User talk:Ariadacapo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Ariadacapo, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Wizard191. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Diagrams[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo! Nearly four years ago I placed a banner on Horseshoe vortex asking for a diagram to be added to improve the article - see my diff. You have now done that, and they are very high quality diagrams!! Many thanks. Please keep up your very good work.

I know very little about preparing diagrams suitable for Wikipedia, but I would like to learn. Could you let me know what software (or process) you used to produce the diagrams for Horseshoe vortex? (I will watch your Talk page for a while, so you can answer here.) Best regards, Dolphin (t) 03:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dolphin51, your congratulations mean a lot to me, my day is made ;-) To be frank I don’t think I’ll reach this level with any other diagram again, the combination of "needed" and "useful" was rather unique there.
I draw these diagrams with Inkscape. I know that proprietary programs exist for these tasks but Inkscape is free software, built and shared with love right in the spirit of Wikipedia. Inkscape is easy to learn, in that it is well-suited to point-and-click discovery, and that its status bar (at the bottom) continually provides helpful information as you click around. Its biggest limitation is that it is limited to 2D drawings – if we wanted to represent the above drawings from a different perspective we would have to start all over again. I have not looked into 3D-modelling software yet.


In this case I imported a photo (File:Les Monts d'Eraines falaise 84.jpg) into Inkscape and simply drew over it to get the glider drawing, File:Glaser-Dirks_DG-500_glider_drawing.svg. Finding a photo with both a suitable aircraft and suitable point of view is hard, but less hard than drawing from scratch!
Then I drew all three illustrations within one file, which you can download at http://files.ariadacapo.net/tmp/wikimedia/lifting_line_scope.svg. The two indispensable concepts for such a drawing are groups and clones. For example, there is only one blue arrow defined in the drawing, and all other ones (clones) will match it if you make it green.
These concepts can be taken progressively to more advanced levels: you can make groups of clones, clones of groups etc. Here I used a special tool called "tiled clones" (hidden in the menus) to position the blue arrows relative to one another in an increasingly tighter way, in order to mimic the effect of perspective. The impression of perspective is hard to convey and I just go "by hand" with trial and error, just like I would with paper and a pencil. There are no tools (fancy screens or a tablet) involved, just a mouse with a good mouse mat ;-)
All in all, this drawing is probably worth 20 to 30 hours of work once you know what you are doing. The hardest part, and also the most interesting, resides in deciding what not to show – how to simplify to make legible. Unlike text we cannot expand indefinitely. On this particular case I wanted to show arrows pointing downwards instead of upwards, to show the downwash which is intrinsically related to the vortices, but adding that extra concept would have made the drawing less accessible. Also, how do we represent vortex strength (number, thickness, diameter, opacity of rotating arrows?), where should the lift arrows on the fuselage start? Many compromises.
Overall, in order to learn, just get a bunch of interesting SVG files and poke around with them in Inkscape. I found it rather easy to learn.
I am glad the drawings fit well. The particular phrasing on Horseshoe vortex cleared up the concept in my mind about a year ago, it is a great article. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your detailed answer. I appreciate it!
Today you made an edit to Lifting-line theory. You added a new sentence which included the words and by [[ published by Ludwig Prandtl in 1918-1919 ... The isolated pair of square brackets suggests you left a word or two out.
Regards. Dolphin (t) 10:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on the new diagrams you created and added to Lifting-line theory. They are brilliant and illustrate a difficult concept perfectly! Dolphin (t) 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yay! Thank you for your encouragements. I still need to learn how to make images fit more comfortably within articles, but that’ll sort itself out with time. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Lifting-line theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Mass flow sensor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laminar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Marking edits as 'minor'[edit]

Hi, Please could I remind you that checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable; also that edits on talk pages should not be marked as minor - see WP:MINOR. Edits such as these: [1]; [2]; [3] should not be marked as minor. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Springnuts, thank you for the reminder. I have indeed used this checkbox without giving any thought. I will be more careful from here on. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Combustion chamber[edit]

Thanks, that's a lot better. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Woo \o/ The last thing I expected from this edit was a thank you note =) I’ll try to add sources next week when I’m near my books again. Ariadacapo (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding[edit]

