User talk:Megapixie/1

Archive 1 (29 June 2005 to 6 December 2006)

Please note this page is archived. I may not see your additions to this page - please talk to me via my main talk page at User talk:Megapixie. Megapixie 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RPG-29 Unit Price

No-one discussing it on the talk page put the unit price on there - we were just discussing whether or not it was correct. Riddley 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sopwith Camel Photo

Your photo of the Sopwith biplane in the museum is really neat, it almost looks like a model because theres no scale reference in the picture. anyways, thanks for sharing it! --Wesman83 18:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Falklands Edit

I removed the reference in the Analysis section because it appears to me that the HMS Sheffield did not melt because of her mythical aluminum superstructure. She was made of steel, as the Wikipedia article on her states (it is also sourced). As the source states, there were other ships with aluminum superstructures that were sunk, but the superstructure was not an issue here, either. You can also see that this is a myth by doing a google search on the subject. So it seems inappropriate to say that one of the lessons learned in the Falklands conflict was that aluminum was inferior to steel, as the Royal Navy was already aware of this, and it seems even less appropriate since those aluminum ships that were sunk did not sink due to their superstructure.

That being said--why was it reverted? I am quite new to this and it seems to me that I located an error and rectified it, only to have it reverted within hours. Did I miss some protocol? Aborrows 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay - I'll read up. I've a memory of seeing a photo in a book of a burned out ship (still floating) with a partially melted aluminium superstructure - HMS Antelope - I think...

If you make a change to an article - especially if you remove material - please leave an edit summary explaining why you made the change/deletion. The problem is that several small edits to an article where information is removed (without explaination) by an editor with a red username link (i.e. with no userpage) and a small edit count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aborrows) looks like a sneaky vandalism (which abounds in wikipedia).

Not that I'm accusing you of vandalism! Megapixie 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

While the HMS Antelope did have an aluminum superstructure, and was burnt out, I believe this was due to the magazines exploding. Either way, I think it would be inappropriate to say it was some sort of lesson learned or that this had anything to do with the Navies of the world moving away from aluminum superstructure, as this decision had already been made.

Thanks for the advice on editing--I wasn't aware what the edit summary box was for and will use it in future. Also, I would like to compliment you on your BMP re-write. I was clicking around on your user page and found what I thought was your re-write (but it was the original) and noticed a couple of errors that I found you have already fixed--once I found your re-write--specifically with regards to its amphibious capabilities. Anyways thanks again. Aborrows 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop Reverting My Edits Please

At least until you learn a little about the subject.

Thank you.

Philippsbourg

I agree with you on this one, MegaPixie, re the Pom-Pom (gun) article, so have again RV User:Philippsbourg's edits to this page, and initiated the correct procedure to suggest a page move on their behalf. Any thoughts you have on the latter would be appreciated. Emoscopes ^Talk 00:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sherman Sources

You wrote:

If you feel there is something wrong with the article, please discuss/explain the issue on the talk page in a constructive fashion - citing sources. Megapixie 04:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

1145 Hours, 1 April, 1945.

I do not "feel" that something is wrong with the article. I know there is. I am a bona fide content expert on the Sherman and Armored Force Doctrine, not to mention a published military historian of some note. You have asked me to cite sources to support my position that the page contains numerous errors, and that it should not be used as a source of historical information until some future date when it has been thoroughly revised. Here are a few:

"Operational History 12th U.S. Army Group" "Operational History [Report After Action] 3rd U.S. Army" "Operational History 1st U.S. Army" "Operational History 6th U.S. Army Group" "Operational History 7th U.S. Army" "The Lutes Report, Dec. 1944-Jan. 1945" "The Christman Report, Dec. 1944" "History of the Armored Force" Army Ground Forces Study No. 27. Various General Officers interviews including Gen. Devers, former Chief of the Armored Force.

There are many, many more sources, but I think this short list will make my point.

Given my prior experience on this site, I expect that I will never hear from you again on this matter. If I am wrong, I will be delighted to discuss the subject with you. If, you do not chose to respond, please do me the courtesy of not reverting my contributions to the Sherman page.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

See discussion on your talk page. Megapixie 00:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1730 Hours 1 April 2006

You asked me to cite my sources. I did as you asked, yet you did not respond to my citations or attempt to refute them. I am not surprised. I suppose it is a bit daunting, and unusual, to run across someone on Wikipedia who actually knows what they are talking about.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

Actually - it's not unusual to run across someone who claims they know what they are talking about. That happens all the time. Also it's not unusual to run across someone who claims to be an expert author with a million books published on any given subject. That happens all the time. What's increasingly rare is finding someone who actually understands what wikipedia is about - and has actually read the policy pages - and acts in a way that contributes towards making better articles.

With respect to your edits - [1] and [2] - I will continue to revert vandalism where ever I see it - irrespective of the author. Megapixie 03:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AMMO TROOPS

There has been another response posted to your criticism and general ignorance regarding AMMO. Please have a read and reconsider the problems you have. ~ ConciergeMike

Iraqi civil war

The article has recieved a re-write and I've given it a serious beating with the NPOV hammer - you might wish to take a look at it again and see if it deserves a keep on VfD. =) Xaa 02:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sound Bomb

I'm the guy who wrote the original article. I'm guessing you didn't read the linked articles - I don't we're talking about concussion grenades here; nor do I think vanilla flash bangs last for hours, nor do the injuries fit the profile. I'll reinstate the articles and ask you to provide some evidence on those pages.

• see User_talk:Stephenrbenson for further dicussion. In summary, I don't think there is any basis for this article. Megapixie 13:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

---

update - you might care to read http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1607450,00.html?gusrc=rss

I'm still in no mood to fight this on the narrow patch of defined ground, I just offer the link to demonstrate the use of the terminology by a variety of UN and NGO groups to refer merely to the aggressive use of sonic booms. So it's no longer just the terminology of the victims (which I felt was justification enough).

