated numerical value. So what I have done is in line with what you say.
I am sensitive to the possibility of Google being incorrect. It is also possible that I will make errors. But I hope that an assessment of my performance overall would demonstrate a very low error rate. You will note that I say 'possibly using google converter'. I want to make people aware that google can help them with conversions. If they see this summary often enough, they might try it for themselves.
In many cases I don't use google at all, I am just suggesting that I *may* have used it. I have done so many conversions that I know many of them by heart. In addition, I sometimes don't use google to convert the units, but use google merely as an arithmetic calculator using the conversion value in official sources. For example, UK unit conversion values are defined in law at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_2.htm Bobblewik  (talk) 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. Remember it's kbit, Mbit, and Gbit. Kibit is capitalized though, since it was defined that way since computer people always write "KB", they will always write "KiB". You can link to the articles for each as you do it, too. That would be helpful to tie everything together. units like kilobit, gibibyte, megabit per second, and kibibit per second all have articles.
Of course if you make an error the wiki will fix it eventually, anyway, so it doesn't matter.  :-) - Omegatron 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Make instructions to editors invisible to ordinary readers

Hey hi there...what are you doing by removing the fill in instruction? I was editing everything and you came in and all my info got lost...regards

The issue of visible comments for editors has been debated a few times. See what the Manual of style has to say. If you disagree with it, feel free to revert that particular change. I won't object. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik  (talk) 29 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)

nope bob, i am not against it...mind if you do me a favour by reverting it back.. i am on to inserting many of the info... ps: i request that u revert it back because i don't know how to do it...am still a newbie in here...thanks! regards!

I have reverted it back to the version with fill in. I put back your spelling correction of 'Febuary' too. You could replace 'fill in' with <!-- fill in --> and that would make it invisible to ordinary readers but visible to editors.
Incidentally, Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be doing very well. Please feel free to create a login account for yourself. If you sign your comments using 4 tildas (~~~~), Wikipedia will automatically put your ID and date, just like you see with mine. Bobblewik  (talk) 29 June 2005 12:59 (UTC)

yup thanks for the welcome...you are the second to welcome me in here...maybe this only happens to me but i sorta think pple in here aint quite friendly. sorta a little self centred. i feel that editing wiki shld be because one feels that it is his respnsible to put facts right to allow pple to know and not to GAIN recognition in here... yup thanks for the welcome btw! take care...hoping to chat with you soon

Like everywhere, there are friendly people and unfriendly people. Even if you are here a long time, you will experience both types. That is the price of open editing. You will see people quote principles that are meant to defuse tension like assume good faith and be prepared to have your contributions mercilessly edited. You will soon pick up your own methods of survival. Regards. Bobblewik  (talk) 29 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)
opps forgot to put the 202.156.2.170 29 June 2005 13:39 (UTC) sign...anyway...yup...i see lots of people editing posts for the recognistion they will recieve and some are even trying to get into good books of admins in here to gain high ranking or whatsoever....anyway where are you from?you sound friendly!
are you there?165.21.154.114 3 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
Yes. I am here. Sorry for not getting into a chat. To answer your question, I am British. Bobblewik  (talk) 3 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

De-bolding specifications

I just do it when I come across one and have the time. If you don't like them change them when you see them and have the time. GraemeLeggett 6 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Thanks. Willdo. Bobblewik  (talk) 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Alameda Corridor

Hi! Listen, I left a few metrics out of a new article I did called Alameda Corridor. Getting late over here. Could I impose on you to sneak a peek and correct my oversight(s)? Thanks, pal. 'Night! - Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Bobblewik  (talk) 8 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)
  • Knew I could count on ya. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

searchsize

sorry, i'm not a sysop on en. try asking at WP:AN. —kate

Whitespace around units

I have taken the liberty of changing "m" to "min" in Eben Moglen. I have also switched whitespacing to "12 h 34 min" (from "12h 34min") in some cases. It looks a bit odd to me, but at least it's consistent. Rl 11:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. As you probably know, there should be a space before unit symbols. I think this comes from ISO 31 and is mentioned in the Manual of Style. The abbreviations 'h' and 'min' are shown in Wikipedia and on the SI website: http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html
I think time durations often look odd because more than one unit is quoted (part hours and part minutes). This is not how we normally like metric units. Thus '1 h 25 min' looks like '1 kg 24 g'. If time durations used single units like '85 min' they would be less odd and look more like '1024 g'. Although it is common for non-metric units e.g. '1 pt 3 oz'. It is the same issue when people quote '1 m 65 cm' (two units, as some people use) instead of '1.65 m' (single unit, my preference). I tolerate the written form being different to the spoken form. After all, abbreviations do precisely that anyway. As you say, what you did increased consistency and that is a good thing.
Thanks for your edits and your feedback. Bobblewik  (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Metric conversion

