This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anyeverybody. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for the heads up, I honestly have no view on it one way or another and had edited it to remove three duplicate stamps. Anynobody03:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have no deadline. You are welcome to post it at WP:ANI to try and get someone to take action. I read the discussion a couple of nights ago and thought about it for an hour or so but was not ready to close the discussion. Much more has been added since then, but I have not had time to revisit it. -Regards Nv8200ptalk01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Turkish Airlines Flight 981
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Since you did such a good job with the Inex-Adria Flight 1308 image, I am making another request. I am interested in an image for the article concerning Turkish Airlines Flight 981. I am looking for a 1600 X 1200 image of this plane, if possible. I'll leave the details up to you. And003 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I ended up being a bit behind schedule, but I think the end result looks good Image:Dc10-ta3a.png. However I did omit drawing the six folks sucked out with their seats; I just don't think victims families would appreciate that. Anynobody23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, please do not amend the text that says "lost" to "sank". This issue is well discussed in the Talk section and "lost", the normal word in English for a ship that goes under the waves, is the best compromise after an extensive debate. "Sank" invites questions as to who sunk it, which is disputed. Thanks, bigpad (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take this the wrong way but I'm going to move this to the article's talk page and respond there, this way anyone not watching my page can participate. Anynobody03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries and I've responded there. As a newcomer to this article, however, please be aware that your contributions, while welcome, do not necessarily help it! bigpad (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring on the article, especially since there is a valid discussion going on. You're not helping the situation by repeatedly altering the infobox. You're on the verge of being disruptive. Please let the discussion run its course. Parsecboy (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Parsecboy, edit warring is making changes without meaningfully participating in an active discussion. I've been quite active in the discussion citing precedent in other similar ship articles for both fates (sunk or lost). If you want to trump precedent, then cite an acceptable source to explain why lost should be substituted for sunk. Simply reverting and saying that a discussion is ongoing, which I posted to before making my edit by the way, is actually closer to edit warring since pointing to a discussion isn't the same as participating in it. Anynobody05:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, I've made more comments in the discussion than you have, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, you don't change something that is clearly very contentious immediately after you post something you think justifies it. You must wait for consensus to be achieved before anything is changed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is, you don't change something that is clearly very contentious immediately after you post something you think justifies it. Actually that's exactly how editing here works, someone puts forward a reason to change an article then makes the change. If the change is wrong or disputed then another editor points out why on the talk page and reverts/corrects the article. Consensus is established when more editors support one side or the other.
Also, you are indeed mistaken in quantity, length and quality. I've pointed out that articles about ships have a standard way their fates are described, whereas the argument you present is that you think saying the ship sunk somehow implies it was sunk by the British and moreover anytime a ship is "sunk" in naval discussions it means sunk by someone. If you look at it my point is backed by evidence you can verify by simply looking at other ship articles, while your "evidence" is nothing more than a personal assertion backed by nothing. In these circumstances I'm not going to wait before editing the article based on arguments made from personal experience or individual beliefs. Anynobody21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
To respond to your first paragraph, please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; note the line "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus." Clearly, there is a lack of consensus in regards to the situation. That means don't edit the page to conform to your viewpoint while we're still working towards consensus.
It's not "my opinion" that saying a ship was sunk at such and such a time and such and such a place during wartime implies that the ship was sunk in combat. Otherwise, the loss of the ship would be described differently, even if to clarify that it was sunk by internal explosion or some other non-combat related incident. If what you argue is the case, why does the Mutsu article you pointed out clarify that it wasn't just "Sunk", but "Sunk by internal explosion"? Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I'm indeed familiar with that too but with all due respect I didn't claim to be taking advantage of bold and the reason there is a lack of consensus in regards to the situation is because you and one other editor are stuck on imposing your views rather than conforming to our policies and style guide or citing a source backing this assertion. You're proving my point here by saying a ship was sunk at such and such a time and such and such a place during wartime implies that the ship was sunk in combat. According to who? Without a citation it's according to you; OPNAV 29-P1000 (Revised APRIL 1949) U.S. Navy Abbreviations of World War II
You must be locked into some kind of emotional cycle because while claiming sunk implies enemy action you acknowledge that a ship can indeed be sunk during wartime without enemy action so long as there is an exlanation: MutsuSunk by internal explosion I hate to be so blunt about it, but let's assume you are right about the word sunk during wartime implying enemy action, you do realize that it still doesn't say if it was sunk by; torpedoes, naval gunfire, floating mine, aerial bomb, aerial gunfire, depth charge, collision, scuttling, limpit mines, etc.