I'm sure follow up articles will discuss the other techniques used, and apply the terminology I wished to define. In other words, before long you will have to add the entry.

I note also the entry for dirty bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb) which I would have thought would be excluded on the same grounds i.e. it's not a formal weapons technology.

I still have great doubts about the true basis for the original removal of the posts, very reminiscent of the media's use of the word 'balance' to distort coverage of events in the middle east. Stephenrbenson 10:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you add something about it to one of the articles under Category:Category:Palestine and perhaps expand Sonic_boom#Perception_and_noise, which covers the topic. Megapixie 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

LightBomb

I'm the guy who wrote the original article. I'm guessing you didn't read the linked articles - I don't we're talking about concussion grenades here; nor do I think vanilla flash bangs last for hours, nor do the injuries fit the profile. I'll reinstate the articles and ask you to provide some evidence on those pages.

• see User_talk:Stephenrbenson for further dicussion. In summary, I don't think there is any basis for this article. Megapixie 13:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

MIM-23D

I'm not entirely sure whether that information is declassified, but I will say that your third guess is best. ;) By the way, I do think the formatting and content on the HAWK article is very good. The "All Weather" thing that guy put in there is nonsense, and of course there's the whole semantic argument I've stepped into with Engineer Bob, but none of that is your fault. Great job all around - I wouldn't change much! Kafziel 19:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specs policy

Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 06:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hull-down diagram

[reply from my talk page —MZ]

I was bored last night so I decided to fill your request on Wikipedia:Requested_pictures#Military.

I made two version - before I wondered if you had any feedback / changes you would like before I replace the existing images.

File:HullDownTankExpr2.gif

With Dotted T-72 (might be a bit hard to see)

File:TankHullDownExpr1.gif

Without dotted T-72

I did the images in Visio - so they are easy enough to change.

Let me know Megapixie 02:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, those are excellent! Much better than the DoD's illustrations. I do like the first one, with the T-72. It looks like you positioned both of the tanks' guns at their realistic maximum angle of depression. To my eye, you could place the T-72 even a little bit further forward on the slope, to match its tracks to the grade, but use your judgement. If you think the T-72 is too faint, you could try using a grey line instead of dotted, or maybe a thinner one.

And would you please hyphenate hull-down and turret-down, to match the spelling in the article? Thanks very much for responding to the request. You're my wiki-hero today. Cheers, Michael Z. 2005-10-26 04:43 Z

With grey T-72 and text mods

Updated version - let me know what you think. Megapixie 14:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. Why don't you add it to the article? —Michael Z. 2005-10-26 23:56 Z

Charles McCabe

Thanks for spotting this. It was a reg-ex search and replace that went wrong, so it's not likely to affect other articles - but if you find any more errors, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Action

In your recent edit, where did you move the information on action in sociology? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Good spot. I've created a new mini article Action (sociology). I'm don't know enough about the subject - but perhaps it should merge with Social action ? Megapixie 06:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Beta

Hi,

I don't really see the full reasoning in your recent rehaul of the entry "Beta". According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) that you cite, if the number of entries is large, the list may be broken up by subject area. Furthermore, for letters, I have seen people do things like this: C and C (disambiguation). So I would think it would perhaps be more appropriate to combine the some parts of the old Beta and Beta (letter) entries into one and have a separate Beta (disambiguation). I agree with you that earlier version was not neat, but isn't turning it to a simple disambiguation page a little overkill?

Cheers, Erkcan, Nov 02, 05

Please make any changes you see fit. You have to admit - that it's a lot easier to find the actual links on the page now :). Good luck! Megapixie 00:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I had some time on my hands, and I reshuffled a little - please make any further changes as you see fit. Thanks. Megapixie 02:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PointlessTrivia

Greetings from darlington western australia, will put thoughts to the discussion page, when I have time. Best wishesvcxlor 05:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

 While you're at it checkout CPM-86 for and editable item!!vcxlor 05:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean to offend. My comment refered to :

Scottish Country Dancing, Quiz Nights, Musical Performance, Yoga Classes

Any chance you could take a few photos and post it on the pages about Darlington, and dig out a few dates for the building. I came across the article whilst on Random article patrol. Good luck. Megapixie 05:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No offence taken, It wasnt created very well anyway! Anybody who does good edits while on random needs barnstars and all the rest! Theres much junk out there that even a magnum .357 couldnt start to dent. All encouragement to editing! I do random patrol at times, and get quite worked up about lack of country id on the usa and brits place names, and some of the dubious entries. Darlington - I will get around to loading photos.I promised an admin person a photo on a Tasmania item six months ago, I am a bit slow on some things!vcxlor 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL's RFA

Hi Megapixie,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Falklands War

Hi! I was only 5 yo at the time of the war, I really don't remember that much. Whatever edits I make are based on what I have experienced in subsequent years. Having said that, If you want to point me towards a particular spanish reference that you've found I'll be more than happy to check it for you. Finally, let me just say that except for the use of some words (i.e.: I don't like "Invasion", but I couldn't find anything better) the main articles are mostly NPOV-ish... which is surprisingly good. :)

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Large PNG's

See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032030.html AnonMoos 04:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

However I would still recomend using a somewhat smaller (below 12.5 megapixels (~3500 pixels) as described in the link above) PNG image, or at least use GIF instead of JPG. JPG is probably the worst possible format for somethihg like Image:Operation Azul.jpg, the compression scheme works horrebly on line-art, and what little compression there is cuse loss of quality. Thanks for contributing free images though, that is greatly apreciated regardles :) --Sherool (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed link