Probably an old question for you...is there a link to a converter for units of area...ie: acres to hectacres? I see you use google converter but I can't seem to find it...thanks for helping out.--MONGO 12:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Google converter is part of the normal Google search. Just do a normal Google 'search' for '2 acres' and see what happens.
It normally converts from non-SI to SI. So acres will be converted to square metres. So '2 acres' gets converted to '8 093.71284 m²' which I would round to '(8,000 m²)' for the article. Similarly, '2000 acres' gets converted '8 093 712.84 m²' which I would round to '(8 km²)' for the article. One square kilometre is 1 km by 1 km i.e. 1000 m by 1000 m. Therefore 1 km² is 1,000,000 m².
It will convert to other units. For example search for '2000 acres in sq km'. This is useful if you are not familiar with the jumps in unit sizes. You can also use this method to get hectares if you must. You can use this method to back convert from metric e.g. '2 sq km in acres'.
My priority is to use SI units i.e. square metres for small areas and square kilometres for large areas. The hectare is not SI. In addition, apart from farmers, most metric readers understand metres and kilometres better than hectares. However, I know that some people want to use hectares. If you are inclined to use hectares, remember that 100 hectares = 1 square kilometre. So once you get above 100 hectares, please consider putting the value in square kilometres. I hope that helps. Bobblewik  (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the Google converter also lets you specify the units in the result; just use "in" followed by the units. For example, search for "2 acres in hectares" or "5.7 hectares in square feet" or "37.2 acres in square feet". Gene Nygaard 12:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you...I saw that Bobblewik has been fixing my articles which I have been able to do as far as distances and altitudes, but wasn't sure how to do it with area...thanks again...--MONGO 13:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for further clarification. I am a bit of a math moron and am a complete alien to the metric system so do not hesitate to correct my work if it looks incorrect. I agree that I want this to be understood internationally because I realize aside from the archaic American use of standard measurements, the vast bulk of humanity has joined the 21st century! Thanks again.--MONGO 20:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


