User talk:Lfdder/old

Asiana 214 - not supported by any ?

Referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214&oldid=564015512&diff=prev For your convenience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVQ-F9mcHrM&feature=youtu.be Why can't you guys be bothered to check your facts, why is it that you keep reverting stuff without checking things first ?

• "The other pilots made no mention of a light, she said."
• "It was a temporary issue"
• "It was also unclear why the pilots didn’t immediately execute a missed approach at that point."
• "She clarified Thursday that the pilot saw the light while about 500 feet in the air and that it might have been sun reflecting off the bay, but that the pilot wasn't sure. Hersman said the pilot described turning his head and then looking back and finding that his vision wasn't impaired because he could still see the plane's controls. She said neither of the pilots mentioned the light during interviews and there is no discussion about it on the cockpit-voice recorder. <<The light source was straight in front of the airplane but not on the runway," Hersman said. "He stated that he did not think the light affected his vision.>>"

PS: You could also just watch all 5 NTSB briefings or read the corresponding transcripts. Really, you're lucky that it's my job to assess your reading comprehension, or comprehension in general.--Parallelized (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

lol. Well, much obliged. Not my job to watch an 1h briefing, but it's your job to cite. Use a named ref and {{rp}} for time in the clip, e.g. , where the ref is to 3 mins 33 seconds into the video. Let me know if you need help. — Lfdder (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm intrigued: Why do you even bother "contributing" to the article if you don't even bother watching the briefings ? Really, what's your motivation here ? Just try to explain it - I simply cannot understand it. Just to provide another perspective: I came here to help with things, because I actually have something to contribute, beyond "reviewing/editing and reverting" stuff. And now the whole experience has been incredibly negative, I have talked to ATPL-holders and they said they won't bother helping on wp, and all of a sudden it's making sense. How do you guys expect wikipedia to provide a certain degree of quality by having such "procedures" in place, where power is determined by seniority, ability to use proper wp markup and admin privileges, rather than knowledge ??--Parallelized (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in the topic, but not interested enough to watch 5h worth of briefings, nor interested enough to race against other editors to update the article. Knowledge is valued, but not more than verifiability when it comes to this sort of thing. How's the reader -- or, well, me -- supposed to know what your source is? And how would they know it's true? If you don't know how to cite, just ask. It's not the end of the world to get an edit reverted. — Lfdder (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We've seen tons of edits reverted during the last couple of days by people who had no clue obviously, only to see them added later on (with proper refs) once the media started catching up with various NTSB reports and other news coverage. So yeah, wp could have been much more ahead than it is now - it's not all about speculation or verifiability. Frankly, I am not too expressed, basically there are folks around here who never bother spending the time to check facts, instead they need things to be spoon-fed to them (and often not even that will suffice...) As you may have noticed (well, or not) we've had a bunch of discussions related to citing NTSB reports, there were even guys reverting officially released NTSB info - and that's just plain pointless. Anyway, it's been a heck of an experience - and as you may have noticed, I didn't just register a week ago... so thanks for the "introductory welcome". --Parallelized (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this confusing?!?

1.One can read at that article similar stuff under e.g. Portuguese.
2.Assuming by your contributions (lingustic stuff, modern Greek phonology etc) that you know your relevant stuff(much much more than I do):
As far as I know classifying Cypriot Greek as a different language is not common outside some scholarly schools. If one were e.g. to follow such a strong mutual intelligibility criterion (without adequate prior exposure to either), one could argue the same thing about all or most Greek dialects (has any scholar of those aforementioned schools listened to old country people of Greece proper speaking like they used to??) or even about e.g. British vs USAmerican English (USAmerican TV-etc providing subtitles when many common Brits are speaking) etc. In other words yes I myself can't understand Cypriot Greeks talking freely and fast to one another in their dialect; but I can't also understand e.g. Pontic Greek and perhaps even more importantly every other country people (usually old-aged) of Greece proper when speaking freely in their own dialect as they used to (the only difference in this being that most dialects of Greece proper have been very strongly assimilated, changed to standard modern Greek retaining only lesser local differences when compared to Cypriot Greek).
3.Anyway I'm not interested in an edit-war on this trivial matter, i.e. this phrase.I'm just asking, wondering,etc what's so confusing about my edit?? Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What's the issue here? That page doesn't claim Cypriot is a separate language. — Lfdder (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

1.I repeat the question: in any case, what's so confusing about my edit?
2.Well when there is a different entry for Greek and Cyrpiot Greek (located far from each other in the matrix) inside a table that shows entries under different languages one could deduce that those two are presented as being different ,separate; the only similar entry is on Low Saxon.
3.I see that you've now changed the table (on Greek variants). Wouldn't it be better to have dialectal and geographical variants under the same language proper?
Anyway, do as you please... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It was confusing because there were two rows marked Greek, but you merged Cypriot into the first and labelled the phrase that was already there std modern. What variety of Greek is the other row in then? There's a different entry for Cypriot because there's a different saying in Cypriot. Possibly, see Portuguese. — Lfdder (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The second entry was about a different saying (same thing also done at the table on oher languages, e.g. German); as standard modern Greek by definition is the default, one can simply deduce this, at least much more easily. On the other hand having a separate Cypriot Greek entry in a table about the phrase in different LANGUAGES was -and still is; read column name- the really confusing one, classifying thus Cypriot Greek as a separate language. The first top entry marking in parentheses standard modern was differentiating it from Cypriot Greek, again marked under the same entry inside paretheses, a non standard dialect.
Anyway, although now as per the existing table format, entries on Greek are a sui generis, being the only ones that read more than the name of the language, let us waste no more time on such an issue...Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

See e.g. here for the agreed-upon format we use for varieties of a language. I didn't feel like refactoring the table to add an extra column so I've used a comma in its place. — Lfdder (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Whole lot of speculation and accusation and general obnoxiousness

Not easy to decide which editor was reponsible for which of these, in your handy summary. I had not realised that I was contributing, in perfectly good faith, to a "rubbish pit". Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You were speculating about the ILS and the OP was links to speculation. — Lfdder (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. I regard the non-operation of the ILS as a fact in the circumstances surrounding this event and thus relevant. But does this mean I am responsible for producing, in your words, a "rubbish pit"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I retract my calling it a 'rubbish pit'. — Lfdder (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's wise, although previous edit summaries are quite difficult to change, aren't they? The heading you have given the collapsed thread is not the most inviting either, is it? I guess you must be hoping that, in this way, the "contamination" will not spread and infect other threads. But I'm not sure how successful that approach will be. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not inviting but true enough. What would be a successful approach? — Lfdder (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure. But avoiding the use of insulting language in the name of “truth” might be a good place to start. Perhaps requests at individual editor’s Talk Pages to adopt a different approach. I wonder do you have any suspicions as to the identity of the anon ip editor, who uses Wierless Vorizon, in San Francisco? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been posts on the article's talk page and on one user's talk page. nope, what's your suspicion? — Lfdder (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I really have no idea. It's just a little annoying to be accused of "trollling" by an editor who might well be a troll themself. But thank you for your understanding approach to my queries. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Might just be a misunderstanding (but still doesn't warrant accusing you of trolling, of course). Pilots are trained in performing visual approaches (i.e. where landing aids are visual). If they needed ILS to perform a visual approach, then the issue would rather be inadequate training (inaptitude) or maybe something about the safety of visual approaches in general I think. — Lfdder (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, who knows (... those particular pilots do, I suppose). One might even say it was lucky that the ILS was down, because that fitted in nicely with the instructor pilot wanting his trainee to do a visual approach. But you won't catch me saying that. As I said at the article Talk Page, we'll have to wait and see if ILS gets any mention at all in the accident report (although many of the things that participants and eye-witnesses say have a habit of getting into articles long before any report gets published, don't they?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)