User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2012/February
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Georgewilliamherbert. 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. |
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
Nuclear artillery
Hi, George. I am Travis Taylor (Wikipedia Username CPTWarthog). I have read some of your articles, including the one on the W33 nuclear round. I was a lieutenant (executive officer) and a captain (firing battery commander) in the 8"/203mm M110 howitzer equipped 1st Battalion, 40th Field Artillery of the 3rd Armored Division in Germany in the late 1960's and early 1970's. I was thoroughly involved in the nuclear operations in the battalion and at the battery level. I was also trained to be a nuclear weapons target analyst at the Army's Artillery School during my Artillery Officer Advanced Course at Ft Sill, OK. I have information on the W33 round and the nuclear assembly operations performed on it. I would like to contribute, but I'm brand spanking new to Wikipedia as an editor, so am seeking your advice on getting started. Some information I know from personal experience: 1) The W33's internal "working parts" consisted of a nuclear projectile and an array of target rings; there were two projectiles, a standard one and one that contained tritium gas; the target rings came in two or three thicknesses. 2) The W33 could be assembled in four yields; with the standard nuclear projectile, different combinations of the target rings could produce yields of .3kt, 3kt, & 5kt. With the tritium projectile and a specific target ring configuration, a 10kt weapon could be assembled. 3) I could probably draw the round's internal configuration. Besides the exterior shell, there was an internal shell made of sintered beryllium within which the nuclear explosion took place. As I recall, the purpose of this was to contain the nuclear particles and throw errant ones back into the mix. There was also an internal fuze, silicon detents, and other parts.
So, how do you suggest I get this info into the article? Or, should I write a separate article on battery level assembly ops? Thanks for your advice. CPTWarthog (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
the indef block of User:Deepmath
Hi George. Can you tell me, with a little more information, why you blocked Deepmath (talk · contribs).
- 03:54, 15 August 2009 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Deepmath (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: Has become evident Deepmath is not remotely here to build an encyclopedia anymore)
I'm guessing that the answer lies in his talk page, which someone else deleted the next month. Until July/August 2009, the user did have a good proportion of productive edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The Rate this page tool
Recently I was pleasantly surprised to see that my article Jean de Venette had received some very good ratings. Today they are gone. I have read the guidline many times this morning and cannot understand why the ratings are now gone. Could you please explain this. I did not vote on the article. If you are too busy to look into this wuld you please be kind enough to notify me so I may ask someone else? Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
MSU Interview
Dear George,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You're a great contributor!
Hey man, noticed that you've written a lot of articles, and just wanted to say thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.184.100 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL