User talk:Red Sunset/Archive 2

Help
Our mutal Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.


 * Hi Bzuk, I've been monitoring this situation for a while! I've noted your numerous attempts to help our new friend in areas of grammar, references, etc., and that he appears to be taking your guidance and corrections as a personal attack instead of the constructive critisism that is intended.  He is undoubtedly passionate about his contributions in a way that only italians know how, and I admire his prolific attempts to contribute in a foreign language, but he is still required to abide by the established wiki principles that maintain its high standards.  I'm sure he must realise that his command of the English language is limited, and I would imagine that like en.wiki, on it.wiki it isn't good policy to use magazine articles as references (which as he admits is due to a lack of books!?), or to express POVs.  In view of these points, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't understand that he needs to accept his work will be corrected.  Having "officially" made your point, I would hope that a firm but friendly note will be posted by an admin on our friend's user page which might have a beneficial effect, but in the meantime all we can do is continue as before and try to make the articles informative, accurate, understandable, readable, and sort the wheat from the chaff!--Red Sunset 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Red, if I can call you that? Yours is not only the voice of reason but it's exactly the thought I had after this last episode. My efforts were entirely predicated on helping a new editor not curtailing what is obviously a very passionate effort to tell people about Italy's contributions to the aviation. Thanks again, I think you have hit the right tone. I just hope that the aforementioned contributor realizes that everyone is just trying to help. FWIW Bzuk 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

Barnstar

 * Much appreciated Snowman...jus' doin' my job!

More of the same...
First of all, congratulations on the Barnstar, much deserved as you had done yeoman work on a number of articles. Take a look at "you know who" (the one who shall not be named – I must be reading too much Harry Potter!) and the latest "contributions." FWIW Bzuk 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Mother told me I'd have days like these! BTW, thanks Bill, I see you've received a visit from Snowman too so congrats yourself. Now...where's that darkened room? -- Red Sunset 22:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Table sandbox
Is there a difference between "basic wing loading" and "wing loading"? Snowman 20:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question, to which the honest answer is I don't know! The wording is originally Stefanomencarreli's, but I could guess that "basic wing loading" refers to there being no additional load on the wing (armament, ammunition, bombs etc), whereas "wing loading" refers to an operational or actual condition including "extras", but it is just a guess! --Red Sunset 21:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Table 2 the time to altitudes could be presented in graphical form, data from the 3 aircraft being plotted on the same axes. The graph could then be placed in the space to the right of the table (probably with out the same data listed). There is an example of a graph on the BMI page. Snowman 22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Table 1

 * {| border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 style="border-top:3px double #999; border-collapse:collapse; text-align:left; font-size:smaller;" summary="Comparative performance characteristics of the Bf 109E, C.202, Ki-61 and Re.2001"

! ! width="10" | ! style="text-align:left;" width="80" | Bf 109E ! style="text-align:left;" width="80" | Bf 109F ! style="text-align:left;" width="80" | Macchi C.202 ! style="text-align:left;" width="105" | Kawasaki Ki-61 ! style="text-align:left;" width="90" | Re.2001 ! style="text-align:right;" | Maximum speed (km/h) ! style="text-align:right;" | Range (km) ! style="text-align:right;" | Basic wing loading (kg/m²) ! style="valign:top;text-align:right;" | Normal armament (quantity x size of guns in mm)
 * + style="font-size:larger; text-align:left;" |
 * - style="vertical-align:top; border-bottom:1px solid #999;"
 * 565 at 5500 m
 * 630 at 6000 m
 * 600 at 5400 m
 * 580-590 at 6000 m
 * 542 at 5400 m
 * 542 at 5400 m
 * 650
 * 710
 * 760
 * 1,100
 * 1,100
 * 1,100
 * around 150
 * around 170
 * around 170
 * around 145-155
 * around 160
 * around 160
 * valign="top"|2 x 20 mm 2 x 7.92 mm
 * valign="top"|1 x 20 mm 2 x 7.92 mm
 * valign="top"|2 x 12.7 mm
 * valign="top"|4 x 12.7 mm or 2 x 12.7 & 2 x 20 mm
 * valign="top"|2 x 12.7 mm 2 x 7.92 mm
 * }
 * }
 * }

Table 2

 * {| border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 style="border-top:3px double #999; border-collapse:collapse; text-align:left; font-size:smaller;" summary="Comparative performance characteristics of the C.205V, N/1, and N/2.

