User talk:Red Sunset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Red Sunset, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Guinnog 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Thankyou Guinnog. Haven't got my head round it all yet but am working on it!

Is it true, all towns have a war-memorial? --Red Sunset 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All towns have a town hall, a population of 1000 to 5000, its own administration, they usually have a church. I am not sure about war-memorials. See the WP village page. Snowman 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire 346 transmission

The note you added was in a paragraph specific to the Limousine version. Did you mean this? There already was a reference to the manual gearbox in the preceding paragraph. I am not sure what options there were for the transmission on the Limousine, the only reference I can lay my hands on at present only refers to a preselector. I am not saying you are not correct, basically I don't know. Malcolma 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your note and having looked again I see what you said. As I mentioned I did not realise that the Limousine could have a manual box. Thanks for the clarification. Malcolma 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastriggs

I'm not fully certain at present. Eastriggs and Gretna appear to have similar histories.

The wikipedia article states that Gretna was created by the Ministry of Munitions but the one for Eastriggs only mentioned expansion, so I modified it by inserting Township.

The part-histories I have seen of H.M. Factory, Gretna, state that two complete new Townships were created for the factory. They are named as Gretna and Eastriggs. The chosen site for the factory, approximately 9 miles by 1 mile, in 1915, before the factory was designed, was described as partly agricultural, partly waste marshy land and half a dozen farm houses representing all existing buildings. [Ministry of Munitions of War, 1918] Note: on the modern OS Explorer Map 323, that represents the ‘’Depot’’ at Eastriggs, the MoD sites at Smalmstown and Mossband and most of the land south of the B721/Gretna, between Eastriggs depot and the West Coast main line

The two Townships were sold off in the 1920s by the ministry complete with bakeries and laundries. Stratton and Trinder give the date of the sale as July 1924. They use the term two new settlements at Eastriggs and Gretna, which is a bit more vague.

The creation of the factory and its sale, including the two townships, was mentioned on last week’s OU’s Coast shown on BBC2; Mark Horton was shown walking around Eastriggs with the 1924 Sale Catalogue. Whom ever did the wikipedia article on Gretna (I only copyedited it and dabbed some links) seems to have been aware of the OU’s Coast programme.

The wikipedia article on Eastriggs on the church mentions a consecration date which ties in with the construction of the factory and a Royal visit in 1917, which I linked to the Royal visit to the factory in 1917.

I don’t have definite information on Eastriggs prior to WW I, the place to look would be the New Statistical Account for Scotland (published between 1834 and 1845) or the Third Statistical Account for Scotland (published 1944 onwards) which should be in the local county library. The first edition of the Ordnance Survey of Scotland has been reprinted, so that may help as well. At present I don’t have access to any of these sources.

By all means change the article if you are sure that I am wrong, likewise I will change it at a future date if I find out that I was wrong. I will do more research but it will be after ChristmasPyrotec 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the comprehensive reply Pyrotec.--Red Sunset 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formula 1/Formula One

No worries! Thanks for your contributions. 4u1e

[edit] Wikiproject Automobiles Notification

Hi Red Sunset, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|Red Sunset]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk | Contribs 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
I hereby award the Minor Barnstar to Red Sunset for adept copy editing. Snowman 15:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Many thanks Snowman, and much appreciated.Red Sunset 16:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-17

Thanks for your help, I'll keep an eye on the article to keep it from devolving. On to the next one. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastriggs.

Hi Red Sunset,

I've reverted your last edit. The spelling on the Reference I quoted is Lowtherton. The 1863 OS map is available from [1] if you wish to check for yourself. Pyrotec 14:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem Pyrotec, I've ammended accordingly.--Red Sunset 14:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avro Arrow

Hi Mr. Sunset, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fellows this is silly stuff.

Maury, Bill, my Fellow CDNS, Relax.

Fellows,its spring. count the disputes you are in( I'm at one) & rack  up for free play.

Look, the date of jet service entry is not that important. All WW2 records are incomplete, esp. in Germany.

