User talk:Irondome

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

Dolphin-class submarine[edit]

Help for patrolling[edit]

Hi, I'm Jai98. I need help for reviewing the pages I created recently. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Irondome. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poetry#Niggers_in_the_White_House_concerns.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Curtiss planes in 1933 and 2005 King Kong films[edit]

Hi, Irondome. You reverted my edit on King Kong (2005 film), but in fact... you're wrong. The variant used in both films (1933 and 2005) was not a fighter and was not the original Falcon, but one of the derived Helldiver variants, the F8C-5 or O2C-1.

Just check Curtiss Helldiver:

  • Curtiss Helldiver may refer to the following aircraft: F8C Helldiver, reconnaissance and bomber biplane of the 1920s

Or check Curtiss Falcon:

  • U.S. Navy variants were used initially as fighter-bombers with the designation F8C Falcon, then as the first U.S. Marine Corps dive bombers with the name Helldiver
  • The F8C-4 Helldiver variant initially saw service with the Navy, and the first production batch of 25 was transferred in 1931 to the Marine Corps. A total of 34 F8Cs redesignated as O2C-1 observation aircraft were also transferred to the Naval Reserve in 1931, serving with squadrons VN-10RD9, VN-11RD9, and VN-12RD9. Most of the 63 newer F8C-5/O2C-1 Helldivers also served with the Marines, remaining in service until 1936. The type was featured in a number of Hollywood films: Flight (1929), Hell Divers (1932) and King Kong, both the classic 1933 movie and the 2005 remake.

Regards. Kintaro (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Let me show you some links I just found on the internet:
That latter, number 15, is from The Making of King Kong: The Official Guide to the Motion Picture. I don't own the book, but it seems it confirms that the planes were Helldiver fighter-bombers... Cheers... 23:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kintaro. Firstly may I say that I appreciate your approach and tone as a fellow Wikipedian.

