User talk:Peter Isotalo/Archive 8

Archives

Archive 1

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Roll, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Rose, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Mary Rose Trust at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

I suspect you can just tone up what is said in the article. If you do change the hook, you're very close to the character limit. So be careful not to make it too long.

BTW, when I first lived in Portsmouth, my landlord was Alexander McKee's son. After I had moved out, I was invited round for a meal and Alexander showed slides taken when diving in the Red Sea.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've approved Henrik's rewording. Good luck with dealing with the trust people. I think it must be approximately 20 years since I last had contact with Alex jnr, so I can't help through him. (I've just noticed I linked the wrong Alexander McKee. I've now added a dab link to make our one easier to find.)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Rose Trust, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter, I noticed your messages at WT:SHIPS and WT:MARITIME about the newly-opened peer review. In the future I suggest that instead of opening a general peer review (where general editor response can be lacking), open a peer review at the Military history WikiProject. Our review process is in no small part the reason for our success and continued throughput of high-quality content month after month. It has been my observation that MILHIST requests are usually responded to much quicker as well with a better quality of review since those reviewing usually have some knowledge of the subject which is beneficial. You do not need to worry about this one because I have enabled cross-listing of this review within the MILHIST framework (we maintain this capability for instances exactly such as this). Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 02:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion and helping out with cross-linking. Making the Mary Rose PR into a general history topic was quite intentional, though. I know that MILHIST is an extremely efficient project, and I have a lot of respect for your work. However, since the Mary Rose is about so much more than just military history, particularly maritime archaeology, I didn't want it to be classified as a purely "military" review. MILHIST's input on the military aspects on the Mary Rose, however, will be most welcome.

I'll keep what you said in mind for some future projects I'm doing research for right now.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help - I also made two more comments on the PR and if I get a chance will try rereading the article to see if anything else jumps out at me. I wonder if it would be possible to make an electronic recreration of the vellum rolls? Stitch together the images from Pepys' book... Just an idea. Thanks again for an interesting and enjoyable read, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Unicorn and Salamander were ships of French origin captured from the Royal Scots Navy at Leith, near Edinburgh in 1544. It's very interesting to find their figureheads pictured in the Anthony Roll, many thanks.Unoquha (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter, I'm sorry to tell you that I can not make the article of Korea cuisine within the promised time. I'm currently busy and stressed out for RL matters, so the major commitment to make the article up to GA status is too much burden for me at this point. I'm only adding something to unsourced BLP from being deleted or minor edits. If I implement the article later and fix all problems that you raised, I will ask for your review. Thank you for your time and patience as well as your all efforts made for the GAC review. --Caspian blue 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The improvements you made still raised the quality of the article. I'd be glad to look at it again if you so wish. You know my main concerns, so next time around shouldn't be too difficult.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Please remember to remove the nomination from WP:GAC since the GA review is complete. Thanks -- warrior4321 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it then that you have no intention of discussing the issues with the article above with me? So be it, I have provided plenty of scope for discussion and have done everything I can be reasonably expected to do in my position.

If you leave someone no other option but to stand up to you and say no, don't be so surprised when they do so!

I see the information you added to that article has been fact tagged by another user, so much for the alleged compromise you cited. Since it has been tagged, I am satisfied to leave it a month or so, and remove the information again. I hope you can see how it breaks up the whole flow of the section, breaking up cites and putting tags in there. Quite messy and we're left with nothing in essence added to the article.

Perhaps you might dig out a cite in the coming weeks? Alastairward (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, this is a rather aggressive distortion of what has actually happened. It's obvious by the article talk that I've had "no intention of discussing the issues". If you genuinely believe what you're saying here, I advise you to look over how you communicate with your fellow editors, because it doesn't seem quite in touch with what has actually been said and done. Please don't attempt distortions on my talkpage again, or I'll remove them just like I did with this condescending "general note".

Peter ^Isotalo 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's your talk page you're more than welcome to remove anything and everything on it. However you may characterise what was said on the talk page, the third opinion given and the opinion of another editor who weighed in agreed with what I said. At the very least, mine is not a solely held opinion.

Given that Wikipedia policy is also on my said, I stand firm by what I said. As I type this, I see a note below reminding me that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", worth remembering.

I would also like to know what happens when the week expires and, in conjunction with the third opinion given, I remove the uncited material from that article? Alastairward (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I see in this reply is that you're not interested in mutual discussion. You've already decided that you're sitting on The Right Interpretation of policy and you're openly admitting that you'll revert as soon as you feel that formal rules allow for it. You're inviting nothing but conflict by openly gaming the system.

