User talk:Cwbash

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cwbash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Cordless Larry 19:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse articles

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've tagged your lighthouse articles as unencyclopedic. They seem to include travel advice, which isn't necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. They're also of questionable notability. Perhaps you should have a go at re-writing them to make them more encyclopedic in tone. Cordless Larry 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your editorial statements, providing much more "encyclopedic" data would probably force me into copyright violations. I'm providing the data I have in my head and the data that is "public domain". I have much more data available to me, but it's all published data that carries it's own copyrights (and I wish to maintain those rights).

In terms of providing travel data, it seems to me that is what most people wish to have that is not supplied elsewhere on the web.

Thanks for your comments, but I probably won't revise my pages. You certainly can mark them as "stubs" for additional editing by people with more facts that won't violate copyright restrictions.

If you delete the pages, please delete the uploaded pictures as well. The pictures were submitted to support the pages, not the other way around.

Charles W. Bash 19:40, 16 September 2006

Maybe you should take a look at Wikitravel, which is perhaps more appropriate for this type of material. Cordless Larry 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look at your documentation on referencing sourced material. Let me modify a few pages with additional data that is published elsewhere, add the appropriate references and you can comment if you think this violates fair usage or if it adds sufficient encyclopedic content.

I re-edited about four of the pages. Let me know if (a) this is closer to what you want or (b) still not of interest. You'll note a great deal of the material is quoted from other pages on the web, but I was trying to fill in the blank spots on "Lighthouses of the US" (of which there are many).

On a separate note, a major concept in Lighthouse design is the concept of Range Lights. In this model two lights are built, one taller than the other so that when you are on course, the two lights are visible right over each other. I can't find this concept described anywhere in Wikipedia. Suggestions about where it would be appropriate?

Cwbash 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably go on the lighthouse page, if it's notable. Your articles are better now, but they could still do with some formatting, and I'm not sure they're notable (though I'm no expert). Cordless Larry 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was your thought that I would add another "topic" on the lighthouse page? I had been thinking about an article that was standalone, but in the category of lighthouses. I'm amenable to adjusted thinkingCharles W. Bash 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should see what people think by posting a question about what to do at Talk:Lighthouse. Cordless Larry 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are plenty of other lighthouse articles, so I guess they are notable. You might want to take a look at the Godrevy article by means of a style guide. Cordless Larry 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these articles I have submitted have been to fill in stubs off the Lighthouses in the United States, so I didn't think about the "otherwise notable", I was just trying to fill in the blanks. Your discussion on style and content has been helpful (OBTW) Charles W. Bash 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the one who tagged your Range Light addition to Lighthouse with the {{cleanup}} tag - and I was about to do it again, but thought I'd better contact you first. See, this is an encyclopedia, and we need the articles to be more of an encyclopedic, and less of a personal, narrative style. Could you please reword your "stuff" so that it sounds more neutral, and not like a "story a grandfather is telling the kids"... no offense meant with that, but that's how some of it seemed like - so word of mouth tells us and "Your author" used to sail on the Elbe aren't quite fitting in an encyclopedia. Greetings, and thanks, --Janke | Talk 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications. I took some of this stuff out, but a long way from all of it. Now that I know what you're recommending, I'll make another run on it (by the way, you are quite correct in your analysis, I am a grandfather, and that form of talk often shows up.) Charles W. Bash 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at "encyclopedifying" the Range Light section, removing all that sounded superfluous, thus getting it more concise, while still retaining all the facts. Please have a look, and try to emulate a "compact", less storytelling style in the future. Thanks for helping to build a better encyclopedia! --Janke | Talk 06:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There is a special template usually tagged onto "storytelling" articles, it might be a good idea to have a look at the guide mentioned therein:

Missing info about colored sectors

In the lighthouse article, I found no explanation of the colored sectors often used to assist navigation. Would you care to write something about that? Thanks, --Janke | Talk 08:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairly broad subject. The problem is that when navigating w/o GPS, Radar, et. al., and you see a light, it may not be inherantly obvious which light it is. This was especially true if you weren't following a range of lights and approached a coast. Most lights were designed to have a distinctive striping (called a day mark as you could see it only during the daytime) and then either a light flashing system that was unique or color marking that was unique so that the navigator knew where he was.

Given that as background, not stated in Wiki style, is that the sort of content you were asking about? Charles W. Bash 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually not... ;-) Sure, the flash periods distinguish one light from another, but I was talking about the colored sectors of light. If you're too far to the left, the light is red, too far to the right, it's green, (or vice versa, I'm no navigator), but if you're "in the groove" the light is white. --Janke | Talk 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I came here first - I see you've added a sentence about this. Could be a bit expanded, I think... --Janke | Talk 05:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The practice of colored sectors is actually pretty rare. Rare enough that I can't even quote you a specific example thereof. My recommendation would be to find specific examples, then expand my single sentence with specific references e.g., Examples of this can be found in light 1 and light 2 where it provided some specific benefit. This is much more prevelant in aircraft landing systems than it is with lighthouses. Charles W. Bash 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rare?? Maybe in the US, but there are 404 of them in Finland alone, of which 113 are on our lakes, the rest at sea. A stub article is at Sector_lights - I put a link on the lighthouse page. --Janke | Talk 13:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I don't want to put in an explanation of them. I've only spent 1 day in Finland of my 65 years, so I don't think I'm the right person to document the "why's" of that technology more than the one line I've provided.