Now to the meat :). the 9th Operations Group appears to be the mostly likely candidate as the unit in question. It was based at Mitchel Field NY, making its I.D even more positive. At this point the unit was using the Curtiss O-1B Falcon. This is not the Navy/Marine Helldiver. Furthermore the role of the unit was recce, which at the time also meant persuit duties. At no point does the unit or its role or indeed its location lead to a confusion with the Navy/Marine divebombing role. Even the units nominclature were radically different, and were stationed in Hawaii and Lousiniana (?). I think you are ID'ing the wrong type and formations. Respectfully Irondome (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again... and to the meat again :) Just read again Curtiss Falcon:
  • F8C-5 Helldiver [...] Model 49B with ring cowling; 63 built in 1930–31, later designated O2C-1.
So, this model, the one with the ring cowling, is exactly the one used in the 1933 and 2005 movies... as Peter Jackson, indeed, wanted an exact copy of the plane used in the 1933 version. Just watch again the movies and compare with historical photographs and data.
Plus, following King Kong (1933 film), the reference Making of King Kong: The Story Behind a Film Classic pretends that the take off of the planes was shot in 1932 in a base located in Long Island. I'm a European and never went to the United States... but isn't there, in today's Long Island, an airport or airfield?
Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed Kintaro, its called Mitchel Field which is in fact on Long Island. Please notice the very first photo in the Curtiss Falcon article shows an A3 later converted to the curtiss O-1B Falcon. It has precisely the same ring cowling as in both films, down to what appears to be twin Lewis guns So citing from the article sub-variants seems to be fruitless. I would suggest you are mixing up nominclatures of what are in fact almost indistinguishable sub-types. A major point would also appear to be the branch of service. These appear army aircraft. Only the Marine/Naval aviation branch designated the Falcon the Helldiver. Indeed the tradition persisted to the Helldiver of Midway fame. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok then for the airfield... but, of course, the Helldivers I was talking about were not the Curtiss SBC Helldiver or the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver (later models, here we talk about the planes used in the 1933 and 2005 Kong films). About the first photograph... what about the straight engine? was it originally a radial engine [ring-cowling equipped], later removed before the photograph was taken? Kintaro (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the main point is that the Helldiver designation was uniquely a Naval/Marine aviation acquistion. The Falcon was army air sercice designation. Also please notice, in both films, esp the excellent 2005 version, there are alsolotely no desernable Navy markings on the aircraft. I believe that NAVY was quite distinctly part of airframe insignia. There is no evidence, based on the historically verifiable formation closest to New York in 1933 (9th Operations Group), its branch, (Army) and the markings of airframes in the 33 or 05 versions, that these were Helldivers. I would strongly argue these are in fact representative of the Falcons in reality based at Mitchel field, a relatively short flying distance from NYC. They were persuit/armed recce tasked aircraft. It would make perfect sense to use them, and not Marine/Naval divebombers that happened to be based in Hawaai at the time. Kong would have died of old age by the time they would have got there :) Cheers for a good discussion! Irondome (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a beautiful design, Hawker Demon which is a slightly later but similar concept. They were all heavy fighters. sort of biplane MRCAs really. Divebombing was the PGM it used. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the beer, fella ! it was pretty cool and nice. Jesus Christ turned the water into wine and could maybe even have turned the wine into beer... but I was not informed that during the 1920s and 1930s he'd turned the US Army aircraft into US Navy planes... hahahahahaha! No, seriously, they are definitely US Navy planes :) Look at their yellow wing tops, here, on these two free clips, here and here. And now, please, check this link: At that time Navy Aircraft were overall silver-doped fabric, with chrome yellow wing tops on the upper wing and aft horizontal stabilizer. While the chrome yellow was not officially ordered until May of 1925, it had been an unoffical standard that had been adopted starting in 1920 as an aid to locating aircraft that had made fored landings in water. Concerning the Hawker: a beautiful design, indeed... British!! ;) I salute you! Kintaro (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello again Irondome. Look at these links, please, they are from the Internet Movie Plane Database. They contain photograms from both films, the 1933 version and the 2005 version. Following that latter, it seems the squadron, at least the one depicted in the 2005 film, was the VF-1B "Tophatters"... which used them [the "top hat" insignia] from 1930 to 1932. On that period, here, the VF-1B squadron is described as a "fighting squadron", but with two-seat planes it's more realistic to describe it as an "attack squadron" (in an air-ground attack use more than air-air attack use). I don't understand why the planes in the 1933 film have straight upper and lower wings, and why on the contrary those in the Jackson's 2005 version have swept wings in the upper (which is the exact shape of the historical Falcons and Helldivers, just check it, for example, here, here and here. In addition, in the 1933 film, the real planes, flown and shot for the film, are unequal-span biplanes, but the model battled by Kong (in the close special effects shots) is a pure biplane, with a lower wing sizing the same length as the upper wing. The more I watch the live action 1933 real planes, the more I think they could be Boeing fighters converted into two-seat attack planes. The vertical stabilizer also looks different if looking at one version or another, 1933 or 2005. Kintaro (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting information. I do not see how they chose the top hatters as a unit, most odd. They were no based within flying distance of NYC. Very odd. They do appear to be the Falcon "fighting" type though, not the Helldiver. None the less, NAVY is quite clearly marked on the 2005 aircraft insignia. So I accept they represent navy persuit planes. Interesting that the unit does not record what type was used in 1933, the year of the supposed events. I agree the 33 version used Boeings. I have come across that several years before and fully accept it. This has raised more questions than answers! I hope you enjoyed the beer. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I definitely enjoyed the beer, thank you again. About the planes used in the 1933 film, in my opinion they could be anyway Curtiss planes (seems to be just a matter of the upper wing modification...). We should continue our investigations on that point... don't you think so? But back to the 2005 King Kong... I'm pretty sure now that the planes are Curtiss F8C-5/O2C Helldivers (or F8C-4, but most likely F8C-5), and so... my edit... should be restored :) (come on, dude, look at the Commons images: here, here and here. All those planes are definitely exactly the same model as the one used in Peter Jackson's King Kong). Nope? Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The only practical issue is that the Falcon article has all the Helldiver info :). I am persuaded that they are NAVY, and that they are F8C-5 variants. Leave it to me..Irondome (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. See what you think. This whole conversation has been a pleasure. Stress-free, good humoured and very informative. I salute you User:Kintaro, a true Wikipedian. Cheers my friend! Irondome (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Irondome, for restoring my edit, and especially for your kindness. I personally continued my investigations concerning the planes used in the 1933 film. In the 2005 film all the planes used by Peter Jackson (full-scale mockups, models or CGI) were, now we do agree each other, Curtiss F8C Helldivers... but in the 1933 film two different types of planes were used, and depending on the shot you can distinguish one... or another. In the fictional story depicted by the 1933 film, Kong is supposed to battle four identical planes of the same type (downing one), but during the shooting and during the special effects creation process, it now seems obvious to me that the filmmakers used two different types of plane: the Curtiss F8C Helldiver (the only one chosen by Jackson in 2005) and the Stearman C3B (or maybe C3R). A scale model of the Curtiss Helldiver was scratch-built for the special effects sequences and several live-action scenes were shot with real-flying Stearman C3s and Curtiss F8C Helldivers. The Helldiver scale model had an insignia in the waste of its fuselage, a flying winged horse, certainly from the VP-11 squadron. I'm almost definitely convinced of all these claims and if I take the needed time I can bring links, explanations and facts on plane anatomy, clearly visible in photograms and sequences straight out of the film... Well... Salute! Kintaro (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Stearmans used in the 1932 shooting could have been Stearman Cloudboys instead of Stearman C3Bs or C3Rs (and in that case they could have been furnished by both the US Navy or the US Army). Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kintaro! I am going to see my girlfriend for a couple of days, but will log on on her laptop and comment further on the 33 version and its curious mix of types. I agree with your I.D of types but I will watch the original 1933 version DVD over weekend. She has it in her collection. The ideal woman :) Cheers my friend! Irondome (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The first time I watched the classical King Kong I was 6 years old (it was around 1981, on TV, in France). I was dazzled. That was more than 30 years ago and since then I have watched the film more than 10 times, maybe more than 15 times. Every time I watched the full entire movie for the movie itself, I didn't notice there were different types of plane depending on the shot. The shots are fluent enough, the types are similar and the spectator is unconsciously convinced that all the sequences are made with the same type of plane. It was only today that I noticed, watching again and again, and stopping the image in every sequence, that there were indeed two different types of plane in the film. Just one more thing: on this link you can see an original surviving miniature of a Helldiver from the team of special effects makers. Amazing piece of history. Cheers, and salute the ideal woman, she is the ideal woman indeed if she owns a DVD of the original King Kong. Kintaro (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