Considering how much you've stressed the importance of WP:BRD, I think it's time you did more than pay lip service to it. There is is more than one dissenting opinion containing lines argumentation that you have so far chosen to disregard. Consistently avoiding to talk about that which doesn't agree with your point of view is really no different from avoiding discussion altogether.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm still here discussing it, I'm hardly paying lip service! I think you mean that I'm not backing down and taking your side, which is an entirely different thing. For your part, you've simply repeated that you can see a link between the portrayals of certain characters and that's that.

You should check out the South Park good article drive. After that's passed over an article there simply isn't any room left for uncited material, you might consider that yourself. Alastairward (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not discussion. This is merely repetetion of technical argumentation with the intention of portraying your position as objectively correct. That's exactly what I mean by paying lip service to the idea of constructive discussion. You're certainly posting a lot of text, but none of it has to do with reaching consensus but rather to try to force me to concede to your interpretation of policy. I don't see how my view on this has anything to do with forcing you to "back down". I'm only suggesting a reasonably compromise based on the fact that we have more policies and guidelines that are relevant to this case than just the one's you've chosen to stick to.

I've expressed my concerns about your behavior here, but I have no interest to discuss article issues here. I've made some fairly coherent and relevant replies over at the article talkpage so please try to discuss them there instead of merely waiting for enough time to pass so you can revert me.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point though, it doesn't just apply to one article in particular but all articles in general. Why should synthesis trump verifiability in any article? Alastairward (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talkpage and I'm not interested in discussing application of policy here. Take it to article talk, please.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter! I see you and Alistairward's attempts at communicating have more or less stalled for a couple of days. This is probably a good thing. You may want to take the dispute to the original research noticeboard, to get some outside opinions. My expanded thoughts on the matter can be viewed at the the WQA you posted. Regards, Swarm^(Talk) 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, thank you for dropping by and commenting. The attempts have indeed stalled, primarily because the BRD cycle is broken continually by Peter. The version of this article without the uncited material that he added, is unarguably stable and uncontroversial. Peter, if you really do wish to move forward, you might stop reverting this version of the article.

BRD calls for discussion before adding material again that has been highlighted as controversial, perhaps you might also explain why you disargee with this.

This small, unverified piece of information has been through BRD, a third opinion, wikiquette alerts and now the OR noticeboard. Surely after all this effort we might be rewarded with knowing why it should be included? Alastairward (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the original thread [1] since I too have had some dealings with this user and agree with the points being made. -OberRanks (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Press Barnstar
		For heroic work on the Mary Rose article and particularly for getting those fantastic photos released by the Mary Rose Trust, together with coverage in the press. Brilliant work! Simon Burchell (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter. I write a message now when you don't want me to call you. They say that they'll block me for that I'm creating articles. Why did they warn me? When I'm creating their articles, I read the Swedish article and translate that and they say that I'm creating unsourced articles and that they'll block me and when I saw that warning on my talk page, I needed your help and then I called you at Yesterday evening. What can I do? I want to contribute enwp and can be blocked, isn't that really strange? I had a very strange warning and needed your help. I was going to say that to you when I called you, but you didn't want to talk to me, because you were sleeping. I'm sorry for that I disturbed you, but I was scared and needed your help. But what can I do? Björn Bergman 19:46 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion NW overreacted a bit. There's obviously no need to block you for what you did, and I tried to point that out. NW was probably just frustrated because you didn't seem to understand the advice you were given, and I think he wanted to point out to you that they were serious about what they were saying. Here's what you need to do:

When you create articles on living people (BLPs) it is very important that you verify them with reliable sources. English Wikipedia believes this is very important because otherwise editors might write bad things about people who are still alive and could be hurt by it. All you need to do when you write about living people is that you find a reliable source (trovärdig källa) to support what is in the article. There's an explanation of what kind of reliable source can be used for BLPs here. In short, this could be articles published in magazines or newspapers (online or on paper), books, interviews on TV and such. Sources that are not considered reliable are blogs (except when written by the person in the article), comments on internet forums, Wikipedia articles and other things written by people who don't work as journalists or writers.

