User talk:Ingoolemo/Archive 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Archive

• Archive 1: 2004, from May 23 to Dec 31
• Archive 2: 2005, from Jan 01 to Jun 23
• Archive 3: 2005, from Jun 23 to Sep 05
• Archive 4: 2005, from Sep 05 to Dec 01
• Archive 5: 2005, from Dec 01 to Feb 10
• Archive 6: 2006, from Feb 10 to Apr 14
• Archive 7: 2006, from Apr 14 to Jul 09
• Archive 8: 2006, from Jul 09 to Nov 15
• Current: current discussion

[edit] I want to learn from your constructive criticism

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hi Ingoolemo: First of all, thank you for voting on the arbitration elections, even if your vote was against me. Believe it or not, I like it when people call me naive or what was the other thing you said.

The reason is that, I like the constructive criticism. I think you can help me out by letting me know which areas you think I can improve and then I can work on those areas. As much as I have written here (3 years and counting now trust me and it never gets old!) I always look to improve because after all, we are an internet spectre (everyone sees us, so we need to be the best writers we can be), and because of that, any suggestion you may have for my writing style to be improved will be greatly appreciated.

Anyways, thanks for everything, and God bless you! I hope we can become wiki-friends!

Sincerely yours, Antonio McCartney's Lover Martin

I guess that the issue is not that you aren't qualified, but that we have differences in opinions about the issues. Thus, I can't merely recommend, 'you could do X better.' Rather, I'll have to present my own values and vision for Wikipedia to you, and attempt to persuade you to accept them. Whether or not you choose to embrace my philosophy is your choice, of course. I hardly expect you to abandon your beliefs in order to gain votes. In short: though we respect each other, we don't agree with each other.

As per your request, I will eventually post some soundsnacks of my opinions for you to mull over. Unfortunately, as you may have noted from my Candidate Questions page, I'm not always timely about getting around to such things. But I promise that I'll post more some time in the next few weeks. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hi and cheers for commenting on the FAC F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - I've taken note of your comments and applied them --PopUpPirate 08:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed your changes and I'm satisfied with them. I've changed my vote to support on the FAC, and will work on polishing the article a bit over the next few days. Congratulations on your effort, and I wish you good luck. Postscript: what was wrong with the specs template? I'll probably be able to fix the problem if you let me know what it is. Generally, we try to put all specifications in the template to ensure standard formatting. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support! The problem with the template was that even though when editing it said :

area main=459.6 ft² area alt=42.7 m²

it gave the figures for span. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F-35_Joint_Strike_Fighter&oldid=38979397

Thx again --PopUpPirate 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CDVF online: a proposal

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I often edit Wikipedia from computers other than my home computer, and from there I can't access the Vandal Fighter—not that I do so often anyway, but that's another story. Is there any way that the Vandal Fighter could be made available on a website so that I wouldn't have to download the Java Executor every time I try to use it? I don't think it'll work, but I thought I should suggest it. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 19:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

[edit] Aircontent

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hullo, you left me a blank message on my userpage. By the way, I don't see anything in WP:Air/content indicating that those headings should include colons; it's also against heading convention. Thanks for your work on these issues. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 06:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad. From the way the page is written I got the impression the colons should be there but they might just be for clarification and not as suggested format. Thanks for your help cleaning up this mess! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As noted at WT:Air, I've updated the templates from PB4Y Privateer to the end. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 07:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! I've started at the top and down to DC-10 so far. Thanks again for your help! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aero-table

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Regarding the migration from tables and hand-written specs to the specs template:

• I've been back and forth on this a hundred times but I think (at least until I change my mind again!) that template-generated specs are a Good Thing for the sake of consistency and ease of tweaking the layout later on. So, I'm interested in helping you migrate all of the aircraft articles to a unified format.
• I can write and run an AWB task using regex to turn the table into a specs template or inline specs (it's just a bunch of find-and-replaces and it's only semi-automatic as it would still have to be cleaned up a little and moved to the appropriate location by hand but it beats copy-pasting 50 parameters across what may be a very lengthy article).
• Aside from the vulnerability issue and template-within-template that was brought up with airtemp a while back (IMHO the template can be protected, as is done with things like qif), any technical reason why we should not use a template to generate specs? I'm thinking of server loads, page loading times, and so on.
• I know mediawiki is able to do simple arithmetic but that particular function is not implemented in Wikipedia. Do you know where I could petition for that? It would be of huge benefit to do imperial-metric conversions and power/weight calculations on the fly within the template (it would also make the template code much simpler).
• Thanks for all your help! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the AWB. Before you get started, I've designed a qif for armament, so that we can specify {{{guns}}}, {{{rockets}}}, {{{missiles}}}, {{{bombs}}}, and {{{other}}}. The code can be seen at Template talk:Airtemp. You may wish to review this proposal before beginning your work.

