User talk:Red Sunset/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

filmographies

Things you find when looking for other things: Category:Filmographies who knew? A cursory glance shows that almost none of them are more than a list of links, but at least I have examples now. EraserGirl (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

fixy fixy tweaky tweaky

re:( diff) (hist) . . m Anita Loos‎; 21:59 . . (-42) . . Red Sunset (Talk | contribs) (consistency of ref position: immediately after punctuation (no space) per Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles)

  • By now you don't have to justify your corrections to me, I trust you know what you are doing.;) EraserGirl (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
For sure; I'm happy to say I don't think either of us need to explain to the other what we've done, but it's recommended practise to let any editor visiting the article know what changes have been made. If I just alter words around a bit or something minor I will just put "tweaks" or similar which does get criticised occasionally, and for formatting or MoS-related changes I'll be more specific, but in this instance I thought I'd indicate the GA guide which contains some good tips for your perusal.
Your adjustments to AL's lead were good, and I wondered if my British-English spelling would be noticed – it's taking a while but I am learning to recognise (or should that be recognize?) American-English without feeling the need to change it, and try to contribute accordingly. There have been countless arguments as to which spelling convention should be adhered to within an article, but the accepted practise is to use that most closely related to the nationality of the topic, i.e. in AL's case American-English; but where the topic is neither American nor English, the etiquette is to conform to that used by its originator. Sorry EG; am I sounding a bit pompous with my bits of advice and observations? --Red Sunset 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am letting my computer tell me what to fix, I have a Firefox plugin which highlights misspelled words, but apparently only likes SOME UK spellings. I think a good rule of thumb is to go with the nationality of the subject. Pompous? you? nahh.... besides you'd have to get in line behind me. EraserGirl (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yak

Looks very nice, I cruised through a few of the other 149 tagged filmographies, and yes the ones with headers like Mary Pickford and Tyrone Power look better than the one that don't have them, which is the majority. Thanks a lot. Now if I could bribe you to do lead ins for all my other dead folks I'd die happy. EraserGirl (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it; tweak it around if you want. I'll check others out in due course – bribery works every time Lol! --Red Sunset 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Marguerite Harrison

new experiment, I am poking along at Marguerite Harrison instead of writing it all at once. I am working my way through it, so if you happen to glance you can virtually see my stopping point in the middle. So, don't worry about most of it, as it is "in progress". Figured you may be tired of cinema people. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll occasionally drop by and look in "on the quiet" until it's settled down. Not tired, but sometimes I have to limit my time in Wikiland in the interests of domestic harmony! --Red Sunset 20:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Period

I am making an effort to go back over my articles and fix the period outside the citation errors. I can see them if I am LOOKING for them, if I am just typing, I hit the key and rely on faith that its there. 8) EraserGirl (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not many left now anyway. --Red Sunset 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen Clara Beranger; I'm afraid it was already in the recommended format EG...sorry! --Red Sunset 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

k- now i am confused and can't keep track. i don't even know what you want me to change anymore. so, i'm done. i am going back to working on content. change what you want. EraserGirl (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) fercrissakes you aren't interfering, i think by now you know i don't think you are. you just confused me a bit. i will try to be less sloppy. EraserGirl (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

reviews

No one wants to review my articles. sniff. Fay and Dorothy have been sitting on the assessment queue for days. sniff. EraserGirl (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Too early to start worrying EG; it can take a while before anyone gets around to it. Only the other day I found myself on the assessment page of one project or other where they were calling for more volunteers to work on the 2-week backlog! Trouble is, the higher-profile or better-known subjects attract the most interest and are likely to get assessed sooner. --Red Sunset 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't I know it. 8) EraserGirl (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

June Mathis

Can you give a quick eyeball to June Mathis? another editor says there is a problem with the references but I don't see it. If i knew what they were referring to, I would fix it. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just taken a quick peek and think what Pinkadelica is referring to is essentially the same as 86.44.28.245's comments on Anita Loos talk page. You have cited the sources and placed them behind the content they reference, but ideally a page number (or range of pages to cover several points) is better and simplifies verification. What you have done isn't wrong, but see how they could be improved by looking at how they have been done on Anna May Wong. Got to go now; my son's 18th birthday party! --Red Sunset 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will skip it for now. I had nothing to do with the article as yet. I will work on it, when I get to her. Good for you! EraserGirl (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out this image I found for June Mathis. It is ON set w/Valentino. I rarely find images of my ladies ON Set, and few of Mathis at all. I did some pretty high Photoshop stepping to get it to look that good. It's hard to get the Moiré pattern out of a lo res scanned print. EraserGirl (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Great pic EG! --Red Sunset 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong

You deserve a chocolate chip cookie!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC).

Excellent timing: just in time for supper! Cheers! --Red Sunset 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
For all your hard work on Anna May Wong, you deserve a cookie.


thanks again

I probably should take time off too, but I find comfort here. Thanks for giving Dorothy and Judith a once over. Dotty coming along, i wonder if she is up to B status yet? EraserGirl (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

argh...someone needs to stop me, I can't stop working on Dorothy Hale. I need to move on.EraserGirl (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're on a roll keep going, especially if it's worthwhile material that you're adding or making other improvements. "Impecuniousness" eh, that'll get a few dictionaries dusted off! --Red Sunset 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Anna May Wong

Does the Christmas card come with cookies? :) You're quite welcome for the review and congrats to you and the others. I very much enjoyed reading the article and I do think it has a chance at FAC once things have been ironed out. I meant to mention this while making my last comment, but you guys may want to consider opening up a peer review and inviting people from various affiliated WikiProjects to take part. It's been very helpful for me in the past and that's the typical step between GAN and FAC. Best of luck in future work on the article! Oh, and I hope you or one of your fellow contributors will let me know when Wong appears at FAC. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, the peer review will help. --Red Sunset 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Cookies with cream for you Maria!)
Aw, thanks for the treat. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

F-104

Interesting, all good edits. I have backed off from this and WP in general after several 'run-ins' with a particular editor. The two phrases that have been citation tagged should be removed, someone made them up no doubt. P6 last weekend, we are getting there! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still watching. Yes ;-) Nimbus (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

thx again

I am always saying thank you. It looks just as I wanted it too. Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

The "New messages" link at the top of your user page seems out of place, It is a bit like having an exhaust pipe emerging from the pavement. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Philip Larkin

This is currently a WPCov page. Some people (or one person) are/is working on it, but they need to be get started on in-line citations. How would you organise the notes, references, and bibliography? Snowman (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick look.
  • The entries in "Bibliography" need tweaking for format and consistency.
  • All those external links in "Legacy" would be better linked to footnotes and then jump to the sites from there.
  • The whole article is woefully unreferenced; either inline or by paragraph! On checking the edit history it's virtually impossible to determine who added each bit of information, and consequently their source. It would mean obtaining copies of the reference sources yourself to add the necessary inline cites; or alternatively contact Almost-instinct who seems to be the current main active editor (and perhaps some of the earlier significant editors), and leave a note to see if he/she has copies and would be prepared to help. --Red Sunset 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there anything that you would like to add to the talk page? Snowman (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Still trying to find time to give FW more attention; perhaps later. --Red Sunset 18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Could we get some opinions on the current state of the page List of poems by Philip Larkin? On the talk page you'll see Snowmanradio and I are in disagreement over a problem that's cropped up. Thank you almost-instinct 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

It appears I stepped on your edit in Frank Whittle. Would you mind a re-do? Maury (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all Maury, these things happen! --Red Sunset 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong

Thanks, RS... Yes, I tend to be careful about rewriting other people's work, sometimes maybe too much. This morning I just held my breath and made some of those changes. Let's hope no nuclear-edit war breaks out! :) Yes, I do think it's ready for FA review. As you say, it's probably got more that can be done to improve it, but those points will come up, and be adressed in the FA review. I've never been through one of these, so I'm holding back and waiting for someone to lead the way, so please feel free to do so. (I'm taking notes for how to do this with other articles!) Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can take a hint :-) I'll see if I can do it within the hour... I'm offline tomorrow. Wish me luck! Dekkappai (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK-- I took a stab at it. If I made any goofs, I'll hear about it, I guess. Thanks for the nudge. Dekkappai (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi RS. Just checking in a little today, so I won't be able to help much at the article. That Silent Era biography was used as a source quite a bit, but I think I replaced all those citations with more reliable ones. The Silent Era biography is sourced to IMDb, not very reliable, but maybe useful for Bibliography, unless that section is too large, and it could be removed. Thanks for the note! Dekkappai (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took a look at it... What can I say?... Do you know how to close the Peer Review? Apparently we have to close that somehow... Dekkappai (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Robichaux: Oops! I'll see what I can do later... Dekkappai (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, RS... I don't know, I took a quick look at another FA review, and it looked like a bit of a shooting gallery... Anyway, nothing ventured, nothing gained. We'll see and learn. Dekkappai (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Red Sunset-- a couple questions on commented-out sections: "At home she would act out her favorite scenes from films in front of a mirror..." "Wong's romantic life would be the subject of fan magazines and gossip columns throughout her career, fueled by her life-long unmarried status..."The New York Times, for example, called Wong "splendid" in her minor role in Forty Winks (1925)... and She was one of the first American performers to leave the U.S. for the more welcoming climate of Europe. Josephine Baker had notably begun performing in Paris and Berlin in 1925."

Do you know the reasons for their exclusion? Was it just to cut down on the size of the article? None of them are essential to the article, but interesting little bits, I thought. But if they have to go, I say we completely remove them... Dekkappai (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I found them subjective, most especially the emigration comment. I commented out instead of deletion, because I thought there may be arguments for them to remain and thought it was easier to merely uncomment them. If we need to clarify extended sections, we need to focus on what she accomplished. EraserGirl (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding EG. I know I commented some parts out myself rather than deleting them, but it was mainly in the Legacy section to reduce it in size re GAN comments; and similar to EG's reasoning, so that they could be used later on if necessary. However, if there are any comments made on the FAC page regarding these then we can quickly remove them. I've only just gone online to check my messages so I haven't looked at the FAC page yet – I might be back in touch sooner than expected! --Red Sunset 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fielding some of the comments, RA. I'm only online for a couple minutes today, not enough time to address the remaining ones, but I will be able to tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out the commented sections. Not really sure how subjective they are-- it's pretty common knowledge-- and claimed all over the place if we need a citation-- that a group of American performers (Wong, Josephine Baker, Paul Robeson, Louise Brooks among them), found Europe more welcoming for whatever reasons-- racial in the cases of most-- than the U.S. Anyway, the article is long, and these bits didn't really add much, so away they go! Dekkappai (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, RS. Failed for hyphens? So the rumors about FA review are true... :( Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can never tell; other editors might maintain that there are too many hyphens. I've an idea that "Chinese-Americans" was changed by someone to "Chinese Americans" some time back, and at the time I thought no more of it since that is the format used in all such wiki articles. (Perhaps they are all wrong!) However, please feel free to alter anything that I've just done. --Red Sunset 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. At some point this sort of thing just comes down to style-preference. I'd think that after the article has gone through so many reviews, we could agree that it's a decent article at least, and that people would have perspective enough not to fail over stylistic preferences, but so it goes... Dekkappai (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

List of poems

List of poems by Philip Larkin; see talk page, please advance the discussion on a presentational issue. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A list with hidden text for sorting is on The North Ship, which you might be interested to see. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the sort of thing I was thinking about, but the method used there only works if the colour-coding of the sortkey is the same as the background, in that instance white. A method that I had in mind and works in all situations is the following:
<span style="display:none">...</span> replacing the "..." with the hidden character. --Red Sunset 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That is interesting. I have just tested it, and found that it does not need padding, because the hidden text does not take up any space. Snowman (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"featured article candidate"

:-) Dekkappai (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Readability

"Great Auk" and "Harry Woolf, Baron Woolf", I have added some text to these, and I am sure that you can improve the English. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just looking in briefly. Busy tonight but will check them out tomorrow. --Red Sunset 17:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the first rate improvements to the articles. I made a few changes after your edits, and I guess those would not have been needed, if you had access to the source. I might have some additional facts to add to the biography. I think that the story of the auk is a sad one, but it is a notable story. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Agreed, the auk tale is sad, and a sad indictment of human nature! My "late" change was simply to avoid repetition of "dead", but it does read more logically now. --Red Sunset 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiSpeak: Tenditious