About Adminship review[edit]

Hi Irondome, I have seen you at Anna's talk page asking for your contribution reviews. But as far I know Anna, she generally doesn't review contributions for RfA candidates. In this case I can refer you to Mr. Stradivarius, another admin and an expert in contrib review. I'm sure he can help you. Cheers, Jim Carter (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what makes you think that I generally do not review contributions for RfA candidates? Many such requests are via email. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry Anna Frodesiak I didn't know that... O.o Jim Carter (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Irondome, I'm sorry for what I did yesterday. But trust me I did that assuming good faith. And I'm really sorry, I was so much panicked initially that I forgot to give you a ping. I know you are hurt; Your comments this monster originally began with a straightforward exchange between myself and User:Anna Frodesiak about the idea she had floated and asking her opinion on maybe an admin run in the next 12 months+. I didnt even get a bloody ping. at WT:MMS said that you are hurt. But trust me I was just trying to help. I don't have any bad intention. I believe, you will understand and forgive me. Many thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Jim do not worry. It is sometimes hard to translate nuances intonations etc on the web. I should have added a ;) maybe. I was being only semi-serious. of course I knew, thats how I was following it. Do not be concerned Jim. You are only trying to help. just a gentle mention though. tone down your impulsive tendencies a bit. Always think for a good 10 mins on ramifications of any contemplated actions. Things sometimes get amplified on WP. DO NOT WORRY MY FRIEND. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Ooo... Thank you for the encouraging message. BTW will you mind if I ask your real name; since calling you "Iron" or "dome" isn't something I like.  :\ Jim Carter (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

RfA review and the chat-up line thing[edit]

It's probably best to post here about these. RfA review: yes, I'd be happy to, but will need a bit of time. Chat-up line thing: Maybe a good plan to avoid commenting on social networking/possibly trollish posts like that. He has a bit of a history..