! ! width="10"| ! style="text-align:left;" width="120" | C.205V ! style="text-align:left;" width="110" | C.205N/1 ! style="text-align:left;" width="100" | C.205N/2 ! style="text-align:right;" | Minimum weight (kg) ! style="text-align:right;" | Maximum weight (kg) ! style="text-align:right;" | Payload (kg) ! style="text-align:right;" | Ceiling (m) ! style="text-align:right;" | Range (km) ! style="text-align:right;" | Maximum speed (km/h) ! style="text-align:right;" | Time to 5,000 m altitude ! style="text-align:right;" | Time to 6,000 m altitude ! style="text-align:right;" | Time to 7,000 m altitude ! style="text-align:right;" | Time to 8,000 m altitude Footnotes: 1. Series I/III 2. Under ideal conditions
 * + style="font-size:larger; text-align:left;" |
 * - style="vertical-align:top; border-bottom:1px solid #999;"
 * 2,581
 * 2,695
 * 2,759
 * 2,759
 * 3,408
 * 3,621
 * 3,794
 * 3,794
 * 827
 * 926
 * 935
 * 935
 * 11,200
 * 11,500
 * 11,800
 * 11,800
 * 950
 * 1,020
 * 950
 * 950
 * 642/620 (at 7,500 m) [1]
 * 629 (at 6,500 m)
 * 628 (at 6,500 m)
 * 628 (at 6,500 m)
 * 4 min 47 sec
 * 5 min 46 sec
 * 6 min 14 sec
 * 6 min 14 sec
 * 5 min 53 sec [2]
 * 6 min 07 sec
 * 7 min 38 sec
 * 7 min 38 sec
 * 7 min 06 sec [2]
 * 7 min 45 sec
 * 9 min 07 sec
 * 9 min 07 sec
 * 9 min 09 sec [2]
 * 9 min 25 sec
 * 10 min 47 sec
 * }
 * }
 * }

That works now! I'm happy with this.

Jumping the Shark
Happy Days was a long-running popular TV sitcom in the United States and abroad. In the final year of its inevitable "running down", all the main characters including Fonzie (actor: Henry Winkler) were written into increasingly improbable plot scenarios merely as a means of maintaining popularity with an ever-dwindling audience. In one of the last episodes, the hard-bitten, motorcycle gang type Fonzie was given a script that included him "jumping a shark" with water skis. Incredulously, the episode was shot exactly as written to the bewilderment of the main actors, Ron Howard, Erin Moran and Tom Bosley, among others, as well as the few people that were actually watching at that point. Ever since, when someone in Hollywood or TV land, comes up with something completely outrageous and desperate, people refer back to the "Jumping the Shark!" See any similarities to our Italian interlude? FWIW Bzuk 02:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC).


 * AEEEEEEEEEH! Thanks Bill, I'll check out the links. I enjoyed "Happy Days" when it was screened here, (seems a long time ago now) but I didn't watch the later episodes because, as you say, the plots lost their originality and became increasingly desparate. Point taken though. -- Red Sunset 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not watch this TV show much, but the wiki page "J to S" seems to suggest a different definition to that indicated above. Perhaps, the page should be deleted.  Have you requested an AfD before? Snowman 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit counter
Follow the link to an official wiki edit counter and find out how many edits you have done. It is easy to use. Snowman 18:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kate's Tool.


 * Thanks Snowman, I'll check it out later. --Red Sunset 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Starfighter
Hey, that was fun working alongside you there. We made some good improvements, and I managed not to get in your way! --John 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi John, I was just about to "make a hit" on the area you have been working on, so thanks for the above note. (Maybe it was I who didn't get in your way!) It's always a challenge (and occasionally fun) to tackle our friend's prolific contributions. --Red Sunset 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the new article. A talk section has been started in Talk:F-104 Starfighter on creating a sub-article on the 104S variant, and variants and operators.  I've added this topic(s) to the WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft to-do and task force lists; to expand the interest and support.  I offer to assist in research, wiki-fying, etc. LanceBarber 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated LanceBarber. We'll see what happens now. --Red Sunset 16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