Metric person height

Could you please stop converting proper cm person heights to m? —Lakes 11:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Which ones do you mean? Bobblewik  (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You edited Bryan Danielson and converted his metric height from 178 cm to 1.78 m. Person height is never measured in meters, always in centimeters.
—Lakes 20:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion 'height is never measured in metres' is not true. And I am unable to understand the meaning of 'proper' in the phrase 'proper cm person heights'. I can't tell you the frequency of the various formats but 'cm' is not 100% and 'm' is not 0%.
However, if you look at my edit of Bryan Danielson you will see that I corrected the typo '10 tin' to '10 in'. That was my main motivation. The edit of cm to m was incidental because I replaced the whole line. My default happens to be 'm'. I don't mind if you have a different default. If you want to replace 'm' with 'cm', that is fine by me.
There are lots of articles that have no metric values at all. So there is plenty for us both to do. I appreciate that you care about this issue. Add metric units in whatever format you prefer, Wikipedia will be better off as a result. Thanks for raising this with me and keep up the good work. Bobblewik  (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. When measuring people height cm is 100% and m is 0%. Any time you put a person's height in meters it's an error. Can you explain why and how you chose the default of meters for person heights? The only places I've found that meter is used for person height is where the height was converted using a calculator by a person who grew up not using the SI system. For example in Europe (with the exception of Great Britain of course, who use the imperial system) person height is measured in cm. Same with Japan. So please when you add SI heights when related to people please use cm.
You seem to be using somewhat of an automated system since you edited Masanori Murakawa and added the height incorrectly and did nothing for weight?
—Lakes 08:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think cm is 100% and m is 0%. What % for each format did you see on the web?
I am not using an automated system. I do everything manually. Bobblewik  (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see you mentioned earlier that you're from GB. It's great that you've taken interest in the metric system, but this is certainly a subject where you're wrong. I learned to use cm for person height in school, as did everyone else in Europe (except for GB) and Japan. cm is used in every country that uses metric units.
Once again. How did you decide on meters for person height? I would still like to hear the answer. Now don't take this personally; I have nothing against you. It's just that I really think it would be better if you wrote it correctly from the beginning and other people wouldn't have to correct you.
—Lakes 09:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my point. I have life my whole life in a country that uses metric units (22 years). I have browsed the internet over ten years, encountering pages written by people from various cultures that use the metric system. The first time I ever encountered a person's height being measured in meters was one of your edits.
—Lakes 09:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not choose between cm and m. I just started using m. Perhaps it was because I see it around me. I know that the UK is a newcomer to metric units and may be different to everybody else. I really had not thought about it till you asked me. I don't take the debate personally at all, I am always willing to be challenged and change if I am wrong. It is interesting. I am prepared to stop using m for height if it is never used.
Perhaps you have not had a chance to look on the web. To inform our debate, here are some statistics:
  • www.google.co.uk ('pages from the UK' option) 23 200 results for "178 cm" and 9 620 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.fr ('Pages francophones' option) 11 200 results for "178 cm" and 5 320 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.de ('Seiten auf Deutsch' option) 120 000 results for "178 cm" and 6 240 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.it ('pagine in Italiano' option) 7 330 results for "178 cm" and 4 430 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.dk ('sider på dansk' option) 792 results for "178 cm" and 677 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.es ('páginas de España' option) 879 results for "178 cm" and 701 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.co.za ('pages from South Africa' option) 71 results for "178 cm" and 1 120 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.com.au ('pages from Australia' option) 523 results for "178 cm" and 795 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.com.nz ('pages from New Zealand' option) 199 results for "178 cm" and 765 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.ru ('Искать в русском' option) 1 680 results for "178 cm" and 1 210 for "1.78 m".
  • www.google.com.br ('páginas do Brasil' option) 434 results for "178 cm" and 725 for "1.78 m".
Those results are not all human height. But some are. We could get more sophisticated in our search. But to disprove the 'never' claim, there are plenty of examples visible in the results. Here is one: http://www.el-mundo.es/eurocopa/2004/html/jugadores/espana/etxeberria.html
Bobblewik  (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. We can't really take into account those google results since there's, like you said, lots are of non-human height measurements. Anyway I'll take back the 'never' claim since you produced an example. However, cm is generally used for person height, and is the tradition. I don't know where the usage originally came from, but I'd assume it's because saying a child is 0.65m long would be ankward.
I think the reason why you see it in the UK more is because you're switching away from the imperial system. At least in my opinion 1.78 m looks more imperial than 178 cm.
—Lakes 10:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proportions vary by region. That might explain our differing impressions. We could treat the UK as an exception. Would we extend the exception to former British colonies? It may be that cm is the most common (i.e. >50%) outside former British colonies. So that is a good starting point for you to question my default format. But I am not sure that discounting the experiences of UK and/or former British empire readers on the English language Wikipedia is reasonable. And look at Spain, Brazil, Argentina. Bobblewik  (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also can give you much more than one example. See for example the several I listed, specific to Canada, when a claim that it is always centimetres in Canada was made on [User talk:Gene Nygaard#cm for height of people|my talk page].
There are several other factors that come into play,
  • The prefixes which are not powers of 1000 are more and more falling out of favor
  • For your child example, some switch from centimeters to meters when the height goes over 100 cm.
  • This is more pronounced in places fairly recently changing to metric; they have less excess baggage to carry around. For example, deciliters/decilitres and centiliters/centilitres are almost totally unknown in Canada or the United States, and are becoming less used in Europe where they used to be common.
It is height in meters which is used in the Body Mass Index formula.
Both centimeters and meters are very often used for this purpose. It is a silly thing to start revert wars over. Both of you should adopt a rule of leaving these as you find them, and for any additions you make keeping it consistent with any previous usage in the article. Gene Nygaard 12:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland deciliters is very commonly used, usually with cooking. Centiliters is pretty much gone. Milliliters is also commonly used, mostly with medicine though. Anyway, I'll probably convert person heights to cm when I encounter them, at least with articles about people that are Japanese or continental Europeans.
—Lakes 14:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you convert those that you encounter. I have learned from what you have told me. I am mainly interested in metrication of articles and not so worried about whether the format is cm or m. I still think I have a marginal preference for m rather than cm. But here is a suggestion that I hope will suit us both:
If you metricate heights, I will not need to do them. I can concentrate on weights. We will then both be adding something meaningful for metric readers that did not previously exist. The articles that you metricate will, of course, have cm format. The way I was working was as follows:
  • Do a search for articles containing 'height' and '6-1'. That particular Google search seems the best way of finding them.
  • Open each one into edit mode in a Firefox browser tab.
  • Paste the text '6 ft 1 in (185 cm)' into each one.
  • Save and close each one.
  • Start another search with '6-2'.
It only took me about 11 minutes to do all 47 articles with the search key '5-9'. You can now see why the edits only did one value. It also had the advantage of standardising the various non-metric formats into one. Tackling individual heights seemed the most productive method. You may not want to do this work but if you do, that would be most welcome. Regards. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that interested on working on random articles. I'll probably do work on articles I otherwise work on or have interest in. But please continue your work, it is important.
—Lakes 16:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. This sort of task is more my thing. Thanks for an interesting discussion. I am now more aware and less certain than I was. That is a good thing. Thanks the positive thoughts. I wish you well on your work too. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

