Open main menu

Off-topic posts on talk pagesEdit

Hi HopsonRoad. Regarding off-topic posts on talk pages, there is no obligation to preserve such posts in a collapsed form. Although the guidelines at WP:TPO recommend this as a common option, note that they also say It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material as described above, and comments or discussion clearly about the article subject itself instead of its treatment in the article. In the case of the IP edits you restored in this edit, note that they are additionally problematic because they are refactoring an already existing discussion – if you look closely, now it looks like the reply that Muboshgu submitted was to the IP's rant, when instead it was directed to Lpouer4832xs's post. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Prout catamaransEdit

Hi, I'm not entirely convinced that your edits of my stuff on Prout catamarans and mast-aft rigs amount to an improvement. I may make some edits to reinstate some elements. No hard feelings?! Arrivisto (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me, Arrivisto. From Wikipedia:The perfect article:
A perfect Wikipedia article...
  • Is well written.
    • Is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.
    • Is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.
    • Is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.
    • Involves original writing but not original research; a Wikipedia article generally is the written work of its users; it will not violate another's copyright or plagiarize another's work, but its summary of information must still be completely reliably sourced; in addition, all quotes are marked with quotation marks and cited.
    • Is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.
    • Follows standard writing conventions of modern language, including correct grammar, consistent verb tense, punctuation and spelling.
My question is whether I have eliminated important facts, made things less clear, or created some other problem? I would also question whether your additions are consistent with the tone of the rest of the article or whether they reflect a special enthusiasm for Prout catamarans. Let's have this discussion at Talk:Catamaran, so that other editors can weigh in. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I've shifted all the above to that page. Feel free to delete this. Arrivisto (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding image to infoboxEdit

I was trying to edit the bio page for Thorgy Thor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorgy_Thor#) Which had an errant reference to an image in the main body & had no image in the person infobox. I was not able to find a way to put an image in the infobox. Perhaps I didn’t have a correct link to the source image. What is the appropriate procedure to do this? NathanHillery (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There appears not to be a public-domain image at Wikimedia Commons, NathanHillery. If there were, you would use the tool at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. There is the option to use a "fair use" rationale in EN:Wikipedia only, but not for inboxes. For that route, you would have to familiarize yourself with the rules for fair use, before uploading a copyright image and use the tool at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversion for self-publishing (monohulls & multihulls)Edit

In my opinion, this was not actually self-publishing; rather it was the author of a book putting an abridged version online. These should be put back on the pages. Arrivisto (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, Arrivisto. The citation was an excerpt from his book, Building Tokyo Express: Turning a dream into reality. In looking for the publisher, I find that it is timwestonboats.com. Amazon shows the details for the paperback version as: Page Numbers Source ISBN: 0648455637 Publisher: Tim Weston; 1 edition (December 18, 2018) Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks! Would you reinstate the citations (with suitable information), please? Then I can see how you did it! Cheers, Arrivisto (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, Arrivisto, I was demonstrating that this book was self-published with the above. And so, the citation should not be restored. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
OK; I get it! Arrivisto (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Multihull page - restore cropped Trimaran imageEdit

Hi, I cropped the image on Wikimedia Commons to get rid of surplus sea background, but it seems I didn't provide proper sourcing, so it was automatically deleted. Perhaps you can cope with the sourcing? (It's beyond me!) Arrivisto (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Arrivisto, I thought that I already did. If what you see at Multihull and Trimaran isn't what you had in mind, the file is there to upload another version to. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy. You've done a good job. Arrivisto (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Moot" is a verbEdit

