User talk:Dual Freq/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Image:MirthGirth.gif

While I believe that use of the image (allegedly under the copyright of the Thomas Jefferson Center, per their website) constitutes fair use, I've sent in a request for permission to release the image under the GFDL documentation license or similar. This would clear up any fair-use concerns quite nicely. —Rob (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My wording of the source was probably a bit on the accusatory side, but it was just expressing frustration for the lack of a source provided when it was uploaded. I saw it was tagged for deletion and easily found the likely page the uploader lifted the image from. I suppose there are two copyright issues involved here, the copyright of the author of the artwork and the copyright of the image of the artwork. I don't think Thomas Jefferson Center can release copyright for the artist, unless they have purchased those rights. I was just trying to help find the source so that the image would not be deleted, but I think that fair use is justified for that article. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Air Force One

Hi, I'm not disputing what the book says (I couldn't really care less to be honest) my point is that, as an encyclopedia, there is no reason to have somebody's opinion included. Some may argue that it is a symbol of power, some will argue that it isn't. As an encyclopedia we should deal with facts, not opinion.RaseaC (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This item is in the pop culture section, and is explaining how the aircraft is seem in pop culture. The entire section and all other pop culture sections in wikipedia are based entirely on the opinion of authors, directors and other people in media. Also, I'm having trouble understanding why you would delete a reference to a 288 page book by a U.S. News & World Report correspondent about the subject of the article and replace it with a fact tag. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact tag was my mistake, how it is seen in pop culture is as a symbol of the presidency, that is stated, there is no reason to include the bit about some perceived power. The article is about a plane, not about someone's skewed perceptions of what it represents. I think a sentence explaining how it represents the presidency and (at a push) the rubbish about 'Blair Force One' is more than enough. Ideally just a couple of points about major appearances, such as films books, is all this section should be about (if it's included at all that is, afterall, as I've said before, this is an encyclopedia, not a list of useless facts)RaseaC (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That item is straight out of his book. Ideally every pop culture section in the encyclopedia would be gone, but someone will just add them all back. This particular article's pop culture section is not the worst I've seen and that item from Walsh's book does not seem out of place. Walsh doesn't appear to be just someone off the street who wrote a book, he was a White House correspondent, won a number of awards for his coverage and reporting, flew on the aircraft numerous times, interviewed over 120 people for the book, past crew, former presidents. It seems to be a recurring theme in his book, about the aircraft, so I think its fine for that section. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, you think wrong. It should go. RaseaC (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think wrong? This seems like something for the article's talk page, not my talk page. Have a nice day. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Rush Limbaugh

Just to warn you, you are well over the three revert-rule limit on Rush Limbaugh. Please take your discussions to the talk page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see 3 reverts there, first edit introducing content is not a revert. Reworded to and introduced more content to satisfy concerns is also not a revert. Only one person is pressing the undo button here and its not me. --Dual Freq (talk)
Alrighty, then. The discussion has gone to the talk page, where it should be handled. Please talk it over there. Redrocket (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

USS Sanctuary (AH-17)

this is the first citation i've done, and clearly it's not right. but it's late. i'll muck about with it tomorrow.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

WikiProject Wisconsin Barnstar.png The WikiProject Wisconsin Barnstar
Thank you for your work with WikiProject WisconsinRFD (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia on ships that have sunk others

The particular tidbit is cited on USS Constitution, and needs to be taken care of on the three other articles. I'd take care of it, but I'm having some technical difficulties at the moment. -MBK004 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit like OR/SYN to me since none of those cites says there are only four (or two as is being asserted in the Simpson article). --Dual Freq (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Simpson and the Constitution are confirmed regardless because of their service records Operation Praying Mantis and the War of 1812 respectively. As for the other two, I've been skeptical myself, but at least those two are confirmed. The bit about only four pertains to ships in commission of the United States Navy. -MBK004 04:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to see something that said that there were only 2 or 4 as opposed to 10 or 7 or some other number. I think the whole thing pretty trivial with the inclusion criteria contrived to list Simpson but exclude others that only sunk Dhows. Additionally, in the case of Simpson, other ships were involved and this seems to imply that Simpson delivered the fatal blow on the already burning hulk as opposed two the other two ships that had 5" vs 76mm guns. I don't think the two sentences are worth inclusion. --Dual Freq (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to put up a fight about this. I wash my hands of it. -MBK004 05:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it just looks like its too trivial to be worth mentioning. Looking at the history, this bit of trivia has apparently been the subject of a multiple month edit war anyway. So I probably should ignore it as well. Its a pity that all we can muster for a 22 year old ship is a couple paragraphs and six s months of edit wars over how many ships have sunk other vessels. I'll have to see what I can do to rectify that later if I have time. --Dual Freq (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)