I'm sorry you thought removal of links constitutes vandalism. I, of course, disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. The reason was, I was editing Linked. When I changed it from an auto-redirect to a dis-ambig, I checked the backlinks to make sure that people who linked to the redirect wouldn't be suprised to find a disambig as opposed to a redirect. I came across a few "junk" links that weren't links to a subject, but were just links for the sake of links. To make the clean-up of links easier, I removed them. Hope this clears things up, and I'll be happy to revert anything that needs to be changed back. --Quasipalm 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks Megapixie 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

FPC

I just wanted to let you know that I nominated the picture of a flamethrower that you uploaded and is now being considered to become a Featured Picture. If you would like to make a comment, support, or oppose it being featured do so here. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Page deleted

Per your request, I've deleted User:Megapixie/HawkWIP. If you decide you want it back, please don't hesitate to let me know! Cheers, Tomer^talk 03:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Skoda 305 mm Model 1911

Hey, thanks for your great work on the article! Someone will have to upload the WWI photos to the commons too... Nikola 08:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for the great photos! The WWI photos are a bit iffy. Some of them I've seen on various webpages could be post WWI - I think the M16 was used into World War II. Without definate sources it is difficult to say if there are PD or post 1923. I'll keep an eye out for some photos with more definate attribution. Keep up the good work! :) Megapixie 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least those where soldiers wear Austrian uniforms might safely be used, don't you agree? Nikola 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably. I'm going to go with a tentative yes. Megapixie 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the kind words!

I doubt any of us are here seeking recognition, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate it much when it comes. Thanks much! Tedernst | talk 14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Seacat

You are absolutely right, I can't believe I made that mistake with the number of photos of seacats I've stared at when i was making the diagram. I'll sort it when I get the chance, glad you liked it despite it's flaw. Emoscopes 11:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aerofoils, dates and discoverers

Area rule

I don not now how you think an official german patent could be faked (by whom ever) but i think it is allmost impossibel. If you are in doubt you shouldn´t start research with something like google. Google give you just mainstream ideas. Not the worst think if you want to now whats up to date on the billboard charts, but this is something different. I came up with this idea while i saw a 1944 drawing af a german fighter project. To me it looks area ruled, but i did not found any hints about a german invention. Then i saw the name in de:Flächenregel. But, again, i did not found something corresponding "area rule" and "Frenzl" at http://www.dpma.de/suche/patentdatenbanken.html. I searched some books and found out that head of the aerodynamics lab in war time at the Junkers site was Heinrich Hertel. In the patent Frenzl was misspelled as Frenzel. So, enough, I gave you an entry point for your research, the patent number and the correct name. Have fun with your own research away from these google things. -- Stahlkocher 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a look but I couldn't find that persons name in the patent system. My german is very very weak (2 years at high school level) - however you could help me out here by citing sources. Could you give me a direct link' to the patent system page (or instructions on how to use the system (why are patent search engines so stupid ?) - all I could find were

Your search request: DN=0932410
Result list: 2 results No. 	Publication number 	(54) Title 	Display
1 	EP 0932410 	MISTEL-(VISCUM)-EXTRAKTE 	
2 	EP 0932410 	MISTEL-(VISCUM)-EXTRAKTE 	

Which wouldn't bring up any documents, when I tried to search for the pdf.

Here is what I've found so far that backs up your claim:

• http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:EGy3s0ccOjwJ:www.dglr.de/literatur/publikationen/pfeilfluegel/Kapitel2_3_4.pdf+%22Otto+Frenzl%22&hl=de

Can you site something "reputable" - either another website or a publication (preferably in English) that I can fact check this in - otherwise this looks like it might break WP:NOR. These "who invented television" type issues always stir up emotions - I'm just concerned with all the focus on wikipedia of late that facts have to line up with reputable sources. Cheers. Megapixie 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no question about who was first. And we are not breaking NOR. We are just looking back into history. The question of research could be: Why did nobody told the world about this 1944-patent? Is this an Arearulegate? ;-) To me it is just interesting.

A little more playing around - and I found a search engine that actually seems to work at http://www.depatisnet.de/ - searching using beginner search for DE 932410. You are quite correct - the patent appears to have been filed on 21 March 1944. However I'd like to translate the document (again - German, not my first language.) - do you have an OCR'd copy I can run through some translation software ?

I have the complete *.pdf. I could upload it to commons. What you found at DGLR (something like a german NASA) is reputative enough. If you trust NASA, you should trust DGLR.

I will reword the article slightly to reflect the information. One thing - Heinrich Hertel's name appears on the Patent above the others, is the patent a joint application ? Megapixie 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hertel was the boss of the group. But i have no idea of the third guy. I have to search again.

Also this seems to discuss the patent in question http://team-delta.info/Forum/archive/index.php/t-2292.html - specifically

---

Hallo Phillip, Ich habe heute einmal in den Patenten der Zeit recherchiert. Es existiert ein und nur ein Patent zum Thema, nämlich das von Dir zitierte. Ich habe das, was Hertel (Junkers) patentiert hat einmal mit der Whitcomb'schen Flächenregel verglichen: Hertel hat zwei "Fehler" gemacht. Erstens hat er es patentiert und nicht wissenschaftlich publiziert (das ging natürlich nicht:rolleyes: ). Ein Patent ist starr und unveränderlich. Neue Erkenntnisse nach Patenteinreichung bleiben unberücksichtigt.

In einem Patent schreibt man unter "Patentansprüche" alle nur denkbaren Anwendungen auf, um sie in den Schutz mit einzubeziehen. Und hier liegt sein zweiter Fehler: Hertel schreibt dort zwar unter 1 allgemein: "Hochgeschwindigkeitsflugzeuge, gegebenenfalls mit außerhalb des Flugzeugumrisses angeordneten Verdrängungskörpern".......

