User talk:Nimbus227/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Stranglers
Hi Nimble, how's things with you? I've got a touch of "golden-brown" at the moment but that's more weather-beaten than tanned, otherwise everything's just "peaches" (swift exit to a running car [no more heroes?])!!! Sorry 'bout that, it just came out! I'm more Dire Straits and Pink Floyd personally (don't laugh) but I'll give it a visit in due course and see what I can do. Since helping get Anna May Wong to FA (WP main page this Sunday) I haven't been getting involved in much recently other than taking an interest in Frank Whittle. I've just acquired a useful book which I can cite for some unreferenced material in the article so that's top of the list just now – join the fun if you want! I also have Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History by Alfred Price (1974) that includes specs for variants that aren't listed in Comparison of Supermarine Spitfire variants, but they are not individually as complete as those in the table. Also, the performance specs for those that are already listed don't tally precisely otherwise I'd be tempted to bung a few more in.
Excellent result at Silverstone, fingers crossed for JB & RB at Hungary – I'll be watching! Cheers :-) --Red Sunset 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Hans Wärmling
Hi. I've nominated Hans Wärmling, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on August 2, where you can improve it if you see fit. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article definitely provides a good overview of the portions of Wärmling's life that are likely to be of greatest interest to readers—namely, his musical career—and I liked reading it. I expect that it should make it onto the Main Page. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- AfD, huh? :) One of the articles that I created was also nominated for AfD (it survived after some work), but it was just a stub at the time—nowhere near as well-developed as the article about Wärmling. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just noticed that he's the only redlinked band member in the French Wikipedia article on The Stranglers (fr:The Stranglers). While there's not much I can do about that, time permitting I may try to translate the article for the German Wikipedia, where he's also not covered. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A proud and strongly opinionated modeller
As an eccentric and strongly opinionated modeller I invite you along to the website of a proud and ancient order which lurks inhabits the far Southern Hemisphere http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ipms_dunedin/ where you will find a Voodoo fan and the faint whiff of polystyrene, resin, etched brass and powerful solvents, as well as mysterious and ancient documents relating to the arts of the plasticmodellerwizard. We also have several pages of links to all sorts of strange and wonderful places...Minorhistorian (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Images
I understand your frustration with the removal of images, as in the Spitfire article. I have been dealing with a similar problem elsewhere.
I think the only way to deal with it is to have lots of people watching the page and just "out-revert" people who insist that they are right and will not discuss anything on the talk pages.
I was in Goose Bay, but only for a week in about 1987 or so, so it is unlikely we flew together there. That would have been fun, however! These photos are of two of the Goose Bay Twin Hueys, 135135 and 135127. The third one was 135114. I flew military CH-135s from 1983-1990 with 408 Sqn, AETE, and RWAU MFO Sinai. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is getting worse and it is right that you (we/us?!!) should act. All for the greater good of the project of course, we are spending far too much time discussing stuff when we could be writing or improving articles. If there are guidelines though the revision is much easier. Must dig my slides out, got some great shots of Labrador tree tops whizzing past, was not scared at all (much)! The colour scheme is the same as the machine I flew in. I think it would be a good idea to highlight this suggestion on the main project talk page. Nimbus (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Supermarine Spitfire
The confusion here is partly caused by Kurfürst adding a so-called quote:
:(i) High speed in the dive. This, coupled with the fact that the very effective elevator control, and comparative instability in pitch of this aeroplane, makes it very easy for the pilot to impose high load factros, or "g", when looping, doing tight turns, or pulling out of the dive. Altough the safety factor of the aeroplane is about 10, it is well within the pilot's power "10g"; the wings would certainly fail is this figure is much exceeded. In very bumpy atmposphere... etc. etc.