With regards to server load and other issues, this is an enlightening factoid: if we didn't use qif, we'd require 1024 times as many templates as we do now (for Stall speed, Vne, Vc, useful load, loaded weight, fixed/rotary wing, capacity field, armament field, and jet/prop/both/neither); even if we exclude some rarely used fields such as Vne, we would still require 128 separate templates.

I don't think the alleged vulnerability is such an issue at all. The only templates used in {{Airtemp}} are qif, and that's already protected. In my opinion, Airtemp is hardly so high-use that it needs to be protected.

Technical discussion can occur at the technical section of the village pump, or at Wikimedia's Bugzilla.

Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Got it. I'm not so sure about subdividing the weapons category because the info available for many aicraft is "1,000 lb of payload which can consist of any combination of bombs, missiles, rockets, and small furry creatures." Having to parcel it into the separate categories may be creating too much work. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, most Attack planes and bombers can be reduced to the basic categories. Exceptions to the scheme used should be relatively rare—they will mainly be seen among fighters—but can be taken care of relatively easily. Perhaps if we rename {{{other}}} to {{{notes}}}? That way, if an aircraft carries armament that doesn't fit into the normal category we can do something like

|missiles=2× [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]]
|notes=Occasionally armed with 70,000 [[gerbil]]s

Which would yield

Armament

• Missiles: 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
• Notes: Occasionally armed with 70,000 gerbils

Note that using the qif statement I did, if there are no other parametres present, the * '''Notes:''' {{{notes}}} will be reduced to * {{{notes}}}. So, if your hypothetical statement is the only one that we can make about the plane's armament, then we just type

|notes=1,000 lb of payload which can consist of any combination of bombs, missiles, rockets, and small furry creatures.

Which yields

Armament

• 1,000 lb of payload which can consist of any combination of bombs, missiles, rockets, and small furry creatures.

One final question, however: what is the difference between a missile and a rocket? Are missiles a special kind of rocket? Ingoolemo ^talk 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried it will create confusion. By convention, rockets are unguided, missiles are guided. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guns/missiles/bombs/etc.

I'm still not quite sure about it, I think the output could be rather ambiguous.

Imagine, for B-52 for example:

Guns: 1x20 mm in the back Bombs: 70,000 lb including Mk.82, Mk.83, etc. Missiles: 6x Hound Dog cruise missiles

It makes it look like that's in addition to the 70,000 lb of bombs.

A better way would be:

Payload: 70,000 lbs including a combination of - Bombs: Mk.82, Mk.83, etc. - Missiles: Hound Dog

Or something of that sort. It's a big boolean test to perform in a template that will be used by thousands of pages too.

My request for enabling the <calc> extension to do on-the-fly math was nixed rather rudely. :\ - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As noted above a potential solution is

|guns=1× 20 mm in the back
|bombs=generally loaded with Mk.82 and Mk.83
|missiles=up to six Hound Dog cruise missiles
|notes=The B-52's payload does not generally exceed 70,000 lb.

This would yield

Armament

• Guns: 1× 20 mm in the back
• Missiles: up to six Hound Dog cruise missiles
• Bombs: generally loaded with Mk.82 and Mk.83
• Notes: The B-52's payload does not generally exceed 70,000 lb.

Ingoolemo ^talk 07:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

* The majority of military aircraft are capable of carrying a variety of weapon types (missiles, bombs, rockets, etc.). It's fine to split them into categories so long as it is clear they are constrained by a single maximum payload. Something like this:

Armament

• Guns: 1× 20 mm in the back
• Payload: Up to 20,000 lbs including
  • Missiles: up to six Hound Dog cruise missiles
  • Bombs: generally loaded with Mk.82 and Mk.83

- Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I withdraw my proposal. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: infoboxes

I never actually redid any infoboxes, as a result of my personal dislike of the concept itself. The display of data that is not tabular in a table is non-semantic use of the <table> element, not to mention the fact that they utterly fuck up display at resolutions less than 1024x768. But then again, you knew that already.

The university disclaimer is more of a convenient excuse than anything – I'm really just fed up with the constant retreading of issues in the WP:Air, the overall low quality of wikipedia content, and the bizarre crusades of some administrators and template nazis. :( ericg ✈ 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Userbox(es)

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hey. I've had the ideas for some new personal userboxes. I'm forgetting all but one for the time being, but tell me what you think:

This user is glad to not be a war buddy of John Kerry.

Useless Fodder 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I recommend just adding it to your userpage by just using the {{userbox}} code rather than by making a template. In your case, you have so many userboxes that you can get away with having just about any on your page, but converting the box to template form may cause objections. Good luck. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would someone care about me using a template? Useless Fodder 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of controversial right now, but feel free to do whatever you think's appropriate. But see User:Ingoolemo/Essays#On_userboxes. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 02:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a controversial topic, but I made that userbox as a form of comedy. I'm not trying to "factionalize" my userpage. I made this along the lines of the "Han shot first" userbox I have. It's just funny. Useless Fodder 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Revolution article page.