XF-104 contribs
Thanks very much for helping the flow in that article, you might not believe me but some of the words you have put in I thought about but I was worried about the length of the text, which brings me on to the length of the article. I've seen complaints of articles being too long, too short, too plain, too detailed etc! Just wondered what you thought about that. There are possibly two or three more paragraphs that could go in, I have material for more but I think readers would be asleep by the end of it. Also having doubts about some of the info after reading all the sources again, needs tweaking in places. Cheers Nimbus227 21:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome Nimbus227. IMHO, there is no real answer as to how long a good article should be. If a lengthy article is well written, so that the information is put across in such a way that it flows and maintains the reader's interest, then it is not too long (there are limits of course). Similarly, a high level of detail is acceptable if it is relevant and easily absorbed. Probably not the definitive answer that you were looking for, but it works for me. As the XF-104 article currently stands, I don't think that it is too long or detailed that a couple of extra paragraphs should not be added. If you think that your extra material will enhance the article, then by all means incorporate it; after all, it can always be tweaked if necessary. But if you still have doubts, post your intended additions on the discussion page for other editors' comments before going ahead. Regards --Red Sunset 23:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some issues
Excuse me RS; you have written that recently you knew that i 'use children magazines'.

Who said that? Look, there could been a more wrongly statements than this. I don't know how you 'know this' but it's false. RID magazine is the main defence magazine in italian language, the most referenced and the most appreciated also with his director's partecipation in TV programs in all the international crisis happened last years. Storia militare is the main and perhaps the only historical military magazine available. Aerei is a fair magazine, lighter as contenutes, almost as Aeronautica and Difesa, but full of datas, services, monographies.

none of them can be called 'children magazine'. They are written by professionists, and only in the last years their quality level has a bit dropped, mainly for the lack of 'news'. But all the material i have is not 'children' at all and a endless source of historical/tecnical/analisis material. In particular, the reports of Aerei, A&D, Panorama Difesa and others are really good. RID analisis of aero-tecnical is AFAIK unmatched by any other military magazine, a top-notch worlwide. Finally, Storia Militare is far worse than Rivista Storica, but this was closed and SM remained. It's a endless source of material about WWI, WWII and some other XX century stuff.

In these magazines all the best writers in italian language works: A.Nativi (analyst, 25 years service in RID and actual director), N.Sgarlato (divulgator, author of thousands articles, books and monografies in over 30 years), N.Pignato (Author, among the others, of Storia dei mezzi corazzati encyclopedia and main expert of military historical veicles in Italy, he also have over 30 year experience), M.Annati (Italian Navy former officier and expert of naval weapons), G.Ferrari (Nuclear engeneer and expert of WMDs), E.Po (divulgator), S.Coniglio (engeneer and modern aircraft engine expert), E.Bonsignore (Analyst both tecnical and political), Tullio Marcon (Main italian historical expert of War in Mediterranean, and Italian Navy), J-P. Housson (free lancer and expert in special forces and third world conflicts), A.Margelletti (Strategical analyst). Among the others...

They absolutely not writes for kids, except perhaps N.Sgarlato, that is not necessarly a insult. So be more informed before make such gratouitus statements. Take care. --Stefanomencarelli 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for explaining the nature of your sources Stefano. I was informed by other editors that children's magazines were used for some of the information (which you have confirmed), and highlights my comment that the use of sources written in a language that we don't understand prevents us from checking out their calibre and reliability, but I have edited "in good faith" regardless. None of what I have written was intended as an insult to you or any of the authors mentioned; but I still feel that children's magazines, which are fine for their intended purpose and tend not to be written with the same attention to precision and detail as more serious and reliable works, should not be regarded as being suitable sources. My comments in all respects still stand, and I maintain that it would be unfortunate if your contributions could not be incorporated somehow, so let's hope for a speedy arbitration result that is acceptable to all parties. Regards --Red Sunset 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just re-read your response to my arbitration comments, and it appears that you may have used works of Sgarlato's other than children's magazines; is that the case? --Red Sunset 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of insults RS, but if A.Nativi comes here and looks to your comments he would make much more nasty comments than mine, and not against me. I made clear that this statement was absurd, and cleary you was wrongly informed by someone that arguably did not acted exactly in real good faith (expecially if is the guy that i image...). This not means that you look to me in bad-faith as well. But this statement could had been dangerous undermining my credibilty as contributor, a fatal arrow in the hands of someone, you will understand that i cannot let pass this affermation.

