User talk:Emt147/Archive Start-3/24/06

FICON project

Just wanted to say that this is a fantastic article - when I worked on escort fighter I'd meant to work on it and (of course) promptly forgot. I'm sticking a set of WikiWings on your user page cause I think it's so great! ericg ✈ 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA

Hi, we have worked together on a few of yours aviation articles. Can you make a look on my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev? abakharev 08:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emt!

Wonderful, thanks for the project info. I'll get right on it! Guapovia 07:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft pages

You asked "it really worth your time to fiddle with kg to lb conversions on aircraft pages? The difference is miniscule (454.5454545 g if you use 2.2 vs. 453.69407 g with your conversion) and the numbers are approximate anyway. Anyway, thanks for your help in cleaning up various pages!"

Yes, it's worth it. If they aren't that precise, they shouldn't be expressed that precisely. It really is as simple as that. Sometimes using an accurate enough conversion factor exposes an imprecisely stated original, for one thing. Then the conversions can be done appropriately. BTW, the precise conversion factor, in fact the definition of a pound, is 1 lb = 0.45359237 kg. In the process of conversion, the rounding should take place at the end of the operation, not in the conversion factor used or other intermediate steps. If you only have 1 or 2 significant digits in the original and the result, then using 1 kg = 2.2 lb is probably sufficient. But it isn't good enough when you have four significant digits in the original.

Furthermore, those who are sloppy in their conversions are also often sloppy in other things as well. In many cases, if I tweak the conversion numbers I'm also making other, more significant changes. Gene Nygaard 15:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorisation is done by bots

So it can be annoying when non-participants in categories for deletion cast votes based, at least in part, on their ignorance of how it works. Sumahoy 04:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it works correctly which it sometimes doesn't, in which case it's SOL. Apologies for being annoying. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Constellation

It's alright...just wanted to make you aware of it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on stormovik

Whatsup with the layout if the external links are no longer a rank 2 wiki section? Messes up the toc... Christopher Mahan 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are correct. The aircontent template is inconsistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content and general Wikipedia manual of style. My apologies! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just doing my part to make a Great Free Encyclopedia. Thanks for all the hard work. Christopher Mahan 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/02/17a

Requesting help: We don't use infoboxes?

Can you help? I was not aware that we do not use infoboxes at WP:Air, nor was I aware that we were required to definitely use it (last time I looked at the page anyways), but another infobox has mysteriously turned up on the F-22 page. I will remove this if it does not conform; just want to be sure. IMHO it looks hideous anyway. --The1exile 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, the current layout is in-line specs as described on that page. Of course, as everything else on Wikipedia, this is "by convention" only. IMHO an argument could be made that the infoboxes look nicer but they are a pain to edit. I also strongly suspect that on lower screen resolutions they totally dominate the page forcing the actual text into 3-word-long lines. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that they are a pain, but the question remains; should I remove it? I would like some support before I possibly invoke an edit conflict. Thanks! --The1exile 23:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can always request to read the Talk page before reverting your edit and use the Talk page to reference the WP:Air page layout. Another option is to discuss it on the talk page in advance. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Linkspam" in some of the aero articles

Hey, not all of the links you are deleting are frivolous. In many cases, some of them need to be moved to "References." You are de-sourcing much of the article content by what you are doing. I do agree that some of the links needed to go. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the links may have gotten nixed when I removed the |external links= from the aircontent template (which is why I don't think we should be using it at all). I'll go back and see what needs to be restored -- moved into the External links section just above the Related contents.

Which pages did you have in mind? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/02/27a

In Soviet Russia, adminship nominate you!