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyes@wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Ariadacapo; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stabilizer (aircraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

You have managed to restore the Stabilizer_(aircraft) article to roughly where it was in May 2012. Due to the tactics of a perverse editor I had given up. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stabilizer_(aircraft)&oldid=492920642 --Stodieck (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for the congratulations. I am not interested, however, in such comparisons, nor in finger-pointing. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I retract my congratulations. You should just restore the May 2012 version. Or refer readers to the Nasa K-12 site "Horizontal stabilizer - elevator", The Beginner's Guide to Aeronautics.
Re:"Restore section on trim and stability. Existing references must not be used to justify terms such as "always point into the wind" and "hold the nose level": The text results from having tried to edit the fractured text in the article rather than discarding the whole mess. This article is statement about the failure of the wikipedia.

Centre of lift[edit]

Hi, following our recent edits to Three surface aircraft I have started a discussion at Talk:Three_surface_aircraft#Centre_of_lift. Hoping we can reach a consensus on how to handle the technicalities. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reducing wing area[edit]

Hi,

I am unhappy about your recent series of edits to Three surface aircraft, for several reasons, and would like to undo them. I have explained why at Talk:Three_surface_aircraft#Bunch_of_unsatisfacory_edits.3F, so I am hoping you can reply there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Three surface aircraft[edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For your unfailing politeness, patience and good faith during a trying and uncomfortable edit/discussion marathon — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No copyright infringement whatsoever[edit]

Hi Ariadacapo,

I am a friend of Victor Krylov, and I am the copyright owner of all uploaded images. There is no copyright violations whatsoever. Also, I do not see any bias in the article, and there is no conflict of interest. In my opinion, the article is neutral and well balanced. If you find that any particular sentences deviate from neutrality, it would be nice if you could let me know. I would do my best to improve them. In any case, I welcome your suggestion for the users to make their contributions to improve the quality of the article. Kind regards, Eep07 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ISCC edit revert[edit]

I opened the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Combined_cycle#Integrated_solar_combined_cycle_.28ISCC.29 about your revert and my revert. Greetings. --Robertiki (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thrust reversal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce Tay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the change of Pipistrel Virus aircraft article[edit]

Dear Sir,

I am contacting you regarding the edit of the Pipistrel Virus page. As you know, I have deleted the paragraph quoting the review of Mr. Bertorelli. I would like you to know that the paragraph quoted is in the interest of a person who harbors very negative feelings towards the company Pipistrel. In the past it has been used several times to post slander and negative information (for which the user has no other proof but his own personal opinion) in several location/media with the purpose to discredit the good name of our company. I ask you to read the entire article: http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_LSACrash_207337-1.html You will notice that Mr. Bertorelli has in fact chosen the Pipistrel Virus aircraft as the "LSA of the year".

I kindly ask you to keep the aforementioned paragraph off the Pipistrel Virus page, unless it can be proven with objective crast-test results, not just a letter quoting an opinion posted in a blog. The actual tests for the aircraft: Pipistrel Virus (such as for example 45° Nose-down Drop test to the ground for the Spanish certification - video exists in the archive of Pipistrel company and can be viewed on demand) have shown no higher risk of head injury because of the wing spar compared to other similar aircraft; in fact, they showed that the roll-cage with the wing spar offers higher protection against protrusions of outside objects such as trees. If you, however, insist of keeping the paragraph on the page, I politely request that you include the clarification by the Pipistrel engineer Tine Tomazic also, for the sake of objectivity. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Taja Boscarol Public Relations Manager taja@pipistrel.si PIPISTREL d.o.o. Ajdovscina Goriska cesta 50 a SI-5270 Ajdovscina www.pipistrel.si — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymmo (talkcontribs) 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wingtip vortices[edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you for the thanks! It was a fiddly edit as I have rarely used the {{cite conference}} template. You might want to check, if it's in your area of expertise, my edit here to Horseshoe vortex. Just want to make sure I haven't changed the meaning. --220 of Borg 08:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it’s great in my eyes! In this particular topic, "trailing wingtip vortices" is more accurate than "trailing vortices". Thank you! Ariadacapo (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)