Seine weiteren Ausführungen beziehen sich aber im wesentlichen auf die Anordnung von Verdrängungskörpern (sprich Triebwerke, Bomben, andere Außenlasten). Den wichtigen Rumpf-Tragflächenübergang, der zur Taillierung führt, erwähnt er nicht einmal. Die Taillierung des Rumpfes im Rumpf-Tragflächenüberganges ist vermutlich nicht durch das Patent abgedeckt, obwohl es implizit in seinen Ausführungen enthalten ist. Wie Dubs im Buch "Hochgeschwindigkeitsaerodynamik" von 1961 über die Whitcomb'sche Flächenregel schreibt: "Ähnliche Überlegeungen wurden übrigens in Deutschland schon 1944 gemacht, ohne indessen eine vollendete Formulierung zu finden".

Im Buch Geheimprojekte der Luftwaffe steht zwar über die Me P 1110, daß sie nach der Flächenregel ausgelegt ist, aber m.E. nach trifft das aber nur sehr beschränkt zu. Der Tragflächen-Rumpfübergang ist zwar schon optimiert (Bogen), aber dadurch daß z.B. der Rumpf kurz hinter den Tragflächenspitzen endet, gibt es dort einen gewaltigen Widerstandsprung von max auf 0.

Bei der Ju287 könnte die Flächenregel durch die Vorpfeilung und die Triebwerkslage (Verdrängungskörper!) eingehalten sein, eine Taillierung erkenne ich in meinen Büchern nicht.

Whitcomb hat es allgemeiner formuliert, daß der Widerstandsverlauf vom Bug bis zum Ort des höchsten Widerstandes kontinuierlich (stetig) von 0 ansteigt, und von dort zum Heck wieder stetig auf 0 abfällt. Er hat das auch durch Windkanalexperimente mit taillierten Rumpfformen gezeigt. Also hat Whitcomb die Junkers (Hertel) Lehre weiterentwickelt und verallgemeinert; also nix geklaut (Hertel wäre vermutlich schon 1946 drauf gekommen, wenn er gekonnt hätte:D ).

---

Can you comment on that ? Megapixie 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is right, Whitcomb reinvent the area rule. He solved a problem with this F-102 fighter and did well. If you see the drawing Abb. 2 f6/f7/f8 compared with f1 you see that the Junkers group had knowlegde about the later Whitcomb area rule, too. Of course the patent could not be publicated. They could not bring their ideas into hardware, because of the small resources left in german industries. However, the Ju 287 uses their engines as anti shock bodies. Abb. 4 looks pretty much like the CV 990. The knowledge, in fact, was lost for some reasons. Probably because the spot was on Wernher von Brauns rockets. -- Stahlkocher 07:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard Whitcomb

I found that Whitcomb invented the winglets. I guess this is wronge again, because the MiG-25 prototypes 1964 had allready winglets on their tip-tanks. In 1930th wing end-plates were a common fashion. Please check this, too. -- Stahlkocher 10:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

By chance I happened to pickup a copy of Soviet Secret Projects - Fighters Since 1945 by Tony Buttler and Yefim Gordon. It's a good book. They have pictures of the MiG-25 prototypes, the Ye-155P and the Ye-155R. They both have winglet like structures on the end of the wings. However the text describes them as:

...has the types distinctive 'webbed feet' vertical wingtip engplates which contained anti-flutter weights and were designed to improve directional stability.

Which would seem to support them not being winglets - however, I don't think the case is closed on this one. I'm looking for some sources that cite Whitcomb as the inventor. Megapixie 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Flutter weights formed like winglets are no winglets? Probably something is mixed up. The original MiG-25 has canards to improve stability at high Mach-Levels. And has two sorts of tiptanks with different winglets, one vertical Up/down and one with an angel of around 45° down. Both were removed during development. Instead of these tiptanks anti flutter masses has been attached. I guess winglets and deltawing is not the best combination, anyhow ;-) At [3] i found this: Winglets aren't new; the idea was patented in 1897. In the late 1970s, Richard Witcomb explored using them in air flights. The designs were tested in NASA wind tunnels. The best configurations were used in a number of flight research programs and are now used on many commercial and military aircraft.

The name of 1897 winglet inventor was F.W. Lancaster. -- Stahlkocher 14:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Supercritical airfoil

Whithcomb again was named as inventor of the supercritical airfoil. Please have a look at http://www.dlr.de/dlr/Luftfahrt/dokumente/forschung_fuer_die_luftfahrt_einfach.pdf. In there you can see i.e. a plane with wing end plate. But search for überkritisches Profil. There was research going on 1940 by DVL's K.A. Kawalki, leading to subsonic profils very similar to the supercrtical profils invented (and patented) later. Question: Did Whithcomb, probably, found the secret nazi aerodynamic files? -- Stahlkocher 11:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay re the above 2 - I'll check out the two claims - but I'm not particular expert on Aerodynamics - so it might take me a few weeks. If I haven't responded by mid-Jan - drop me a note. Very interesting though.

P.S. I just reorganised this section a little. Have a good New Year. Megapixie 13:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a good New Year, too. Yesterday i found out the Hertel and Brunolf Baade are friends, working both at the Ju 287. This explaines the similarity of the drawings in the 1944 area rule patent and the Ju 287. Did you know that the wright brothers started their planes either downhill or with a catapult on a rail until they came to Europe? -- Stahlkocher 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Today I found out, that Ju 287 had high speed non laminar wing profile. -- Stahlkocher 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-445/ch2-4.htm - There are a lot of references to German work done circa 1944. I can't read enough German to make sense of the link that you sent. I'll keep digging. Megapixie 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Objection (1984) against US patent specification NASA for “supercritical profiles”, based on the calculation methods of K.H. Kawalki germany (1940)--90.187.121.212 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:FV432 Trojan APC.jpg - not crown copyright pd.

Hi. I think you may be right - I've put the image up for speedy-deletion. Regards, Ian Dunster 12:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Area Rule

Sorry for the tardiness, I've been time limited lately...

