User talk:DexDor/Archive 2011

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DexDor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar

Just to let you know, I've passed SEPECAT Jaguar as a GA. Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft designation proposal

Hi, thanks for putting the effort into this, I'm broadly in favour of your proposal and would like to see it accepted as a WP guideline, though I do have a preference for a dot after "Mk." too. Still haven't found that Air International item that I referred to on WT:AIR - beginning to think I imagined it now! Regards, Letdorf (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Article feedback pilot project

Replied at User talk:CountryBot#Why.3F. Kaldari (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search and rescue

That was a good edit you made here - that makes the text a lot more plain and understandable for readers, getting rid of airport designators and using links to the airport articles instead. - Ahunt (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guns

Hi,

Thanks for your comment about gun calibre. I agree with you, the right balance is somewhere within the spectrum from convert every instance to convert none. That's why by process and by code, I don't convert every instance. Of course, you don't see the conversions people don't do.

I presume your comment relates to the update of the image caption. Image captions and body text are two separate things. An image caption requires a metric value even if the reader could search and find it within the body text.

I hope that clarifies it. Lightmouse (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reconnaisance

Just a quick note to let you known that I think you're doing a great job cutting the wordiness (jargon even) out of the article and explaining the idea clearly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder Platoon

I have added a redirect from Pathfinder Platoon (United Kingdom) see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathfinder Platoon by itself the platoon being as asset of the 16 Air Asauly Brigade does not meet Wikipedia notabilty.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

Don't remove a merge tag that's been in place for over a year because you split a section off from the article it was suggested to merge it with. If you think it more appropriate, change it to point to the new article, but "Land Mobile Aircraft Carrier" does not start being a good article just because you don't like where the merge tag is currently pointing. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Powered aircraft or powered flight

Hi,

You might like to join in the Powered aircraft or powered flight discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft categories

Hi,

Replying to your here as the most sensible place. Had a quick look and my immediate reaction is that all the hybrid gas/wing lift types are experimental so should either be deleted or supplemented by the coleopter and friends.

Also, on Wikipedia "Categories" are something different so I would talk of "classes" pr some other collective noun.

Yes you can make your table into a navbox or a collapsible table, the choice is yours. If you want a hand with the markup code, let me know.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've had a go at doing the table as a template - see "Aircraft categories 2". It's a bit of kludge with all those "nbsp"s, but it does work at different font sizes. If you can improve it I don't mind you editting it. If project approves, the infobox (or table) could replace the big infobox on aircraft articles. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never used the navbox template for anything this complicated, so have done a couple of other alternatives:
  • Collapsible table - pretty much your original but tidied up a little.
  • Div elements using NavFrame etc. classes. In theory all the cells could be divs made to behave like table cells but life's too short so I chucked the table in there. Bit of CSS styling just to show its usefulness. No time to do an "edit this template" [v] [d] [e] type widget.
What do you think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's great. I've made some tweaks and put it on Autogyro where it can be compared with other options. DexDor (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Naval tradition

The article Naval tradition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and likely to be WP:OR