I accept your apology and I recommend that you keep working according to the advice that I and other Wikipedians have given you. I'm sure you can keep making useful contributions to Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter Isotalo - did you, by any chance, ever record a sound file for the voiceless postalveolar affricate? Surprisingly, it's one of the few consonants for which we don't have any audio. Lfh (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I left it out. I made one just now, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lfh (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pimps Up, Ho's Down has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Fails WP:N. Does not even get a review at Rotten Tomatoes

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that of all the comments at the Mary Rose FAC mine were probably the harshest, but I'm glad the article passed all the same. Well done! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very belated congratulations from me as well - the Mary Rose article is a fantastic piece of work and easily one of Wikipedia's best articles. Reading the article has made me want to revisit the museum! (shame I live in Australia, and it's not open again until 2012). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nick. That's a very flattering compliment. And much oblige to you too, Steve (though I've already replied elsewhere).

Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this as the user in question directly referenced another Wikiquette alert that you started in February. -OberRanks (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter Isotalo. You are invited to participate in WP:Peer review#Age of Discovery. Thank you.--Uxbona (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for such a help Peter! Take your time: it took almost six months to develop the article, and I know how long it takes to, I will proceed now to tune the references as you have suggested, most grateful--Uxbona (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kronan (ship), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 06:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Öland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 06:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just removed Mary Rose from the list of potential upcoming requests as the article is gonna be tomorrows TFA. You probably already noticed this, but in case you didn't I thought I would leave you a notice. Yoenit (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, there are currently only two requests up at WP:TFAR, so now would be a good time to add Mary Rose's blurb to the page. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've gotten the feeling that Raul's already going to run with it, though. Take a look at user talk:Raul654#Mary Rose on July 19 and this. Is there any reason to hold up a spot anyway?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with an interest with naval history, I just wanted to express my thanks for the work you've done on Mary Rose, which I only just noticed because it's on the Main Page. Well done! I'm glad that some of my images proved of help! The Land (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This was a pretty major project that took a darned long time to finish, so your comments are greatly appreciated. And thank you for taking some much-needed photos of the salvaged guns.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this edit. It's an article in British English on a British topic, and the British spelling is "gaol". Wikipedia doesn't provide running-translation between British and American where the spellings are different. – iridescent 14:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not particularly clear. I had never seen "gaol" before seeing this article, and I wasn't even particularly enlightened by prison. There's no information on it there and even if you manage to find the wiktionary article, it's listed as obsolete. I don't if it's correct or not, but it's definitely not reader-friendly.

