User talk:T96 grh

Saab 37 Viggen
Please check this article. There appears to be a large "textdrop" of material from a magazine that can't be verified. Can you help? Bzuk 14:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC).
 * The STOL-like performance of the Viggen is an aspect of its design that is unusual. I think since there is some contention that it was not a "true" STOL, it may become a topic that has to be resolved first on the discussion page. On the other hand, if you or other editors have some reliable and authoritative reference sources then it is a suitable topic to be introduced into the article, with an edit note that a further discussion is found on the talk page. FWIW Bzuk 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC). BTW, I just looked at the discussion that you and another editor have engaged in on this topic. I think your discussion shows the best of Wikipedia- a collaborative effort by two individuals who have interacted with knowledgeable yet courteous exchanges. I commend the both of you! IHMO Bzuk 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi. Just on the same matter. As an intial point I wish to ask a preliminary question: Do NATO definitions apply to Swedish aeronautics, at least as a theorical reference ? In fact, following the NATO definitions, STOL airplanes have a 450 m limit in their performance and the Viggen had never reached that data. I think the most appropriate word should be "almost STOL", but there is the need to understand NATO theory applicability. I thank you for your opinion. --EH101 11:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah, i do not seen the recent stuff about Saab 37 JAS XL ER and so on. I merely pasted the stuff about the recent career of mighty Viggens and nothing else. And i don't see where you wrote this quite long and highly interesting history.

Then, excuse me, but i have a sea of problems with guys that roll-backs my edits because my bad english. For a time that i found an english free article and post it, do you see, i thinked to have done something outside any critics. Instead you called copyviol and it was not the case, and then after one month SAAB XLDEROF-37 was no integrated in the text. So i acted. If you wanna rewrite it OK, but i don't find much worth to compress Goebel writing, so many are the details and so much we -aviation fans- are greedys of tecnical details.--Stefanomencarelli 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well i would talk to you the truth about this. I liked a lot the mighty cold-war fighter Viggen (reading avidly all available for years, i am not born after 1990 like much part of kids here), but this is no longer a cold war scenario.

I engaged Bzuk and Bill to ARBCOM after some other issues see at F-86 article. I posted there some datas just to complete the specifications, thinking i did OK for a time, but and since Bzuk not knew datas about F-86F-40 he argued that even this tiny additions should be 'questioned' (=deleted). I really have enough of these manners, look at the performance comparations by source i made there. Just tell me where in wiki.en (ok except Viggen page) there is so much debate about just some raw datas extrapolated by one magazine and confirmed by Joe Baugher'US aircraft ency, available in internet (a bit outdate, but who cares? This is a '50s aircraft and Joe is a real gentleman to make so much stuff available, is almost good as Carl Gustav Hakasson, your fellow biplane-fan) and another site. Not enough for them. I doubt that even Citizendium have such debatement. Perhaps i have too rough manners but still, i find these discussions literally amusing, and negative for my more and more thinner motivations to take part in wiki. One user has even deleted these datas with a dead link saying 'must to be compared with this..' LOL. But it's so, and i am really pissed off.

I have no will to continue with this situation. I posted 30kb about Aeritalia G.91, i still wait someone that 'prune the errors' in the talk page, but nobody of the censors is really interested to do it, despite i respect the pact to not post huge amount of stuff in the main page (well atleast since some days). I prewiev not good days, so regards in the case of ARBCOM will trounched me. You was a good fellow.--Stefanomencarelli 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because my mind is progressively sickened to read continous discussions, pointless ones, like this that take away entire days. As example you wrote:

''but should also have an English-language reference. Either a webpage, or preferably a printed book''

I do not have a book, but as you know i found two different websites, one is a good aviation site and Joe Baugher ency is one of the most cited and appreciated in the web. What hell i must find more than this, talking of a ancient jet aircraft? It should be more than enough. No, it doesn't. So i am getting more and more frustrated by this manners. Even if i agree to your suggestion, this kind of things is so selective (but i repeat, when someone else comes and uses a not-existent link nobody cares..) that i call them a personal issue, nothing really good for wiki. If i have no right to post 700 bites of stuff without been whipped by roll-backs, believe me, it's not a fair tale. It's a bad thing and my humour suffers in accourding. TNX for the interest, however.--Stefanomencarelli 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All aircrafts have many versions with many differences. It's not a problem to state this, and Joe Baugher has written a page with this F-86 version properly to talk about her. Perhaps is the only one that is available on whole internet despite the importance of this sub-version.