which do not exist in ANY Spitfire manual I have read; why he's added this nonsense to the article:
The pilot's task was not made easier by the fact that the controls were not ideal, and that the elevator was exceedingly sensitive: during tight turns or loop in bumpy conditions, movements to the pilot's body due to bumps were liable to cause movement of the controls and so large and sudden fluctuations in G-load.[1] The very effective elevator, coupled with the instability in pitch of the Spitfire made it very easy for the pilot to much exceed the 10 G limit imposed on the airframe and the wings would certainly fail if this occurred.[2]
on the Spitfire is beyond me. I deleted this load of garbage because it simply is not true - only to find he has replaced it. Why he is referencing some passage in the Spitfire IIA and IIB pilot's notes which does not exist is also beyond me. I honestly have no idea of what can be done to stop this type of ridiculous behaviour, nor do I have the time.Minorhistorian (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well I only have a MkV manual which looks to be a lightly amended version of the Mk1. The diving section is completely different to this addition. It's all a bit academic really, as I mentioned on the talk page. If you look at V speeds you will see that 'Va' or 'max manouvering' is the speed past which you should not use full control deflection (but especially the elevator), 'Vra' or max rough air is a similar limit. As an active pilot I take this to mean that the structure will fail if I exceed these limits in 'any aircraft.I guess that the Spitfire pre-dates the V speed system and a proper flight envelope analysis. I also note that if the Royal Air Force ignored their own manual on weight and balance and centre of gravity limits then that is entirely their own fault. Out of interest the F-4 Phantom has a bobweight in the pitch system. You may want a third opinion on this apparent content dispute but it is a specialist subject and it would probably get directed back to WT:AIR. I have read about sensitive elevators on the prototype and that the gearing was changed and that this was possibly reduced further in later marks (would have to look again).I would personally have a go at editing different articles for a bit, you don't want to get stressed [1] over this. All the best. Nimbus (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, but I'm not really stressing out that much - just a vague irritation that will pass. I must admit to being more irritated that I let myself be drawn back into this silly, pointless argument. Now I can understand something of what lies behind the very recent Georgia Vs Russia confrontation. I wouldn't be too surprised if it all started over some Wikipedia edits ;) In the meantime I'll get back to some sensible editing and leave the Spitfire stuff alone for the time being. Cheers, you lucky Triumph Bonneville owner.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not that lucky, the clutch cable snapped a couple of weeks ago! It keeps doing that as did the cables on the other two I used to own, great fun! I am having my own battle with the infobox image, now replaced again with an untypical late mark Spit with what looks to me like incorrect roundels on the wings. Can't be bothered to go back in there to be honest. Take care. Nimbus (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ahhhh...the wonders of British engineering! The Brits can build some fine machines, but their detail engineering can be pretty screwy. And with all the union trouble of the 60s and 70s especially the build quality could be a right mess. I'm not going to worry about that info box photo - it looks as though Bill Zuk has that one in hand. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
G 109
Hi Gary, been taking a back seat for a while but I'm game. Just watched Valencia - better luck in Spa (pack a brolly just in case, and don't forget to wave to the camera!). :-) --Red Sunset 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've given it the once-over and made a few small adjustments (trying not to use "tweak"). I wasn't sure whether or not to use hp or bhp in a couple of places, but the "convert" template yielded the same results so I standardised on hp. If that is factually incorrect then naturally it will be necessary to twe... er... make further adjustments. The other issue that I wasn't sure about is the infobox heading: I thought "G 109 / Vigilant T1" looks better than "G 109, Vigilant T1", but that's just my opinion and might not comply with the usual method of indicating alternative names of a type. Anyway, you have the last say and IMHO it's a nice little article – good luck with it! Cheers :-) --Red Sunset 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
R-R engine template
Great work! No suggestions other than go ahead and replace the old template. As a bit of background - the reason why the original template is a different colour is probably that its creator was trying to line it up with WP:MILHIST navboxes, which use that colour. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- This Addbot gets around doesn't it! Do you think you'll be going then?
- I was a bit miffed when I saw the recent 'shirty' F-104 edit summaries, and from the first summary it appeared that our old friend may be dabbling anonymously, but instead of simply reverting the changes in a knee-jerk reaction, I generalised what had been altered thinking that there may be an argument for them. An intro doesn't need to be detailed, so I thought that removing POV qualifiers such as "far" and "much" would not materially harm the meaning since detailed stuff would be in the main text anyway (or at least should be – I presume it is), and ideally there ought to be a reference footnote to back up the use of the qualifier. I hope what I did meets with your approval, and of course it goes without saying that with this article being a major interest of yours, I'm happy to defer to any version/style/whatever you prefer.
