HopsonRoad

Thanks for your efforts on the Austronesian issues. I am at a loss as to how to deal with this character, as he repeatedly puts words into my mouth and then gets angry about them. If I try and spell things out so that he understands them, I get accused of being patronising. Quite a lot of his output has errors by his own standards: for instance [1] states that the Lakana's sail is a Crab claw sail, whereas it is a square sail, compared to the crab claw fore and aft. There is no hint of acknowledgement for fixing that error. That article also previously had the strange omission of the Lateen rigged version of the same boat – it is prominently discussed in the reference that appeared on the talk page for Austronesian peoples. I do wonder if this fact did not "fit the narrative".

I am also frustrated at his lack of ability to read a picture, as in the only photo in the Lakana article. That shows a mast and a diagonal spar. I fully understand that some craft, possibly operating from the same beach as the one in the photo, have two spars in a V shaped configuration to deploy a very similar sail – neither of these spars being describable as a mast. But the one in the photo clearly has a mast, with a sheave for a halyard, shrouds and (possibly) a backstay. (There are other photos online[ https://www.madacamp.com/Lakana] that show the same arrangement, but not on Commons.)

I don't see any easy solution to all this. I am perhaps looking for a shoulder, not so much to cry on, as to sigh on. But of course if you had any bright ideas, they would be welcome. I fear we are beyond your initial suggestion, as anything I write seems to be inflammatory. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, I freely acknowledge that there are bits of this subject on which I stand corrected, especially when provided with additional references, etc. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

VarietyEditor (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your help with the article Semi-submersible naval vessel! Could you please translate from article ru:Артиллерия подводных лодок to article Deck gun? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is what Google Translate has to offer Submarine artillery. Perhaps that will help. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks a lot! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You made a welcome to me in the past when I edited (history of skiing). Thanks for that. I also Noticed that you seem to be interested in skiiing and you helped promote 3 good articles on Wikipedia. So I thought you should know there's this editor who is removing info from the Wikipedia article (history of Skiing), and pushing his pov that the rock art in Altai mountains is not of skiiers without giving a source. Despite historians are seriously debating whether Scandinavia or Altay mountains were the place where skiiing first happened and have not reached a consensus.

Also, I myself am not sure if that rock art in Altay mountains can be called as "rock painting" or "rock carvings". NYT article writes it's Rock paintings [2] but National Geographic are saying it's Petroglyph or rock carving. (A petrograph is a Rock painting).[3]

So when you have two sources contradict one another - I am really not sure whether to now call it as a rock painting or a rock carving. What does one do in that situation? [4]49.180.247.61 (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thoughtful reversion of the other IP editor's contribution and discussing it in the Talk:History of skiing page. I can't see the rendering in NG, but the image provided in the NYT article is clearly a painting. In general, when two credible sources clearly disagree, one can write something like: "...,reported variously as A[Source 1] or B[Source 2]." Here, one could also say "cave art", if it's truly in doubt! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was 49.180.247.61 but IP address auto changes by itself. And thank you for that smart advice. It is puzzling when two reliable sources seemingly contradict one another. It does look like a painting or coloured etching [5] though some cave carvings can also have very noticeable difference shadings of colour. But obviously so does rock paintings. [6] I would probably need to read up on this further to be sure, but it maybe would probably be safe to call it as cave art if unable to figure it out. Cheers and thanks again.🙂49.180.183.106 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, same guy as before here. You seem to be constantly present on this page (history of skiiing) and seem to care for that article. As you know, I strongly disagree with another editor for a while now but am really tired of his gaslighting. Not sure if you are biased but I ask you to please assist and be a honest judge.

He claims that I am now debasing history [7] because he claims that in this article https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0315/p01s01-woap.html. He tells me the Chinese government is the ones here claiming that (historians and scholars are divided over the origin of skiiing when they debate it may be either Scandinavia or Altai mountains).

