User talk:T96 grh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Saab 37 Viggen

Please check this article. There appears to be a large "textdrop" of material from a magazine that can't be verified. Can you help? Bzuk 14:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC).

The STOL-like performance of the Viggen is an aspect of its design that is unusual. I think since there is some contention that it was not a "true" STOL, it may become a topic that has to be resolved first on the discussion page. On the other hand, if you or other editors have some reliable and authoritative reference sources then it is a suitable topic to be introduced into the article, with an edit note that a further discussion is found on the talk page. FWIW Bzuk 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC). BTW, I just looked at the discussion that you and another editor have engaged in on this topic. I think your discussion shows the best of Wikipedia- a collaborative effort by two individuals who have interacted with knowledgeable yet courteous exchanges. I commend the both of you! IHMO Bzuk 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC).
Hi. Just on the same matter. As an intial point I wish to ask a preliminary question: Do NATO definitions apply to Swedish aeronautics, at least as a theorical reference ? In fact, following the NATO definitions, STOL airplanes have a 450 m limit in their performance and the Viggen had never reached that data. I think the most appropriate word should be "almost STOL", but there is the need to understand NATO theory applicability. I thank you for your opinion. --EH101 11:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah, i do not seen the recent stuff about Saab 37 JAS XL ER and so on. I merely pasted the stuff about the recent career of mighty Viggens and nothing else. And i don't see where you wrote this quite long and highly interesting history.

Then, excuse me, but i have a sea of problems with guys that roll-backs my edits because my bad english. For a time that i found an english free article and post it, do you see, i thinked to have done something outside any critics. Instead you called copyviol and it was not the case, and then after one month SAAB XLDEROF-37 was no integrated in the text. So i acted. If you wanna rewrite it OK, but i don't find much worth to compress Goebel writing, so many are the details and so much we -aviation fans- are greedys of tecnical details.--Stefanomencarelli 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well i would talk to you the truth about this. I liked a lot the mighty cold-war fighter Viggen (reading avidly all available for years, i am not born after 1990 like much part of kids here), but this is no longer a cold war scenario.

I engaged Bzuk and Bill to ARBCOM after some other issues see at F-86 article. I posted there some datas just to complete the specifications, thinking i did OK for a time, but and since Bzuk not knew datas about F-86F-40 he argued that even this tiny additions should be 'questioned' (=deleted). I really have enough of these manners, look at the performance comparations by source i made there. Just tell me where in wiki.en (ok except Viggen page) there is so much debate about just some raw datas extrapolated by one magazine and confirmed by Joe Baugher'US aircraft ency, available in internet (a bit outdate, but who cares? This is a '50s aircraft and Joe is a real gentleman to make so much stuff available, is almost good as Carl Gustav Hakasson, your fellow biplane-fan) and another site. Not enough for them. I doubt that even Citizendium have such debatement. Perhaps i have too rough manners but still, i find these discussions literally amusing, and negative for my more and more thinner motivations to take part in wiki. One user has even deleted these datas with a dead link saying 'must to be compared with this..' LOL. But it's so, and i am really pissed off.

I have no will to continue with this situation. I posted 30kb about Aeritalia G.91, i still wait someone that 'prune the errors' in the talk page, but nobody of the censors is really interested to do it, despite i respect the pact to not post huge amount of stuff in the main page (well atleast since some days). I prewiev not good days, so regards in the case of ARBCOM will trounched me. You was a good fellow.--Stefanomencarelli 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because my mind is progressively sickened to read continous discussions, pointless ones, like this that take away entire days. As example you wrote:

but should also have an English-language reference. Either a webpage, or preferably a printed book

I do not have a book, but as you know i found two different websites, one is a good aviation site and Joe Baugher ency is one of the most cited and appreciated in the web. What hell i must find more than this, talking of a ancient jet aircraft? It should be more than enough. No, it doesn't. So i am getting more and more frustrated by this manners. Even if i agree to your suggestion, this kind of things is so selective (but i repeat, when someone else comes and uses a not-existent link nobody cares..) that i call them a personal issue, nothing really good for wiki. If i have no right to post 700 bites of stuff without been whipped by roll-backs, believe me, it's not a fair tale. It's a bad thing and my humour suffers in accourding. TNX for the interest, however.--Stefanomencarelli 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All aircrafts have many versions with many differences. It's not a problem to state this, and Joe Baugher has written a page with this F-86 version properly to talk about her. Perhaps is the only one that is available on whole internet despite the importance of this sub-version.

