User talk:Xmnemonic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikipedia - hideous tables!

god they really need to style up the tables. they look like real shit at the moment. mnemonic 07:05, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Agreed. I've worked a bit on reformatting the aviation tables into cleaner non-tables; there's a sample at XP-55_Ascender#Related_Content. Give that a look and see what you think. -eric 04:52, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

nice. i made a feature suggestion of more aesthetic tables, maybe you could add to the discussion. James C. 07:03, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

[edit] There's No "I" in Team.

"Yo mother fucker" - to quote you - do you really need to be so fucking rude? If it's a medical condition, I apologise for any distress caused, if it's just you, do consider being a little more civilized? Thanks! Heenan73 08:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ah, I apologize. the remark was meant to be facetious though; i'm really not one to use such expressions seriously. mnemonic 13:51, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

No worries, and Best wishes Heenan73 15:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the feedback

Unfortunately, we are in the minority and it doesn't seem like many other people think this system is flawed and only shows the opinions of a select few used to doign things a certain way.

But, I'm totally with you on this issue. --Exigentsky

[edit] Eng Physics

The EP page looks superlative. I'm actually surprised someone got around to fixing it. Good work. ^_^ -SocratesJedi 20:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Embry-Riddle

Yep, I'm an ERAU grad just this past May, Computer Science and Software Engineering. Farsidehobbes 23:09, 29 JULY 2004

[edit] Stetson

I don't know about all the girls, but more than at ERAU, at least. So is *that* why you transferred? :-) Mindspillage 22:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yes, among other reasons. :) ✈ James C. 01:22, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

[edit] Yr VfD Nomination

Please inspect carefully, just below, what you added to the file, comparing it to the (admittedly but necessarily) confusing instructions at Template:VfDFooter, and become wise:

====[[Sir George Cayley's coachman]] -- [[/Sir George Cayley's coachman|Add to this discussion]]====

absurdly minor character to an important, however not stunningly famous figure in the history of flight. or perhaps we should create pages for the assistants of all other scientists? [[User:Xmnemonic|✈ James C.]] 02:45, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

What you added renders thusly:

[edit] Sir George Cayley's coachman -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

Delete: Ok, so there's this guy, see, and we don't know his name, but we're going to write an article about him. Merge and redirect to the inventor's article. Geogre 03:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 08:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, the first man to perform a recorded successful flight in a heavier than air machine, so not absurdly minor, but not enough info for an article either - merge and redirect.

The above vote was by User:Average Earthman

Keep. First airplane pilot. Should be linked from Sir George Cayley and other places though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Sir George Cayley and include this small paragraph there. It will never grow to an article. If not, Delete.- Tεx τ urε 19:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - IMHO the fact that we don't know his name isn't enough reason to delete. "Cayley's coachman" returns 734 hits on Google when wikipedia mirrors are filtered out. Where's the harm in allowing this to stand as a short article? --Rlandmann 04:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. If the article is correct that "nothing more is known about him" then the article is never going to grow. There is plenty of room for this paragraph in the article on Sir George Cayley. What is the point of having it be an article of its own? This individual is notable and known only in relation to Cayley. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect.. Reasons as above. The first human being to create fire, the first human being to shave, the inventor of the first sailboat, and so forth are surely more notable. But we don't know their names either, hence no article on them. Jallan 16:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Being the first heavier-than-air flier is notable. But it's impossible for the article to grow beyond that fact. Shimmin 17:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion absurdly minor character to an important, however not stunningly famous figure in the history of flight. or perhaps we should create pages for the assistants of all other scientists? ✈ James C. 02:45, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

[edit] The Gadget Maker

Thanks for starting the article, thereby giving me an excuse to add to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] AIM-9 Sidewinder

AIM-9 Sidewinder needs some help. Just a ping. Look at the discussion page. Follow up in email or on my discussion page. Let me know what you'd like to do.

[edit] umich.edu

ITCS doesn't provide PHP/SQL for the basic account. But I do believe you'll be able to have that capability if you ask and pay them. As for my site, I don't use PHP/SQL because I'm too cheap to pay for such thing. __earth 05:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

That says it all. I don't have as much time as I used to (SO keeps me busy) but I was able to put in a significant amount of time for a while. Right now I mainly stick to editing the Boeing 787 article.

[edit] Dragostea Din Tei

Thanks for trying to clean up the article. I moved the image back to where it was originally, though, because there isn't space in the music videos section to put it there without it looking a mess. Also, I don't know what happened with the duplicated stuff, but thanks for fixing it anyway. Hedley 00:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3D CG

I think we need to do away with the "tutorial"-like sections. The stuff I wrote (starting from the 3D modeling subsection) is more along the lines of the tone the article needs to be, I think. – flamurai (t) 15:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Encyclopedias are not "how-to" guides, though Wikibooks is (and more). ✈ James C. 16:54, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

also I should add that I'd really really like to contribute to that article, but some real life obligations demand much of my time. I may drop in every once in a while though. ✈ James C.

