User talk:Ariadacapo

Welcome!

Hello, Ariadacapo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks, Wizard191. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams
Hi Ariadacapo! Nearly four years ago I placed a banner on Horseshoe vortex asking for a diagram to be added to improve the article - see my diff. You have now done that, and they are very high quality diagrams!! Many thanks. Please keep up your very good work.

I know very little about preparing diagrams suitable for Wikipedia, but I would like to learn. Could you let me know what software (or process) you used to produce the diagrams for Horseshoe vortex? (I will watch your Talk page for a while, so you can answer here.) Best regards,  Dolphin  ( t ) 03:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Dolphin51, your congratulations mean a lot to me, my day is made ;-) To be frank I don’t think I’ll reach this level with any other diagram again, the combination of "needed" and "useful" was rather unique there.
 * I draw these diagrams with Inkscape. I know that proprietary programs exist for these tasks but Inkscape is free software, built and shared with love right in the spirit of Wikipedia. Inkscape is easy to learn, in that it is well-suited to point-and-click discovery, and that its status bar (at the bottom) continually provides helpful information as you click around. Its biggest limitation is that it is limited to 2D drawings – if we wanted to represent the above drawings from a different perspective we would have to start all over again. I have not looked into 3D-modelling software yet.


 * In this case I imported a photo (File:Les Monts d'Eraines falaise 84.jpg) into Inkscape and simply drew over it to get the glider drawing, File:Glaser-Dirks_DG-500_glider_drawing.svg. Finding a photo with both a suitable aircraft and suitable point of view is hard, but less hard than drawing from scratch!
 * Then I drew all three illustrations within one file, which you can download at http://files.ariadacapo.net/tmp/wikimedia/lifting_line_scope.svg. The two indispensable concepts for such a drawing are groups and clones. For example, there is only one blue arrow defined in the drawing, and all other ones (clones) will match it if you make it green.
 * These concepts can be taken progressively to more advanced levels: you can make groups of clones, clones of groups etc. Here I used a special tool called "tiled clones" (hidden in the menus) to position the blue arrows relative to one another in an increasingly tighter way, in order to mimic the effect of perspective. The impression of perspective is hard to convey and I just go "by hand" with trial and error, just like I would with paper and a pencil. There are no tools (fancy screens or a tablet) involved, just a mouse with a good mouse mat ;-)
 * All in all, this drawing is probably worth 20 to 30 hours of work once you know what you are doing. The hardest part, and also the most interesting, resides in deciding what not to show – how to simplify to make legible. Unlike text we cannot expand indefinitely. On this particular case I wanted to show arrows pointing downwards instead of upwards, to show the downwash which is intrinsically related to the vortices, but adding that extra concept would have made the drawing less accessible. Also, how do we represent vortex strength (number, thickness, diameter, opacity of rotating arrows?), where should the lift arrows on the fuselage start? Many compromises.
 * Overall, in order to learn, just get a bunch of interesting SVG files and poke around with them in Inkscape. I found it rather easy to learn.
 * I am glad the drawings fit well. The particular phrasing on Horseshoe vortex cleared up the concept in my mind about a year ago, it is a great article. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your detailed answer. I appreciate it!
 * Today you made an edit to Lifting-line theory. You added a new sentence which included the words and by [[ published by Ludwig Prandtl in 1918-1919 ...  The isolated pair of square brackets suggests you left a word or two out.
 * Regards. Dolphin  ( t ) 10:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the new diagrams you created and added to Lifting-line theory. They are brilliant and illustrate a difficult concept perfectly!  Dolphin  ( t ) 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thank you for your encouragements. I still need to learn how to make images fit more comfortably within articles, but that’ll sort itself out with time. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Lifting-line theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Mass flow sensor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laminar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Marking edits as 'minor'
Hi, Please could I remind you that checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable; also that edits on talk pages should not be marked as minor - see WP:MINOR. Edits such as these: ; ;  should not be marked as minor. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Springnuts, thank you for the reminder. I have indeed used this checkbox without giving any thought. I will be more careful from here on. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Combustion chamber
Thanks, that's a lot better. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Woo \o/ The last thing I expected from this edit was a thank you note =) I’ll try to add sources next week when I’m near my books again. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Ariadacapo; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stabilizer (aircraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
You have managed to restore the Stabilizer_(aircraft) article to roughly where it was in May 2012. Due to the tactics of a perverse editor I had given up. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stabilizer_(aircraft)&oldid=492920642 --Stodieck (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for the congratulations. I am not interested, however, in such comparisons, nor in finger-pointing. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I retract my congratulations. You should just restore the May 2012 version. Or refer readers to the Nasa K-12 site "Horizontal stabilizer - elevator", The Beginner's Guide to Aeronautics.
 * Re:"Restore section on trim and stability. Existing references must not be used to justify terms such as "always point into the wind" and "hold the nose level": The text results from having tried to edit the fractured text in the article rather than discarding the whole mess. This article is statement about the failure of the wikipedia.