You know someone's going to correct that... Loving the captions, BTW ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No surprises there then! I'll look forward to it. Thanks BTW. --Red Sunset 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
'Tweak': have anyone in mind? EyeSerenetalk 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I use it rather a lot too, for the exact reasons you gave in your definition. Your Wikispeak addition made me chuckle, and I thought it was even more amusing when, without any effort, I found four examples of my 'tweaks' in the article history for that one page. I hesitate to look through my contribs... :P EyeSerenetalk 18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong

Hi, RS. About the new section header-- It seems a bit POV to me. "Stardom" is fairly neutral-- she was a star, and the section describes her rise to stardom. Her disappointment is well-described in the section and article. In fact, I worried a bit that it was becoming a litany of disappointments, rather than describing what makes her a notable person... Putting it right in the header seems to stress it a bit too much. My opinion anyway. Dekkappai (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem reverting it, just trying to address jbmurray's comment that "Stardom" seemed inappropriate. How about "Seeking stardom"? --Red Sunset 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK-- didn't see that. I don't know if I really agree with the concern. "Seeking stardom" may be better, but she'd been seeking stardom as soon as she first stepped in front of a film camera. This section describes the era in which she bacame a star... I still think simply "Stardom" is best. Dekkappai (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll change it back while trying to think of something else, and then run it by you. Cheers. --Red Sunset 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We did it! Thanks for all the hlep, RS. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Most excellent edits on Frank Whittle. I'm very interested in getting this article up to FA ASAP, would you be interested in such an effort? Maury (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would certainly like to see the article reach FA status, but I wouldn't nominate it myself as I wouldn't presume to be the principal editor; however, I'd be happy to do whatever else I can. --Red Sunset 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Stranglers

Hi Rob, howya doin? I wonder if you could have a look at this article for me, it does'nt matter if you are not into music but you might have at least heard of these guys. I stayed away from this article (not because of any problems) but I noticed that it has got in a mess lately with lots of 'cleanup' tags. I have had a go at it but would like an unbiased pair of eyes on it before removing the tags (or let someone else do it!). Cheers (P3 at Silverstone!) Nimbus (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do:-) --Red Sunset 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(Ye olde edit conflict) Aha, thought you'd gone to bed! Would be great if you could look at that article, I like to think that I am unbiased when dealing with a pet subject but things can still be missed. Pop culture is still a bit of a mess, don't know how the article got by with no references for so long. Just spotted your addition to Mr Whittle about his sons' names, a few years ago I flew Ian in a glider (did not know who he was initially), think he had just retired as a Cathay Pacific 747 captain. It's a small world! We can hope for Hungary, I am typing this on the win bonus there from 2006!! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
An old flame of mine - purely in the musical sense - I have become more frustrated as unreferenced fancruft and opinionated bollocks has clogged up this article. The Stranglers were great (frankly, not anymore - but that hardly matters - rather like The Rolling Stones et al), but you are doing a great job wikifying this article. Keep going - forever if necessary - and my faith in the good guys in the world will be partly restored. Best Wishes,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Kind words indeed! Many thanks – I hope I can do it justice. Cheers --Red Sunset 20:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I know the feeling Derek! Cheers Rob, looking much better now, enough for the tags to go perhaps? I wondered about the use of '#' instead of numbers, looks wrong for a Brit band, the discography article is the same. Shall be off to see them again in the autumn, possibly for the last time as Jet has not been so well lately and I suspect they will pack it in when they are ready. P19 in practise (more like the usual form!!!). Cheers Nimbus (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gary. I've taken a couple of hats off, but I'm not certain whether to remove the third-party reference issue tag in "References" as some appear not to be independant – perhaps you're more familiar with them and could put me right on this. I think there are still a few places that could do with some refs, particularly where chart positions are mentioned. I agree with you re '#' instead of numbers – they look out of place in a Brit Band article – I'll sort them out later. Getting black looks and cryptic comments from my better half so I'll have to knock it on the head for now. P.19?? Not good – pray for rain (Lol)! --Red Sunset 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The '#' signs were added quite recently. Had a look at the 'self-pub' references, Don't know who Dave Thompson is (or was), not connected to the band at all AFAIK. There is one interview with Burnel which I can't see a problem with (website is not connected to the band either). I read the WP:SELFPUB blurb and I don't quite understand it, I've used two of Hugh Cornwell's books as refs, surely they are good. The tag was there before we started on the article, I suspect it no longer applies and may even have been put there in error or without much thought. Praying for rain, snow and all the rest of it! Nimbus (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks for your work in there, seems to have gone quiet with sensible edits being made, once there are good refs in an article it gets harder for the 'chaff' to creep back in it seems. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anytime – and no thanks necessary, but cheers for that anyway Gary. You're right, I think a series of sensible edits and good refs show that responsible editors are lurking in the vicinity, just ready to pounce on any unsuspecting POV, trivia and fancruft merchants! :-)--Red Sunset 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For your reference work on the previously unreferenced Pitts Special article - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you very much – not sure I did enough to deserve it though! Cheers.:-) --Red Sunset 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
All help is appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you are busy, but!