I don't say that there is no way to discuss, i say that Bzuk objections are not congruents. In fact he says just that my sources and Web sites are 'unreliable', but what's the point to no post at all these specifications? Wikipedia is not the mind of God. We have not the grant to do only 'right' things. But still, there is the need to do something. If the datas are 'debated' i wuold expect that other 'version' are called for. Instead, it appears that is better to delete all because someone has dubted about them. Now, i can understand if we talk about GW bush omosexualiy, but hell, we talk about the wing surface and speed of 60 years old jet-aircraft. That' a question of 'common sense'. What's the damage for wiki if someone posts let's say questionable datas (+ or less 10 kmh..) about F-86? It's not like Irak, JFK or Global warming. If this will became a principle question i rate Wikipedians a bit overlooking what they are doing. In other words, it's a fanatism issue. To me i don't care at all to F-86 specs and to me this jet could go to the Hell. But seeing this talebanism working in this issue ('if you cannot proof over any doubt this not post it') taken word-to word it's crazy, not rational action. The truth to me seems that simply someone thinks that i am not able to contribute in US aircrafts, that i 'pullute' with my data sources, but this is becaming ridicolous when a 'holy monster' like Joe is called 'unreliable'. Hell, there are zillions POV, false, spamming, trolling statements in wiki.en and all the point is to check F-86 datas? Just to understand. It's only apparent 'rational' and 'correct', in truth i rate that this is just a personal point against me.--Stefanomencarelli 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now i undestand what you meant about to look at Viggen. BillCJ has once again roll-backed the Goebel stuff. It's vandalism. Now, for the x-time all the stuff about the last 20 years Viggen service are not couvered. Monsieurs here thinks that only US aircrafts deserves much KBs. I'll reverted BillCJ and i am ready to denounce him in problematic users if he will continue with this. If you want to act instead of me, are totally free to do it. But this farce must ends.--Stefanomencarelli 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cockpit
Thank you for your comments T96. I have actually observed that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where article material is meant to be added from other published sources, but frequently is not. I guess I have as much access to "specific published material" about cockpit design of fighters as anyone else with Google, so I'll see what I can find out. I had assumed that you guys were more expert.

I shall indeed refrain from rearranging an already existing article and I shall not ask other people to follow my "advice" about adding material. I think "protective" is putting it rather mildy. About ten times more effort seems to be expended on arguing on the Talk page than is put into adding new material. But I guess it's good to aim for concensus. It's a good job that nobody "owns" any Wiki pages isn't it.

Thanks again for the advice/ warning. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Saab 9000/Fiat Croma/Lancia Thema/Alfa 164
Hi, I dont have any deeper knowledge of this, Its quite hard to find any info about this project.--&mdash; Typ932T 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

F-86 Sabre specifications
As you and I surmised, when the information from a verifiable and authoritative source was located, it varied appreciably from other sources which in many cases, such as internet articles, had been inaccurate. I consider the Baugher references to be very valuable as they are a compilation of various sources but in some instances, the original material may be suspect. Check out the specifications table for the F-86F-40-NA in the F-86 Sabre article and it now corresponds to the published charts from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics (S.A.C.) charts prepared by the U.S. Air Force and North American Aviation NA54-389 (revised 1 May 1957) provided in Wagner's landmark work, The North American Sabre (1963). Now even with these figures, it appears that the most capable F-86 variant is the (tadah!) Canadair Sabre Mk 6 with a maximum speed of 710 mph at sea level. You know I couldn't resist making a statement about our Canadian technology superiority! FWIW Bzuk 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Glider category
Hi, sailplanes are a sub category of glider aircraft, the parent category should not be added to articles per Categorization. Also discussed here recently to confirm consensus. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  02:58, 18 September 2022 (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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)