In fact, your actions shows exactly how the wiki-collaboration should have been, with stealth and smooth little corrections. Perhaps one month, perhaps one year are needed.

Who really should care? We are building pyramids, stuff that will be available for the next centuries..But just look the page of SM 79 (an aircraft that fully deserves max attention, it was the most famous amoung all the italian aircrafts) how was before, how is now (+all Savoias and Macchis, CANT, + unknown stuff like Ba.201 and P.119..). We have now a (really) complete history of Sparviero, that wiki.it will last years to make as well,if ever they do it (B-17 is still 12kb, B-29 much more but when i started to work it, it was 1kb). And it's a history based on marvellous professionist articles like Tullio Marcon and Nico Sgarlato works, 'holy monsters' in their fields, the best we have. But still, I have never made statements choivinists, and S.79 is handled so, basically it's a much 'overlooked aircraft' (dive bombers scored much more, Swordifish three times as well, surprised? Pruning propaganda and this is the mere truth). But still a interesting one, even if all them not sunk the 100,000 tons attribued to C.Buscaglia alone...

The last part of you comment i cannot understand it? What's means? Sgarlato is a fine divulgator. While Nativi is like a rocker, Marcon like a tenor, i rate Sgarlato like a pianist, capable to explain with very easy, gentle, simple and elegant manners even complex stuff. Children could not buy Nativi and less Marcon, but they could buy the 'simpler works' of Sgarlato, that basically writes like a swing pianist. I like him very much, even if he ricicles old articles, and old knowledge. But many aviation entusiasts are youngs and they no read the former works, like i did. So in a certain sense Sgarlato writes also for 'kids' but this is just one of his aspects. In fact, he has behind over 30 years of profession and thoustand works in every aviation field. Being aware of the strength and weakness of him i can extrapolate all i want. For tecnical analisis i go for Nativi, that is arguably a former engeneer and show it well, for history it's best Marcon, to naval missiles go for Annati and for reportage Housson is far the best. But as all-around fighter Sgarlato is unmacthed, also because seldom he fall in 'fazious' statements like happens to others. He, differently than Nativi, is also a very gentle guy when you write to him. So i learned by decads to appreciate Sgarlato, even if not all he does is 'excellent'.

As for web sites, Baugher is one of my best and preferred (the stuff there is much and higly reliable, every time i checked for confirms i find that he is rougly 100& right), Hakas biplane is a immense amount of infos, Navweapons.org is the absolute best and perhaps only site to find info on naval stuff (among them, 400 guns from 1890...and continously updated too), finally there are forums like tanknet for armoured and Acig site for modern aircrafts. Tanknet is a neverending source of info, the far best forum i have ever seen among many (among his resources there are writers and experts like Tony Williams for weapons, Joe Brennan for WWII-Korea, P.Lawosky as armour experts, Fofanov for russian tanks etc.), while Tom Cooper (ACIG) is much criticized, but hell, he is also one of the most courageus and unpartial journalis i have seen all around (basically this explains why he have so many difficults, also in wiki). Obviousely his manners to bow before nobody is higly apreciated by me. --Stefanomencarelli 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, thank-you Stefano for your in-depth response; if nothing else, you could never be accused of not being generous with information. I'm pleased that you have given me an insight into the authors of your reference sources, and I have to say that I'm continually amazed at the scale of your contributions, not only to articles but to talk pages as well whilst translating your thoughts into English; how do you manage to do it and where do you find the time? But back to the subject in hand; if there was no language barrier and we could read your sources for ourselves, refer to the pages that you do, and therefore be familiar with their reliability, then there wouldn't be any misunderstandings.
 * The last part of my comment was regarding which of Sgarlato's work you have been using as a source. Your previous response stated that he has not just contributed to children's magazines, but has written more serious works; and it was these that I was hoping you have referred to, being far more suitable. Regards --Red Sunset 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well,

