Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:10, 19 October 2007

BilCat is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - January - March 2007 Archive 3 - April - May 2007 Archive 4 - June - July 2007 Archive 5 - August - September 2007

Sikorsky H-53

Could you look at Sikorsky H-53? I think it was supposed to be a disambiguation page, but it has a stub tag. I don't know how to correct it. Thanks. --Colputt 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a DAB footer in place of the Stub tag. There is supposed to be some sort of "NA" assesment rating that can be added on the talk page within the WP:AVIATION/MILHIST tags. I've also expanded the links to cover the Super Jollies and the Super Stallion variants. - BillCJ 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bell 214ST

Dear Bill: No problem on the 214ST photo! When I found the article I knew I had some photos. That photo is one I took two years ago. I find the best way to get photos for Misplaced Pages is to take them myself. I have about 10,000 aircraft photos that I have shot since 2004, so I put them into articles when they look like they will be of use. I have more photos of that 214ST, but that is the best one. Ahunt 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey

Please, give your opinion on the discussion page. I believe that it would be relevant to add information about:

- The V-22's lack of autorotation (information not present on the text)

- The V-22's light armament (information not present on the text) EconomistBR 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bill, if you have a reference or can point me to one about its armaments, that'd be great. I really doubt they would bother to put a .50 cal gun on it, more likely a 20 mm one. Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on that. I would think the 50 cl would be prefferable as it would weigh much less than the 20mm system would, and be less expensive, and easir to retrofit. But as they say, necessity is the mother of inventions, and I don't doubt the ones flying into combat might come up with a jury-rigged solution to the whole problem that works well. - BillCJ 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, don't want to add too much weight. I did find a presentation by Bell and GD mainly on the .50 cal turret. Looks like it weigh under 500 lb. -Fnlayson 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Thought you'd want to see this. AKRadecki 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Want to...?

...split an article? Take a look at the Hughes H-6 Talk page. --Born2flie 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done! If we never get it to A/MH-6 Little Bird, that will be okay. You and Jeff do good work. --Born2flie 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A Bridge Too Far

Thanks for linking that for me... Didja read the copy? I just barely skimmed the cream off of the letter, which runs 3/4 of a page, at least! He talks about the airborne units that participated in the jump, and all kinds of marking and code details. I thought I would just began to add SOME of the data that The Battle of Britain (film) has been accorded for a LONG time... For some, reason, a Bridge has received considerably less input.

Mark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Another copy edit request

Bill, I'm finally done with an article that became a lot longer than I originally anticipated, U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal. It could use a good copyedit, if/when you have time. Thanks! AKRadecki 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I was wondering if you are up too it if you could take a look at this and if you can please leave a comment.Sparrowman980 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC) ]

Air Dominance

Good compromise.141.155.128.109 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and airship stuff

Thanks for watching my back on the vandalism overnight! And thanks for adding your comments in. I've left a message for the editor that got a bit carried away with the del noms. Also, I left a note and offer of help on the uploader, User:Airshipman, probably wouldn't hurt for others to do the same. Hopefully he hasn't been too discouraged...be nice if he checked in and at least saw that someone around here cared. Well, off to work. We're flying a bunch of reporters around this morning, so I have to go clean the grease off the rotor head and make things look pretty! AKRadecki 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CH-124 Sea King photo

Thanks for thinking of me on this issue! I have only one Canadian Sea King digital photo and, while it is a nicely exposed and detailed photo, it was shot at an airshow of a static display aircraft and so has general public in the forground of it. I am currently going through my old (1975-1994) 35 mm photo albums and will see if I can find something better there. Ahunt 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked the S-61L photo! That one turned out well when I shot it back then. I am still looking for a reasonable CH-124 photo for you! Ahunt 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Braves