In short saying of Bismarck that it is Sunk, with the cause of sinking disputed. Is the way a NPOV encyclopedia would describe a contentious situation. Anynobody01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You're not listening to what I've been saying. I said if a ship is sunk (in the barest sense of the word) during wartime, and it is due to something other than combat, it is almost universally clarified to explain exactly what happened. Hence, the reason we have Mutsu as being "Sunk, by internal explosion", and not just "Sunk". If you're not going to read what I say, I see no point in continuing this discussion here. Parsecboy (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I promise you I do understand exactly what your saying; saying sunk during wartime implies enemy action unless otherwise specified right? Sunk, cause disputed does exactly that; My point is for every sinking there is a cause which may or may not be listed. If you were listening to what I said you'd note that saying Sunkcause disputed implies that either German scuttling efforts OR British shells have been argued to be the cause depending on the source.
For crying out loud the section which discusses these possibilities in detail is called German battleship Bismarck#Controversy surrounding the sinking, in case you missed it the last word was sinking meaning that either the Germans succeeded in scuttling (and the purpose of scuttling, is to sink one's ship) it or British shells/torpedoes did. No matter who was responsible the ship sunk as a result of either parties actions.
Because your post indicates that you are no longer watching this page I'm going to post this on your talk page as well. I've spent quite a bit of time explaining how this solution both works in relation to other articles AND fits into your arbitrary rule about being specific regarding any ship sinking not caused by enemy action (even though it would be extremely short sided to think the Germans scuttled for reasons besides the pounding handed them by the British don't you think?). Anynobody07:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it wasn't necessary to overcomplicate the intro. as you did, hence I have reverted it. The bit about the magazine is also not proven. Please leave alone! bigpad (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, bigpad, I was hoping you'd of understood that article related issues should be discussed on the article's talk page after I moved your first post. (I promise that I watch the talk page of all controversial articles I edit :) PS I didn't try moving Parsecboy's posts because he struck me as being especially frustrated and thus reminding him of what I said at the beginning of this thread about article related talk being done on the article talk page would most probably have increased frustration. It's difficult to rationalize with people who are upset, so I try very hard not too.) Anynobody23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Bismarck intro
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's all good, feel free to edit the lead section too :) I don't want folks to think I'm saying they can't so I moved this to the talk page too with a more detailed explanation. Anynobody04:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
User name
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the nice thought regarding my user name. I hope you won't be offended to hear that I removed your comment though :)
The reason I adopted this nic is that I used to play a computer game called "Silent Service II" which was lots of fun and which is where I first encountered the name. I thought it meant "cat class" though, so when I opened the account here I figured it was just a neat way of referring to myself as a "cool cat". Actually, turns out it means shark class, so that idea went out the window.
I'm actually quite antiwar though, so I've been uneasy about this username since I got involved with Wikiships, where lots of people associate it with something I don't associate it with. Anyhow, that's why I have removed your remark - although I'm sure it was made with the best of intentions - because I don't want people to wrongly imagine I am celebrating an instrument of warfare. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally understand, and am actually very anti-war myself. Odd though it may seem having detailed knowledge of war has made it easier to be on the anti-war side in a debate or discussion about it. Especially given the bogus World War II-esque spin the current administration puts on our current "war against terror". I've managed to leave more than one person who bought the spin without an answer to just how WW II is anything like what we're doing now, given that:
World War II
Was a conflict fought between nations and their respective armed forces on battlefields/oceans almost literally spanning the globe. In these battles, for the most part, combatants wore uniforms and had a distinct chain of command. The sacrifices in manpower and material necessitated both the mobilization of women into roles they were not asked to perform during peacetime as well as war time rationing of food/fuel. We got involved after being attacked.
Whereas
The war on terror
Is a conflict currently confined to areas we've created for the terrorists to attack us in Iraq and our allies as well in Afghanistan. The enemy combatants don't wear uniforms, hide in the civilian population, are usually independent groups with loose leadership which employ tactics like suicide bombing attacks. Rationing in addition to individual sacrifice are non-existent and to top it off we didn't declare "war" until after the WTC was attacked in 1993, our embassies overseas were bombed five years later, two years after that one of our destroyers was attacked overseas, and less than a year later came 9/11.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi,I'm a German Wikipedia User and I included your picture of the Schlachtschiff Bismarck in the german article.
But then I saw that the german description is not very good.
Can I translate it for you and post the correct text the in here?
Then you can change it on wikimedia commons.
Would be great.
If you allow it please contact me on my German Wikipedia Profile which you can find here
Thx --77.190.6.83 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK here is the translation. Would be nice when you could change it.