It's a large article. I'm trying to keep what I write down to the bare minimum, but make sure I hit all the major concepts. – flamurai (t) 17:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specifications survey

Hi Xmenmonic - it's finally underway. Your input appreciated. --Rlandmann 00:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] specifications templates

I've been working on the parameter-driven templates in list format, and as I know you're a supporter of tables, I think we should try and collaborate on whatever the survey's final result is. My issues with the infobox - which I feel to be more than valid - are mostly with the page layout problems it creates. If we could work up a bottom-of-the-page layout, table or list, that's template-driven and more powerful than what we've got now, that would fix most of the issues and address the page layout concerns.

The only problem is, most of the infobox votes aren't because it's a table - it's because it's at the top of the page, and blue, and 'pretty' (yep). So... any ideas? I'd personally rather not wind up bailing on specifications altogether, which is what I might do if we regress to the existing infobox. Cheers. ;) -eric ✈ 00:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I actually scanned in some Jane's information a while ago when we were first debating the switch - and it actually looked much like the inline format. It's not even aligned as a table. The latest editions might have changed, but I kind of doubt it. Anyway, between you, me, and Ingoolemo we can probably get some kind of proposal going. -eric ✈ 17:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] more shitty tables. help?!

Recently another hideous infobox has been added to:

I've not had any luck reasoning with User:Dbinder, who seems to be the main worker on this new one-man parallel airliners wikiproject. An anonymous user reverted my deletion of the box on 787, claiming it was "vandalism", and User:Denniss placed it back on 767 after moving the images, something that I feel an infobox has no right to do. If the infobox is there at all, it needs to be unobtrusive, not bright green; it needs to not hamper editing; and it needs to not interfere with existing page flow. Anyway - any help you can lend, either with his box or in reasoning with him, would be more than fantastic. Take care. -eric ✈ 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that ericg has taken it upon himself to attack me for creating this infobox. He removed it from the pages I added it to and told me that the WikiProject said not to use infoboxes. I didn't try to add it again, but apparently he was angry that I didn't reply to his comments. When an anonymous user restored the box and called him a vandal, he came after me instead of taking it up with that user. Since he is going around telling everyone that I am ruining aircraft pages, I feel the need to set things straight. Thanks. Dbinder 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ericg replied and it's been more-or-less resolved. Dbinder 17:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yikes, edit conflict. Hi. James, maybe you can slickify the airline infobox's table instead. :D -eric ✈ 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry but I'm taking a little break from Wikipedia. Death to ugly tables. keep up the good fight! :) -- james

P.S. I'll be editing anonymously every once in a while, but at no where near my previous frequency

[edit] re:anonymity

you will be missed! -eric ✈ 16:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petals Around the Rose

Yes, it appears that we both believe the solution aught to be reintroduced to the original article. You also have my thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that the debate over the solution has resurfaced; the two articles have been so quiet these last months I doubt I would have noticed for quite a while. Thought 20:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: a democracy is one form of republic

Your original message on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qrc#a_democracy_is_one_form_of_republic

There is an important distinction between form of government and type of government. A type of government is more broad, while a form is more specific. The United States is not a democracy, because that implies that our form of government is democracy. The United States is, however, a republic, because minorities have rights that protect them. In a democracy as a form of government, the people in majority rule, which is essentially a tyranny of the majority. In a republic, an innocent man may not lawfully be executed. However, in a democracy, he can be lawfully executed if the majority decides to, as what happened to the philosopher in ancient Greece. People in politics often use the word 'democracy' to describe what is in fact a 'republic,' as George Bush does and Palpatine in Star Wars.

So really, the reverse of what you said is more correct: a republic is a type of democracy, but one should never think that we are a democracy, as if that's our form of government, because then the majority simply becomes a dictator. The Constitution of the United States and of the Galactic Republic in Star Wars protects the rights of minorities, for they are republics.

The Founding Fathers of the United States made absolutely sure that they founded a republic and not a democracy. They didn't want the tyranny of the majority of a democracy, but wanted to create something more righteous. That is why it is a misconception that the Republic in Star Wars is a democracy -- if it was, Palpatine's ascent to pwoer would be perfectly lawful; but it was not, as he was not allowed the powers that he usurped, as per the laws defined in the Constitution of the Galactic Republic.

I hope this clears up the issue. For more in-depth information on the distinction between democracy and republic, please see this page. --qrc 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video on youtube

Do you have the account with the same name on youtube? I ask because I saw this... If it is, why haven't you submitted it to Wikipedia? If you'd like to submit it, I'd be glad to transcode for you. --Gmaxwell 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/m/n/User_talk%7EXmnemonic_8573.html"