Yes, the German work on the area rule is, today, well known. In fact, it appears in NASA's own historical documents on the work at Langley. However it is very important to point out that Withcomb's development was entirely independant, which is also clear in the historical record. In fact it was one of the German engineers who credits Withcomb with formulating it in a way that was precise and clear, whereas their own work was neither.

What is of some interest is who developed it in Germany. The patent shown is from Junkers, whereas there was also the "coke bottle" design at Mess. I'd love to track this down some time, I don't believe there is any record of this on the 'net right now, so if we were able to get the record straight it would be one of those unique wiki-only bits of information.

Maury 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving AAH's talk information from user page to talk page

Hi, Megapixie. I have moved the information from AAH's user page to the talk page. Not a big deal... in fact, I've made the same mistake. Just thought I would let you know that I've changed your original edit. Lbbzman 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Megapixie 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pom-pom on HMS Belfast.jpg

Hi, thanks for your contribution on the Pom-Pom (gun) page, but the picture is actually of a Mark V 40mm Bofors gun, so I removed it from this page. I corrected the image's caption and you may want to change the file name. It is a good picture though, I would suggest you put it on the Bofors gun page. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Right you are — I assumed that they were pom-poms, because I looked at the HMS Edinburgh (C16) page. I'll speedy the original and re-upload under a more accurate title. Megapixie 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Belfast would originally have had pom-poms also, but was refitted and reconstructed in the 1950s and has been repainted into her WW2 colours despite being in a more modern guise. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Redeye date typo

I noticed a small typo in the Redeye article in a section you edited. I can't correct it as I don't know the correct dates, could you have a look? See Talk:FIM-43_Redeye for details.

--Schwern 02:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Panorama clean-up

I attempted to clean up panorama, which you had tagged. See what you think! --Jeremy Butler 14:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoot (missile) creation

Nice job on picking up the small edits I'd made, creating this article, and creating the others on Hoot! I'll watch the article for further developments. And after reading VA-111 Shkval, I now know the difference between an underwater missile and a torpedo. Wdfarmer 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs MANPADS MILAN Jagdpanzer List of World War II artillery Tide-Line Blue Type 81 Surface to Air Missile M22 Locust BL 7.2 inch Howitzer Mk.I IGMDP List of modern weapons by country MG 17 machine gun RPK-74 James Madison class submarine Weapons platform Tritonal Anti-tank guided missile SSGN Saxon (vehicle) DP-28

Cleanup USS America (CV-66) Turner Fenton Secondary School List of modern weapons by type Merge ISU-152 SA-19 Grisom Tartar missile Add Sources Curtiss P-40 Prague Orloj Babur missile Wikify Japanese Infantry weapons in Chinese-Japanese conflict Mustafa Barzani EGBU-15 Expand Soviet submarine S-350 Operation Varsity SEPECAT Jaguar

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Vectoring In Forward Flight

Hi Megapixie, regarding the Sea Harriers ability to VIFF (Vectoring In Forward Flight), I've been reading sources stating that they didn't VIFF in the Falklands War, and other sources stating that they did VIFF.
Does your book Sea Harrier over the Falklands mention anything about VIFF in the dogfights?
By the way, why did you remove the whole paragraph, instead of just correcting the missing dogfights? Yours sincerely Necessary Evil 03:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember (and with a quick scan through the relevant sections of the book) - it was never mentioned in association with any of the air to air combats in the book. Basically the dogfights are fairly textbook 2 vs 2 stuff (checkout Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering) - drags and brackets. A quick scan through Falklands Air War (probably the best book on the subject) - doesn't mention it in association with the fighting.

I took the paragraph out because I felt that the article is more of an overview of the war - it's probably too much detail for the average reader who just wants to understand the war. Megapixie 05:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pdp11,70 640x507.jpg

Thanks a lot for that. The colour is a bit different, but I think its safe to assume that's the source. I'll retag it as that PD-USGov-Military-Army. Thanks again, Mark83 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Weiskrantz

Yes, I've created a lot of stubs that I am now expanding as I have time. I hope to do Prof. Weiskrantz next. - Newport 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

List of words and phrases alleged to be derived from misunderstandings

Spikebrennan 05:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC): Thanks for the gracious heads-up. I posted my thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words and phrases alleged to be derived from misunderstandings

Image:Sea Cat missile.png

Hi, you pointed out an error in this image a while back to me, in that the tail fins should be offset by 45° to the wings. Just thought I'd let you know I got around to updating the image. Currently working on one for Sea Wolf too, thought you might be interested in cased I make a guff up on that too! :D Emoscopes ^Talk 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead domino events

Hey -- you actually substed a {{dated prod}} tag on this page. In general, you should subst prod, but not dated prod. It makes it confusing for someone trying to remove the prod tag if you subst the dated prod. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sherman Photos

Hello. I thought I read somewhere that Wikipedia did not consider articles to be complete until they were illustrated thoroughly. That's a good point about dial-up users although I thought the mostly "thumb"-sized images would be OK. If most photos are on the variants page and the variants page is not overloaded, then I'll only need to delete a few (if any) from the M4 page. Thank you.Wikist 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Area rule image

On another talk page I found an image comparing the F-102/6 to the Mustang. I think this would be a good addition to the area rule page. Two updates though, first, it should real "F-102" (or 106), not "F-104". Another would be to add a sample curve for the Sears-Haack (sp?) body, which is essentially a "half cigar". You can find that on Google easily enough. Thanks! Maury 12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This image ?