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I have been doing a lot of very constructive editing for mechanics and style (in Wikignome fashion) and would like access to this page for this purpose. Can you provide me with access? Lottamiata 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Looks like I have access. Thanks for protecting my work. Lottamiata 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection only prevents editing by users whose accounts are less than four days old. It's a very useful tool to make sure that pages like George W. Bush stay clean. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tweaks to airtemp / airtemp-switch

Just an FYI, I've added a qif test to the template that checks for a single engine. If it's true (number of props=1) then it hides the "each" at the end of the line. This winds up producing:

• Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN-1 "Wasp Junior", 450 hp (336 kW)
  • rather than
• Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN-1 "Wasp Junior", 450 hp (336 kW) each

It's more grammatically correct and it makes more sense. Plus we're using so goddamn many qif tags that one more won't push the WP:AUM crowd over the top. ericg ✈ 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to bother you about AWB

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Is there any way that I can set up AWB to substitute templates in the current version? Ingoolemo ^talk 21:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, use the find and replace. Martin 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I've also tried this with an XML file another user provided me, and that didn't work either—when I hit the 'start' button, all the buttions but 'stop' went grey. Am I doing something wrong? Ingoolemo ^talk 22:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that is what it is meant to do, while it loads up the page. Martin 22:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Even after the page is through loading, I never actually get a working button. Instead, the article just reloads every 10 seconds. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also left this message for Emt147, because he's been using the same settings successfully. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Weird. AWB 2.0.7.0 with User:Emt147/AWBsettings settings file works perfectly fine for me. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is re-loading then the page is not loading correctly for some reason, such as the servers were down or something. Martin 11:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{aero-table}}

Forgive me for asking, but what the devil is the point? It takes about as much time to track down articles not using the template and enter this tag as it does to fire up AWB and use emt's find/replace filters to convert. ericg ✈ 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's mainly useful for me, because I can't seem to get my AWB functionning correctly. Sometime when I'm bored and have nothing to do, I track down those articles and update them. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingo10k image

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

It's a screenshot of Kate's tool, which is presumably covered under {{wikipedia-screenshot}}. I had searched carefully for this template before, but I couldn't find it when I uploaded the image. However, the fact that I took the image from Kate's Tool should have made it clear that the image could be included in Wikipedia. Please read image description pages more carefully in the future; it was very cool to discover that I had exactly 10,000 edits and I'll never be able to reproduce that image again without forging it. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Interiot's tool is in the public domain, which presumably makes Kate's tool as well. Again, I searched for the proper tag but couldn't find it. However, the fact that I used Kate's tool should have indicated that the image was not completely copyrighted. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the image was because it was listed here, as an orphaned fair use image that had not had its copyright status updated or been used in an article for 7 days after the tag was put on it. The other day, I went through a little over 1300 of those, and I didn't stop and look at any of the images as I was deleting them. They were all on the page, they all got the delete. I'm sorry for deleting your image, but like I said just now, I just plain didn't see the image. Sorry! :( Mo0[talk] 14:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, I can't tell you how many times I've been in the same situation as you are. Besides, I was able to find it in my Recycle Bin. Thanks for all your work to keep Wikipedia free of copyvios. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airfoil

I stuck it in but never got around to writing the code in the template to display it. I have the NACA airfoil and other profiles for a great many aircraft and it's an interesting bit of information to include (for early NACA series, you can actually plug them into a Java applet and see the cross-section of the wing, and for all NACA profiles you can interpret the numbers to get some idea of the wing properties as explained on the wikipage). I was planning to go through and include it in the articles but got sidetracked by the AWB migration dealie. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engine spec templates

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I could use a break from AWB. Let's coordinate our efforts on engine specs templates so we are not duplicating the work. I think separate piston and jet (including turbojets, turbofans, turboprops, and turboshafts) templates would work best. There will be a lot of optional parameters. IMHO the mandatories are:

For props

• Type:
• Length:
• Diameter:
• Dry weight:
• Displacement:
• Bore:
• Stroke:
• Power output:
• Compression ratio:
• Power-to-weight ratio:

For jets

• Type:
• Length:
• Diameter:
• Dry weight:
• Compressor:
• Turbine:
• Overall pressure ratio:
• Thrust:
• Thrust-to-weight ratio:

For consistency, certain parameters can be hardcoded, although there are few enough engines and the specs are so badly inconsistent that I anticipate converting them all by hand anyway. For the sake of space, I would prefer to not bother with the option of imperial-metric switching and use the plain ol' main (alt) format. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't done any work on the engine templates, I'll write them in the next day or two. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I started writing at Template:Proptemp. The jets will go into Template:Jettemp. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