Among my characteristics it appears that some are a bit out of the average, for sure:
 * QI around 130 (i am not rating myself smart, however, it's just a dumb number, Mel Gibson reach only 100 and is far smarter than me).
 * Writing: displayed capability to write 10kb/hour even at 270-300RPM, 200 continous (not far from a machine-gun, all by all). I dunno what is it as relative performance, but it's a fact that i can write up to 50 kb in a single day, like the wiki.it pages about Spitfire and Panavia Tornado displays. My fingers suffers in accourding, however, but 50 kb allow me to write a book-like in one week or little more, without hoverauls of course. So in less than one year i wrote around 5 MB in wiki.it, and another 0,7 MB in september, before been definitely kindly blocked. Basically i am a sort of WMD.
 * Memory: i am notoriously a sort of living book. I can remember well, much and far in the time. So i don't need to read much to know much. I've a obsession for the time and the importance of memory as coscence base, and so i developed memory as much i can. And now i use it at best i can.
 * Ambitions: Alexander the Great, more modesty Tom Cooper are my models. I like throw the heart over the ostacle, basically.
 * Time: i live quite relaxed, i have enough for all my purpuses except to read all Internet stuff.

Mixing all these stuff and then you have a sort of monster. I actually must limit myself, if i have the possibility i would do more. The mere fact is we are mortals, and nobody knows what tomorrow deserves. So if i have a real important thing, i do it before tomorrow. The issue is felt also because my father and grandfather died after a stroke suddently. I would not die before having done what i could do and i am aware that there is still much to do and not enough time.

Finally, english sources are fine. But this not prevent much debate as well: Global warming, GWBush, Irak among the other issues well documented in english, that will never totally cleared. Let's be realistic here, language is a problem but the human mind and agenda *is the problem*. Take care.--Stefanomencarelli 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very impressive Stefano; I'm envious of your abilities, but beware of overworking as that can be stressful and could harm your own health. Regards --Red Sunset 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Envious? Myself (LOL)? Wait atlest for the first Nobel prize. It's more likely that i will gain a Darwin one, i fear.--Stefanomencarelli 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave some xx edits about MB 326 and G.91 draft. Just in case of sincerly interested.--Stefanomencarelli 13:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't as yet seen the G.91 article, but will look at both in due course. --Red Sunset 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RS, when you have time and will, i'd been glad if you checks this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AgustaWestland_EH101.

Just to understand how level of bad faith some users have to handle the argument.

All born because i aimply posted some info *In the talk* about this helicopter, and obviously guess who? came and started to troll the discussion. Finally BillCJ arrived and basically accused me to not follow the wiki.policies.

I am literally disgusted by the level reached of bad faith a personal attacks reached, and i starting really to consider wikipedia a place not 'so nice'. So tell me: are sandboxes the problem? I'd go for bad faith personal attacks on me, made with gratuitus reasons. Just to see how ^even a simple contribution^ in talk page is used to accuse me of everithing, from partial posts to policies violations. Disgusted, really. --Stefanomencarelli 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Concordeism
Thanks to you pic and caption additions on my User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Essays page. I have to admit I needed a good laugh today, and that provided it! Feel free to spice up any of the other captions, or even the text, if inspiration should strike. - BillCJ 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. --Red Sunset 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Concorde-on-fire pic. I've been trying to stay away from anything to do with the accident. It is a funny caption, but I certainly wouldn't want anyone who lost family or friends in the accident to ever see that. I thought of removing it myself, or saying something directly, but decided to let it simmer for a day or two. Anyway, I've been known to say or write things in poor taste myself on occasion, so I'm certainly not trying to be critical. - BillCJ 08:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was an on the spur of the moment addition when I first saw the photo, but not worth any amount of humour at the expense of those lost in the accident or affected by it, and I dearly wish I'd never posted it. My apologies to all who may have been offended by it, and I trust that no-one will assume it was your own work. --Red Sunset 12:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. Again, I've said/written worse on a number of occasions! - BillCJ 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

NF-104
Hi, what is that formatting tweak you have used on the altitudes, have seen that a few times? Hope you like the article. Cheers Nimbus227 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably referring to non-breaking spaces Nimbus. These should be applied to units to prevent a possible wrap-around at the edge of a page where the unit could become separated from its numerical value. Just one of those preferred wiki guidelines (I'd place a link here if I could remember where I read it) which few editors adhere to, and one which often gives me something to do if I can't find much else to "meddle" with (as with the NF-104 article). I was getting quite into it when I got your message; it does look good. --Red Sunset 20:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref 'experiencing' 'g' force, good thinking but it was one of the parameters, not enough 'g' and it would not go up and too much would wash the energy (speed) off. there is a really good drawing showing the flight profile if I can find a free way to upload. Cheers Nimbus227 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. --Red Sunset 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'Wikiwings'!! Nimbus227 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That Nimby annoyance
Redset, I hope you won't mind my purloining your suggestion to put Nimby (Nimbus227) in his place. I hate it when some people follow the rules, act with discretion and try to be cooperative and collaborative. In the words of Lou Grant (Mary Tyler Moore's boss), "You've got spunk! I HATE spunk!" Check the miscreant's talk and home page. FWIW Bzuk 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