Except he is so wrong and twisting things as that's not what the article said. Not sure if he is doing it deliberately or in denial but it's definitely not the Chinese government claiming that. It's from the author of that article himself yet he refuses to even acknowledge this and called Me a liar. I don't want to deal with him and I had enough of him calling me a liar constantly. Please read the article and explain to him why he is wrong. Also if it's not too much to ask, how does experienced editors deal with gaslighters? Is there a simple way? I know there is no way to reason with people like that. But just want him to know that he Cannot gaslight his way. Other editors would not stand for that behaviour too.49.180.211.143 (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that you leave it to others. There's no need for us to be goaded by other editors. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi HopsonRoad thanks for the welcome! (on my user IP talk page) but it’s not needed really…! I have edited Wikipedia on occasion (off and on) for over 15 years now, but presently just happen to be on mobile (and not visiting here as much), as the computer I’m verified on was fried, and it would take some time/energy to dig up my login.

On top of that, when I went to check on the last edit I noticed it had been reverted by you, and I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that the (brand new) phone I tried to use was IP-banned(!) (across a range of IP?) due to political troll edits, made by a verified account I’ve never heard of.

I’m not sure how to address that, since I rarely edit Wikipedia on mobile, haven’t logged on since my old computer died, and simply digging up my old password to log on that device would merely associate it with a banned IP user in a case of mistaken identity, endangering my old account.

—

I do think the page in question is in need of a global perspective, as I stumbled on the square rig article off a related page on the Lateen rig -- which spends 90% of its article asserting research (from exactly two sources) claiming to prove (1) that the Lateen rig was an exclsively Byzantine technology, unadopted by non-Christian sailors prior to 16c (2) that Arab sailors in the Red Sea had no knowledge or access to the Lateen rig until the Portuguese caravel re-introduced the concept into the Indian Ocean 1,000 years later, and (3) that Indian Ocean sailors (presumably including the Malay (??) as the article claims a study of inland waterways purportedly claimed India was unaware of the lateen rig until the mid-20th century) exclusively used square rigged vessels before that time.

I find this all a bit surprising, but my knowledge of sailing is vastly more limited than my knowledge of historiography, and perhaps this is what revisionist historians have concluded based on recent archaeology.

However, both of these assertions cannot be true (that the square rig is an exclusively European term of art in sailing vessel design, negating the need for a global perspective; or that the lateen rig was an exclusively Mediterranean vessel unknown to Arab sailors of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean who, that article asserts, exclusively used square sails between East Africa and Malaysia until the colonial period. One or the other must be false.

At present it seemed to me that the subject matter might be the victim of edit warring over whether it was considered “historical revisionism” to include non-European references in articles having to do with the history of science and technology, most famously (for Wikipedia) in the history of math articles.

Hence, the hat note I added on the need for a global perspective. Perhaps it was simply the unsigned edit, without accompanying talk page request? Anyway, thanks for listening. -- yclept:Berr 66.44.14.23 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, as I was unsure of the reason for the edit my above post is an attempt to be even-handed and encyclopedic, perhaps to the extent of obscuring the nature of my concern and reason for the hat note.

I am highly dubious of the combined effect of the two articles as written, resulting in the presumable erasure of Arab sailing vessels from both main-topic articles - arising from the definitional logical disjunction of square-rig as a European term of art, and of Lateen rig as a Byzantine invention (plausible) that was not extensively used by Arab and East Indian seafarers prior to the colonial period (implausible), thus resulting in a highly convenient exclusion of related non-European examples from the main pages on the topic of two broad classifications.

A similar thing was done 10 years ago on things like the history of mathematics and the history of pasta and noodles, in both cases trying to segregate “global perspective” articles off to one side creating a variety of poorly maintained stub articles on non-European innovations in the field unrelated to the “main focus”,

and then people would go edit-warring attempts to expand those stub articles or reconnect them to the main topic pages on historical ”anti-revisionist” grounds, asking why they even existed while simultaneously arguing in the aternative that they didn’t belong on the main page.

