User talk:Rlandmann/archive1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi Rlandmann. I see you are adding to Aircraft types. Great! I was beginning to think that I was playing a lone hand keeping that page up to date! Right now it's just a plain vanilla list, but in the back of my mind I figure that, sooner or later, it can become a sort of master index to all the Wikipedia aircraft entries, something that is really worth browsing through. I seem to be working on the other, even more interesting, sort of flying machines this week (the ones with feathers), but no doubt I'll be back to do a few more aircraft entries, or un-stub some before too long. Cheers -- Tannin 13:35 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hey! I noticed you added the table to Shenzhou 5, and I was wondering if perhaps you'd like to help with WikiProject Space Missions, which has, as its aim, to standardize these tables as well as parts of the articles themselves. If you're interested, feel free to join in the discussions on the talk page. -- Pipian 16:17, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC) -

Another closet Aussie? Consider adding yourself to Wikipedians/Australia. -- Tim Starling 00:53, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the Holy Prepuce page that you wrote. I found it hilarious. Maximus Rex 07:27, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi,

Do you know the hull number, etc, of the All Good Things... Enterprise? I think the data I and the anonymous user added on it could be used. -- Pakaran 01:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. I'll put it there probably Friday - I have a huge school project due tomorrow night...  or I may put it there in the meantime :).

moved from user page

Have you considered how to breakup the List of Aust. Naval Ships to make more manageable sized pages?Skeetch 14:34, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Is there a significant difference between a minesweeper and minehunter? Would it be appropriate to link both to the same page, perhaps with a clarifying paragraph? Skeetch 17:35, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding ejector seats. It might be better to have corrected my addition rather than simply revert it out of existence. Maybe the word "British" could go in there... it's hard to find too much history on the very early use of ejector seats prior to the allies work on them post WW2, so if you know much about the german work, maybe you could have a look at the article (on seats) and see if it can be worked in there somehow. Thanks. GRAHAMUK 06:51, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excellent article on Walter! Maury 13:23, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem with copying the stuff across from E2 for me. Sorry about the lateness of my reply but have been on holiday for a week and the only access to the internet I've had was through a 14.4 modem (usually I have a 50.6 connection which although not fast is better than 14.4). - enceladus - Dec 31, 2003 22:35 UTC

Hello Rlandmann. I am glad that you've copyedited the article about Herman Poto&#269;nik Noordung, since it was not written by a native speaker. If you take a look to the page history, the article was already extensivelly copyedited, mostly by Rmhermen, so why such a major revision? I have to agree with your copyedits and I would like to give here some of my arguments for unacceptable changes: (just in short).
 * 1) my language uses the word cosmonautics equally as astronautics. I can't see why English do not,
 * 2) what is wrong with Clarke's letter on 1993-01-15? For me it is interesting and I guess it is also for other readers,
 * 3) you've put out all notes about Vojko Kogej's work of Poto&#269;nik's life and work. You should consider that Kogej is one of the most qualified persons to discuss Poto&#269;nik's work. I think his detective work in 1984 in Berlin's Staatsbibliothek was not just a cat's cough (as we say),
 * 4) Von Braun's note that Poto&#269;nik was one of his teachers is now also out, ....
 * 5) it was clearly written that beside Oberth also Wernher von Braun and Arthur Charles Clarke seriously took Poto&#269;nik's ideas (or concepts (what a difference?)). Now sentence says something else if not enough,
 * 6) you've moved out also all Russian "middle names" ("father's names")- I can see that this is common habit in English language, originally is not, ....,
 * 7) "ordunga" is a Slovene colloquial language word not of literary one, so it should be stated so, ....
 * 8) (addition 1) his calculation of Syncom 2 is also left out now. I thought that one of the purposes of encyclopedia is an information, (but now I'm not sure anymore), ....

So, in a general I agree with your language improvements - but I can't agree with so many changes of contents. I hope you'll respond somehow. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 04:42, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

G'day. I notice you provided and wondered whether you'd like to provide the details of the source, and why you think the image can be used in Wikipedia.

Good to see another Aussie doing quality work, keep it up! Andrewa 00:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I returned German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin to its original title. We greatly appreciate your help; please review our naming standards at Wikiproject Ships so that your work will be as effective as possible. --the Epopt 14:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, would you have a look at the talk page for sherbet? I would have given you my sources if you'd asked, it's definately slang for beer in some places whether you've heard of it or not. :) fabiform | talk 03:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- I do indeed intend to go back and sort out at least some of those pages, although I probably won't be the first to get to all of them. My rationale is that it is better to provide a frame work on all the pages, thus allowing others to fill it in, than to have perfect pages immediately. David Newton 12:21, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- I made no ad hominem comments and I stand by what I wrote. I am also opposed to editing Talk pages to remove evidence of discussions. Adam 23:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we have different definitions of ad hominem. If I had said "Rlandmann is a fool," that would be an ad hominem comment. If I say "Rlandmann's comments are arrogant and patronising" (which I found them to be), I don't regard that as ad hominem. Having said that, I have no desire to pursue the argument. If you found my comments offensive, I apologise. I agree that the issue of the article's title ought to be submitted to somebody else's arbitration. Adam 23:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really don't want to have this discussion over again, but since you insist: this is the comment I found to be arrogant, patronising and contemptuous of people who don't read German and/or are not as familiar with German aviation history as you are.