- I've been watching the airplane/aeroplane/plane debate with interest, but being a died-in-the-wool Brit with a deeply embedded dislike of "airplane", or the use of "'plane" in the context of an encyclopedic entry, I've resisted commenting in case I reignite the flames. I still can't see why the neutral term "aircraft" is causing a problem – it's not inaccurate, and for precision a more specific term can easily be used where necessary! Cheers. --Red Sunset 09:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Spitfire pages
I have to agree with you on this. We have one editor who seems hell-bent on rewriting Spitfire history and has to nitpick every little facet. I am angry and frustrated at the way that, as you say, the articles are becoming boring. Wikipedia may be democratic and fairly PC, but it allows the fanatics to mangle other people's hard work. I've had a gutsful and am drastically cutting down on the amount of wasted time and energy I spend in here.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am steering clear of 'contentious' articles at the moment, there are plenty of lesser known articles that need work and there are rarely editing problems, lots of stubs to promote. Chin up! Nimbus (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
RfC/U
Thanks for the spot and the support. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593
Seems to me the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 might do better on its own page than at Rolls-Royce Olympus. In some ways it's just a variant, but an important one, and I think coverage could be expanded with info from the Concorde page. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Bill, yes, don't see why not. I notice that I put a separate entry for it in the RR navbox. It could have a jetspecs table as well. I'm afraid I don't like the picture with the lady in it!! Hope to get to more museums soon for some engine photos. Nearly finished the navbox (if anything gets finished round here)! There are several articles on the Lycoming O-360 lurking about, need to get them merged all together, there is just so much to do! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Aeroengines Task Force
Nimbus, would you have any interest in being involved in an Aeroengines Task Force within WPAIR? It could be organized along the lines of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force. We would need 3 or 4 more memebers to really make it worth the effort, but it might be a way to attract some interest in improving aircraft engine articles from within and beyond our current WPAIR membership. Just asking. - BillCJ (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, definately. The engines are a new found interest for me and there is virtually no edit warring, count me in. Nimbus (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Gary it is! No edit warring, sounds great to me! I'll post at WT:AIR in a day or two, see if there's any interest from the other members. Sorry to hear about the mom-in-law, will say a prayer for y'all tonight. - BillCJ (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Gary, I was on my way here to say this when I saw you've removed the comment about the lady in the Olympus 593 pic. Unfortunately, that is Adrian Pingstone's wife, so some apology might be a good thing, if you haven't already. He's the photographer of that pic, and adds an enormous amount of images of aircraft to WP and Commons. FWIW. - BillCJ (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I realised my mistake and had to go for a walk. I am a clot sometimes and last night I did not have my brain in gear for reasons that you know about. I really should not be editing at the moment. Nimbus (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to chastise you, merely looking out for Adrian. I know you have a lot on you right now, and I'm certainly trying not trying to pile on in any way. I understand, and I'm sure Adrian will too. He's a good guy, and he lives on the same island as you do. Take your time getting your bearings straight. If editing helps you do that, then keep doing that, but if not, WP will be here when you come back. Take care. - BillCJ (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Slingsby
Just created a new template for {{Slingsby aircraft}} and noticed you have a Slingsby book on your book list. Appreciate if you can have a look at it as I only had the list at Slingsby Aviation as a starting point. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello There...
Hello Nimbus227,
my name is Björn Huber and i just found your user page on the discussion of the Spitfire article. I am drawing all kind of aircraft for the wikipedia (for example the Bf 109, the Skyray and one image in the article of the Spitfire history were drawn by me). I think it is very interessting to know people that are enthusiastic about aircraft too - especially as i am also interested in Formula 1 racingcars (which i also draw now and again). Unfortunately i am very busy at the moment (finishing my Doctor (in GB it's called ph. d. i guess)), but if you are interested in drawings of a special type of aircraft, just contact me. I also know some people who are also drawing aircraft for the german wikipedia...
Best wishes: