User talk:Childhoodtrauma

Re: AHS Centaur

Time to pick them nits! I'm going to need your help before I can do anything.

Year links. Yeah. When I wrote the article, I took the stance of "first time the number appears in a section". At A-class review, someone said I should link all, so I linked all. Then someone else went in an unlinked a whole lot of years. In your opinion, how should I wikilink dates... ie in what quantities.
Dropping 1938 and 1941. I am confised as to where they are, and where they should be dropped from. Care to whack a block of text in front of me?
Memorial. I have zilch information on the memorial. What is there was there before I came to the article, back in the halcyon days of the initial edit. All I know is that it exists and that it was opened in 1993 by a politician, and I have been unable to find any sources that would elaborate on the design.

Be so kind as to tell me where you would like me to go from here. Your suggestions are helpful... if only I knew where/how to apply them! -- saberwyn 10:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2

I've gone and unlinked all individual year dates (those without days), with the exclusion of 1943 in the first sentance, as this is the most important year in the ship's history. Days without years or days and years have been left linked, to perform the wonderful date formatting whatchamacallit.
Memorial: I'd like more information, but there isn't any I've found. Only possible option is for met to travel from Sydney to Queensland, find the local paper serving Danger Point, and dig through their archives... its the only place i can think of that will have any of that kind of info.
Commas. If you don;t think they should be there, remove them. If I disgaree, I'll put them back.
Article/Story. The paper-article tv-story distinction is also mostly correct here, but our 60 Minutes refers to its televised stories as articles. For ease of confusion, I have changed it.
Getting it featured. I'm not going to rush and fail, hence the multiple peer reviews that nobody has responded to. It also takes a long time to get an article into "the queue" for mainpage, so the better part of a year to line it up would be good. If you see a FA candidature, come comment.
Limerick. Such an article would forever remain a 2/3 line stub. Its only claim to fame was that it was a merchant vessel sunk in WWII. How many merchant vessels were sunk in WWII?

Thanks muchly for your comments and insight. -- saberwyn 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a few of the commas back, as I think they should be there for readability (maybe a perculiarity of AusEng). Some of the ones I reworked the wording slightly, and a few were just superfluous. Thanks for pulling them, though. Feel free to go over the rest of the article.

Poundage link is fixed... when I put it in I muddled the link up so it was trying to link to what I was trying to display... should have been [[A£|Australian pound]], not [[Australian pound|A£]]

I've reworded to say "the quantity of the casualties and the nature of their injuries", as the emphasis in the original text was on "war injuries + tropical conditions" requiring the change. How's that?

Thanks muchly so far, its forcing me to think about the quality of the text, and that's what I want. :) -- saberwyn 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only I had a clue what you're talking about... Go the ducks.. whatever sport they're playing

A/AN - A RAAF is correct, due to the pronounciation of the acronym... think the second half of "riffraff".

Oil-fuel-oil - Left first instance as oil fuel (term used in the source), and changed the second appearance to just oil.

Few commas left out, few put back in, few tweaks around removed ones, just like before. Thanks for catching the ugly spelling error, and for your efforts in general. Keep it up! -- saberwyn 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Boston, Mass, but I didn't get involved in the sporting side of things... I was only there for a week following working at summer camp. Next time I'm in the US I'll have to catch a game. As for the white coats in Aussie Rules, stumps me. -- saberwyn 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next crack

You, sir/ma'am, are superhuman. You have no idea how much your efforts mean to me.

Lets review:

Usual tweaks and fiddles of your tweaks and fiddles

Conversion - Now reads "The conversion was performed, although efforts by the Department of the Navy..."

Rumours - Originally rumour was plural, but was later changed. Now that it focusues on the main rumour, the singular is better.

Interrogations - Changed.

Sinkings - "Or sunk" dropped.

ACA footage - You're right. I've added "was shown", and broken this up into two sections, one dealing with the showing of the footage, and one with the supposed verification of the footage.

Again, thanks insanely for your efforts! -- saberwyn 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the work you did to drag it up there! -- saberwyn 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance is again requested

Hey, Childhoodtrauma. Saberwyn again. Want to learn more about WWII Australian naval history, and put me further in your debt? Wander over to Attack on Sydney Harbour and tell me if anything needs fixing. -- saberwyn 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, much obliged for your efforts. My writing style does tend to support the use of commas, but that's probably a side effect of how I've been taught.

Re - number of subs. Six were part of the plan, and were instructed to take part in the operation. One was sunk by an American sub en route to collecting a midget submarine for use in the operation, leaving five to proceed. Hope that makes sense. An edit by Rumiton appears to have attempted to clear it up... have a look and see if you agree. -- saberwyn 10:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey

Now that I've calmed down a bit. I've re-started editing Hockey articles (a little). I'm steering clear of the dios topic; it riles me up to much. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]