User talk:Brendano

Good morning, cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Its always a pleasure to have another editor start up — we need more good editors.

Wikipedia keeps a list of tasks open for completion:

Some useful stuff/Things to remember:
 * Tutorial — What you need to know about editing pages
 * Test area — If you need to test an edit but don't want to do it on an article
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * As you mature as an editor, the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines will become more important.
 * Always Always Always try to maintain a Neutral point of view when you're editing
 * Try not to be anonymous. Sign your posts (like I did this one), by using the tilde ('~' symbol.  Three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) leaves your username, four (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) leaves your username, plus the timestamp.
 * Be bold in editing pages
 * A happy editor is an effective editor. Enjoy yourself!

Cheers,

→I&ntilde;gōlemo&larr;  talk   17:13, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

By the way, its good to see how actively your participating, and that your not intimidated by us. Keep up the good work!

B-36 maintenance
I believe it was you who added the statistic on '900 hours' of maintenance needed for each hour aloft. Where exactly did you get that statistic? It means that for each transcontinental flight it needed 5 years of 24/7 maintenance to fly again! →I&ntilde;gōlemo&larr;  talk   19:11, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

March 28 05 – re 900 hours of maintenance per flight hour – IIRC that number came either from Dennis Jenkins' book "Magnesium Overcast" or from the | B-36/Cold War vet's forum at Delphi. | Here's a specific thread on maintenance. It doesn't specifically reference "900 hours" but you can see that it took a *lot* of work to keep the beast ready to fly. If you consider all the back-office and shop personnel involved, the number seems reasonable – for a 24-hour flight 900 staff-days. One post on the thread says, "I have heard that there were 95 maintenance hours for every hour of flight.I certainly have no quarrel with that figure." It may be that 90 became 900 via the game of 'telephone'.

I edited the B-36 entry and added a link to those threads in References. Brendano 19:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks  →I&ntilde;gōlemo&larr;   talk 05:29, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Tactical bombing
Hey man, welcome to the project! Always good to meet a new editor. Here are links to the DOD dictionary definitions of close air support and air interdiction. It's also good to note that close air support and air interdiction aren't necessarilly bombing of any kind; they also include strafing, rocket and missile attacks, and heavy gunfire from planes like the AC-130. If you want a little more detail, I just wrote a stub on air interdiction, and I linked a good DOD paper on air interdiction from that page. Isomorphic 01:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I started working on the articles again because I noticed your edits.  By the way, thanks for asking questions.  Now both articles have a good source for the definition, which I probably wouldn't have gotten around to doing otherwise. Isomorphic 02:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on article talk pages is pretty much always threaded. What people do on user talk pages is less consistent. Some people put their responses on their own talk page. That makes the discussion easy to follow for third parties, but means that you don't get the little "you have new messages" notice. You have to remember to go back to their talk page and check for responses. Personally I find that frustrating, but some people prefer it.

Other people will copy your comment to your talk page and put their response below it, giving their response context. That's perfect for a single question-and-response (especially if there was some delay before the response,) but it means the entire conversation is duplicated in two places if both people are doing it and you're having an extended conversation.

I usually just respond on the other person's talk page (like I've been doing here.) It makes it hard for third parties to read the conversation, but if we were writing something that third parties needed to read, it'd probably be on an article talk page or a Wikipedia talk page. User talk is mostly for communication between two people. Isomorphic 02:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)