I don't say that there is no way to discuss, i say that Bzuk objections are not congruents. In fact he says just that my sources and Web sites are 'unreliable', but what's the point to no post at all these specifications? Wikipedia is not the mind of God. We have not the grant to do only 'right' things. But still, there is the need to do something. If the datas are 'debated' i wuold expect that other 'version' are called for. Instead, it appears that is better to delete all because someone has dubted about them. Now, i can understand if we talk about GW bush omosexualiy, but hell, we talk about the wing surface and speed of 60 years old jet-aircraft. That' a question of 'common sense'. What's the damage for wiki if someone posts let's say questionable datas (+ or less 10 kmh..) about F-86? It's not like Irak , JFK or Global warming. If this will became a principle question i rate Wikipedians a bit overlooking what they are doing. In other words, it's a fanatism issue. To me i don't care at all to F-86 specs and to me this jet could go to the Hell. But seeing this talebanism working in this issue ('if you cannot proof over any doubt this not post it') taken word-to word it's crazy, not rational action. The truth to me seems that simply someone thinks that i am not able to contribute in US aircrafts, that i 'pullute' with my data sources, but this is becaming ridicolous when a 'holy monster' like Joe is called 'unreliable'. Hell, there are zillions POV, false, spamming, trolling statements in wiki.en and all the point is to check F-86 datas? Just to understand. It's only apparent 'rational' and 'correct', in truth i rate that this is just a personal point against me.--Stefanomencarelli 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now i undestand what you meant about to look at Viggen. BillCJ has once again roll-backed the Goebel stuff. It's vandalism. Now, for the x-time all the stuff about the last 20 years Viggen service are not couvered. Monsieurs here thinks that only US aircrafts deserves much KBs. I'll reverted BillCJ and i am ready to denounce him in problematic users if he will continue with this. If you want to act instead of me, are totally free to do it. But this farce must ends.--Stefanomencarelli 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cockpit

Thank you for your comments T96. I have actually observed that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where article material is meant to be added from other published sources, but frequently is not. I guess I have as much access to "specific published material" about cockpit design of fighters as anyone else with Google, so I'll see what I can find out. I had assumed that you guys were more expert.

I shall indeed refrain from rearranging an already existing article and I shall not ask other people to follow my "advice" about adding material. I think "protective" is putting it rather mildy. About ten times more effort seems to be expended on arguing on the Talk page than is put into adding new material. But I guess it's good to aim for concensus. It's a good job that nobody "owns" any Wiki pages isn't it.

Thanks again for the advice/ warning. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saab 9000/Fiat Croma/Lancia Thema/Alfa 164

Hi, I dont have any deeper knowledge of this, Its quite hard to find any info about this project.--— Typ932T | C  21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-86 Sabre specifications

As you and I surmised, when the information from a verifiable and authoritative source was located, it varied appreciably from other sources which in many cases, such as internet articles, had been inaccurate. I consider the Baugher references to be very valuable as they are a compilation of various sources but in some instances, the original material may be suspect. Check out the specifications table for the F-86F-40-NA in the F-86 Sabre article and it now corresponds to the published charts from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics (S.A.C.) charts prepared by the U.S. Air Force and North American Aviation NA54-389 (revised 1 May 1957) provided in Wagner's landmark work, The North American Sabre (1963). Now even with these figures, it appears that the most capable F-86 variant is the (tadah!) Canadair Sabre Mk 6 with a maximum speed of 710 mph at sea level. You know I couldn't resist making a statement about our Canadian technology superiority! FWIW Bzuk 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)