Centre of lift
Hi, following our recent edits to Three surface aircraft I have started a discussion at Talk:Three_surface_aircraft. Hoping we can reach a consensus on how to handle the technicalities. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reducing wing area
Hi,

I am unhappy about your recent series of edits to Three surface aircraft, for several reasons, and would like to undo them. I have explained why at Talk:Three_surface_aircraft, so I am hoping you can reply there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No copyright infringement whatsoever
Hi Ariadacapo,

I am a friend of Victor Krylov, and I am the copyright owner of all uploaded images. There is no copyright violations whatsoever. Also, I do not see any bias in the article, and there is no conflict of interest. In my opinion, the article is neutral and well balanced. If you find that any particular sentences deviate from neutrality, it would be nice if you could let me know. I would do my best to improve them. In any case, I welcome your suggestion for the users to make their contributions to improve the quality of the article. Kind regards, Eep07 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ISCC edit revert
I opened the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Combined_cycle#Integrated_solar_combined_cycle_.28ISCC.29 about your revert and my revert. Greetings. --Robertiki (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thrust reversal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce Tay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the change of Pipistrel Virus aircraft article
Dear Sir,

I am contacting you regarding the edit of the Pipistrel Virus page. As you know, I have deleted the paragraph quoting the review of Mr. Bertorelli. I would like you to know that the paragraph quoted is in the interest of a person who harbors very negative feelings towards the company Pipistrel. In the past it has been used several times to post slander and negative information (for which the user has no other proof but his own personal opinion) in several location/media with the purpose to discredit the good name of our company. I ask you to read the entire article: http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_LSACrash_207337-1.html You will notice that Mr. Bertorelli has in fact chosen the Pipistrel Virus aircraft as the "LSA of the year".

I kindly ask you to keep the aforementioned paragraph off the Pipistrel Virus page, unless it can be proven with objective crast-test results, not just a letter quoting an opinion posted in a blog. The actual tests for the aircraft: Pipistrel Virus (such as for example 45° Nose-down Drop test to the ground for the Spanish certification - video exists in the archive of Pipistrel company and can be viewed on demand) have shown no higher risk of head injury because of the wing spar compared to other similar aircraft; in fact, they showed that the roll-cage with the wing spar offers higher protection against protrusions of outside objects such as trees. If you, however, insist of keeping the paragraph on the page, I politely request that you include the clarification by the Pipistrel engineer Tine Tomazic also, for the sake of objectivity. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Taja Boscarol Public Relations Manager taja@pipistrel.si PIPISTREL d.o.o. Ajdovscina Goriska cesta 50 a SI-5270 Ajdovscina www.pipistrel.si — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymmo (talk • contribs) 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wingtip vortices
for the thanks! It was a fiddly edit as I have rarely used the template. You might want to check, if it's in your area of expertise, my edit here to Horseshoe vortex. Just want to make sure I haven't changed the meaning. --220  of  Borg 08:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it’s great in my eyes! In this particular topic, "trailing wingtip vortices" is more accurate than "trailing vortices". Thank you! Ariadacapo (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Just improve your skill, rather hone it.
Your egregious experiment with science content is totally awkward. Language is to be made simple and tangible, not of abstruse and gedankenexperiment category. Limit is important, otherwise administration team is there to differentiate you into pieces, and integrate into good intent. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed! :-) Ariadacapo (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of Unfiltered Breathed In
Hi Ariadacapo: in regards to "Unfiltered Breathed In": These are not "claims" made by the film, specially if this would be highly questionable under German publication and media law, and if it would be the case, this film would long time been "banned". This documentary film "documents" the available "facts" and cites each one of these. I have not seen many other films mastering this and still being factual and entraining (meaning: fun to watch and not to fall asleep). Has also nothing to do with PoV. I have seen it now more than 3 times and was able to take notes and got access to the underlying evidence and publications it is base on. I was able to personally interview the technical (a professor for aeronautical engineering) and the 3 legal consultants (professor of law and two specialized attorneys) to the production and did have extensive conversation with them. I fully agree that some wording may be changed to the better, also because I'm not a native English speaker, but your corrections, certainly done with very good intentions - sorry to say - seem on some parts inappropriate.