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metaplano

Dear Sir, I've noticed that it is the second time that you have cancelled my article "metaplano". Please explain why. Best Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.117.213.68 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he cancelled it because Wikipedia is not a dictionary? See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Since you didn't define it I can only guess but perhaps you could add something in an article on Stressed skin with names for it in other languages?NiD.29 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NID.29, If you look at the previous versions of the article you will find that it wasn’t dictionary. You will find entire description and definition.
Hi. I've removed stuff that didn't have citations and was unclear. Here are some suggestions for you to consider:
What do you mean didn’t have citations? If you find some parts of the article unclear, please discuss and the necessary corrections to the text will be introduced to make the article clear.
  • Get an account on the English wikipedia and explain a bit about yourself - are you Italian? do you have a direct connection with a company involved with metaplano?
No, I am not Italian. I’ve seen metaplano flying at Stupinigi during Turin Marathon at 12.2009.
  • A photo or diagram would make it much clearer what the article's about.
Metaplano is not the product but the configuration. I didn’t include the photo not to promote a specific company (all the photo’s of the metaplane’s I have contain “NIMBUS” logo on the wing). I don’t have any design or CAD drawing. Shall I ask the producer to provide me with the mentioned materials?
  • I note that the Italian metaplano article has only one in-link (and that's a See also). Have you tried adding it to other articles or to the template (to make more editors aware of it) ?
In links are not the problem, I can create them any time.
  • When you're happy that the Italian metaplano article is ready, you could try asking (on project talk pages) if there's anyone with a good knowledge of English, Italian and aviation who could translate it to English.
Dear DexDor If you have a fortune to be English native speaker please contribute and let me know about any possible errors instead of cancelling entire article (kind of vandalism).
  • In my opinion it's best to create a new article by starting with a section of an existing article or in a sandbox and (especially if English is not your first language) get others to review it before moving it to article space and linking to it.
Note: Very few people will come across an article unless there are links to it (I found it while tidying up categories). DexDor (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My error - it seems that a Metaplano is a type of dirigible whose form is intended to generate lift independant of the fact that it is lighter than air - Maybe there should be a section in the dirigible article first, which can then be expanded and linked to a full article. Has one flown? Cheers! NiD.29 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the lift used by dirigibles is static. In case of metaplano most of the lift (about 90%) comes from aerodynamic forces (metaplano cannot stop in the air). Because of this metapano cannot be classified as dirigible.
There's no problem having photos with a company name on if appropriate (see Goodyear Blimp for example) (assuming the photo complies with copyright rules etc). Even a link to a website showing a photo would be a step forward. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that "metaplano" is supposed to be a word (rather than a name) then what the article desperately needs is at least one citation to an English language WP:RS that uses the word. Without this the article is unlikely to pass WP:GNG if it's taken to WP:AFD. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, In WP:AFD is written "Sources [...] are not required to be in English". Anyway, I've found three sources in English: http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/paris-air-show/2007-06-11/nimbus-turns-uav-dreams-reality-metaplane, http://articles.janes.com/articles/International-Defence-Review-2008/Nimbus-flies-hybrid-UAV-prototype.html, http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-2243/. Are they valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.114.95.57 (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources (which are good - I think I now understand what the subject is!) refer to it as "metaplane" (or "Metaplane") so I've moved the article and done a bit of tidying up. Can you (it's a long way down my to-do list) expand it (taking care about WP:COPYVIO) ? I'll keep it on my watchlist and am happy to fix minor language problems. Some editors might still question its notability though. DexDor (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DexDor, I am convinced that should be maintained the original word “metaplano”. Looking for the dictionary “metaplano” and “metaplane” seemed to be equivalent, but… What about translation to other languages? Italian and English have the fortune to have similar expression to describe soaring: “planare” (Italian)=”to plane” (English). But let’s look for other important languages. For example German “flugzeug” means “FlyingStuff”, French “avion” means “Action of Flying”, Polish “samolot” means “AutoFlight”, Spanish “Avión” means “Action of Flying” etc... For example for listed languages “metaplano” cannot be translated by using the same methodology as you have proposed for English. Because of this fact I propose to maintain original word “metaplano”. Example of such operations: “computer” (in English) in Italian is “computer” instead of “calcolatore”. Or “mafia” (in Italian) in English is “mafia” instead of “bad living organization”, or “aggressive boasting”. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.23.133 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the last comment and replied to it at Talk:Metaplane#Article_name. DexDor (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter aircraft