metrics conversion on carbine

i appreciate your efforts on unit standardization. however, your edit comment is disingenuous. i must insist that if you are going to change capitalization and formatting, that you include it in your edit comment. i would ideally prefer you make two edits, so that i can revert one if need be. please remember that there is no "policy" on style in the wikipedia -- only guidelines. you have no substantive reason to change the things that you did which weren't unit related. be further advised that i, at least, watch pages i edit, and such quibbling over format is not looked upon as insignificant. if you wish to change style, leave a note on the talk page. xoxo, Avriette 03:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought I had responded to this a while back. Somehow it got lost. Anyway here is my response:
My edit comment is not intended to be disingenuous. My usual motivation for editing relates to units and my summary states that. I sometimes make edits while I am there that are incidental and unremarkable to me.
I was not aware that sentence case headings are seen as controversial. Feel free to format it the way you prefer. And thanks for the positive comments about units, it is good to read things like that. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Contender (television series)

Thanks for changing the boxers' units - I was meaning to do that for ages (yeah right!). But, what does the comment made in the edit description "The Contender (television series) " mean?

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 17:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome about the units. I don't know anything about The Contender. In which article did you see me mention it? Bobblewik  (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well, you did:

So what does that comment (I wrote it incorrectly first time - it should be "(units, possibly using Google converter) ") mean?
Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 22:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comment means:

  • 1. I edited the units.
  • 2. I may have used Google converter to help. It is a very useful tool.

I hope that explains it. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers - Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 19:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

parametrized templates with subtemplates

I've got a variable-based template set currently working! You might want to reconsider your vote. User:Ericg/template_tests and User:Ericg/template_test2 show examples of a military jet and a civilian prop. The input template itself is fairly straightforward. -eric ✈ 06:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

abbreviation of knots as kt

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Abbreviation_of_knots_as_kt

Invite

Hi, thanks for the invitation. I've actually already give a few opinions on the survey, though I'm taking my time to consider the remaining ones fully! Thanks again, Mark 20:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. You have plenty of time. I am also taking time to consider some choices. I even changed a vote after somebody lobbied me with new data. Bobblewik 20:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invite but unfortunally I don't have the 250 edits required. However, I do have one that perhaps you could submit on my behalf. The inclusion of ICAO codes for aircraft. I have found it hard to look up aircraft on Wikipedia when the ICAO code is not searchable and it is a standard. CambridgeBayWeather 12:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ICAO issue is an interesting idea. That particular survey is only about units of measurement. So the ICAO issue would not be in scope but it could be raised separately. As far as 250 edits are concerned, don't rule yourself out, you could have met that by the survey deadline. Bobblewik 12:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on revision to 'Units' section in Manual of style

I can understand that you want to get this case closed and I agree it's ready for a vote. Have you considered where your text (if accepted) should go, and which passages it will replace? It might be helpful to make that piece of information available to voters. Rl 19:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It says replace the entire units section with ... Bobblewik 19:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. My bad. :-) Rl 19:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Bobblewik edits

125 mm Smoothbore Rounds

Bobblewik, normally your changes are welcome, however when you made substantial changes to the page 125 mm Smoothbore Rounds you managed to do 3 things

The units tidy up however, was appreciated.