"Moot" is a verb, and has been since 1585; or since 1652 in the sense of to raise (or argue a point). - Oxford Shorter English Dictionary - 1970 reprint (with corrections). Arrivisto (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Arrivisto. I stand corrected. But it seems a bit arcane for use in Wikipedia, when there are more commonly understood alternatives. I reached my erroneous judgment through Wiktionary, where I missed the verb definition. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really arcane - I hear it used regularly. Let's not dumb down the language! Arrivisto (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly not arcane for you, Arrivisto. In the US, I only hear the word as an adjective, so it sounds queer as a verb—so MOS:COMMONALITY would apply here. The WP:MOS advocates using plain English in articles. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
"Moot" is a verb, and adjective and a noun. Divided though we are by a common language, I'm loath to have my vocabulary pruned by the rules of discourse from the Black Hills of Dakota! Arrivisto (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────@Arrivisto: Nor would I wish to have your vocabulary pruned by said hill folk. And I am glad for our exchange; I'm interested in local variants of English, especially those from the home of the OED! I have peeves of my own, e.g. the widespread acceptance of "careened", when either "careered" or "caromed" was intended. For better or worse, It's best when our choices of words in WP don't cause confusion for its world-wide readership.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never heard of "caromed", so that's another new word. Even "careened" is often misused; people who may have read that "a galleon was beached and careened" tend to presume that "careening" meant cleaning the hull of weed and barnacles, when in fact it mean to lay a ship on its side to allow such hull cleaning, caulking or repair. An online dictionary adds: "Careen - NORTH AMERICAN - move swiftly and in an uncontrolled way, eg: 'an electric golf cart careened around the corner'" So the hill folk won in the end! A couple of DYKs: (i) did you know that although Sudoku was probably invented in France or the US, its popularity in Japan was because of the alleged impossibility of creating a Japanese crossword? (ii) And, perhaps an urban myth; you can't have a crossword in Esperanto since its limited vocabulary has a dearth of synonyms! Cheers! Arrivisto (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Saturn VEdit

In your edit to Saturn V, you remark ...More specific there are other American rockets; only one moon rocket. I'm not sure that's an accurate statement - there are many rockets the U.S. has used to launch payloads to the moon (and will shortly will be more), what distinguishes Saturn V is that it launched people to the moon. I think the previous description was more accurate, as Saturn V was also used for at least one non-moon mission —- the launch of Skylab. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions about editing practices and goalsEdit

Hi User:HopsonRoad,

I'm currently working on a project to better understand the goals and practices of editors of biographical articles on Wikipedia. As you've been significantly involved in writing several biographical pages, I was curious if you would be willing to answer some straightforward questions about your motivations, goals and methodology as you write biographical pieces. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page or reply here if you're interested, although I also completely understand if you are not interested. Thank you, and have a nice day! SiliconRed (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, SiliconRed. You can also contact me by email at hopsonroad@gmail.com. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Great, thank you! I'll reach out by email soon. Have a good afternoon! SiliconRed (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

How to handle a rude IP editor?Edit

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

After observing an insulting post by an IP editor at Talk:Bernie Sanders, I received this reply. I further requested clarification of what the same editor had in mind, I received this uncivil reply after I had left a welcome message at User talk:2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:F174:AC39:DAC9:D441. Clearly, any further action on my part will only elicit worse behavior. Perhaps, there is something else that another editor can do to help the IP editor understand civility.

HopsonRoad (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

While I agree the IP editor has been rude, the overall amount of rudeness seems fairly low. I think you're right to just stop interacting with them. Most of them time, nothing more will happen. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

WindjammerEdit

I don't know why we're arguing here. On reflection (and I might have alluded to it before) I consider these to be two different but similar topics. The important topic is Iron... as it represents a seismic shift in watercraft design. I grant you that. However windjammer while it's a subset of Iron etc., is still a notable subject in its own right. There should really be two topics here. Scope, for a new article for you to write. I would have drastically pruned back the windjammer story. However I see that your probably doing the right thing by rewriting Ships to take into account the major developments in design, the tiller, copper sheathing, steam, or whatever.