While Hunter is indeed the correct translation of "Chasseur" (as mentioned elsewhere in the same paragraph I believe) - to an American incapable of learning a second language, Chasseur easily becomes chaser (probably the origin of the word chaser in any case), which then becomes pursuer, a synonym that may have been more in vogue at the time, or "pursuit type". It is a bit of a stretch I realize but I recall seeing it from a period source that this was the origin of the term. Alas since I don't have that source it is entirely challengable and should probably be omiitted entirely until the source is found. FWIW it is probably from Cross&Cockade Magazine or Over The Front Magazine, both of which had lots of interviews with WW1 aviators.NiD.29 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a RS for Chasseur->Pursuit it might be better as a footnote. DexDor (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably - indeed in hindsight it doesn't add much to the article. NiD.29 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India Education Program

I agree with what you and Andy Dingley wrote at Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Machine Drawing and Computer Graphics and have added a rant of my own; but I have moved the whole section to Wikipedia talk:India Education Program#Queries from the Wikipedia community because I think it applies to the whole program, not just the Machine Drawing section. You may like to watchlist that for replies or further comments. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Aircraft Design

Hi,
Thank you for your note. My article is indeed Aircraft Design Process, and I see my folly in putting up a photo of manufacturing instead. I was just experimenting with images, will do the necessary. The next issue about aircraft designs, I haven't mentioned anything about the various designs as such, have I? Yes, I've included a brief idea of the various aspects that go into designing the various parts of an aircraft, as I felt it would be confusing to a layman if I jumped directly to the design process.As you can see, I've dwelt only on the design aspects and constraints of the part, and have provided a link to each of the main articles as well. I've taken care about copyvios, and I'll make sure none creep in. And 'recently' has been used only once in the article, on the topic of tip jet helicopters,changed it though.
Yes, I am gonna include subtopics such as aircraft materials and the like. I had written a bit on the history, but it got reverted as it almost overlapped with Aviation History. The design process section needs a lot of editing at present, so I'm working on that for now. Gotta include CAD in Aircraft Design, safety measures and the lot. The image is a slightly edited version of a flowchart in a book I have,Civil Jet Aircraft Design, I have made changes, and I made the chart in Word, so I don't quite think its a copyvio. Wikilinks have been added, thanks for pointing that out. Keep in touch, nice to know I got people watching my article:) :) The Mangol (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia India Education Program

Hey Dexdor,
I just saw your posts on the Wikipedia India Edu Program. I'm really sorry about the mess about copyvios and irrelevant info. Its just that many of the students here have had no previous exposure to Wikipedia, and are hence unfamiliar with the Wiki format. I myself do not profess to know everything, as I have learnt a lot about copyvios and the neutral style Wiki employs after I started editing here. As an ambassador, I and my friends are trying our best to counter this problem and get the rest of my batch to follow the guidelines set down for us. Its hard, and will take time to reach out to 843 students in a college with just 5 campus ambassadors. I apologize for the inconvenience caused. --The Mangol (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please help

i am a part of wikipedia india education programme.i have seen that you have recently deleted my edits on a topic electric steam boiler. i would like to have your e-mail id .i have to communicate to you.Siddharthbhat (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

hey bro plz i need ur help. I hv got marks for editing one article- "compressed air vehicle". so plz m requesting u not to delete whatever content i m adding. N YES U CAN REMOVE THEM AFTR ONE WEEK. or i will myself remove that after my evaluation if u say so. plz reply... :) :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanketrn.mech (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The Barnstar of Integrity
Thanks for withdrawing your negative finding at the welding AFD — a gracious and gentlemanly gesture. Warden (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DexDor/IEP status

Hey, while I can imagine that having students edit the reviews can be a bit annoying, don't you think it would be more helpful to keep the review efforts in a single place at Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Machine Drawing and Computer Graphics? Cheers, —Ruud 17:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DexDor/IEP_status