I have nominated you for adminship. If you are willing to accept this nomination, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emt147 and indicated your acceptance. Then add {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Emt147}}---- to the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&action=edit&section=1. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 07:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ingoolemo! I've accepted. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hello Emt147, I was searching for that specific spelling error, which is why my AWB picked it up. Best, --Ian Pitchford 12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: WP:Air specs

No, that was actually my initiative in the first place (at least, I think it was...). I was referring to the whole qif / aircontent fuss that cropped up a month or two back. If something is a valuable tool to editors, then it's the programmers' responsibility to fix any performance issues, not the other way around. Sigh. ericg ✈ 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

As I mentioned at WT:Air before realizing you'd see this way sooner: please amend your methods/templates! Every time you add the  disclaimer to the top of the page, you're adding an extra linebreak as well. Don't do this; it makes our pages appear differently from the rest of the wikipedia. Remove the extra linebreak preceding the content, and you'll be okay.

For the same reason, do not put a linebreak between leading photos and the first paragraph. Please fix your AWB replacement methods before you go any further! Thanks! ericg ✈ 18:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I thought you'd get this pretty quickly. Thanks for fixing it. Unless someone releases a Mac AWB, I'm not likely to start using it very frequently. I will probably be setting it up on my windows system soon; I'll see what I can do in the background (remote desktop is a remarkable thing). I'm sure I'll have a few questions for you on it later. ericg ✈ 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the latest version of AWB, I'm getting some bigtime regex problems. Namely, the \r\n lines are being added directly to the text rather than creating linebreaks. Same with you, or is this just an issue on my end? ericg ✈ 18:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woop, turns out I had v2010 installed and didn't know there was a newer one. I'll give that a shot before resorting to the awb talk page. ericg ✈

Yep, running 2030 now and rocking my way through the G and H zone of things. I'm kind of hitting articles randomly right now, for which I apologize. What about a regex that searches for specs in general, and places {{aero-specs}} and {{subst:airtemp}} at the end of articles without specs? Just a thought, but it might help better organize our task list. ericg ✈ 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Your RFA doesn't look too promising this time, but from the comments it's clear that most users were more concerned about your lack of experience in the Project namespace and nothing else. If you just work on boosting your metapedianism for the next few months, you'll make it. Good luck, Ingoolemo ^talk 05:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kinda figured the Editcount Mafia was going to get me. Thanks for your support! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship has been unsuccessful

It is with regret that I have to inform you that your request for adminship was unsuccessful on this occasion. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to seeing another nomination with your name on it at some point in the future. -- Francs 2000 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airtemp

Please keep SmackBot away from aircraft articles using the airtemp template for specs. This template requires the use of </li> and <li> tags to properly format specs not included in the template. When SmackBot replaces these tags with the asterix, it messes up formatting. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, easily done. Rich Farmbrough 11:28 8 March 2006 (UTC).

P.S. AWB has been updated to avoid this problem in future. If it happens again please let me know. If you think there's a significantnumber of damaged articles, let me know and I will try to find them all and revert. Rich Farmbrough 17:24 8 March 2006 (UTC).

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/03/11a

P-80 specs

You removed the table of specifications I put on the P-80 Shooting Star article. I understand that this was in the effort of "standardization", but the intent of making the table was to compare the specifications of the two different versions (XP-80 and XP-80A) and show that they were significantly different designs. So removing the XP-80 dimensions wholesale removes part of the article. Is there a standard format for comparing different versions of one plane? I don't know of one. What would make the most sense to me would be to create a separate article relating to the P-80, perhaps Variants of the P-80 Shooting Star or Comparison of variants of the P-80 Shooting Star and put my original table (or a form thereof) on that page. Any thoughts? Leave me a message on my talk page. Willy Logan 23:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Weasel transcript

Thanks for moving it - what a great piece of history! I'll redirect the Wild Weasel mission page to Wild Weasel. Then the next step is to add a note to Wild Weasel about the transcript on Wikisource. Would you add the {{Wikisource|pagename}} template, filling in the "pagename" with whatever page name you used on WikiSource? Thanks again, FreplySpang (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - happy to help! Best, FreplySpang (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I spoke to a couple of folks on the #wikisource IRC channel. They agreed that this material was good stuff, and that it would be great to have more of it. It looks like you've been helping Plumalley get his documents into Wiki format - are you willing to do that some more? FreplySpang (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely! This is a fantastic bit of history. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Transcript: Weasel_2a The two minute recording (a) that I can't hook end to end with (b) is on the way attached to an e-mail--plumalley