M'kay, the templates are written and working as intended (I think :)). They are Template:Pistonspecs and Template:Jetspecs. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As things stand now, the smaller number of engine articles make it less likely that some newbie will come along and screw up the order of units. Consider this, however: It is entirely possible that an infobox- or table-based format will be restored at some time in the future (the specifications poll several months ago indicated significant support for a table-based format). If we do switch back to such a format, it will probably be one along the lines of <tr><td>'''Length'''</td><td>70 ft 1 in</td><td>21.4 m</td></tr>. With the two units in separate cells, the scheme you're currently using won't work; however, {{{stat main}}} ({{{stat alt}}}) works for both table-based specs and inline specs.

However, this is just something to consider. I'm in no way opposed to the current template, and it's entirely possible that the smaller number of engine articles will make changes to the template much easier than with the aircraft articles. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, conversion to the table would be relatively straightforward -- you just have to move the specs to the top of the article. A bit time consuming but straightforward nonetheless. I don't think the table would work well for engine articles however -- most are quite short so having a long table on the side would look silly. Again, it would be quite easy to convert the existing specs to main/alt format if need be in the future -- AWB-assisted edits are rapid as long as there is a standard layout to apply the find/replace filters to (e.g. in the current template migration, a well-written page without weird specifications or layout takes only about 90 seconds). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was just something to consider. As I noted at WT:Air, the templates should work perfectly. (Thankfully, we've had a lot of practice with {{airtemp}}.) Ingoolemo ^talk 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various aircraft templates (TfD)

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Hi, I just wanted to mention that when I closed the deletion discussion of the aircraft templates here I noticed that Template:Czech military aircraft by decade2 had not been properly orphaned yet. At this point, it's still being used in Category:Czech and Czechoslovakian military trainer aircraft 1990-1999 and Category:Czech and Czechoslovakian attack aircraft 1990-1999. Since you have more experience with aircraft templates, you might know what to do in those cases. Once the template is orphaned, it can be deleted without further discussion. Let me know if you need help. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Luckily I edited the old templates to be based on meta versions of the new templates, which allowed for very rapid depopulation. As you can see, I've taken the liberty of depopulating Czech military aircraft by decade2. Once again, thanks for your help. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page move request

When you get the chance, PB4Y Privateer could use a move to PB4Y-2 Privateer, which is currently a redirect. There never actually was a straight PB4Y model, and the article doesn't discuss the -1 (which is in B-24 Liberator). Thanks :) ericg ✈ 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save the Game!

Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

[edit] Template:Salem

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

Can you center my template Template:Salem for me? —This unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) .

What do you mean by centring? Judging from both the source code and the appearance of the template, it's centred everywhere it should be (both in terms of the template and the text headings). Perhaps your browser isn't rendering it correctly, so it doesn't appear centred to you? Ingoolemo ^talk 23:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I made it 100% so it fits across the bottom of the screen, I wanted it at 50% and centered on the page, but it looks ok, now. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer the 50% format, though I have no qualms about the current one. Whatever you feel comfortable with. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:George W. Bush

Although you may feel the discussion doesn't help the article (and I agree) I was under the impression removal of comments from talk pages was vandalism. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original power?

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "original power" in the specs. I like "more performance" and "more general" -- it should make it easier to format the new specs. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'original' won't be used very often, one reason why I chose to just use a piped parametre rather than a {{qif}} statement. It is used when the original measurement of engine power was made in some other unit than hp/kW/lbf/kN, which is mainly Russian jets and rockets (originally measured in kgf), and German piston engines (originally measured in PS). To insert it, specify

|power original=<ref>Originally measured as 7,500 [[kilogram-force|kgf]].</ref>

Ingoolemo ^talk 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll write better instructions for Airtemp. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple of small tweaks to the template to make the code a bit easier to read and to eliminate an extra space (it was making J79 turbojet , 10,000 lbf, the upretty part of the code is needed to avoid that extra space in front of the comma). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite.php shouldn't be used in this template for what I hope are pretty clear reasons. It's not going to make sense (or be possible to have separate sections) if you've got actual citations in the article. Please use the old style ref/note system. ericg ✈ 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB access

Hello Ingoolemo,

You recently added your name to the AWBCheckPage discussion page requesting access to use the AutoWikiBrowser. However, you've actually always had access: all sysops do. Your name is on the list under admins. Regards —Encephalon 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC) PS. Incidentally, as a sysop, you can edit the protected Checkpage to add non-sysops who wish to use the AWB; feel free to do so. Martin's only requirement is that a user have at least 500 edits (intended as a screen for basic familiarity with WP processes), and no evidence of malicious intent/bad faith edits. —Encephalon 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2