I'm ex-military, does it show?!! Thanks though guys, much appreciated Nimbus227 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Bill, it is rather annoying, and these upstarts need to know just where they stand!
 * You're welcome Nimbus. Dismissed. --Red Sunset 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up re: ARBCOM, you can see the poor edit made on 5/11 in that article which no one has noticed, I misread the comments. Nimbus227 18:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: F-104 BLC for take off, there are two problems with using BLC for take-off. First is that the trailing edge flaps are used to operate the valves, they do not open in the take-off flap position (half down) and second probably more important is that the bleed air comes from the engine compressor which robs the engine of vital power. There was an even nastier problem with the F-104 BLC, if you chopped the throttle above the runway you lost the BLC air and lots of lift, not good. At least one aircraft was lost through a broken BLC pipe, air on one side and not on the other did nothing for roll stability. The F-4 Phantom is exactly the same. It is standard practise in the Tornado to take off with the ECS (air conditioning) turned off for the same reason, I was lucky enough to do this once! It's snowing here!!!! Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you've explained it Nimbus, there are several extremely good reasons for not using BLC on takeoff. (That must be some air con unit in the Tornado; even bigger than my Jag's!) Snowing? Don't get much of that round here. BTW excellent work on the F-104; you've spotted lots that I didn't. --Red Sunset (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think some of the older airliners regularly did the same thing, we remembered to turn the conditioning on (which is also pressurisation) at 20,000ft which didn't half hurt my ears! I'm going to work on the safety record section in my sandbox for a bit, also worried that the whole article is getting a bit long, might need to split it in the future. I have a German friend who is an ex '104' pilot, I help with his website at times. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Phantom Operators
Just to say sorry I think we edited the same bit at the same time! MilborneOne 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem MilborneOne, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time. Keep up the good work. --Red Sunset 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar
Congrats, truly well deserved. Bzuk 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Very much appreciated; it was a pleasure to work with such a fine team of editors! --Red Sunset 17:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome - it was well deserved! - Ahunt 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review
F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Colour
You can choose any colour with 6 hex numbers. Perhaps choose a slightly darker red so that it does not look like a red link. Is there a space between the red and sunset? Can you get the red to link to the user page and the sunset to link to the talk page? - I do not know if that is possible. Snowman (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that it is possible to link as you suggest. I will probably experiment with linking and colours in due course. --Red Sunset | Talk 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunbeam Crusader
Hi there! The reference is right there in the article - the Wolverhampton Museum of Industry website. There's no particular reason that this engine isn't mentioned in the Type O article, other than it wasn't the normal engine fit for that aircraft. I have no idea of how many were ever fitted with the Crusader or when (or why...); without this information, there's probably not much point mentioning it in the Type O article. Hope this clears things up! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD
You've got me scratching my head! Like you, I was sure that we had specific advice about bolding around here somewhere, but I've been unable to find it, even by trawling back through a few likely page histories! In any case, whether it's ever been "set in stone" or not, the most common practice around the project seems to be to bold variants, usually every time they're mentioned. This convention comes from other common aviation reference works, and probably ultimately derives from Jane's, which bolds the first mention of a variant. I've seen a few other works italicise variants, but I don't think that's a good idea, because we italicise aircraft proper names like China Clipper and Memphis Belle, and it would be better to avoid any confusion there. I can't remember seeing any sources that use quotation marks, so I'd recommend against that - especially since they seem to carry that connotation of "so-called".

I know that the MOS sticklers would have us remove all bolding, but given the downright usefulness of that style, and prevalence in the publishing industry, I think this is very much a case of WP:IAR and retain bolding for at least the first mention of a variant, if not the first mention of a variant in a section, if not every mention of a variant (my personal preference and practice).