Airfoil

I noticed this parametre in Template:Airspec-imp, but it doesn't appear in Template:Airspec-met. What is its purpose exactly? Ingoolemo ^talk 21:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

210.145.26.254

FYI: You had mentioned that if 210.145.26.254 vandalized another page, they'd get blocked. 210.145.26.254 vandalized B-29 Superfortress again at 00:55 UTC on 22 March 2006.

Yansa 01:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AWB edits to aircraft articles

Stop right now please and modify your AWB find/replace filters. You are inserting nbsp's instead of spaces in a template. This is not necessary and makes the code very difficult to read. I will revert your changes. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonbreaking spaces keep units of measure tied to the numbers with which they are associated. Thus, if there is a line break it keeps the unit with the number, which actually makes it easier to read, not more difficult. Not sure I see your beef, and I hope you don't just do a mass reversion as I'm afraid it will get caught again as I replace [[General Motors]] with [[General Motors Corporation]] to avoid the redirect. If you can explain how it causes a problem, aside from your perception that it makes the code harder to read (certainly the vast majority of Wikipedia readers aren't reading the source code), I'll gladly take it into consideration. With all due respect, however, unless there's a clear reason NOT to do this I have no intention of stopping as, clunkier code aside, it makes things more readable for the end user. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 06:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do a significant amount of work on the back end in WP:Air so nbsp's are a major pain when reading and editing specs both manually and with AWB (a few extra seconds per article really adds up when you do 1,500 of them). Sorry I missed the GMC link in the Wildcat article. I did catch it in the XB-39. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But once those specs are in place, I assume that they're not a source of perpetual change. Given that, I don't see how the benefit for the reader of nonbreaking space as described above is outweighed by the slight inconvenience for an editor who quite likely shouldn't need to change the specs once the initial edit has been made. I apologize for any inconvenience my edits have caused you personally, but at this point I'm not convinced that your convenience is more important than assuring proper and legible display for end users. Sorry. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Attack Aircraft

A while ago I added a paragraph or so on the F-105 (--spoongap, now obsolete) I am not a pilot so I am not 100% sure of my statements, so I did not think it suitable to place those comments on the F-105 article. I did think it proper, somewhere, to note the unusual disabilities (non-manuveability) and abilities (straight line, low altitude speed, cutting edge technology/electronics for the time) "Fighter pilots" were embarrassed to fly this airplane and its follow on A-10 Warthog, from the same designers. Perhaps also the P-47 Thunderbolt; all made at the Republic Iron Works, and its successor.

Anyway, the article, even before my additions, reads a bit awkwardly--plumalley

CV-540

Thanks for your comments, I am new on the block and appreciate your advice. I agree that all the Convair variants should be on one page but perhaps I was misled as somebody had created a link and page to the CV-600. Perhaps we should bring that back into the CV-240 Page as well. MilborneOne 21:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have been looking at FAC...

... and I have to say, I'm very impressed with your F-4 Phantom II article! Keep up the good work and keep working at that article — it's almost there! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. As you can tell from my FAC comments, I've rather run out of references for some of the requested information but I'm working on it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jettemp

I presume that "temp" in the name of the template you recently created is supposed to mean "template". However, because it already has the template: prefix, I don't think you need to call it that. Perhaps you should move the template to {{Template:Jetengine}}, {{Template:Jet-engine}}, or {{Template:Jet engine}}. If you need help moving the template, you can always ask me to move it for you. joturner 22:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed them to Pistonspecs and Jetspecs respectively. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/03/25a