I write this only to note that I am most certainly in opposition to the troll who got banned posting “wikipedia is too woke” or whatever on a similar IP. Sincerely -- yclept:Berr 66.44.14.23 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for these thoughts, Berr. My sole concern was that there was no corresponding explanation for the hat note at Talk:Square rig. In looking at the Turkish, Korean and Farsi pages on this topic, they all seem to be describing what conforms to the western term of art, "square rig". As to Lateen, that's another question! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi HopsonRoad, I recently created an article on the Erie, Pennsylvania, USA boatbuilder Herman Lund. I could not find any internet information on his life or his boats, so I researched quite a bit and then joined Wikipedia to document his accomplishments. With your expertise in editing sailing articles, perhaps you could give me quick pointers as to what is lacking in this article. Herman Ipsen Lund

Very best regards,

WaveHeight WaveHeight (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your work on this article, User:WaveHeight WaveHeight. It looks like a good start. It appears that some other editors are pitching in, as well. I'll take a look deeper look, as time allows. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your help. WaveHeight (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the surgical edits to Herman Ipsen Lund. It reads much more like an encyclopedia article. WaveHeight (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rig (sailing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mast.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you would be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Galley – length of article. Not a problem if you feel this is outside your area of interest. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This may seem semantics, but I reckon that if a vessel has a large floating hull with two smaller outriggers it should be called a trimaran, not a "wave-piercing catamaran". Arrivisto (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would concur with what you say, however the central hull in the vessels in question is suspended above the waves and the Wikipedia article for each calls it a catamaran. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have started two discussions on the reliability noticeboard on topics which you have previously discussed. If you would like to join, the discussions can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#SailboatData
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sailboat.Guide

-- Mike 🗩 15:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You might need to know that some of the content of Wikipedia that addresses Austronesian boats and ships is unsupported or, even, contradicted by the references given. It is irrelevant whether or not this was done deliberately by the editor involved (with whom you have had some contact) and they now appear to have ceased editing. What is important is that there is a lot of material out there that is, quite simply, incorrect. Typically, the mis-stated content is supported by several references – that may be intentional camouflage of incorrect content, as checking three references is obviously more work than checking one.

I have been chipping away at deleting or correcting this material, as I may be one of the few editors who has access to most of the sources involved and has the inclination to make these changes. Clearly it has to be done carefully, as the subject should be covered here. That therefore involves writing new material to replace the old, which is problematical as this particular segment of maritime history and prehistory is more full of uncertainty than anything else. I do not see this as my main editing effort at the moment, so this will take a while. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, ThoughtIdRetired! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! You may recall our collaboration on Cross-country skiing. Well, here I am cap in hand asking you for a favour. The page Audiokinetic needs a minor edit. The snag is, I work there! I wonder if you'd be so kind as to update the location of the head office to Montreal. It's incorrectly written as Quebec City in the lead and in the infobox. You may reference the info with this 3rd party link. I believe this is the correct process with regards to COI, and I've added a note to the talk page. PS: I see we have some common interests, on a personal note, I've been away from WP lately as I've busy in the St. Lawrence River with my new Westwind 24. Cornellier (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It occurs to me that I could just directly ask people who have edited the article in question. You sprang to mind because you're a good active editor and I believe you are in the same geo as the article. Cornellier (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm back. On third thought, I've gone ahead and done it myself with COI declarations in the talk page and the edit summary. Sorry for the noise! --Cornellier (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good to hear from you, Cornellier! Not noise, just a vote of confidence. I'm always glad to help. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article states that clippers were already being constructed in 1795, though they are not a 19th-century invention. Also ships are subcategorized as vehicles. See Category:Watercraft Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi HopsonRoad, I have a question about the route of the Appalachian Trail over Mount Washington. My understanding was that a few decades ago the trail was rerouted to go over the summit via the Trinity Heights Connector. My edition of the AMC White Mountain Guide from 2012 mentions that very briefly in its description of the connector. I didn't reword your edit, because I don't have more recent trail info. Do you know what the most recent White Mountain Guide says about the route of the AT? Thanks, Ken Gallager (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for writing about this, Ken. I stand corrected, my 10th Edition of the Appalachian Trail Guide to New Hampshire-Vermont (P. 51) says that the trail goes over the summit. I'll make the correction. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you very much! Ken Gallager (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Kingman Brewster Jr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi HopsonRoad! I noticed that you are marking many edits as minor that don't seem like minor edits. Minor edit has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. That also includes adding references and changing tags. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