Hi Rob, fancy having a butchers at this for nbsp's, bhp's and...well you know! Off to Spa, watch for me on the telly (green trousers, hopefully not on fire). Cheers Nimbus (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous job, thanks a lot. It's not really my article, it's a merge of two (one being a copyvio of the RAF website) and I nicked some text from the German wiki. Have to look at putting it on the main space now. Yep, that race was a bit dull to say the least. Nice bank holiday weather down here as usual!! Cheers and thanks again. Nimbus (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

The main image is of a Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX. --Red Sunset 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's an EasyJet Boeing 737 that first flew 20 April 2004. --Red Sunset 19:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 28 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) 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See you there then! What is going on in the F-104 article? Nimbus (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't see me going, I'm not the type! This featured on the local news. No problem with what you were doing in the '104', 'shirty' is a good description for those edit summaries. Many of the popular articles are becoming areas for style mongering as there is not much in the way of facts to be added to them. I think the aircraft/airplane/plane debate has run its course. Cheers. Nimbus (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A thought

Hi Rob, hope you are well. Thanks for your e-mail re family events, very much appreciated. I seem to have got back in to my stride of editing and was thinking of customising my sig like yours. Any advice on how to do it? Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy for you to say! Will decipher that tomorrow. Can you test it in the sandbox? Cheers Nimbus (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The answer to that is yes of course! What do you think of this? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope it is fairly subtle and won't draw any whinges. It's actually a line from the Stranglers 'Sweden' track where Hugh Cornwell opens with '...only country where the clouds are interesting'. It's actually technically wrong (should be cumulo nimbus) but that's Hugh Cornwell for you! Just preparing my case for when someone mentions it! It's calmed down a bit in 'those' articles, an ed has been indef blocked. I just noticed I've been here a year already, happy wiki burfday to me! Windy down here tonight, slates are rattling. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Trident