Sorry, I got a little impatient when twice in two days someone (different ones) questioned this well-covered story. Baseball Bugs 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about being well-covered or not, at least for me. Per WP:ATTR, we need to have sources for just about everything, esp things like this. But I understand the frustration - there's plenty of things that get to me, like new info not being cited! Anyway, you should see what I took out when I added the tag! - BillCJ 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why isn't every line in the article cited? Meanwhile, you were right to remove that editorial about the "dominate" Mets, posted by someone who apparently missed the news flash that the Mets failed to make the playoffs after one of the biggest September flops in history. But it was funny stuff to read. :) Baseball Bugs 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My Our stalker

this was an interesting edit...especially since that's a really old address. AKRadecki 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! I wonder if your stalker realizes we turned over his complete address to the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security on that first day he became a problem? Last I heard from CIA on my old stalker was his cell number (And I don't mean a mobile phone!) at Gitmo, but I don't think he survived there long ;) - BillCJ 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's time to stalk back. Do you have Google Earth? The vast majority of the IPs associated with Wikzilla show the location of use at 1880 Campus Commons Drive, Reston VA, 20191. So I called it up on GE...or friend is at N38.943262, W77.333439, which appears to be a dorm or other college building. Remember how you supposed that he was about 12, and I guessed 14-15? Looks like we're both wrong...a very immature college kid. Probably a freshman, because his comments clearly show that he hasn't taken any higher critical thinking classes. Interestingly, though, the OR comment on your user page that you just reverted comes from a different part of the campus, located at 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive, same zip, which can be seen at N38.950032, W77.377746. Not sure what this building is, though it looks like a medical facility (mental ward would fit the "Reston Stalker's" profile. It would be interesting to find out what Virginia's laws on stalking and internet abuse is. It would be further interesting to find out what this college's policies are, since the Reston Stalker is clearly using campus internet services, and I'll bet that students have to sign the standard form agreeing not to misuse the system, and I'll bet that students who do misuse internet services are subject to disciplinary action and possibly even prosecution. If so, a formal report to campus security, with exact times that the Stalker made his edits from the different locations might help identify his real identity, and might result in some real-world consequences for his choice to be obnoxious. My initial reaction to this guy was ho-hum, boring. But, this could prove to be quite interesting. If the Reston Stalker demonstrates such behavior online, I wonder if he's like that in real life, and I'll bet Campus Security would be quite interested in the fact that they have a stalker on campus, especially with how security at all Virginia campuses is heightened.... Thoughts? AKRadecki 02:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting. Doesn't Air Methods operate in DC? Maybe someone there knows an agent in the VA State Police or Investigations that can give an answer on the legal part, and even do some follow-up. Might mention the stalker appears to spend alot of time with video games, possibly ones featuring the F-22 and/or Typhoon. - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta airport article

Check out my comment on that article's talk page. Also, check out Ahunt's gallery on my talk page! AKRadecki 03:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Autiger did some work on it, including adding in the references. Sorry he took away the fun for you ;) - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great (big) Book

I managed to get a copy of this book by Spick too. I started looking for books by David Donald and modern aircraft books and ended up finding that one. It's almost too large to read in bed and stuff. I expected in to have short entries on many aircraft, but it's several smaller books put together. Take care. -Fnlayson 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

elix / helix

Just so you know, I had actually done all the background research myself, and was going to go along with helikoeides, even though we have not established it as the actual word used, when Appleyard made another change and only sourced it with the lexicon. He has that problem. He made the first change without the "h" three weeks ago and then he makes the other change stating he "knows" Greek. He knows it so well, that he allowed his own mistake to exist for three weeks. I can easily find references to elikoeides that are Greek references, so I didn't have a problem with the first edit. It also came up in the web translators.

Almost every other historical reference that I've found besides these two (Leishman, Century of Flight) do not mention d'Amecourt by name. If they do, they appear to have used the dictionaries' etymology of heliko + pteron, and one reference even claimed that the word was formed as helic + o + ptere (helik + pteron, needing a "connector": o). Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.

Judy Rumerman (Early Helicopter Technology essay on Century of Flight) used Leishman as a reference for the essay, so that can only mean that the source of the word, misspelled or whatever, comes from one of Leishman's sources:

• Liberatore, E. K. 1998. Helicopters Before Helicopters, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL.
• Wolf, A. L. 1974. "The Vision of D'Amecourt," Vertiflite, 20 (5), pp. 2--6.

However, if you want to argue WP:RS look at Leishman's reference list. Most of his references are primary sources. Here is a guy who is thorough in his research and in sourcing his statements, I mean, he has a PhD and is a professor after all. I, for one, would like to get a hold of the paper by Wolf.