Anmerkung: Ich habe die Hakenkreuze mitabgebildet, da die meisten Personen es erwarten sie dort zu sehen. Auch bei einigen Nachbildungen sind sie manchmal zu sehen. Die Gründe, warum sie überhaupt dort waren sind folgende: Zum einen liebten die Nazionalsozialisten sie und wollten damit deutlich zeigten, wem das Schiff gehört. Zum anderen sollten sie einen Selbstschutz vor Angriffen durch eigene Flugzeuge bieten. Selbstverständlich konnte das leicht zu entdeckende Symbole von Freund und Feind gesehen werden, weshalb es bei Einsätzen übermalt wurden. --77.190.6.83 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I was a bit concerned about the google translation :) Thanks a lot, I updated it with your suggestion :) Anynobody02:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
According to page 15 of the report we cite: High altutude meteorological conditions: Clouds: several layers of clouds, upper limit in the area of Lake Constance between FL 250 anf FL 280. It also says: The expert opinion assumes that both airplanes were flying above existing clouds...
ehm... yes, i read it at least 3 times now... "above existing clouds"! on ur pic it looks like they r flying into clouds... while below them is no cloud... do want to express something with that inaccuracy? or do u have another "expert opinion" than the bfu? or do u use some strange projection? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I assumed you read the rest of the report, but I guess not: do want to express something with that inaccuracy? Sure, according to the report, the planes were descending when they collided. You'll notice the perspective is from behind the 757 looking forward, which since it was going down turned out to be the same direction. Indeed the 757 is heading toward the general direction of the cloud layer between 8 to 10,000 feet below it. The collision occurred at around 34 thousand feet and as I quoted the cloud layer was between 25-28 thousand feet. I'm a bit confused, I count two times you've asked here so far and why does it look like both planes are going into the clouds? (If you assume the clouds are at the same level as the aircraft then it's flying parallel to them)
or do u have another "expert opinion" than the bfu? What does bfu mean?
since i cannot c that u use data from the report (the pitch angle of the dhx was just about -1° (it _feels_ like there should be more black sky in ur pic...), while in addition we do not know sufficient details about the cloud formation... the pitch angle of the btc looks wrong...), i would like to ask u, to remove ur pic in accordance with WP:OR... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
(it _feels_ like there should be more black sky in ur pic...), Indeed there was before I cropped it, I dunno how much you know about computer graphics but the original resolution was 1600 x 1200 (1600 pixels wide, 1200 tall) and the current is 1,588 × 878, the 322 missing pixels were just black sky.
i would like to ask u, to remove ur pic in accordance with WP:OR... Did you read the dedicated subsection: WP:OR#Original images which says:
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries, and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role.
Plus lets not forget it's also used on Russian, German, and Swedish Wikipedias. (I don't speak or write any of those languages so I assure you I didn't put it on said pages.)
In short, I'm sorry you don't like it but the image does conform with the rules here and gives one a good idea of what a Tu-154 about to t-bone a 757 at 34,000 feet under partial moonlight could've looked like. Anynobody09:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
the problem is that the clouds r irrelevant here, while ur pic almost only shows clouds (not the bad weather caused the crash but bad preparation...)... i move therefore to remove atleast the clouds on the grounds of this:
A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.
i move therefore to remove atleast the clouds on the grounds of this: I realize English is not your first language, so you may not understand that the part of WP:OR#Original images you've quoted applies to original photographs; CG imagesaren't photographs, which is what using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo is talking about. Like when someone alters a photograph, as in the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy.
the problem is that the clouds r irrelevant here, while ur pic almost only shows clouds (not the bad weather caused the crash but bad preparation...) The thing about what you're saying is that one can't see the controller issuing incorrect commands while looking at the aircraft. As I said, the picture is meant to show people what the aircraft/environment looked like, the article describes how the planes came to be that way. I ran this through Google's translator:
Deutsch:Das Bild zeigt, was die Flugzeuge und die allgemeine Umwelt, wenn die Kollision aufgetreten. Informationen darüber, wie sie kamen zu sein, ist das, was der Artikel beschreibt.Anynobody01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion
Hi! Somebody requested a third opinion on this. I must admit I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly is disputed. Homer, you could make this easier by writing in standard English and following conventional capitalization and punctuation. And as long as I'm picking minor stylistic nits, Anynobody, perhaps you could use quote marks when quoting.
If the question is "can one create illustrations", I think the answer is obviously yes. Illustrations by their nature are manipulated images, with certain aspects highlighted, removed, or abstracted to increase communicative value. So I think as long the illustration gives readers an accurate understanding of the topic, then it's a good illustration.
But if the question is, "does this illustration look like clouds are an important component of what's being conveyed", I'd have to answer yes. Both in the full version and in the small thumbnail used in Bashkirian_Airlines_Flight_2937, I see a whole lot of cloud, and to me it looks like a large bank of clouds that the left-hand plane is about to enter, and the right-hand plane is paralleling. Before I read the discussion here, I assumed that similar cloud banks were nearby out of frame, and that clouds were a factor in the impending collision. I certainly wouldn't have taken it as suggesting that they were 10,000 feet above the clouds.