Okay - but I'm basically making the area under the curve up. Give me a few days. Cheers Megapixie 14:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, maybe that image of the comparison of the F-102 before and after would be better, as it is both illustrative and historically interesing. I'll have to see what sort of licensing it has. Maury 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:IsaacMurphy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IsaacMurphy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

First the thanks: I apreciate your help with the picture of the soviet battlecruiser Kirov, I had no idea that it was in the public domain. That was a very pleasent suprise. And now the question: would you mind taking a look at this image of artillery shells? I have a feeling that if the Kirov photo and this photo were both on the Federation of American Scientist’s website than this photo may well be in the public domain as well. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is - the filename on FAS is actually the giveaway - try searching for dnsc9103635 (part of the image name on FAS) on the DoD's image search engine http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ - here's the exact image:[4] .

Be careful assuming that everything on FAS is public domain, not everything is. Good luck. Megapixie 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

JMSDF

Hi, thanks for starting some articles. I was getting a bit worried that I'd have to write them all up myself! I don't suppose you're planning to do more, including some on the surface fleet? Either way if you could dig up some pictures for the surface vessels that would be great - I don't know where to look for pictures that aren't copyrighted. John Smith's 11:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the heads-up. Let's both work on the articles if possible. John Smith's 13:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ohka or kamikaze

The specific information has to do with the particular Ohka shrines- two of which have Ohka replicas. I could omit the anthropological information about differing attitudes, but then the reader might wonder the reason for the surprizing number of Ohka shrines for a warrior the much of the rest of the world know not as the honorific Kamikaze, but as a Bakatari (fool).

If you have some suggestions out of this quandry, I welcome them. -Mak Thorpe 09:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my accidental damage to the gaza beach incident, cheers. V. Joe 07:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Univision image

Hey, was wondering if there's any chance that you could slightly re-edit the Univision framing image so that it reads Univisium instead of Univision. Storaro changed the name of the format shortly after he realized the name was already in use by the TV network Univision, and all subsequent interviews with him refer to it as Univisium. I've corrected the article, but the image still retains the old name. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 10:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done - Let me know if there are any other changes to the film images or new images. Cheers. Megapixie 10:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian ship image copyvios

Hi. I note you've tagged a number of images of Russian ships with copyvio tags & noted there is a free alternative for one of them. Do you know if there are alternatives to the others? If so, would you be able to change the image links? I can then run through and delete the orphaned images. Kcordina ^Talk 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay - going through them one by one.

* Image:Russian frigate 1135 Krivak class.jpg - already free alternative uploaded. Deleted Kcordina ^Talk 08:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) * Image:Russian frigate 1135 Krivak class2.jpg - as above - see Image:Kirvak I class frigate.jpg Image deleted Kcordina ^Talk 09:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) * Image:Russian frigate Gepard1166.jpg - no free images that I could find. But it's still a copyvio. Not fair use. image deleted Kcordina ^Talk 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC) * Image:Russian frigate 1154 Neustrashimy.jpg - free alternative at http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/2005/Navy/DN-SD-05-02441.JPEG (I'll upload later) - uploaded Image:NEUSTRASHIMY class frigate.jpg Deleted Kcordina ^Talk 08:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) * Image:Russian frigate 22350 project.jpg - almost certainly no free alternative available. But still a copyvio. Not fair use. - Image deleted Kcordina ^Talk 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Russian frigate 1244.1 Novik.jpg

* Image:Russian cruiser Kirov.jpg - free alternative already uploaded at Image:Soviet Battlecruiser Kirov.jpg Deleted Kcordina ^Talk 08:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) * Image:Russian cruiser Slava.jpg - mostly free alternative uploaded at Image:Russian cruiser Moskva-Naples-07.jpg Image deleted & links changed * Image:Russian cruiser Kuznetsov.jpg (also duped at Image:Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov2.jpg with no source.) - lower quality free image available at http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/1997/Navy/DN-SC-97-00224.JPEG - I'll upload later. Actually - heres another one couple ** http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jan1996/960111-N-9085M-002.jpg ** http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jan1996/960111-N-9085M-001.jpg ** Now uploaded at Image:Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov.jpg.jpg. Image deleted & links changed. Kcordina ^Talk 13:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Megapixie 01:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

LCM

Careful, you just created the LCM page twice. I've redirected the new one to the older, but you can switch it around if you want. Night Gyr 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! I came accross an old browser window and I noticed it wasn't saved. So I saved it, not remembering I'd decided to change the name at the end of writing the article. Thanks again. Megapixie 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Super 35 image

Sorry, forgot about your request until now, but I've made some comments - specifically that Common Topline is the preferred method for multiple aspect ratio extractions, not centered extraction. I've also left some references that should make it clear. However, make certain to notate in the image the extraction method used, as there is no strict standard. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I should get a chance to fix it in the next 24 hours. - I'll see If I can fit in both methods. into the same diagram. Megapixie 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:CharlesBabbage.jpg

Hi. I certainly copied the image CharlesBabbage.jpg from the Wikipedia in English, that's why I put the interwiki. I see now that the image does not exist there anymore, probably deleted because it is now here in Commons. Regards, --Mschlindwein 01:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Beauclerk

Thanks for spotting that article which was a disgrace. I've reduced it to a stub and requested more objective development. All the best. --Jack 11:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability of chemical compounds

That's fine. Canceling prods is anyone's perogative. I think I'll wait a month or two and if any of them still have {{importance}}, I'll do a group AfD on those. At least one of them does warrant research and expansion: Antimony trichloride, also known as "butter of antimony" and commonly used in alchemy. —Keenan Pepper 13:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:CharlesBabbage.jpg

Hi Megapixie. In http://www.fourmilab.ch is stated that "Except for a few clearly-marked exceptions, all the material on this site is in the public domain and may be used in any manner without permission, restriction, attribution, or compensation.". I'll put this on the image.