All the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the willingness to continue the analysis Anna. On the other point, Glad you got rid of it. So many "eds" with pasts, I must be careful to discriminate. Cheers :) Irondome (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
1: Happy and willing, and will get back to you as soon as I can on that. 2: No worries. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

Antwerp X[edit]

How can this be fixed? Something should be said about the SCR-584/M-9 technology about proximity fuze technology, which were important inventions in anti-aircraft technology. DonPMitchell (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

the whole section may have to be lengthened. There is lots of dubious fat stuff in that article. we could make room for a critical section dealing with the first anti-missile defences. PF technology, late war radars and even that there was a variant of a Vickers Wellington (which was arguably the first multi-engined AWACS) to pick up VI cruise missiles coming over the North sea launched via bomber. Fighters would be vectored if feasable. But they gave warning shortly sfter launch. Also that British defence radar networks were capable of detecting V2 re-entries and roughly vectoring their impact area, but there was no time to issue alerts due to the 30 second to 1 minute maximum radar telemetry they could only get. It is a hugely rich field. I would say expand and prune other stuff with consensus. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous user seems to be messing with this section of the article, but I don't know what his issues are. DonPMitchell (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WWII updated casualties #[edit]

Hello Irondome, I noticed that the issue of ethnic Polish casualties was discussed earlier on the WWII talk page... my apologies for forgetting to insert the reference source. At this point, I went ahead and added the reference published by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance, this figure is also inline with those on World War II casualties of Poland, this way we avoid the issue of contradictory statements on WP pages. --Factor01 (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Factor01! Cheers Irondome (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]


Could you please rate this newly made article? I appreciate it. Khazar (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I will do my best AK. I am with my friend at the moment logged in to her pc. Will be home later today. I am still coming to terms with the great and senseless outrage of yesterday. Kind regards Irondome (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixing ref links on Rachel Corrie[edit]

Hey Irondome, so I attempted to clean up the biased article on Rachel Corrie but I think I broke some references in the process. Can you help with that? I don't want it to get reverted. I think my edits were very fair. --monochrome_monitor 21:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MM. I have used my rollback tool to revert all your edits. Do NOT take it the wrong way. I think each edit (there were 10) should be examinined on a case by case basis at talk. This intensive editing may provoke a a minor messy edit war for a couple of days. We have enough going on as volunteers! I suggest you make one or two edits at a time and take them to talk. Let us adopt a gradualist approach. The links issue will be resolved in the process. Cheers :) Irondome (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edits w/t telling me? Every single one. I even fixed the references. I spent like an hour on them, addressing the criticism on the page. Why not tell me first? --monochrome_monitor 22:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I had no idea you were dealing with them. I thought you had given up on fixing them tonight. I assumed we would talk first, based on my rollback.Irondome (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Added to my watchlist. Irondome (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The rollback tools can be used only to revert vandalism.If you use it for something else its disruptive.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
AGF, Shrike, AGF. Read the context before you jump in. Irondome (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I read the context the use of this tool is only for vandalism.Or did you use it by mistake?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Not only for vandalism, Shrike. Quote *To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page[1]. I believed the edits were entirely in GF but see above for my rationale. I have repeatidly made it plain to MM that I have no issue with his edits, it was merely that I thought it would cause an outbreak of edit warring. I made a judgement call. It may have been right or wrong. I explained my reasoning thoroughly above and on talk, as required by the above section in the rollback essay. Irondome (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Something got you down?

I prescribe kittens!

For maximum effectiveness, apply one kitten per kilogram.

(External use only)

--monochrome_monitor 16:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks mm :) Irondome (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure! Should I answer his last comment or just leave it? Something about my argument being invalid because there's no difference between denial and revisionism because holocaust deniers call themselves revisionists. That's just so ridiculous I don't even know how to approach it. Is there a wiki rule against insulting other editors? Probably. Does anyone even read those rules? --monochrome_monitor 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I stopped reading when I got to the bizarre "Scottish" reference. Just gave up. Drivel. I would just ignore it. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

IAF trainers[edit]

Hi Irondome, the trainers deal no longer belongs to 'Future' section. Now it is in 'Current' section. Flayer (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Duhhhh. Trout at will! Irondome (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 12 gauge. 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) 08:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

  1. ^ See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Rollback.