User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2008/April

An award

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		In recognition of your tremendous work on the main image for German battleship Bismarck, along with your other contributions on Commons. Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I've been somewhat concerned the disagreement over "sunk" might've caused some hard feelings. Obviously not, so thank you for taking that off my mind too :) Anynobody 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's really nothing on Wikipedia worth getting that upset about, so no worries :) It sometimes is easy to get caught up in the heat of the debate, so I apologize if I've said anything to make you think I was upset with you. I think it's best to remember that even though one might disagree with another editor over a specific point, we're all here to improve Wikipedia, so being able to put aside differing opinions and continue to work together in an amicable atmosphere is important. Looking at the dispute from hindsight, it's a little silly that a few little words caused do much back and forth. Anyways, one unintended benefit of our "spirited discussion" on the Bismarck page is that it drew attention to the article, which resulted in quite a lot of improvement. All's well that ends well, right? Parsecboy (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself :) I wish more editors were like you in not confusing having a dispute with having a fight. (I honestly wanted to drop a line by your talk page saying something very similar to what you did. The last time I think the receiving editor misunderstood it as me gloating by trying to explain It's not personal.... It's strictly business. Either that or they never saw the movie and had no clue what I meant.) Anynobody 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Anynobody. I had an idea I thought I'd run by you. In regards to your Bismarck image, I was thinking it might be a good idea to upload a version of just the Arado, for use in the Arado Ar 196 article, which at the moment only has a pretty low-resolution photograph of one that appears to be in slightly less than "mint condition". Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem :) Anynobody 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, Anynobody 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I've added it to the appropriate page. Thanks again for your quick work :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of CG images on German Wikipedia for plane crashes

Hi! I found that some editors removed some of your CG images on the German Wikipedia and they started a discussion here: de:Diskussion:Birgenair-Flug_301 - If you want you can address copyright concerns, etc. there. Try to get someone who knows German to translate the conversation and then have him or her translate your comments. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I actually use Google to translate German (among other languages). I dunno why Germans seem to think my images are Flight Simulator screen grabs. Anynobody 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthiasb reverted some edits *without discussion* [1] [2]

I reverted him back and told him that he needs to discuss this if he challenges it. - The poster understands English so you may respond to it. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• EDIT: he responded on the talk page, pointing to C. Deelman's response. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • EDIT 2: At a later point he wants to move the discussion to de:Portal Diskussion:Luftfahrt WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • C. Deelmann is saying that all of the CG render images of accidents and incidents that you uploaded are copyright violations because aircraft liveries are depicted in them. I do not see it that way, but I think you need to talk to him. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry I didn't notice your subsequent posts :( Some of the software features here are frustrating.

Anyway, I was just about to post how the livery isn't a copyright issue but then realized, in Germany it could be a problem. (There, in some cases, one can be imprisoned for drawing or displaying a swastika so there could be other differences.) Do you happen to know, either yourself or someone who does, what their rules say about this? Anynobody 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure - I would ask what rules make it different. I looked at German Wikipedia and I couldn't really find anything that would be different regarding image policies other than no fair use. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the states it's not a copyright problem because one can't copyright an object regardless of what's on it. (Geez if one needed permission from anyone with a logo on a vehicle, then drawing a NASCAR racer would be out of the question.) Looking at the Google translation of what's going on, my gut tells me there isn't a copyright problem, some just don't like them. However I could very well be wrong, and unlike the editors on the other side of the recent Iran Air Flight 655 image fiasco, I'm not down with going onto another languages' wiki to tell them what's what since I recognize that I don't in fact know "what" :) Anynobody 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would still go on and ask about it - So far only one person believes that it would be a copyvio - WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Evidently you're not aware of it, but "cancelled" is correct spelling in Commonwealth English, and a legitmate alternate spelling in US English. Per WP:ENGVAR, there is no reason to use the US spelling when a legitimate alternate/Commonwealth spelling is already in use at Category:Cancelled aircraft projects. As such, Category:Canceled aircraft projects should probably be deleted. - BillCJ (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the category then :) But really, someone should add a template to American/commonwealth titles because our spell checking software can lead to confusion OR come to some decision on which way to go rather than the first come first serve basis we seem to have. Anynobody 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am. I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about changing the policy on ENGVAR short of creating separate Wikis for American and Commonweath English, and that's not likely to happen, ultimately because it would mean twice the server space for what is essentially the same language. As to the spell-check software, I've never used it myself. You might try Village Pump to ask about it, and perhaps there's a page for problems with the software that might be appropriate too. - BillCJ (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, even if you do find a mis-spelled category title, then you should list it at Categories for speedy renaming, rather than create the new one yourself and end up with a mess like we've got now, namely two categories where we should have one, with articles in both. (And, personally, I hate spellcheckers and never use them, on Wikipedia or off it!) --RFBailey (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ, nah I just created a couple of templates. I know it might be a lot to hope for, but maybe they could help cut down on stuff like: ... the brilliant color of the explosive flash was followed by a distinct odour... too.