This doesn't feel like "aluminium" vs "aluminum"-type of issue. We all love WP:ENGVAR for consistency, but using it to remove explanations for non-British readers doesn't seem meaningful in this case. Subtle and learned and all that is very nice, but I don't see why it can't be complemented with a minimum of obviousness. And I'm sure you're aware that the "goal keeper"-reading, silly or not, adds to the confusion.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree, and if Wiktionary says "gaol" is obsolete, they're talking nonsense. (It's "obsolete" in the sense that gaols no longer exist in Britain, but the word for the former gaols hasn't changed.) "Gaol" is the British spelling; "Jail" is the American spelling. Gaol shouldn't really be redirecting to prison, as the two are historically different (a jail is still different to a prison in the US, although the distinction has been abolished in England); however, it can't redirect to Village lock-up (the modern equivalent of "gaol" in the period in question) because most people searching on "gaol" will be people looking for the modern meaning of "prison". The earlier discussion on the problem is here. – iridescent 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything that specifies "gaol" as the British spelling in the same way that "-ised" or "-ous" is. OED accepts both and lists "jail" first. When I searched the web for British newspapers (tabloids as well as broadsheets) and "gaol/jail", articles with "jails" are abundant. Seems like it would be easier to just go with "jail" in this particular case to avoid potential confusion.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what version of the OED you're looking at; the entry in the current OED says "In British official use the forms with G are still current; in literary and journalistic use both the G and the J forms are now admitted as correct; in the U.S. the J forms are standard." (My emphasis.) Even if the "J" spelling were the current spelling, it wouldn't alter the case in this instance; the institution of which he was keeper was Leicester Gaol, not Leicester Jail, and (as with every other gaol in England) was never known as "jail" at any point. – iridescent 17:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Wikipedia, the only time I've seen "gaol" is in Nathaniel Hawthorne. Oh, Sarah Waters, too. It seems to be a topic where "gaol" fits appropriately for the time and location. How does Wikipedia handle such issues as cookies/biscuits, sweaters/jumpers, trunks/boots, and other insurmountable American/British misunderstandings? OED says: variant spellings of JAIL, JAILER. In British official use the forms with G are still current; in literary and journalistic use both the G and the J forms are now admitted as correct; in the U.S. the J forms are standard. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wilde, who should know, spelled it "gaol". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time seeing that we could ever squeeze Wikipedia into the category of "British official use" or pretend that we're writing a period drama. And a cookie/biscuit-issue this most certainly is not; British texts similar to Wikipeia obviously use both spellings today. There is no evidence of a semantic difference between the "gaol" and "jail" variants, and both have been in use since the Middle Ages, so I don't see how it can possibly matter to the meaning of the article if we chose the latter. So far the article not had any mention of a "Leicester Gaol", only "Leicester's gaol", so I don't see any problem there either. Personal preferences and traditions aside, switching to "jail" in this case would not go against WP:ENGVAR in any way. More readers would understand it and no one would be distracted by the slightly whimsical, if coincidental, "goal keeper"-confusion.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Bangs head against wall.) The spelling with the g is the primary spelling in British English and this is an article in British English on a British topic. I imagine nothing will convince you your position (which appears to be "if I've not heard of it, it isn't true) is wrong, but as a very quick Google Test, there are three times as many ghits for "Leicester gaol" as there are for "Leicester jail", and the majority of the latter appear to be references to the modern HMP Leicester, not the former gaol. I don't know where this idea that people will confuse it with "goal keeper" has come from, as the sole evidence is one post on the talkpage—the slightest glance at the article would make it clear that it isn't about football, leaving aside the fact that football was invented more than 50 years after the man's death. – iridescent 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent left a note on my talk page about this. My inclination is to use the American "jail" because it is universally understood, whereas some American readers may wonder about "goal" (it's assymetical, coz they have 70% of native speakers, and tend to be underexposed to BrEng, whereas we are well-exposed to AmEng). That is, unless the BrEng dictionaries say "jail" is definitely not British. But SandyGeorgia has just left a note suggesting a compromise: why not use "gaol" and add a footnote. Indeed. Better than a link, I think. And you educate everyone at the same time. Tony (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from this discussion of a gaol in 19th century Britain has a specific use apart from jail. Jail is different from prison; jail is a holding cell for people awaiting trial or serving short non-serious offenses. Prison is for more severe penalties where sentences are much longer. So is there a significant difference between gaol and jail, specific to Britain and the time period? --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated. In this period, the gaol/prison distinction was the same as the current jail/prison distinction in the US—that is, Lambert's institution would have held prisoners awaiting trial, prisoners on such short sentences that it wasn't worth the authorities' while taking them to prison and recently-sentenced criminals awaiting transfer somewhere else. Since then, England has merged the two systems so "gaol" and "prison" are synonymous in current usage. "Gaol" has always been the official term (it derives from "gay hole", hence the unusual spelling—write your own punchline), but in present-day usage "jail" is creeping in, probably thanks to Elvis in no small part. The institution Lambert ran was called (Leicestershire) County Gaol.

Hopefully, this new version of the footnote should satisfy everyone. I'm very reluctant to have "jail" in the first sentence, since the next sentence talks about the "gaol". – iridescent 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear to me that as Lambert was a gaoler in charge of the County Gaol then "gaol" is to be prefered in this specific instance. The note that's been added serves to educate those readers unfamiliar with the 19th-century English penal system. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are US readers unfamiliar with dictionaries, or google? He worked in a Gaol, and was a gaoler. It really isn't that difficult. Parrot of Doom 20:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1851 Census entry for Welford Road Prison calls it the County Gaol. Every other reference I've found so far to Leicester's gaols also calls them gaols. Ning-ning (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology apparently derives from two variant spellings in Old French, giving rise to gaol and jail with different pronunciations- "gayole" had a hard g until 17th century. Throsby's 1791 account of the Leicester Cheese Riots uses gaol and jailer meduck. Ning-ning (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to meet you! You are quite right, that is not a Byzantine dromon. Commons has a couple of such pictures (including this), but they are really late medieval/Renaissance galleys. About the only reliable image of a dromon is the one by Pryor we use in the related article... Congrats on the undertaking of this task, it really was about time for the article to be brought up to standards. I'll be rather busy in RL over the next weeks, perhaps even months, but I'll try to help when and if I can. Feel free to ask any questions however :) Best regards and keep it up! Constantine ✍ 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is better? I have also added a "dialects" section. Please feel free to make any changes that you see fit. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked or banned from editing, big deal, i hope you morals come to haunt you, as you are obviously letting them go as if they were nothing, you know I am right about the ethnicity, if it means fighting this injustice than be it. Listen to YOURSELF, HOW CAN THERE BE TURKIC PEOPLE WITH BLOND HAIR AND BLUE EYES, EXPLAIN IT TO ME, YOU PEOPLE ARE THREATENING ME, BUT NOT EXPLAINING MY SIMPLE QUESTION, WHAT IS YOUR LOGIC. Why are you being like this, what is your problem, for this aricle the rules are being pushed to far, to cover obvious facts and hide the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.5 (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you replaced a picture of a shore-based quarterdeck with a photo of the after section of the Vasa. Your justification was that the article shouldn't be dominated by modern U.S. Navy ships. That's great as far as it goes, but if you click the small ship quarterdeck image, you'll see that it's from a Japanese ship! ;-)