Thanks for your questions, but I for one will "pass". God bless. Charles W. Bash 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License for Image:Alpena.jpg

Thanks! --Ipoellet (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration on this request. Your image has now been moved to Wikimedia Commons under the file name Image:Alpena Light.jpg. All of the disclaimers have been maintained. If you should choose to remove the disclaimers in the future, please remember to do so over at the Commons. Thanks for your contributions to the wiki-community! Ipoellet (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating me. You use a Commons image on Wikipedia in exactly the same way as you would an image stored on Wikipedia itself: Simply enclose the file name in double square brackets and add whatever parameters you like. For example, this:

[[Image:Alpena Light.jpg|thumb|center|The lighthouse at [[Alpena, Michigan]].]]

yields this:

Alternately, if you want to cross-reference the two images within Commons, then go to the edit screen for commons:Image:Alpena Light.jpg. There you will find a template called "Information" with a parameter "other_versions". After the "other_versions" equals sign, enter:

<gallery>Image:Name of your new file.jpg</gallery>

Save the file and you should end up with a thumbnail of your high-res image attached to the description box of the older, low-res image. You can repeat this process in reverse to put a thumbnail of the low-res image on the high-res description page.

Hope I've helped! Ipoellet (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Foot Shoal/Poe Reef images

Ah-ha. Took me a minute, but I figured it out. The wiki software can often be fussy about capital letters. In your case, you loaded the images with file names ending in ".JPG", but when you tried to insert the images in your articles you typed ".jpg". The software would only recognize it when you put the extension in caps. I took the liberty of fixing the two articles. Ipoellet (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Helena Island Light

I like your addition to this article. You might consider putting something like it at Round Island Light, as GLLKA is involved there. If it fits. . . .

I also note that you and I share some interests in lighthouse. Only a few (half?) of the 149 Michigan lights have been done, so there is a ton of work to do. Not to mention that a lot of them are just bare stubs. If you are interested in seeing the (many) articles that I've recently improved (maybe you can add something useful), take a look at my contributions. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Stan Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Lights on Angel Island

I think you may be mistaken about the lights on Angel Island. Looking at the LighthouseFriends pages, there were three lights on this Island. The light listed as "Angel Island" was constructed first, at Point Knox in 1887 as a fog station; then the Point Blunt and Point Stuart lights were constructed later, in 1915. The whole thing is muddled by the lack of any history for the last, and a certain indication that the Point Knox station was possibly never really considered a light as such. I'm a Marylander and don't know the SF area at all, but I can help with some of the research to try to straighten this out. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Angel Island Light

A tag has been placed on Angel Island Light requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bay Point Light

Take a look at your baby and the sources I put in. There's quite a bit of info in those sources. Maybe you want to spiff up the article. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

License for Image:MackinawPoint.jpg

The image MackinawPoint.jpg is a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. When you uploaded this image, you licensed it for use under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). On behalf of the Wikipedia and Commons communities, thank you.

You also chose a license tag which adds disclaimers to the GFDL. As explained at Wikipedia:GFDL standardization, these disclaimers cause certain re-use problems that make the GFDL less free than it could be.

Before I copy this image to the Commons, I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to remove the disclaimers from your GFDL tag. No one other than you may legally alter the license. If you do choose to modify the license on this image, I respectfully recommend any of the following best-practices license tags:

{{GFDL}}
{{GFDL-self}}
{{GFDL-user}} using the syntax {{GFDL-user|YOURUSERNAME}}
{{self}} multilicense using the syntax {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

You are under no obligation whatsoever to alter the license. Doing so merely cooperates with those members of the community who believe that disclaimers in individual media are undesirable. Wikipedia consensus still allows GFDL licenses with disclaimers, as does the Commons.

Whether or not you choose to remove the disclaimers, thank you for your consideration.

Please also see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons for more information. This message was placed using Template:License disclaimer notice.

Thanks! --Ipoellet (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License for Image:FortyMilePoint.jpg

The image FortyMilePoint.jpg is a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. When you uploaded this image, you licensed it for use under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). On behalf of the Wikipedia and Commons communities, thank you.

You also chose a license tag which adds disclaimers to the GFDL. As explained at Wikipedia:GFDL standardization, these disclaimers cause certain re-use problems that make the GFDL less free than it could be.

Before I copy this image to the Commons, I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to remove the disclaimers from your GFDL tag. No one other than you may legally alter the license. If you do choose to modify the license on this image, I respectfully recommend any of the following best-practices license tags:

{{GFDL}}
{{GFDL-self}}
{{GFDL-user}} using the syntax {{GFDL-user|YOURUSERNAME}}
{{self}} multilicense using the syntax {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

You are under no obligation whatsoever to alter the license. Doing so merely cooperates with those members of the community who believe that disclaimers in individual media are undesirable. Wikipedia consensus still allows GFDL licenses with disclaimers, as does the Commons.

Whether or not you choose to remove the disclaimers, thank you for your consideration.

Please also see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons for more information. This message was placed using Template:License disclaimer notice.

Thanks! --Ipoellet (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved the image across to the Commons, where you will find it at commons:Image:Forty Mile Point Light Station - Michigan.jpg. If at any point you do choose to modify the license, please be sure to do so at the Commons! Thank you very much! --Ipoellet (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:BIFresnel.jpg

File:BIFresnel.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:BIFresnel.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:BIFresnel.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peche Island Light concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peche Island Light, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Peche Island Light

Hello Cwbash. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Peche Island Light.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peche Island Light}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:CharityIsland.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:BigBay.jpg

The file File:BigBay.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused low-resolution file with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:FortGratiot.jpg

The file File:FortGratiot.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Mendota.jpg

The file File:Mendota.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]