Hi Rob, do you fancy having a look at this for me. I've just had a good look through and improved it hopefully. Currently 'C' class but should be much higher than that now. I don't usually visit these articles but this one is fairly high profile and I am fully conversant with the facts. I happened to visit Michael Heseltine during the edit and discovered that he was not dead according to the lead (only been 11 years). Always think of 'Spitting Image' when his name appears! Not up early, been up all night, shifts! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wet day off today, nothing to do except wear the keyboard out! I thought that article was well written, neutral and factually correct but some basics were missing like the reference section even though there are lots of references. There was a 'reflist' template below the categories. I think the sub-headers were essential and they lengthened the TOC to match the infobox which looks tidy to me. I was lucky enough to do Aviation Studies at school and I remember the teacher (an RAFVR Flt.Lt.) telling me what he saw at the scene, can't remember how he was involved now though. Perhaps I'll do a B class review on it to see if there are any problem areas. One more race then the misery is over for this year!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I've had another good go through the article, it was not till near the end that I spotted the archived review! I've upped it to B class and left a review on the talk page. It's getting dark early today?! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems that Hezza is still alive! I went back in and fixed the lead, maybe I was confusing him with Michael Foot who I was also sure is dead, apparently not either. Must look more carefully in future. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Great. Looked a bit dodgy in the lake District (stranded runners). Tea is on its way from the local oriental establishment! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic! I have not seen the use of 'obid', 'op.cit' etc in the references before. I looked 'obid' up briefly. Is it a good thing? New job tomorrow, just supposed to be temporary but I might get to like it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just on temporary loan to the dyno department, very interesting stuff and another learning curve although it is very similar to what I do already. Been reading up on things so that it looks like I know what I'm talking about! Great work on the Trident, a little bit more to go to the end? I wonder then if it is worth pushing it further up the chain? Tried once before and failed but I have a much better idea of what's what now. I put a bit in this morning, redirecting that redirect to the slats article which doesn't seem to mention 'droops' which are very slightly different. Perhaps I should go in there and fix it, with my references of course. Just spotted your second message about the Merlin, can't see anything happening with that to be honest, it was a mad idea I had, what do you think? Leave it, blank the page or delete the page? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I've done some digging on the droops and the Trident (because I know you want to find out :-)) and searched WP for the right article. In that search I found a variety of high-lift devices, a few of these could be merged. The Trident 1 (accident aircraft) had Krüger flaps on the inboard leading edge of the wing and leading edge droops for the remainder of the leading edge span. A Krüger flap is a flat panel that folds out forward from the bottom of the wing and deforms to form an aerofoil shape, we had them on the Tornado GR1 but disabled them (too much trouble), they were left off of the F3 version. Leading edge droops are exactly what they say, just the leading edge 'drooping' down. The later Tridents had full span slats, the article that gets nearest to what we want is Flap (aircraft) but I'm not going to change it again! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(Carriage return, kerching!) The Krüger flap skin is quite thin and is curved mechanically by the hydraulic actuators and linkages (like bending a beermat!), quite a few Boeing jets are still using it. Need to find out who Krüger was, got loads of books but can't find much more than pictures with captions about the device, a little article would be nice. I'm going through the article again and seeing lots of word/phrase repetition very close together which I didn't see before, using a thesaurus to find alternate ways. I looked at one accident FA and it could well be argued that this is a better standard than that already. The reviewers might say that it is not stable because of all the recent edits, you can't win!

There are some obvious things missing, the lead needs to have an extra para to summarise the causes and mention Capt Key's argument/heart problem which as you say are not clearly noted in the text (yet). One thing strikes me, the official report has not been used as a reference but it is clearly there in the external links. Another very strange thing is Stewart's book which has concise cockpit dialogue (rightly not used in the article), how did he get that without a CVR? Will have another read of that. I remember this as a nine year old 'Trident spotter' and the effect it had on the country, I think many others do too. Will wipe the Merlin page but keep it as I 'recycle' them (which does lead to some confusion on my part!!) Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another editor is having a go at it now (has removed text including recently added wikilinks), will see what develops. You have reminded me to look in the book to find out where the cockpit dialogue came from. Need a bit of a rest, long working day and too many self-inflicted hours on here, proper eyestrain. Always thought about Lockerbie in our many drives to and from Leuchars. Snowing here! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
At a closer look Stewart is using the ground recorded radio messages but he subtly adds phrases in quotation marks which might have been said. This reads like a fact: "Soon Ticehurst made the first call of 'one hundred knots'." He also states who is operating which controls in the cockpit, authors's license I suppose. The official accident report is being used, it's the 'Trident 1, G-ARPI' ref. For some reason I thought it was a book and did not look closely at it. Should have gone to Specsavers! Which leaves another problem, you can't have an external link that is used as a reference so it should be moved into references (reformatting all the cites) or removed. Nothing is ever easy! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

C47?

I made a quick search to identify this C47 Skytrain. Can you confirm the identity and further clarify what variant it is? There are a range of C47s. I can upload it if the identity is certain. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its a C-47B serial number 43-49942 that was built in 1944, and belongs to the Highland Lakes Squadron Commemorative Air Force based at Burnet Airport, Burnet, Texas. --Red Sunset 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:C-47B Skytrain -serial 43-49942 Bluebonnet Belle-26Oct2008.jpg on commons, and linked to C-47 Skytrain page. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

PL

I have asked Almost-instinct about PL going for GAR. See his talk page. I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Do you have time to help to ensure that there is fair play during a GAR process. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll help in any way I can, but like you I'm not actually knowledgeable on the topic, so my potential contributions would be concerning Style and wording issues only. Of course, if I had references I would wade in with content help as well. I have a small project that I've just started helping another editor with, which hopefully will be reasonably complete by the time a GAR gets underway. --Red Sunset 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red_Sunset/Archive_4&oldid=1144744960"