RFBailey, your suggestion seems to contradict the part which says: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. A genuine spelling error would be pretty non-controversial wouldn't you say? On a related note, what I read on Help:Category#Moving a category page said there is no way to fix all the articles listing an incorrect category at once. If it's right, isn't Categories for speedy renaming a spelling error just passing off work to someone else? Anynobody 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun

Honestly, those were good images of the MD-12. Would you be interested in creating an image of the SHMESHMA Shazaam-5209 TigerCobra for me? It looks like a cross between a AH-1 Cobra and an F-5, but is of course a completley new design from the Teheran Aeronautical and Agricultural Institute and Primary School. (Yes, that's a parody of the Iranian method of revese engineering!) If your interested, just play around with it a bit and see what you can come up with. The Iranians have made a big deal of taking F-5s and Cobras, and upgrading them, so this is a parody of that. Just imagine taking the front end of an F-5, and grafting the rear of an AH-1 onto it, or vice versa! It doesn't have to look like much, as "ridiculous" is the whole point! - BillCJ (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can come up with something along the lines you've described, it's too bad you aren't writing about a fictitious airplane as I already have a "ridiculous" looking plane I created based on a HiMAT, SR-71, and Mig-29 among others that only needs texture mapping. Anynobody 04:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

TigerCobra sketch
What about X-29 wings?

Thanks. Your Hi-71/29 is definitely interesting. Perhaps we can come up with some "ridiculous" text to go with it. Maybe an Iranian design, but perhaps Russian or Chinese. THis week, I've been cleaning out the M.52/X-1 conspiricies from those pages, and so maybe it could be the original British design for a Mach 3 aircraft that they gave to the US, which reneged on the deal to share the results of the research. Then Lockheed developed the SR-71, and the British claim they stole the all-flying vertical tail design. I'll keep thinking about it. - BillCJ (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, actually it's part of a cheesy sci-fi "universe" I'm "building" (it's an atmospheric fighter deployed and retrieved from low orbit not unlike the dropship in Aliens). The airplanes I mentioned were those that it reminded me of when I was done, whereas you want something more obviously plagiarized like the current sketch. Thanks anyway though :) Anynobody 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The iamge is a good start, and I like the F-5 type tailfin holding the rotor. I had more in mind a F-5 rear fuselage, but wasn't sure where to put the rotor - you solution is simple yet elegant, and works well! I'd like to sse the engines in the rear like on the F-5, but don't work if the design is rear-heavy. I know it's a 2-d side view, so we can't see the wing planform, but I also had in mind F-5 wings - not that big for aregualr fighter, but certainly oversized for a Cobra!

As to your "cheesy sci-fi universe" image, I was just making up somthing to fit what it looked like, as I didn't know you already had a story for it. Anyway, I've also played around with some "cheesy sci-fi universes" over the years, including designing aero-spacecraft and spaceships, though in text form, not sketches of any kind). Email me if you ever want to touch base on ideas, concepts, stories, or whatever. I know some people are wary of sharing there story ideas for various reasons, but I've found one of my big problems is lask of a second opinion from someone who doesn't think that "cheesy sci-fi universes" are stupid in the first place! Anyway, the offer's open, but don't feel obligatd it it's not what you want to do. - BillCJ (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to give you the impression the sketch was final, that's actually just a proposal. I'm going to build models of both a F-5 and AH-1, because I don't have either, then use aspects of each to make your hybrid.

I'd definitely be interested in corroborating when I get more done, I know there will be aspects which need outside perspective. You should probably know that I plan on trying to incorporate more realism into spaceflight/warfare than most sci-fi tends to. (Scenes like in Return of the Jedi where a Star Destroyer and rebel cruiser exchange broadsides look cool, but is badly out-dated. In modern naval combat, chances are warships probably won't see each other. Even in WWII the ships were usually miles apart.) Anynobody 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging a F-5/AH-1 is probably going to be tricky, so I wanna get the result as close as possible to what you imagined or really like. A more F-5ish concept with a Ka-52 twist occurred to me and I wonderd how you like it. Anynobody 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1982

MS Johanna has photographs on the Hartland Point article, which was the ref for the fact.

I don't want to come off as a jerk, really, but photos aren't references (unless they have their own article in which case I'm sure an exception would be made). Especially these photos, honestly even if they (photos in general) counted as references these would fail our rule about verifiability.

(PS Because this thread is about the list I'm gonna move it to the talk page there so others can participate if they want to.) Anynobody 07:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this reference sufficient? I know it doesn't give the exact date, but the location is confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious about why you challenged the information in the first place? WP:CITE only requires that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" requires a specific source, and says that "editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." Did you have such a reason to believe? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious about why you challenged the information in the first place? I don't mean to be exclusionist but the sourcing was, well, non-existent. If you've had a chance to look at the list in question each item either links to an article about the vessel in question or a source. The ship in question was first unsourced, then cited by a couple of photographs. The photos picture some kind of wreckage, which is supposed to be the ship's remains. While I don't doubt a ship met its fate there, how do the photos show the remains are really the ship identified (including the fact it was Panamanian flagged)?

I also don't want to appear confrontational, however your interpretation of WP:CITE, only requires that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" is incomplete, the whole sentence is: Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." To answer your specific question, Did you have such a reason to believe? Yep, I was unable to verify the limited information provided combined with the lack of other data about the vessel made the entry unencyclopedic thus unnecessary. (PS I wasn't able to find where CITE says "editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." but in general anything which doesn't abide by WP:V is removable unless a reliable source is provided.) Anynobody 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)