HopsonRoad, could you please explain why you have removed citation tags in Jeffrey Jones a second time when it still has significant citation issues? The TV Guide page that you've referenced doesn't include any dates, character names, episode counts, episode names, etc. Other pages at TV Guide may contain that information, but they need to be used in references. And it would be best for each entry in the filmography to be referenced as you can see in articles with solid sourcing like Dabney Coleman and Suzanne Somers. To be clear, I'm not recommending a dozen or more TV Guide references for any article because there are generally better sources out there, but it's fine if the page includes the required information. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Daniel Quinlan, I left a reply at Talk:Jeffrey Jones#Unreferenced sections? proposing to use TV Guide as a source, a week ago, but absent word from you, decided to be WP:BOLD. TV Guide just uses an image to indicate what shows an actor was in without using words. To answer whether the actor was in a given show, I don't see the need to expand further.

I appreciate that other articles may be better sourced and I would in the article, if you could point me to such a source. I don't see the need for references in an article, when the blue link to the movie/show in question shows him in the cast. I forgot that I had removed the second section tag before I realized that I wasn't able to supply references, lower down.

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What you said on the talk page seemed fine. Based on WP:RSP it seems like TV Guide is best for television shows rather than movies, but I wouldn't object to using it for movies if it supported what is being said in the article. What concerned me is how you used TV Guide. Also, an image can be fine. I've certainly cited movie posters via newspaper.com clippings, but references need to verify more than just the name of the work when the article is saying more than the name of the work. Especially in the past, a lot of people have copied incorrect information from IMDB and other user-maintained sites and they're full of errors and not reliable (example: Talk:Dabney Coleman § Rotten Tomatoes and other unreliable sources).

To respond to I don't see the need for references in an article, when the blue link to the movie/show in question shows him in the cast., Wikipedia is not a reliable source and a lot of television show and movie articles have mistakes or fail to provide reliable sources for this sort of information.

In general, I've had the best luck with newspaper articles contemporary to the work as well as interviews with the performer. Newspapers.com is great for digging those up and it's free via WP:TWL. For example, I used this clipping for Dabney Coleman's credit for Exiled: A Law & Order Movie and that's also how the aforementioned Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB mistake. I hope this helps explain better. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your reply, Daniel Quinlan. I didn't think of the blue links to movies or TV programs in terms of their being a source, so much as leading to the front-line place where the issue of accurate enumeration of actors should occur, complete with reliable sources. Once that is done in the source article, it seems to me unnecessary to repeat the process elsewhere because the information no longer is "material challenged or likely to be challenged" per Wikipedia:Verifiability and thereby no longer needing a citation. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That phrasing in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy doesn't imply that other information should go completely unsourced. And especially not large sections of text like the filmography in this article.

• As WP:WHEN states: In practice, this means that most material is backed by an inline citation. In case of multiple possible references for a statement, the best reliable sources should be used.
• As WP:BLPSTYLE states: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.

I would also look at what the {{More citations needed}} template says: This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article. There isn't an exemption that says citations are optional if they're probably located in another article elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'll also mention again that there's virtually no chance this article would pass muster on WP:ITN/C and it would almost certainly never be graded as a good article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand, Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged says "If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material." That said, I'm not so committed to this article that I'll be the one to bring it to WP:GOOD ARTICLE status. Thank you for the informative discussion, nonetheless. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unbroken Chain (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, HopsonRoad, for creating several well developed biographies of women. If you intend to continue along these lines, you might like to join WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. You can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for signing up and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to write more biographies of women from Vermont and New Hampshire. Although you are obviously a seasoned editor, you might find it interesting to look through our Primer. I've taken the liberty of adding the WiR user box to your user page where others will be able to see your interest in the project. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply