Jump to content

User talk:Born2flie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M100 (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 7 April 2008 (→FRAHM damper / FRAHM dampener: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Helicopter - arbitration

That's nice, you continue to attempt to garner consensus outside of the editors on the article in question. There's three of us involved but only two of us discussing (i.e. not you). You simply run to mediation, RfC, and arbitration as substitutes for discussion on the article's Talk page. Again:

What you've done is solicit for others to help you build consensus in favor of your preference. You have no historical evidence that helik (or elik) is the word d'Amecourt used. I have a source claiming what word was used. You are using your understanding of Greek language (WP:OR) to inject a different word, and sourcing it with a lexicon or dictionary after the fact. I have the author of an additional source, conferring with an actual Greek speaker who apparently does not squabble over the possibility of the word in question's existence, but has instead offered a plausible explanation for why that word was used. And, I have a third, printed source that uses the same word as the other two sources. All I lack is access to the primary source to determine the word actually used. But, I continue to establish my argument by my sources and you continually try to edit the article contrary to that information to inject your personal understanding of what you believe should be in the article. The consensus actually exists to leave the disputed information out of the article until it can be factually established one way or the other. Yet you continually go against that consensus as evidenced by your repetitive editing of your information into the article.

— Born2flie 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

--Born2flie 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Born2. This is an awfully minor issue. Even tho I do agree with Apple on the validity of our view, Born2's sources are as valid, if not more so, than the etymologies in the dictionaries which give the root words. I really doubt an ARBCOM will take this up, but we'll see. - BillCJ 09:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helico- sources

re. your thoughts here: Yes, according to [1] it was coined in a 1861 patent application submitted in England.

Le terme d'hélicoptère fut d'ailleurs déposé, en France, par Ponton d'Amécourt le 16 Juillet 1862 dans le certificat d'addition au Brevet n°49.077, mais il est à noter que le 3 août 1861, il avait déposé en Angleterre une demande de brevet qui contient ces mots : My aerostatical apparatus which I intend denominating aeronef or helicoptere, alors qu'aucune machine de ce type n'avait encore décollé).

I'm not sure what you're still searching for now, exactly. A direct quote from Amécourt explaining how he arrived at his coinage? Would be interesting, but I doubt such exists. Reason is simple: He wouldn't have needed such an explanation, because it was obvious to all his contemporaries. The composition of that word is self-evidently transparent to everybody familiar with Greek and the conventions of neoclassical compounding in 19th-century academic discourse. Just as the composition of your username "Born2flie" is self-evidently transparent to everybody who knows English and the conventions of 21st-century internet speak. A lexicographer wouldn't need extra explanation to understand that "2" stands for "to", just as they don't need extra explanation to understand that hélico- is the Gallicised form of the compound-building stem form of helix. It's really just a simple fact of grammar. That's what the lexicographers recognise when they list it in the dictionaries with that etymology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't read everything, do you? If you did, you would understand what I'm looking for and why. Since I've already explained it, I find myself not inclined to explain it all over again, especially since you seem able to find where I've talked about this topic. A lexicographer wouldn't be concerned with why I chose to form a certain username a certain way, either. Consequently, I don't seek out lexicographers for accurate historical sources, since the lessons in history are found as much in the "why" as they are the "what". --Born2flie 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autogyros as STOLs?

Born, do you have any info that might help to clear up the issue at Talk:STOL#Autogyro? - BillCJ 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted something that might take the fuse out of the conversation. Ahunt and Cheesy Mike are two good contributors. I hope they can work this one out. I'm pretty sure they both mean well. --Born2flie 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I helped, but it seems to have died down a bit. ---- Born2flie (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History in the sandbox

Hi Born2flie. I am working in my sandbox trying to improve AH-64 history with a short preliminary competitors summary. I am very interested in your opinion on it, as I think AAFSS and AAH are attack helicopters milestones. I got you are doing something similar on Cheyenne in your sandbox. Do you think something common could be done? As I am not a native speaker, I will not dare to drop big passages into mainspace without an opinion and I think your suggestions will be useful. --EH101 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request on Jeff (Fnlayson's) talk page. I will take a look and see what you have and make comments on the talk page there. --Born2flie (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I promptly copyed your better version in my draft proposal. Do you think it is ready now for being added to main article AH-64 Apache or do you have more topics or errors you suggest me to improve ? --EH101 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the rest, I had only looked at the AAFSS section, since that was related to what I was currently working on in my sandbox. --Born2flie (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

still no email

Hi Born...nothing has shown up in my inbox, I regret to say. Can you resend? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It said it sent, I will check my preferences and then try to resend. --Born2flie (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you don't have your email activated...I tried to send you this note that way...so that may be a problem, as well. IIRC, this happened to me a while back, before I activated mine. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again from my room. But preferences have been set. --Born2flie (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 533