A good wiki article should also allow the reader to get a proper understanding of the subject matter, backgrounds and were necessary with the proper citations. It seems to me that you have some aeronautical understanding and background as well, so why do you delete what we may well know but not the normal layman outside our nutshell? Maybe because I'm currently working on my PhD thesis dealing on this and other related subjects I tend to have a different view, as a lot of the individual matters described and documented in this film are no news too me. But I've tried to be as precise as possible on this article and make it interesting to read for someone who just hears about it for the very first time. Not an easy task with such complex matters.

regards --Screwjack1981 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with language skills and everything to do with PoV. The film cover image already says "a dirty secret concealed by the aviation industry". This screams of non-neutrality, regardless of whether it is supported by facts. Please see the article talk page where I explain what is wrong with the current article. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Installed engines
Just a note that, for the most part, photos of the actual engine without nacelles are preferred in aircraft engine articles by WP:AIR, especially in the infobox. I realize that some of the photos you've been replacing were poor-quality images in resolution, and that's OK. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, thank you for letting me know. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, and it's not a big issue, just a preference. We may have also had an edit conflict, so sorry for that. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"... let’s wait until it flies,"
I did say it was a project! And not any old project, but a project at an advanced stage with significant funding. Isn't it valid to show that kit-build canards are still engaging, and not just a fad of Burt Rutan's? Arrivisto (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the fact that it is not even built makes this a weak argument, and not really worth mentioning in the Canard article (how many projects of canard aircraft are around?). But this is not a strong disagreement: feel free to revert back my edit. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I shan't revert; I'll leave it to others. Thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits at Cyclogyro
Hi, I saw you were undoing the additions to cyclorotor page. I got a warning on reverting pages (just joined today as editor and being very inexperient on using the system. I do not know even how to use properly the talk, so I used this that seems more simple.

My comment is, I just wont to put new information on cyclorotor. Maybe I am inexperient, but Ive added public 3rd party publications available and referred (I notice these already exist in these and other articles on other subjects...so cannot understand why cannot put them)

also, updated the website of crop project....

further shared videos on the results of project...these are public reports for this project that is finnanced by europena commission and values open source.

I am sorry to use this to contact you...will try to learn how to use the talk here. Jcpascoa (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, I think you should take this discussion to the article talk page, where I have explained in more detail why I have reverted your additions. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

YGM
~ Rob 13 Talk 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Walter De Brouwer
Hi Ariadacapo, I think it the first time we have spoke. How are you. Thanks for removing that other section from the above per WP:COATRACK. I havent see that before. Terrible article was is too, Star labs and all that other junk and even the same pictures with Altmann in them. I'll watch out for it. scope_creep (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It makes a great difference not being alone. I will keep going through the list of affected very progressively. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Question on accusation
Please explain this edit summary. And explain how tweaking photo caption is "Copyright violation". –Ammarpad (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I mis-clicked and am sorry for it. I meant to restore two versions back (your edit and the one before that), but I did not do it correctly and had to do it in two steps. As the result, I unintentionally was flagged and labeled your edit. I should not only have been more careful, but gotten in touch with you immediately to explain. For those mistakes, I sincerely apologize. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspected that too after seeing the subsequent revert. Perhaps I am too hasty with my questioning too. Accept my warm regards. This is resolved. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Fuel dumping: Revision as of 22:46, 19 April 2018
I understand that you reverted my edit, and you can see the reason for my edit in the history of the page. I just want to say thank you for helping make wikipedia even better! The garmine  (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for removal of tag on One Energy page
Hello! Thank you for making the edits you did to One Energy. In my opinion, your edits improved the page's integrity and the tag can be removed. Do you agree? I don't feel comfortable removing the tag due to my relationship with the subject, but I would appreciate it if you could! If you think there are still issues supporting that tag, please let me know so I can work on improving. Thanks again! Eileen at OE (talk)


 * Thank you for your message, I think has dealt with the issue already. There are other issues remaining, as I discuss now on your talk page. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)