I looked a long time for an image that adequately shows the quarterdeck of a sailing ship, but I never found one. The Vasa picture doesn't really illustrate it, IMHO. Also IMHO, the ideal quarterdeck article would have images of a sailing ship quarterdeck, clearly showing where it is, and of a shore-based quarterdeck, illustrating that the term has significance outside of ships.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be room for all that, and of course we don't have a really good image of a sailing ship quarterdeck. Maybe we can keep working on all of it. --Lou Sander (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that the first image was Japanese, but the point I was trying to make was that it shouldn't all about be modern navy terminology. It doesn't really matter if it's US or not. And the on-shore bell-ringer is pretty far off from what is by most likely perceived as a nautical term.

I looked around the photos I took when I was on board Vasa, and I found one that might be interesting. Lemme know what you think.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I would like to ask for your assistance with an article which is already published in German and English. If you are willing and able I would like you to translate it in Swedish as it is an international competition for talented violin musicians. It had no Swedish participants, yet. Actually there is no Swedish information about it anywhere in the web. I am available for any related questions. Don't bother with the tablet contents, I can do that by myself. Many thanks in advance. Kindest regards ArcCan (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy with other projects as well as IRL concerns, but I've made a bare bones translation over at sv:Alois Kottman-priset. Hope it gives you something to work with.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Can you take another look at this edit? I think you removed more than you intended with it. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching and fixing my oversight [2]! — Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter, I'll do the two remaining sections tomorrow, I'm beat. Please check it out. Oh, and naturally, a discussion of your Swedish post on my page has broken out among some of the nuttier of my page watchers, in case you want to join in.  :-) Bishonen | talk 22:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I'm done. I've fiddled a bit. Nice translation! Just on occasion a bit close to the English. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, MoRsE & Peter Isotalo. I have nominated these 5 wikiarticles that you have recently edited for DYK on Wikipedia's MainPage. You can see the nomination here. Please feel free to propose new (better) hooks there. For DYK purposes, please add more footnotes and refs to the 'History' section of Archipelago fleet. DYK clerks usually ask for at least one footnote per paragraphs. The other 4 wikiarticles need footnotes to go with the proposed DYK hook. I have put in {cn} there. Please add footnotes and refs if you are interested in having articles you have worked on featured on MainPage. Thank you. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thought; Henrik af Trolle does not have an article himself, and many works list the archipelago fleet, Chapman and Trolle as some sort of trinity. He was also one of Chapman's most important allies in the powerplay regarding the navy. I could start an article later on today after work, but any input would be appreciated. --MoRsE (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm spurting to do some last touch-ups to the other articles, but I'll take a look at Trolle and see if I can find something in the refs I've used for the other articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the blue tick on your alt.hook3. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to copy-&-paste that over. I hope you don't mind my revising your edit. Hopefully, a reviewer can take a look at your new hook soon. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't even notice it had one, actually. Thanks for fixing it.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for the message. I'm afraid the best of intentions didn't quite meet with reality, in the form of a new job. I do apologize. I will try and get around to a reeview in the next few days; but if not, I will definitely delist myself as a reviewer. Skinny87 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file you uploaded, Voiceless_alveolar_affricate.ogg, is mistakingly linked to voiced alveolar affricate as well... I was looking for a way to fix that but I wasn't successful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukinoroh (talk • contribs) 04:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hemmema, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turuma, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pojama, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Udema, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Archipelago fleet, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fredrik Henrik af Chapman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the hemmema (pictured), turuma, pojama and udema, four types of warships designed by naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman for the Swedish archipelago fleet in the 18th century, were named after provinces in Finland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, your sounds are wrong. Please spell them correctly or remove them. --87.78.196.93 (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All input welcome. Cheers. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]