I suggest that part of the underlying problem is the question of who do we think our reader is? As I see it, people interested in planes (whether as enthusiasts or professionals) will often be scanning text to look for details of a specific variant. The FA process is assessing the article for how it reads as plain, connected prose, for a general readership trying to read the article from start to finish. However, I think that most of our longer aircraft articles are already so chock-full of technical detail that they're really only of conceivable interest to us plane nuts anyway (imagine reading the F-4 article to your grandmother...) and continuing the pretence of pitching the article to a general audience became ludicrous long ago. Wow! I'll get off that soapbox now! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good spot
Bit of a silly typo you spotted, I was pretty tired by then. We are having another crack at GA nom soon hopefully. Happy New Year BTW, cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

F4 citation
To be fair to you I am going to state that the F4 level of citation is not anywhere near to what I would consider for an FA status article. I would ask that you look at the number of declaritive statements as against the number of citations. I would ask you to look at T-34 that I have worked on that is an FA selection and Battle of Waterloo which is a GA article. Right now. Again I am working on the War of 1812 where the level is only begining to approach a class A article. I attempted to fact tag this sometime back and it was removed. I believe that from a short rereading you would need to about double the citations provided. I am having some difficulting believing that there are not enough books out there on the F4 to not provide a line by line citation level (disgusting as that would be) if there was a need. I won't start fact tagging at this point as I think it would seriously damage the article's chances for FA nor will I comment against it but that would be my position on this article at this time. Tirronan (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Tirronan, but I think there may have been a mutual misunderstanding. It has already been established that numerous areas of the article require citations and have been tagged accordingly; consequently, having spotted your earlier note on the F-4 discussion page, it seems that I wrongly assumed that you were in possession of suitable references (I have nothing worthwhile myself) and could help out with the lengthy task of citing. My apologies, and good luck with the War of 1812. --Red Su ns et    13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that I do, we are misreading each other here, common when all we can do is type, I was pointing out that this was going to take quite a while but yes of course I will help. Tirronan (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