(talk page stalker) Hey, firstly thanks a lot for helping us out by pointing certain issues regarding IEP. We would love your help in future also. But what did I saw in User:DexDor/IEP_status is some what a personal attack to the students of Pune, please see this no personal attack, its always good to have these type of sub pages to keep a track of number of activities in program like WP:IEP, but the statement put by you on the top of the page is not what we expected from Wikipedia:Community of which we all are an integrated part, those students are surely learning to edit Wikipedia, you cannot ask Pune students to not to edit that page and threaten them to block if they do so, even I want to update that page with both good and bad edits we encountered during this pilot project. So please do understand this matter and keep on helping us as you have. Thanks. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DexDor,
Thank you for taking a keen interest in Wikipedia India Education Program. We would not have made it this far without this kind of support from the rest of the community. The recent spate of copyright violations and unreferenced material is regretted. Regarding the large number of students taking part in this program, I agree it is absolutely necessary to keep tabs on them, and watch the content being uploaded and edited. That is the reason the coursepage has been created. Your subpage IEP status however do not seem to support this cause. The banner on top cautioning Pune students to not express their opinions or edit the page and warning of consequences if so(WP:WIKIBULLYING, WP:NOEDIT) doesn't seem to quite help the cause you seem to promote at the India Edu Program talkpage. It would be enlightening if you would care to explain the reason for creating this page, and how it would be useful for fellow Wikipedians to keep a tab on the progress of the program.
Thanks
--The Mangol (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment about the header (I was a bit annoyed last night - UK time). Keep up the good work. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey,
Thanks for your comment on my talkpage. You'll be seeing more of me in the coming weeks, Wiki is addictive. See ya around! ;).
--The Mangol (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AdP - Cat

Hey, I saw that you changed the aviation category of Aircraft design process in the process of adding a relevant one, design. Isn't it right that the article being under Wikiproject Aviation, the category must be included as well?--The Mangol (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yeah, okay. I checked spelling and grammar, using Word. There was one regarding a diff bw US and UK English, otherwise fine.--The Mangol (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copying material from one article to another

Hi - just a reminder that because of the way copyright and licensing works here, you should use the "copied" template when you copy material from one article to another. I've done this for you on Flyer and {{Clubflyers]] to cover your recent edit. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IEP edits

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Removal of image in ADP

I see that you have removed my flowchart image in the Aircraft design process article saying it mostly deals with civil aircraft alone. But aren't factors I stated such as market the same in the case of military, civil and light aircraft as well, (Military coz' manufacturers need to know what present air forces want, civil and light for fuel efficiency and value for money and the like) . I personally feel that my image did a broad spectrum coverage of factors, there maybe one or two not required for a certain aircraft type, but I feel this is the lot. Well, if it is done for ease of editing, I appreciate your concern. But I think a link to it must be put at the least. And yeah, I'm going to add a chunk of info on the actual design process after my exams get over. I feel that is missing from whatever I did. Could you chip in a few?, I hate the article lying dormant :P :) Écrivain (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, being the only one writing it.I want feedback :P Écrivain (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some problems with the diagram: The relationships are unclear (for example "Initial aircraft specification" is linked to the "Environment" box, but not to the other 2 boxes at that level), I think it needs copyediting (e.g. should it say "Airfield capabilities"?), it doesn't show stealth and survivability (i.e. for military aircraft). Being a diagram it's not easy to make minor improvements (or wikilink). Prose (e.g. "Factors considered in the design of an aircraft include ...") would be better, but should really be cited. I don't know any good RSs on this subject, but I can give you a few suggestions for content - in many respects the design processes for an aircraft are the same as for any vehicle, aircraft designers may be working on an aircraft long after it's flown (e.g. modifying because of changing customer needs or new technology (such as glass cockpit or LERX), designing repairs to damaged aircraft), an aircraft may be developed as a component of a larger system (e.g. UAS, T-45 TS). There was an item in Flight International recently about changes to the F-35 design to reduce weight - with huge costs of redesign work and rework of aircraft already in production. DexDor (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly have a point. Thanks for the tips. Will work on it :) Écrivain (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Ground-based aviation electronic systems

Category:Ground-based aviation electronic systems, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pune pilot analysis plan

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:DexDor/Archive_2011"