How long have you edited with me, and you don't recognize that I only want the article to be as accurate and of as high a quality as possible? It doesn't matter what I know or what I suspect, I source everything I can. I actually do not like disputes but I won't be walked all over, either. Some people push my buttons, and Appleyard's philosophy of editing on Misplaced Pages is one of those things that irritates me. I mean, take a look at the history section, it is atrocious; but he thinks it looks better than it did. It is an eyesore on this article that should be one of the crown jewels of WP:Air, as should any general article about aircraft. That is my goal. That is always where my edits and comments are aimed, towards meeting the standard of WP:WIAGA and attempting to reach WP:TPA. --Born2flie 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Born, I know you just want to make the most accurate article - I've never faulted you intentions. It's obvious to anyone who has studied Classical or Koine Greek at any level that you have no formal experience with those languages, just as it would be obvious to you I don't have a clue about how to fly a helicopter if I tried to edit/correct the Helicopter article's specifics about flying. That doesn't make either of us stupid, nor does it mean we can't learn about the subjects. My concern is that both of the internet sources you have provided are identical in wording, which tells me that they most likely have a source in common, or that one copied text from the other. I have suggested that we contact Leishman though his e-mail address to confirm what is in his book, since no one has access to the printed editions. Dictionaries and lexicons are reliable sources - we can't just pick which sources we want because someone else provided them, and they disagree with our preferred sources. If there is an obvious contradiction, then further research is required, and i've never opposed that.

One thing about your statements above: your wrote:

Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.

However, all the illustrations of helicopter-type devices I've seen from the 1800s show an actual spiral-type structure, not modern long, thin, articulated blades attached to a rotor mast. Thus, it's not describing a modern rotor in action, though the despcription is apt. That's not Original research on my part, but merely an interpretation of the data available. I shouldn't - and won't - ever try to put such analysis into an article, as that truly is original research. However, I would be foolish to ignore something that doesn't seem right to my understanding of a topic, or that contradicts both my personal knowledge/experiance and other reliable sources. That is the case with the Helix/elix issue. - BillCJ 07:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not thinking clearly here. d'Amecourt is the point of origin, not ancient Greek language. Prior to d'Amecourt, this word helicopter did not exist. His invention does not look like da Vinci's screw, so it would not imply that he meant a helical shape, but rather a helical motion through the air as the aircraft moved, i.e. spiraling. Some clarification, I did not originally put the Greek word in there, I simply found a reference for it. It met my requirements, it had the date, it had the individual, and it had the Greek words that were currently in the article. Now, if one or both Greek words are wrong, this author attributes the wrong words being used to the individual who coined the phrase. Simply saying that it is the wrong words and then changing the words because you know better, is OR. The lexicon doesn't help because the source claims that d'Amecourt used those words. I can also find sources that don't have the year he coined it and claim that he used words you would be totally comfortable with.

So, the issue becomes, which words did d'Amecourt actually use? Did he use an incorrect transliteration because he was unlearned in Greek? You can't say that "this" word is the correct one according to the lexicon and pronounce it so. You have to document that d'Amecourt used that word. As far as references, when you have one that you like and one that is more descriptive but appears wrong, it bears some more investigation rather than to pronounce the one correct and the one you dislike because of error as wrong. I've seen nothing but speculation from Appleyard and yourself about d'Amecourt, and I'd just like some proof. A source, a reference that says he used the wrong word, or that he used the correct word.