WikiProject Filmmaking

Hey, I decided to finally get together and try to start a WikiProject for Filmmaking. Currently the temporary page is User:Girolamo Savonarola/wikiproject until I have a few more editors - enough to justify making it into a proper Project. Anyhow, just wanted to invite you to participate, and of course offer any comments you may have on the project. Thanks! (PS - don't forget to sign here as well.) Girolamo Savonarola 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:35mm.jpg

Hey, wondering if you might be up for the challenge of doing up another graphic. Don't know if you've been to the filmmaking project today, but we're working on 35 mm film as a collaboration and this is the example graphic. Most of my critique is on the image talk page, but frankly I think it'd be just as good starting from square one on these lines. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Flawed reasoning on Hoot (missile)

You say that the previous version (of Hoot(missile) page) was neutral, and therefore suggest that my changed version is not. You do this without pointing out what part of it was not neutral. Do you expect to get away with it just by saying it was not neutral. Just go check it now and tell me what part of it was not neutral, because I know I wrote fact and I can back it all up. User:ArmanJan

Hey propaganda machine ;)

You are a mod right? Could you check Iranian military industry, two users (Tototom & Databot) ((same user different proxy)) everytime remove big chuncks of all the text that I wrote.

I'll take a look - I'm not an admin though. Cheers Megapixie 10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Chappell (dap)

Thanks for the heads-up. However, it would be best if the wikilinks were removed but the descriptions were left as is. Hornplease 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jp2mozzeta.jpg

To be honest, I don't really care that much. The image was being used in an article I was watching when I noticed it lacked rationale and added some. The image has been edited since then. IIRC, the uploader of the original image (that would be User:Coburnpharr04) indicated somewhere that it was a widely distributed keepsake image given out during JPII's visit to Philadelphia back in the 70s or 80s. The image said so right on it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: boilers

Funny how Ed just said it was not a content dispute (even tho it is) also i used blank templates as this was clearly blanking. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SA-6

Have you seen a real video of a missle launch? I thought it was pretty good--matador300 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Slither (film)

Megapixie - you have been a voice of reason in the past. You know your way around Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could lend a helping hand to the dispute on the Slither (film) page. All the information is on the Talk: Slither (film) page. It has become somewhat of a revert war. I do not think the information I want to include is POV, but I trust you if you think otherwise. Thanks. - Sensorium 04:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ak70g2

Best job I ever saw on landmines. Keep going!

Livens projector a type of mine?

I have left a comment on Talk:List of landmines that may be of interest to you. Gaius Cornelius 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Theta Beta Potata PUNK HOUSE Deletion Review

Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

He 178

Hi Megapixie, i retrieved the image from a journal, downloadable from www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil. It was marked as public domain. I suggest the image itself was published 1939. According to german KUG the copyright expired 1965. Therefore it was never copyrighted in the USA. -- Stahlkocher 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cash

Would this image on the gov site count as free? · XP · 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to know for sure - from their copyright page: ( http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html )

It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Researchers must make their own assessments of rights in light of their intended use.

It's possible. I'll have a dig. - These two are definately free however

• http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/1988/Navy/DN-SN-88-00642.JPEG
• http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/1988/Navy/DN-SN-88-00643.JPEG

Although not nearly as nice. Megapixie 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those are not as good. Let me know, if you can. · XP · 01:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

list of film formats

Thank you. :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Megapixie Image Rights

Dear Megapixie. You appear to be jumping onto the stone throwing at Newbies bandwagon without looking at your own position first. My licence issues are being reviewed by a mediator who has initally ruled in my favour subject to further review, and is also being reviewed by the Wikipedia licencing people. Considering the reasons you gave for your reversions you must reinstate my pictures pending the outcome, which should be soon. I will comply 100% with their requirements. Please reinstate by mid-day today with a reason of Originally Reverted in Error or I will re-instate on the grounds of Fixing Megapixie Blanking Vandalism.

Now your pictures: 1. You are showing pictures from museums in the UK. Entry to these places is specifically on the legal terms that photography of exhibits is not allowed without written permission. You cannot claim private use, as the pictures are exhibited. You must upldate your licence information to show that you are in possession of written permission to show "each and every picture" from a museum. 2. You are showing pictures of privately owned military hardware. These usually have two requirements for example, if taken at shows such as the recent War and Peace the copyright automatically is owned by the War and Peace organisers and cannot be owned by you and the pictures will be illegal. Also you must have written permission to show the pictures from each and every owner unless the pictures were shot from a public place. For example from a public kerbway or street. Shows in fields for example are not public places as the land is owned by a private individual or organisation. You cannot place pictures in the public domain without documented evidence that the pictures were shot legally. You must now update every image you have in Wikipedia to show they are properly in the public domain and licenced. My journalistic images all have have been shot strictly following these rules. Please note that I am not discourteously deleting or tagging your work but drawing your attention to some facts so you can fix it yourself. Please afford Newbies the same courtesy. Desk1 08:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead on this image

Thank you for being bold and adding the appropriate fair use tag for Image:Benccontest.jpg; now I know how "fair use in" tags work. Cheers --Guroadrunner 02:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Bolding in image name

Hi, this appears to be a bug in AWB. Thanks for telling me about it. Passed to developers. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28 10 September 2006 (GMT).

AfD tags

No problem, mistakes happen. – Zntrip 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

External link deletions

the links i have deleted are commercial links and as such violate appropriate content rules. sorry, if i was wrong in doing this please let me know, as i am new. thanks.