I don't expect any other editors to comment here, most people are in Ships because they want to escape from the larger nit picking contentious even covertly vicious world the larger encyclopedia has become. Their interest is also unpredictable. Great interest in sail shapes but none whatsoever in the poor workhorse that provided them with moorings; like Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant which nevertheless got over 23,000 hits off a DYK. Broichmore (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your gracious post, here, Broichmore. For my part, it saddened me to have caused you so much upset. I was poised to ask your further advice on the history section that I'm developing for the "Sailing ships" article, but it's not ready yet. I'm also interested in your opinion of how to handle the scope of "Tall ship", another imprecise, informal term, which you can comment on at Talk:Tall ship#Limit scope to Sail Training International terminology -- trim gallery. I like your idea on having a "Windjammer" article, so I've started a discussion of what some of its elements might be at Talk:Windjammer (disambiguation)#Restore a stand-alone "Windjammer" article?. I look forward to happy times, collaborating with you in the future! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Public Domain?Edit

Hello, HopsonRoad, you removed a picture I found on a sister site claiming it was not in the public domain. It looks to me like a wonderful "drone" type shot of downtown Nantucket that was uploaded to commons under the same license all the other pictures on the page use, something called Creative Commons (?). I do not see a requirement for a public domain designation requirement for use on Wikipedia, can you point me to the rule that requires all photos on Wikipedia be in the "public domain", I do not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2200:2320:6943:4BFF:987C:4230 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:2600:8802:2200:2320:6943:4BFF:987C:4230#Query about public domain. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ to create an automatic time stamp. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sailing shipEdit

Hello HopsonRoad
Thanks for your note! I'm sorry I never got my act together over this; it might have saved a bit of aggravation (I got stuck on sourcing the stuff I'd written; typical enough, for me). Anyway, good job on what you've done! Moonraker12 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
PS: Can I suggest, though, naming the section "Development of the sailing ship", or something similar, to avoid an overlap with Ship#History, and a hue and cry to merge them? Maybe tweak the content a bit to emphasize changes in sail plans, and the improvements they brought? Just a thought... Moonraker12 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note, Moonraker12! I did look back at our conversation to see what should be mined from it. In the end, I proceeded as you see—a question of personal style, I guess. Three thoughts:
  1. It's usually poor form to repeat the title of the article in a section heading.
  2. It probably suffices to have "Main article: Ship § History" at the head of the section.
  3. Tweak away!
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Windjammer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Age of Steam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Smiley AwardEdit

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you’re willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Elipongo/SmileyAward Talk 19:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts on SuperyachtEdit

Hello. I understand you saying, "All the other images show distinctly different examples. Adding the largest by volume in the lead photo doesn't seem to suffice as a difference and makes the lead photo cluttered." Fair enough. But you reverted all my editing work from the prior eight days; were they really that bad? I wonder about this because, somehow, 25 days ago you thanked me for the same edits on that article that now seemed to be problematic. Thank you. --Zarex (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, here, Zarex. I apologize for the confusion and thank you for your interest in the Superyacht article. I recognize that you put a lot of skill and effort into constructing that combination of images. The more I saw them, the less I liked the combination. All I saw was two giant yachts that relied on the text to tell me which was bigger and how. It didn't seem to me a first-order distinction that the other images in the article illustrate. It would have been better, if I had contacted you first, before making my edits. For that, I apologize. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the images you are talking about here, but the fact that you reverted all my other edits as well, which is equivalent to rollbacking. I didn't just add the other giant yacht and change the classic yacht image, I did other edits here and there between June 3 and 11, in addition to those images. Was there a problem with my other edits? At least you didn't mention them. --Zarex (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your tactful query here, Zarex. I didn't mean to clobber your other work, which I wasn't diligent enough to review in reverting the images. I hope that I have restored it to a stage that we are both comfortable with. It did seem strange to me having dates be for 2019, which isn't complete yet, in reviewing largest yachts. However, I won't worry about that detail. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sailing ship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "HopsonRoad".