So I'd agree with Homer that the illustration could be improved by deaccentuating the clouds, and that the improved illustrative value would be significant enough to warrant doing. If the question is keep it as is or remove it, I'd be on the fence. If it comes down to that, feel free to request another opinion from me or somebody else from the third opinion pool.
Hello there William P. :) Before addressing the issue at hand, I should explain that in my experience people are less likely to assume I'm quoting out of antagonism by not "quoting" them. Granted there is no universal solution, and certainly some will see quoting not as simply addressing a specific point but rather the very antagonism I'm trying to prevent. All I, or any of us, can do is try to avoid being misunderstood and be open to reasonable accommodation. (In short if Homer Landskirty had asked me to change styles I'm most certainly willing to, but unless/until that happens I'm going to stick with what works for me :)
"I must admit I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly is disputed." I share your puzzlement, on one hand Homer Landskirty seems to be critical of the image being somehow inaccurate? Asking for a source regarding the clouds by citing the source I got them from. (No doubt you saw me quote and link the source above, so you know according to it there were cloud layers below the aircraft involved.) After double checking moon information I see there was no moon at the time, so I'll remove it from the image's lighting.
In regard to the clouds, besides the conditions stated in the report itself five other pilots were quoted as seeing the clouds and being unable to see the ground. (The report actually says Flight visibility was good, ground visibility was unavailable... but bearing in mind the report is translated from original German; these observations were made by pilots ...at the time/site of the accident... meaning none of them were on the ground so they didn't mean how far they could see at ground level.)
I can't simply remove them in the face of pretty direct evidence given by our source because they affect overall aesthetics.* I accept that no illustration of an event like this is going to be 100% accurate, but I prefer the inaccurate parts to be the result of error due to lack of resources not because it looks "cool". (On a side note, I hate the clouds too, and would rather have a cool patchwork of city lights and dark farm/rural areas if my goal wasn't to give the general impression one might get were they able to "see" what happened.)
*Even if I did, sooner or later someone would come along and say "Hey, the report says there were clouds, where are they?" It's a no win scenario when one tries to please everyone but I can't logically argue against including a documented detail except in extremely rare "human" situations; Like this image illustrating the moments after Turkish Airlines Flight 981's cargo door came open. There were actually people in those seats but I chose not to include them for several reasons regarding any relatives who happen to come across the image. Anynobody05:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, if I disrupted your work somehow... My intent was just to avoid a wrong impression in this case... Somehow I like the new version better... Now I have two new ideas: 1. Can you rotate the camera around the nose of the DHX, so that it doesn't look like the nose is already in a cloud? 2. Can you increase the opacity (Or are there no such clouds? Maybe the clouds can have some holes?) of the clouds, so that we can still see something on the ground? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Where the clouds and ground are in relation to the planes. Top picture shows the 757s nose isn't near the clouds. Bottom three pictures: Top left is the image plotting how far away the clouds are, below it is a diagram of how it would look from the side. The top right image is just where the horizon is. Homer Landskirty, you haven't interrupted anything :) However like I've been saying, they aren't near the clouds. The 757 is not going to make it into them before the collision. (If you look closely you might notice the Tu-154 is partially obscuring the 757s starboard wing light, meaning it's behind the wing with the collision less than 1 second away.)
The report describes the incident site as being over a cold front extending to the UK, that's a lot of clouds. There is minor a break. (Start at the right engine and look straight down, and you should see some city lights. I know these things are hard to make out, but that's how it is at night. Hell I'd probably not notice all the stuff in it if I hadn't made it.) Anynobody02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the detailed response and the kind words. I see what you're saying about quote marks coming across as hostile sometimes. I also understand what you're saying about the clouds being part of the scene. If you've already tried different angles and different lighting to make them less prominent relative to the planes, then I wouldn't know what else to suggest, and given the text and other photos, it doesn't seem like it will cause a big misunderstanding. Good luck to you two in sorting it out, and feel free to ask for another third opinion if you come to another point where you are stuck. William Pietri (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem, thank you for supporting WP:3O :) On the image, indeed there have been attempts from other angles but the issue is complicated by the overall darkness of the environment and lack of passenger windows to emit light from a 757C. If I reverse the planes then it looks like a very unusual DHL ad, rotating to a halfway point gives the impression of a nose/nose collision. I know this might sound cheesy but in a way the apparent confusion discussed here echoes the circumstances of the confusing situation pictured. Anynobody05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