• Well, the links were to different (sometimes the same) commercial galleries or webpages, and i figured since it was a commercial site, it violated the WP:EL rules. i guess i made a mistake, it won't happen again. i think i will leave the editing world to more experienced users. i apologize again. thanksBee22 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking changes

New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking#Future project development and Ideas for your consideration regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

MY IMAGE

Here's the higher resolution image of the iTV... Now can it stay? Geez...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ITV_Black123.PNG

YSHOULDUKNOW123 17:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: PUI discussion - re: iTV image

I don't have any problem with that. Thanks for reviewing the case. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yaeyama class minesweeper

Your reworded edit is a good edit. Thank you. --Open-box 14:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts

Thanks for the reverts on my talk page, mate. Keep it up - an admin has to do something soon. Scalene 10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Thank you so much, now I can fit the picture in my Userbox! I owe you one!A7X 900 15:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

L0b0t's page

Thanks for catching that, you're fast. My very first userpage vandal, now I feel like a wiki-editor. Cheers. L0b0t 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

picture tags

Yes, I think I went to another promo picture I had uploaded and cut-and-paste the template from the edit page (I didn't actually type {{subst:promophoto}}) - it looked correct to me when it posted, but I didn't realize it was doing other things than were apparent. {{promophoto}} it is, from now on. Thanks very much - I appreciate the help, as the "help" pages are not always, shall we say, crystal clear. Tvoz 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for my barnstar! I really appreciate it. It's been a busy vandalism day!

Let me know if you need help taking care of mischief sometime and I'll do my best if I'm on. Thanks to you as well for your great edits – it's good to be reassured that there are constructive edits going on amidst all the vandalism I see. Thanks again, and keep up the good work! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:ALH Dhruv Helicopter.jpg

Thanks for the backhanded compliment you paid me; the free pics of this helicopter were taken by me! However, I don't think we have a better image of the naval version, which was why I left this fair use Indian Government one in place when I added my own pics. The naval version could conceivably spin out into its own article as it is quite a different aircraft. In terms of policy though, for the moment with the way the article is, I think you are right. Best wishes, --Guinnog 13:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Images on Indian Armed forces

Some of the images are necessary for the articles. The explanation for the necessity of each image is given below.

INS Tabar.jpg Very much required because I cannot find a clear, close, full image of INS Tabar in Wikipedia. The Images in Wiki commons on Tabar can be deleted.

INS Aditya Indian navy.jpg This image can be deleted as I had already loaded a new image of the same.

ALH Dhruv Helicopter.jpg This is the Naval version of Dhruv and hence will be used somewhere else by someone.

Indian destroyer weapon.gif Can be deleted. Not requried at the moment.

Indian-U.S navy Malabar.gif I cannot find another image of the Exercise with another navy. Hence required.This image can be deleted. In article, replaced with another image, but cannot find anyother ships than INS Viraat.

TU-142.gif Required. There are images of Tupolov but how can an image of Russian Navy aircraft be added into the Indian Navy article.

INS DELHI FARING1.jpg Cannot find another copy of INS Delhi in wikipedia.

All these images are from Indian Navy website and hence no problem with that. It is extremely difficult (Impossible) to get images from other sources for Indian military and hence request to keep the images that are required.

Thanking you Chanakyathegreat 13:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The second part says. Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible.

If there is no alternative to such images then what can be done. If there is alternative images, then surely it will be replaced with the free one. Chanakyathegreat 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not one is important and other can be neglected. Both are the same. The policy says that a fairuse image can be replaced with a free image if its equivalent is available in Wikipedia. If it is not available and until someone takes the photo and uploads it, continue with the same fairuse image. Chanakyathegreat 02:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image - Indian rocketry.gif

Thanks for notifying me about the lack of source for the above image... added now. Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

King-Berlet image

I gave this one a little more thought and decided you were right; the image wasn't replaceable per se in the LaRouche article, but it also wasn't necessary in a FUC #8 sense. So, anyway, I deleted it; just thought I'd update you on that. --Robth^Talk 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ripper Gun and more

Good hello. You might want to take a look at Gatling gun as well. There were several new see also links and a new para added today that could use a once over. Cheers. L0b0t 04:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reverted edits made to EOS 400D

I appreciate your reverts but your tone of your rudeness is horrible. You should be more considerate with the users around you. They are at least helping out with Wikipedia rather than you dispising others of their English and saying "no" nicely rather than you hitting them with a rage hammer. Watch your language the next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someformofhuman (talk • contribs) _____________________

I saw all that happening. First it was there, now it was gone. Definately, I don't think that's the kind of answer that we want to hear from Megapixie. What do you want? British English?? 220.255.147.93 05:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible source typo

Good hello. If you have a moment could you take a look at this BMD-3_Airborne_Combat_Vehicle. I think the article is based on a mistranslation or misspelling in the cited source. This APC looks very much like a BMP-3 to me, but I didn't want to prod or redirect without a second opinion. Cheers. L0b0t 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm familiar with the BMP and BRDM series but this is new to me. Thanks again and thank you wikipedia for teaching me something new. Cheers. L0b0t 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to edit the name (removing the Airborne Combat Vehicle) to bring it into line with the other Sov. AFV's? L0b0t 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

BMD-3 already redirects to BMD-1. Does that mean admin attention is needed? L0b0t 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian spelling

Good hello. With regards to the BMD-3, the full name is Boyevaya Mashina Desantnya however, the sources I'm finding spell it both mashina and machina sometimes both ways in the same article. Would you know the correct spelling, or is one preferred over the other? Cheers. L0b0t 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Stylidium (again)

Hi, me again! You helped me earlier with images. I'm absolutely terrible at wading through the muck that is image licensing and so I was hoping you could help me again. I've found a photographer (the author of the http://www.gdaywa.com) that is willing to give me unpublished photos "with no restrictions" (I'm trying to confirm with him that he indeed intends to release these photos from copyright). A fantastic find, since his photos are stunning and would really add to the articles. But most of the image licenses that could be used for such photos (I'm thinking GFDL or creative commons) have language that implies the uploader releases the photo. How would I go about uploading the photos for him if he doesn't want to do it himself and still release the photos? Is there a better license to use? I assume he would like attribution, and one I've used before for my photos is Template:Cc-by-2.5. Any ideas? Appreciate the help :-) Rkitko 08:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)