(Citation, Reg's Dad- , fluent in German & English, Cdn army sargent, Occ. forces, 1945!) Please note that over 80% of these "We will take action, Michael" edits come from my fellow Canadians. Given our tiny worldwide overall membership, this is SCARRRY.

Fellows,its spring. Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\


[edit] posted with a mediator: Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument in view of:

a. Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany , summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable. The reasons: 1. Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted. German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences to render them complicit. In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documetation ,is 'produced' that he was flying the Me262 on a certain date, for example.

I refer you to Robert Jacksons' Nuremburg summaries. Not only were the Nazis masters at altering fact, some records were altered to protect the truly innocent.

Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ?


Red,I posted this at "Gloster Meteor", as BZUK wants to have Michael Shrimpton 'executed on line':-')

Bill, can we just close some of these disputes without jurisprudence? Regards

Opuscalgary 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


What the.....where on Earth did that all come from? And why has it landed here? I can only guess that Opuscalgary is responding to Bzuk's request placed with myself and other editors for an independant unbiased opinion of the disputes that have arisen regarding the Avro Arrow article. Fair enough, there are two sides at least to every arguement, but I will not be involved in a war between editors and neither will I be swayed one way or the other. I will comment purely on the good/bad aspects of the article if and when I feel that what I have to say is worthwhile, constructive, and fair, and not before. And please Opus, don't ask me to relax and take a chill pill, I'm simply putting the record straight.Red Sunset 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks Red.

The battles at Gloster Meteor, & Avro Arrow, the canvassing for support, etc, are over concerns so minor.

Do the administrators reccomend my solution - I abstain for four months,then if an NPOV editor isn't found,I will "truth" the false sections of the article?

The 'Black Friday' legend comes from a bitter ,discredited source. After all, we don't quote the National enquirer's" Canadian spy Plane found onthe Moon', even though it is verifiable, published- & came with a photo of the Arrow in the Tyco crater.

Also, Mr Shrimpton's logic has rigor, yet the Gloster debate has become a February pissing match. Please Bring peace to the Empire, American mediator! Regards Reg

Opuscalgary 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, sorry,I meantScots Mediator!

Now They are bears in a blood-red mackinaw with hungry dogs at bay, And springtime thunder in their sudden roar, With one wrong word they burns, and the table's overturned, When they finish there's a dead man on the floor.!

With apologies to Stan Rogers Opuscalgary 02:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very poetic Opus, you do have an uncommon way with words which can be quite entertaining at times! Your willingness to refrain from editing the CF-105 article for four months is a worthy gesture of good-will and should allow some cooling of the situation, however, the mention of returning to "truth" the "false" sections should thay still not allign with what you believe to be the truth can only fan the flames yet again. As for the other troubled articles, it seems to me that the problems boil down to each editor claiming that "their reference sources are better than other editor's" and therefore the closest to the truth. A magic wand would come in handy here, and once waved would demonstrate to all concerned where the real (and verifiable) truth lies in each case, but unfortunately I don't have one! All that can be done is to re-word the offending sections in a way that includes both views together with an indication that there is some doubt as to the veracity of the reference sources. (Perhaps the Scottish verdict of "not proven" can be applied here!) The Avro Arrow article presents the greatest problem in that the issues are political, where the truth often gets lost in the processes of government and as a result difficult to identify and thus debatable. I believe in this instance that the arguments cannot be won, and ought to be deliberated fully on a dedicated page where the various viewpoints can be aired together with no emphasis in any way, again with a veracity caveat, leaving just the outline of events on the CF-105 page. I'm sorry that none of this really resolves any of the issues once and for all Opus, but in the absence of consensus, it's simply a case of having to accommodate every opinion and remain encyclopedic.--Red Sunset 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I'm English actually, but having lived in Scotland for over 20 years I don't mind being regarded as a Scot.

|Thanks |Red by the end of Juy we will be at five months, assuming I need at least thre weeks to rewrite the sections properly.