B.R.
HI. Once again we have the same issue we are analysing with Rlandmann in these days. According to Italian sources majority, B stands for bombardiere (bomber) (see the it.wiki's article which declares its source). On the contrary, lots of English sources recall "Bombardamento" which means bombardment, thinking the name was linked to the speciality and not to the model (I guess so as most English language web sites adopt bombardment). It’s a good thing for Fiat C.R. series that C (which stands for caccia) is both the speciality and the specialist (fight and fighter plane are both translated caccia in Italian). I am improving my awareness of english wiki philosphy and I am starting to understand that, due to verifiability needs, if most English sources adopt wrong or poor translations, English Wikipedia will reflect this and it is perfectly normal, fair and probably not solvable. Personally, when these issues will raise again, I will limit myself just to give a warn and suggesting to leave track of the anomaly somewhere as a note in the article's body or in the discussion page. It.wiki, which can verify the more informed italian sources, will follow and verify Italian books and will write something different from en.wiki..... maybe this is what it was made for, fostering a multi languages and international approach to topics. I would like to have a feedback from you. --EH101 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Operators
If you can do some tidy up work now, I can do the merge and move that is indicated on the F-4 Phantom II discussion page. The merge will need the tidy up, after the two pages are concatenated. I plan to use the name "F-4 Phantom II in non-U.S. service". "U.S." with full stops. Snowman (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said
Hi Rob, just noticed your comments on the F-4 'discussion'. It does drive you mad sometimes, I cope with it by moving to editing other articles which are in dire need of a tweak or two which is not a solution but it is still progress in the project and avoids debating endless trivia with people who just like to do that for a hobby. Chin up! Nimbus227 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you Nimbus, I'm becoming increasingly aware of like-minded editors – it's gratifying to know that I'm not alone! --Red Su ns et    15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spitfire: Mind you don't trip up, I think they were called by their numbers from Mark 18 upwards, will have to look in to that a bit further, probably changed because of dull RAF blokes like me who don't know what XIX means! Guess you can see the bunfight going on about variants etc. Perhaps we have too many articles? I've never seen any of those I listed which means that they are not particularly well linked. Britney Spears = Beers! Nimbus227 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, we'll see what can be found out. --Red Su ns et    22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blimey! Is it not dark up there! The answer is in the header of Supermarine Spitfire variants BTW. I've been here a whole four months now, do I get a donut or something!! That image was from Commons, there are loads of decent ones in there. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, seeing double now and ready to sign out. After a year and a half all I get is a headache and accusations of being antisocial! Sorted the 19 thing though, thanks. --Red Su ns et    23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At it again I see! What do you think of my suggestion on the talk page about changing the infobox image? Been signed off work for a week, doh! Nimbus227 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rob, I have a 300 page book on the Phantom that has not been used as a reference in that article, I worked on the oily heaps for almost nine years. I can help in there perhaps, although I'm not sure what the exact problem is. Guess it could be over reliance on Joe Baugher. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've long thought that the infobox pic could be better for all the reasons you mention, and the b&w one is good, but for a "modern" aircraft, like you I really think that we need a colour photo. I wonder if we could get away with cropping the NASA pic in the absence of something better?
 * Hole in one – pretty much most of the remaining niggles are regarding the use of websites, particularly Baugher and Goebel, as reference sources. Though websites are not ideal, these two have been regarded as being generally acceptable, but if your book on the "oily heaps" can be cited in place of any of the websites then that would be great! I'm keeping away from the page for the time being since my recent efforts to obtain any suitable published works on the subject have been in vain, and I might be tempted to embolden the variants again out of sheer cussedness! Do I take it that you're not an F-4 phan? --Red Su ns et    23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a strange thing, I've encountered some reviewers/editors who dislike using websites as references and others who dislike using books as references, using the argument that if they have not got the book then they can not check it (which to me questions our integrity and makes a mockery of the reference process). I have rapidly come to the conclusion that it is a no win situation. Ref the Phantom; I like them basically but ours with the Spey spewed out engine oil from the vents, coating the top of the wings (instant skating rink) and they were generally filthy. Designed for 1,000 hours, I worked on the Ark Royal survivors which were getting past 5,000 hours towards the end with many, many problems, not even thought of in the maintenance manual. Engine changes were a pain as it was such a tight fit, the J79 could be changed in a couple of hours by contrast (I watched a USAF team do it in my hangar). Fuel leaked from everywhere, it had no bag tanks in the wings, just structure joints sealed with 'Blu-tac' type stuff. We blew some up with explosives to help the scrap man break them into pieces, great fun and sadly gratifying when it involved a particular 'troublemaker'!!! Will hunt for a decent '104' photo. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockheed CL-1200
Hi Rob, could you have a squint at Lockheed CL-1200 for copy edits etc. It is possible that it is a candidate for 'B' class now. I can't work out how to get rid of all the tags at the bottom of the talk page. Cheers, Gary Nimbus227 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. --Red Su ns et    19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My own mother would not recognise it! Also making it more informative without going into too much depth hopefully. Do you think the specifications should go in a two column table? Looks a bit strange. I could add a section on projected costings, Lockheed had it worked out to the last penny (cent?) Tea time. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Costings section in now and expanded the article generally. I went to school at RAF Upper Heyford with my American chums (children of USAF personnel living next door) so I have lernt to spall 'thangs' the wrong way! Their school holidays were different to mine, so I used to tag along to stop getting bored; sad but true!! Thanks for all your help, it's a lonely place otherwise. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but you've done the donkey-work! --Red Su ns et    19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Specs table is done and pasted in, thanks to your efforts. I'm sorry if you took my comments the wrong way, I was engrossed in the Vampire/Venom articles. It's also very easy to misconstrue tone across T'internet, I have a dry sense of humour. I don't think there is much more mileage left in this article, it desperately needs a three view drawing. I have some but getting it past the 'fair use' police is not easy. I cleaned my computer screen tonight, loads of commas and full stops have gone missing! ;-) Cheers and thanks again. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Section order?
Hi Rob, I noticed you reverted my move of the external links section to the end in the Vampire article. I did it in accordance with WP:EL and our own page content guidelines at. Both the Boeing 747 and F-4 Phantom II are featured articles and follow this convention. I was just trying to be consistent. Had a bit of banter on the F-4 talk page earlier, back to the bike articles I think. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gary, not guilty (for once LOL!). See this.


 * Cheers for the Bonneville tweaks. I spent all weekend spannering the Tiger Moth, my time for editing will get less and less as the good weather approaches (well, it might get better!) F1 season starts soon as well, something to look forward to with fingers crossed. All the best. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still up?! Its Jenson BTW as in Jenson Button, I was being a bit naughty and editing at work. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)