Keep up the good work (with perhaps a little more care).

Regards Megapixie 07:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - futher reviewing some of your edits, there appears to be a problem with the way your algorithm/script handles data tables - it also slightly screwed up Browning Model 1917 machine gun (check the brackets on the last line in the data table) could you please review your script.

Thanks Megapixie 07:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Anti-tank rifle wz.35 seems to have a hyphen conversion problem which damaged to date year link.

Megapixie 08:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Mea culpa. I don't use a bot. All edits are manual but I sometimes use editing tools (e.g. search and replace in a Word processor). So I am responsible for it all, good or not so good. My main motivation is almost always units. I sometimes do incidental things while I am there that I think are improvements, but they are rarely as important to me as the units.
As far as the last line in Browning Model 1917 machine gun is concerned, I don't see the error that you see. I changed it to sentence case and added the metric weight in brackets. I also took the qualifying text out of brackets.
As far as Anti-tank rifle wz.35 is concerned, what I did there was convert a hyphen to the word 'to'. I prefer the word 'to' for ranges because it does not get confused with a minus. That is more important in units than dates. In this case, my manual editing wrote over one of the square brackets by mistake.
As far as the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content standard is concerned, I think you are doing the right thing to follow the standard. I happen to think the page is improved by a removal of bolding so that is why I did it. But it is not a big deal for me. I appreciate the constructive manner in which you have given me feedback. Unfortunately, as a human rather than a bot, I cannot reprogram myself to avoid errors but I will try to take more care. Thanks for mentioning it. Feel free to put the articles the way you want, including reverting any of my edits.
Incidentally, that standard is being updated and bold may not be a part of the new standard. We would welcome your thoughts at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey. Bobblewik 09:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B212

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that with one exception, all the units for the B212 (metric and imperial) were from the manufactures specifications cross referenced to Jane's. I used Google to find a calculator to work out the main area of the rotor. Didn't know Google had a built in calculator. CambridgeBayWeather 11:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Using the best available source takes extra effort but it is what makes an encyclopedia reliable. My edits were only for sentence case and eliminating the 's' in unit abbreviations. Google calculater and converter is very flexible. See the More about calculator link below the result. I think it is a great tool. It defaults to American units if there is ambiguity (as in horsepower, fluid ounces etc) but I usually know when to watch for that. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 11:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Tranter

Can I invite you to this article about a British gunmaker? It's somewhat of a challenge to keep that readable, though: "Tranter's most common bores were 120 bore (.320), 80 bore (.380), 54 bore (.442), 38 bore (.500) and 24 bore (.577)." Rl 16:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A table! Nice. Thanks. 17:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thanks for the challenge. Bobblewik 17:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Airways

hello bobble, this is sg_han and i need your help...somehow qatar airways's website got vandalised. just look at the "destinations" part turning into "services" can the old one which is the more informative one be reverted and can you tell me who the culprit is by looking at the history?thanks looking forward to your reply soon202.156.2.170 12:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this yourself. Here is how. Click on the 'history' tab. That will show you the list of edits. If you want to see what happened in an edit, just click on 'last' (at the left).

By doing that, I see that 'destinations' was changed to 'services' by User:217.43.187.37.

If you want to revert an article, here is how. Click on 'history' tab as before. Click on the date of the version you want. Click on the edit tab. Select all the text and copy it. Then go back the current version of the article by clicking on 'article' and then 'edit'. Then paste the old text over the current text. That is how you do it but I don't advise that you do it.

I hope that helps. This really is not my field and I am not sure where to suggest. Try asking in the talk page of the article (click on the 'discussion' tab or ask at: Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Bobblewik 12:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobblewik&oldid=19850906"