I prefer Prof. Leishman as a reference because he lists his two sources that he got his information from, and I can use that to track it down. Or, we can email him as you suggest, but until this issue is resolved, I have removed the reference to the Greek language and attributed it solely to d'Amecourt, which almost any reference will support. --Born2flie 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually seen a reference to d'Amecourt's words in print form, not on the internet? As far as I can tell, the answer to that is No. Maybe you found a print edition before leaving on you assignment, but if you did, and said that, I missed it. What I am saying is that you cannot trust an internet copy of a printed work for diacritical markings - both Appleyard and I had red flags go up on the word, because it doesn't look right with everything we've seen before ont he word, or our knowledge of the Greek language. I assume Apple changed it in the article without checking the source because he assumed it was a simple typing error. I probably would have done the same thing had I noticed it first. It just din't fit our understanding of Greek spelling or noun/adjective declension. Once I realized the source had that spelling, I speculated on why I thought it could be a copyist error, but I also have asked for further research on the original sources, including contacting the professor. If the printed copy shows a spelling/marking that is different from the internet copy, including using the "h" or rough breathing mark, then the issue should be settled. If it contains the exact spelling, then I'd prefer seeing the sources for that source, but at least that source will have been verified, and acceptable for the article. If that's not clear thinking, then it must be 5am EDT! - BillCJ 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the German article has "helikos", and French "helix", but without sources. I'll keep checking the other interwikis in the latin alphabet, and see if one has some different sources we can check. - BillCJ 09:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be the Holy Grail: La Conqûete de l'air par l'hélice. Exposé d'un nouveau système d'aviation, the 40-page work by d'Amecourt where he coined the word. - BillCJ 09:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The web document is on Professor Leishman's website area (www.glue.umd.edu/~leishman) for the university at which he instructs. If that isn't accurate to anything else he's written, I don't know what would be. That webpage mentions that the essay/article includes extracts from his printed text, whether that includes that portion of the history discussion or not, again, we'll have to contact the Professor. Once again, I'll point out that he directly references where he acquired his information from in that essay, "...see Wolf (1968) and Liberatore (1998)." I've not seen any other reference online (or in print) do that for where they received their information.

I agree that the document by d'Amecourt would settle all. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online reference of it and a library search would do me little good. --Born2flie 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to translate the French for you? :D --Born2flie 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the Professor. I will let you know his response. I also emailed the Staff at AHS' publication Vertiflite to ask them if Wolf referred to the Greek words in his publication. In the introduction to his essay, Professor Leishman describes Liberatore as one of the most authoritative sources on early helicopter developments, including, apparently, the period during which d'Amecourt coined the term. --Born2flie 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No response yet, but, in these days of Spam filters, my emails might've been trashed for the sake of sanity. --Born2flie 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

XF-104 AFD

Thanks for sticking up for me and I was shocked to see that tag to be honest, not sure what the process is but hopefully if there is enough support it will stay. Unfortunately if that article goes then so do I, I have tried my best to wade through the editing minefield. Thanks Nimbus227 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the editor who proposed the Afd is apparently coming back from an indefinite block as a sockpuppet and has a very ? history. FWIW, the action to go directly to an Afd is very questionable. I do not think that there was either much research done other than a cursory look at the Lockheed XF-104 article. What I also see is a pretext to do something "splashy" but I fear that it is also outwardly provocative for no reason. Bzuk 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Experienced Editors

Thats smacks of elitism if you ask me12.43.60.50 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it smacks of maturity. How long has this battle been going on on the Typhoon page? Several weeks at least. THat is called edit-warring, and it's not the recommended way to solve problems. Several editors, including you, have not exhibited the maturity to discuss the issue, and wait for a consensus to be agreed upon. Instead, you all throw out quotes and arguments to back up your claim, then you unilaterally make changes with no regard for others. Each side claims to have ALL the facts right, and that the others are wrong. Problem is, you can't all be right. Because this edit waring has shown known signs of ending, we've had to protect the page to prevent editing by unregistered users, who are the ones causing most of the problems. But as soon as the block comes off, you and others go right back to the same methods.

If you truly believe that your version of the facts is the correct one, then make your arguments and state your facts on the talk page. Try to convince the others editors that you are right - that is what building a consensus is. However, there are ususally at least 2 points of view in every argument, and often neither side is totally correct. When this is the case, it's best to present both views, with sources, and let the readers decide. THat is what mature editors do, otr at least try to do. We are still human, and we still make mistakes, but at lest we try to get along. THat is all we ask here: It's your choice. Make the right one. - BillCJ 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ping

Bill, check your email...article on the Bell 429 which might have good info for the article. AKRadecki 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pete Carpenter

RE: Pete Carpenter

From http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0139432/ :

"The Sopranos" (1 episode, 1999)

   - Pilot (1999) TV Episode ("Theme from 'The Rockford Files'")

David Chase did the Sopranos, he met Carpenter and Post with Cannell on Rockford. Then Chase used the theme on the Sopranos pilot.

Thanks,

WikiDon 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what my research showed, and why I removed Cannell as creator of the show. I think somewhere along the line someone mixed up Cannell with Chase, as they did work together on other projects, just not the Sopranos. - BillCJ 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Now it's the time. I call ARBCOM to decide this amusing staff. It involve you and Bzuk. When it's enough, it's enough. See EH101.--Stefanomencarelli 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)