Unlike the United Kingdom, where politicians will go to the grave in silence, rather than imply an opponent was in error, politics in Canada is a 'blood sport.' The Arrow Legend was cooked up, leaked memos And all, by a HIGHLY paid public relations firm. Since Pearkes was considered a "risk to touch" he was protrayed as the innocent dupe of the evil Prime Minister.

Welcome to Canada..... Opuscalgary 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems Opus, and there was me thinking what a nice place Canada is, and a great place to spend my later years! At the risk of being shadowed by a couple of furtive characters in a van with blacked-out windows, I would say that UK politics is not as squeaky clean as it may seem, however, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's anything like as bad as you portray the Canadian government to be.(Did you know that B Liar is an anagram of Blair? Nuff said.)
That's a highly charged statement that you've made, and whether you are correct or not in your convictions, it will be difficult to incorporate them into the Arrow article without stirring up a hornets nest unless you are very careful and also manage to put the alternative argument forward with equal emphasis. Rewriting the sections "properly" gives me concern, and I still maintain that this all belongs on another linked page, because at the end of the day there are two subjects in which there is never only one single true viewpoint and all else is wrong, and they are religion and politics! No-one can win this one, merely agree to disagree. I really do hope that this can be brought to a conclusion that everyone is happy with. Regards--Red Sunset 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry Red!

Instead of cooked up,I should have said, carefully embelllished for partisan reasons. The "black Friday " part was a carefull amagram of truth & err, 'unique truth'.

In reality, the Conservative government HAD EXTENDED THE EQUIVELENT OF 1.6 billion dollars ( 2007 terms) in government funding after production of the Arrow was halted, in an attempt to make the design economically feasible,& to allow AVRO to develop other projects.AVRO was not a a well run corporation.

The 'real conspiracy' consisted of a team of American skilled workers & engineers, who produced the Voodoo at 35% of the Arrow's cost, yet made a profit doing so..

Pearkes, in three years, introduced project managment into a chaotic defense department,provided the Canadian forces with two sets of supersonic aircraft under favorable terms, and actually REDUCED the defense budget. Arthur Haileys' novel, "in High Places", was really unfair to him- the guy was in control. Defense was the best run part of the Diefenbaker government.

I'll be gentle! Opuscalgary 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Response copied from Opus' talk page:

Well Opus, thanks for outlining your beliefs, and especially your last comment! I admire your tenacity and strength of conviction and can see where you're coming from, but I must remind you that I remain neutral in all of this.
When my attention was first brought to the CF-105 page, part way through reading the political section I lost track of the fact that it was an article about an aircraft! That should never have happened and doesn't make for a satisfying read. Undoubtedly, the reasons for the project being cancelled summarily are important, but there is far too much detail and weight attached to this section in relation to the rest of the article. I'm sure I don't need to reiterate my views on the path that should be taken, and wish you and all involved the best of luck in creating a mutually acceptable dedicated article on the subject. I don't feel that I would be capable of doing it justice myself, but look forward to seeing the end results.
Regards--Red Sunset 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A workman was employed to put up a shelf – to make sure that it was level he used the floor as a reference and measured up from there, but everything slid off the shelf because the floor wasn't really level.
A second workman was asked to do the job, and he used the ceiling as his reference, but everything slid off the opposite end as that wasn't level either.
A third workman used a spirit-level, and everything was fine!

Hi Red,

In Aviation, a French spirit level consists of drinking half a bottle of Cognac, then placing the bottle on the panel, so you can fly level under blind conditions....


cheers! Opuscalgary 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That might work with levelling the shelf – well at least it might appear to be level, but HEY, who cares having consumed half a bottle of Cognac! Do "blind conditions" mean blind drunk? (Lol) Regards --Red Sunset 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan Tags

I am trying to gather a consensus on whether Orphan tags are necessary on wikipedia.

Please go to the page Template talk:Orphan and fill in you opinion under the heading Please give you opinion on the Orphan tag below area of the page. Thanks Dreamweaverjack 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/d/User_talk%7ERed_Sunset_8206.html"