 * With respect, that remark just shows that you are in no position to be commenting on this subject. You are clearly unfamiliar with the literature, "specialist" though you may consider it. Reichsluftfahrtministerium may not be suitable for the simple English wiki ("Gee! Look at all those letters!"), but is perfectly fine here, as even minimal research would show you.

Given this attitude, I didn't feel inclined to debate specific issues any further, and that is what I then said. Adam 00:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say I found the comment "offensive" in a personal sense - I have a very thick skin. I said I found it indicative of your attitude, and decided not to argue the matter further in the light of that. My use of the word "rubbish" was perhaps undiplomatic, but it is rubbish to say that Reichsluftfahrtministerium is a word that is as familiar to English-speakers as Reich or Luftwaffe, which have been popularised by war movies etc. Adam 01:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course many article titles are meaningless to many readers. If you don't know what hermeneutics are, you won't understand the article title. But that doesn't mean we should deliberately and unnecessarily use a title which will be meaningless to most readers, when rendering the title into English will make it more comprehensible. I am quite consistent about this. I would call an article about the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (China), even though Kuomintang is more widely used in English than is Reichsluftfahrtministerium. When I wrote an article about the Bund, I called it General Jewish Labor Union, which is the English translation of its name, even though the word Bund is widely used. Adam 03:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't attempt to change Kuomintang or Luftwaffe because (a) those terms are reasonably well known in English, and (b) I would not win those arguments and I do get sick of arguing with people all the time. That doesn't mean I can't and won't object to particularly egregious examples of incomprehensible foreign-language titles (like Reichsluftfahrtministerium). Adam 04:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Most people will thank RLM is a misprint for REM. Adam 05:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am being slightly facetious, as I tend to do during extremely tiresome arguments. So sue me. My entirely serious opinion is that 90% of people will never have seen the acronym RLM. I must confess to being absolutely astonished that you are persisting in the view that either Reichsluftfahrtministerium or RLM is a suitable title for an English-language encyclopaedia when it is perfectly simple to use an English title with redirects from the German ones. Do the article titles Obed'enniy Gosudarstvennoi Politicheskii Upravlennie or & or Rénmín Jiefàng Jun or Tsusho-sangyo-sho convey much information to you? They are all well-known organisations, but 90% of readers would not be able to determine which organisations they are. Adam 06:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You say: "the standard way of referring to the German Air Ministry (1933-1945) is by its native name or acronym." My point is that there is no standard way of referring to these things in English (the language of this encyclopaedia), since they are not sufficiently well-known to English-speakers, except for German aviation history buffs, to have a standard designation. So I made one up. I am now persuaded that German Air Ministry is not the best possible choice, but I maintain the view that in an English-language encyclopaedia articles should have English titles unless there is a very good reason why they should not, which is not the case here.

You also say: "It doesn't help when people so often attribute decisions and actions of the RLM to the Luftwaffe as if the two bodies were one-and-the-same." No doubt. The way to solve this is to write an accessible article on the Reich Aviation Ministry that explains the difference, not to conceal your article behind an esoteric title which no-one not already familiar with the subject will recognise. Adam 08:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to spend the rest of my life debating this, so I won't push the point any further. Adam 00:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so now that Adam has given up on the argument AFTER causing all the damage, what exactly AM I supposed to call my article on the RLM? "German Air Ministry (1933-45)" is about as stupid a title as I can imagine, how he could possibly consider that am improvement is beyond me.

You know what's astounding? On his page he claims that only registered people should be able to edit -- I assume so that one can discuss edits on talk pages. So this being the case, why didn't he ask first?

Anyway, back to the real world...

Maury 01:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rlandmann. Regarding your request about the Atlas Cheetah article. I was actually thinking about writing an article about it, so my answer is "Yes" :-). Although there is quite a bit about it under the Mirage III already, but it is a bit long and unstructured. I suppose some can be re-used and the rest deleted except for a short reference once the Cheetah article is written. Elf-friend 22:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I am talking to the wrong person but did you do the Redirect from Embraer ERJ 145 to EMBRAER ERJ-145? If so, then there's a small error. The capital letters for EMBRAER are correct but there is certainly no hyphen in ERJ 145. I just like WP to be accurate! Have a look at www.embraer.com (the manufacturers own site). Best Wishes, Adrian Pingstone 15:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi from Adrian! Seahawk is on my Watchlist (because I put the pic on) and I think I see a mistake. You've redirected SH-60 Seahawk to SH-60 Sea Hawk. I think this is backwards. The manufacturers site (www.sikorsky.com) uses Seahawk throughout and it’s very unlikely the US Navy will have changed the name. So I think its certain the helicopter is Seahawk. So the article now looks odd, with the title being SH-60 Sea Hawk and the rest of the text saying (correctly) Seahawk. (Oddly the Black Hawk is Black Hawk on the Sikorsky site). If you agree with me can you make the correction? I can’t because I only do illustrating and don’t know anything about Redirects. Sorry to be so fussy. Adrian Pingstone 14:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC