User talk:Wittlessgenstein

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


Hello, Wittlessgenstein, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

You didn't get one of these yet. Remove if you don't need.

Again, welcome! Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cockpits & welcome[edit]

Hello Wittlessgenstein and welcome to Wikipedia. Since you are new here, you may not have observed that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where article material are added from other published sources. If you have access to specific published material about cockpit design of fighters, I would very much like to see that material being added to an article and appropriately referenced.

If you don't have new material to add, I'd ask you to refrain from rearranging an already existing article and also not ask other people to follow your advice about adding material. Some editors here can be quite 'protective' of 'their' articles. If you have material you'd like to add, please bring it up on the talk page first and wait (a few days or a week).

Again, I welcome you as a contributing editor. T96 grh (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: F-22 cockpit[edit]

I think that it might be best to expand the material in the F-22 article as the plane's cockpit doesn't seem notable in isolation from the plane. The article is very good, however. I note that the article on the F-22 states that the plane's cockpit "represents a marked improvement on the cockpit design of previous advanced aircraft designs" - can you tweak the cockpit article further to focus on how its a major advance in technology? (which would be the main reason it might be notable in isolation from the plane). --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good now, and I've removed the notability tag. Is there a photo of the cockpit you can add? I had a look at the Defense Visual Information Center website but couldn't find any good images. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Nick. That's a useful site in its own right. I'll have a look elsewhere, although I think I may need advice about copyright acceptability. That existing link in te article to the `first look inside the cockpit' is probably better then most static pictures. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: unconstructive edit[edit]

I had a lot of tabs open, so I must have reverted the wrong article. Sorry! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cockpit Display System[edit]

Hello, I did not want to be rude with my "weasel words" comment on my last edit, it was just that there were missing letters on a lot of the new words (maybe a problem with the keyboard, and I'm not kidding). However, I'm French, so I should keep a low profile on these types of comments ;-) Hervegirod (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Les mots de belette!!? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

F-16 cleanup[edit]

This should really be an FA article and it's languished far too long. I'm going to be out of town on business travel this week, but when I return I'm going to propose a collaborative clean-up of this article at WP:AIR and WP:MILAIR. I hope you'll contribute to the effort. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


I understand that the twin-seater is not produced in the same quantities as the single-seater, but saying 'single-seater aircaft' in the introduction may be misleading for some. Typically, compared to other Wiki articles I have seen, unless it is solely single-seated or twin-seated, it is not mentioned there. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Centre stick vs side-stick[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Centre stick vs side-stick, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre stick vs side-stick. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


I have absolutely no idea what you are referencing, could you elaborate a little (like maybe leave a link or something?) I get the feeling I have done something here that you disapprove of, but I can't answer your question because from where I sit on the matter right now there is insufficient information to effect a reply to the question on the table right now. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

see above?

Oh, I remember now. The article was deleted, but your sources were reliable, so I suggested in my deletion commentary that we salvage those and place them in articles that could benefit from there appearance. As this pertains to your question, the honest answer is that I am not sure where they should go. I have a feeling that there are a number of plane articles out there where these sources could be used as reference material to describe technical aspects such as the construction aspects or experimental aspects such as fly by wire capability. To be honest, planes are not my area of expertise, but if you were to ask the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft they could probably advise you better on where those sources could be best put to use on site. For what its worth, I pulled the sources as you listed them from the last version of the article before its deletion:

Thanks for the clarification as well, my hands have been full, and the need to stay current sometimes results in my forgetting about prior discussions. If you need anything else as it pertains to this discussion please feel free to leave me another message, otherwise I will leave you to edit in peace. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks.
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)