Sandbox article is ready for review to insert into the mainspace article. --Born2flie (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My further comments on the Bell 533 sandbox project are on the talk page. BTW, good work on the article; I enjoyed reading it which is a good sign for any writing. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Bill, thanks for the comments, I will look at adapting those references to MLA, just for you! :) --Born2flie (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna Skymaster Article

Dear Born2:

Thanks for your assistance on this matter. Regrettably, a combination of factors (workload suddenly went up, two reference sources have disappeared) will prevent me from helping on this matter beyond this message to you. I am hoping, however, that you or one of the other editors will take the information below and correct/augment the current article.

All of my revisions were for the Design section. My qualifications to make these revisions (e.g., Master's from Caltech, 10-year Skymaster owner) are in my note at User talk:BillCJ.

My first sentence is at the heart of the Skymaster design, indeed at the heart of why the Skymaster was built. It ties the centerline thrust to its docile one-engine-out behavior in flight and compares it to a conventional twin. This clear concept is vague or missing from the current article. The closest to it is in the first three sentences, but it actually yields an erroneous conclusion: that, as a consequence, there is no tendency to depart the runway if an engine fails on the takeoff roll. Because the two engines counter-rotate, failure of one and the P-factor of a single propeller will indeed cause a torque with a tendency to depart the runway (less acute than a conventional twin, but still there). It is in flight, and especially on the take-off climb, that this is important -- and missing from the current article.

My second sentence (that instruments are more critical in determining the failed engine) can be deleted, because I can't find a suitable reference and because it's not terribly important.

The remaining sentences in this first paragraph are comparable, and the current ones are satisfactory.

The second paragraph in my revision is the re-introduction of two subjects that had been there before and somehow got deleted. I think that these two subjects (that Skymaster accident statistics are comparable to other twins, and that fuel management has been the source of many accidents despite an unremarkable fuel system) are important. Although I am a believer in the Skymaster concept, and these negative views were not written by me, they are valid and should be aired. The accident statistics data is a in lengthy analysis at www.337skymaster.org/messages/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=1. It was done several years ago, but I can't come up with the reference (i.e., the message number) because the "Search" function of the Message Board is currently not functioning. The second point (many accidents due to fuel management despite an unremarkable fuel system) was a key element in a flight review at www.fliteguide.co.za/Imperial_Aviation/Full_aircraft_reports/FR_cessna_337pg1.htm and concluded that "fuel system requires familiarity". Regrettably, the article has disappeared from the Internet, but it led me to write a comprehensive article on Skymaster fuel management at www.consultresearch.com/337fuel.htm.

The penultimate paragraph on both my revision and the current article are comparable, but the opening phrase in my revision is more accurate and therefore is preferred. The needed citation is "U.S. FAA Airworthiness Directive 77-8-5".

I hope the foregoing information helps and that one of you has the time to look at this and correct/improve the article.

Ernie Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emartin1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born,

I want to provide a free tool that engineers, and hobbiests can use to design and size rotors. I do not make money on this. Please re-apply my link --> http://www.aerodyndesign.com/ANALYSIS/ANALYSIS.htm

Have a nice day.

Michael, You want to do this, but that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. It isn't to provide that bridge between your program/spreadsheet and those people. WP:COI#Examples is talking about you when it says,
Specifically, you continually push to include your website which is an example of what not to link (number 4 and 12). I would recommend that you push your Google rank higher by modifying your webpage meta tags or some other proven method of site promotion rather than trying to subvert the guidelines on Wikipedia. --Born2flie (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh you have a lot of time on your hands. Thought about getting a second degree, as opposed to trolling wikiland all day? I suppose your cause is noble, and I respect that.--AeroEngineer2008 (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Flying Controls

Just a few alterations to your bibliographic record:

  • Rotorcraft Flying Handbook: FAA Manual H-8083-21. Washington, DC: Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2001. ISBN 1-56027-404-2.

Now, the reasons for the changes:

  1. When there is no author/editor stated, the next entry is the title.
  2. Titles are now uniformly italicized in practise rather than underlined.
  3. Full titles are given including any sub-titles and codes.
  4. Standard postal code abbreviations instead of geographical abbreviations are used.
  5. Publishing information is given indicating hierarchy.
  6. Most recent publishing date is given.
  7. Optional source information from ISBN:10 or ISBN:13 is provided.


I know, I am completely "anal" but these are the slight adaptations to make to this bibliographic record. FWIW Bzuk 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Quite alright by me, I stole the whole thing from www.worldcat.org. I only had to add the underline bit. ;) I guess we would all need a serious class on MLA-style if we are to totally convert. Do you have a link to an available online version of the style guide? --Born2flie 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.
This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."
Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Reggiane Re.2000" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.
I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing in citation/reference notes. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations.

I do talk too much! Bzuk 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's a bit repetitive, but I can tell it is written in a stream-of-consciousness manner...and a looong stream-of-consciousness manner at that (I'm just busting your chops <big grin>)! I appreciate the information, and I like your reasons, so I will take a look at the MLA style and seriously consider converting to using it permanently. --Born2flie 23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

212 revert

Born, this edit was User:Wikzilla, the banned troll/sockpuppet whose sole meaning in life comes from following Alan and me around, and proving over and over why he was banned in the first place. Thanks for reverting him. - BillCJ (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I usually check out all the IP edits on all the RTF articles. When I saw that the IP had basically reverted Alan, I figured something was up. The revert part was easy. There is nothing that justifies leaving that Trivia bit in there. I don't care how much I enjoyed the movie or like the thought of being able to dial up and instantly be able to fly a new model helicopter! ;) --Born2flie (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarks

In the Helicopter article I think it is a mistake to remove trademarks symbols, because the Fenestron and FANTAIL are described in the context brands of ducted rotor designs. If this were not the case, the neither name would be necessary to describe the particular technology. Ducted rotor describes them both accurately without using either trademark. I have read the WP:MoS article and it state that trademark TM should only be use when context demands it; and I think in this case based on the fact that these are brand names for ducted rotor designs, the context is to give examples of brands that are publicly known. Here is an abstract for a report of a study of a "fan-in-fin" ducted rotor design concept. Here is another on a shrouded tail rotor (ducted rotor), primarily the Fenestron by Aerospatiale.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFI, the WP:MOSTM article specifically says, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." [bolding mine] The context of "context" here is discussing whether or not Fenestron or FANTAIL could be confused with something else, which I doubt is possible. I've also listed in the text that they are trademarks, which should be suitable for the companies involved. If not, Wikimedia has a legal team that will make it all clear. Considering that we have a guideline for trademarks in the MOS, and that the WP:Air project has taken a lot of flak for not complying with the MOS, for the sake of the article to progress I would request that we please abide by this guideline. --Born2flie (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, "unless unavoidable", which means it's not set in stone like the Ten Commandments. No the context is whether we're giving examples of brand names....which we are. Every correctly written article will have TM next to the name, this is according to standard rule of grammar. You can't say that WP follows a different rule. The generic term for the fan-in-fin type of tail rotor is a ducted rotor (or maybe even a shrouded rotor). If Fenestron or FANTAIL were exactly the same, there'd be a law between Eurocopter and Boeing. But you guys are the bosses I guess since you've been here longer. I'm just telling what is correct. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the context is in reference to brand names, since that is when you would use ™ and ® in other forums and formats. I know, because I originally edited them into the article in the first place and had an IP editor remove them, then Fnlayson reverted the IP editor only to have another, more experienced editor remove them. So, it isn't like I don't know where you are coming from. I have resigned myself to the fact that some things in the world of Wikipedia are not like everywhere else in the world. Sunlight occasionally shines through, but until then, the rules (read: guidelines) of Wikipedia prevail. --Born2flie (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's an IP editor? Is that a bot or person? If a person, tell'em we'll take him/her behind the woodshed if keep messin' with ar article.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor is someone who posts from an Internet Protocol address without a login. And don't I wish! --Born2flie (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User en-nocat

A tag has been placed on Template:User en-nocat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the Wings could not have pulled it off with other guys. ANigg (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You earned them. You're welcome. --Born2flie (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Aviation Museum

FYI: I'm working on a little article for the Army Aviation Museum sandbox. I haven't been there but it looks interesting. It has a few experimental VSTOL aircraft such as the XV-1 but they are not on display (at least when the listing was put on the site). Since the Southern Museum of Flight has a short article, the aviation probably should too. If you know anything about it and want to help, please do so. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRAHM damper / FRAHM dampener

With reference to your revert to my edit on Bell 407

It is specifically referred to as a FRAHM damper by Bell and not a dampener

http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/Storage/TB%20407-99-14.pdf

There are other references for the 407 at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/displayCategory.cfm?ID=22

M100 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Born2flie&oldid=204087244"