User talk:AKAF/Archive2009-10

File:Shock wave pressure diagram.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shock wave pressure diagram.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sailplanes vs gliders

FWIW you suggested that the article be renamed to sailplane (I already actually did that), so far as I can make out, Rlandmann and Jmcc150 both completely despise the term 'sailplane' to a remarkable extent; and they reverted the move with extreme prejudice with the claim that it is 'messy'; or some such vague nonsense.

For them, in their minds, the word glider is really only ever correctly refers to what most other people might call sailplanes, but failing that (and it does fail because it turns out that there's no workable definition of sailplane) only faired in cockpit rigid wing unpowered aircraft count, so space shuttle counts, military gliders count. Nothing else.

Hang glider- for them that's not a glider. Paraglider- not a glider. Paper aeroplane- not a glider. All of the history of gliders up to the second world war- not gliders; well, ok, they might give you that, but that's history right, and this is about gliders, not historical stuff that were called gliders before Real Gliders (tm) were invented.

Of course they don't actually have any references to back up their point of view; and they're extremely good at completely and utterly ignoring any and all references they don't like, and edit warring away any contrary edits to their POV.

There are actually quite a lot of reliable sources that say that a much wider range of things than they acknowledege are considered gliders, and I've never found a single one that says the opposite. They systematically remove any and all mention of hang gliders from the body of the article, except for that one comparison section, which I'm sure they think in their little fantasy world 'proves' that hang gliders and paragliders aren't Real Gliders (tm).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, but I think that page moves, especially to pages that currently exist is a bad idea at the moment. There's no rush, and there's at least a minimum of productive discussion on the talk page. You could create the Aerodynamics of gliders page and populate it with some of the material from the other articles, if you're bored, since I think, as I noted on the talk page, that we have a consensus for that article. I'd like to do a hard split between the sporting guidelines and the theoretical aerodynamics. I think that there is good material which you've added to gliding flight recently which definitely deserves its own article. Chin up, there will be a resolution, but everyone may have to compromise. AKAF (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that aerodynamics of gliders is at all good idea. aerodynamics of aircraft sounds like a much better idea, and would probably be much easier to source.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More discussion after 2 months of their abusive editing is unlikely to solve this; NPOV is something that they can't stand, but also can't remove without self-evidently breaching the rules.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I resent the word 'abusive'. I think this is uncalled for. A better illustration of abusive editing is provided here: User talk:Greg L#Hi. JMcC (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off please guys. Unproductive. AKAF (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We have reached the first 'nub' of our disagreement and so your input would be appreciated on Talk:Glider JMcC (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on glider article

I have a proposal to end the glider debate with a new name and then I will explain how and why it should be done. I have not put it on the Glider Talk Page, because I wanted your reaction before the debate ensued. My edits are watched so it will not remain a secret for long! I cannot make a decision on behalf of all other interested parties and this proposal may not be greeted with universal approval, so your input would be appreciated. Part of my reason is exhaustion. Although this should not be the way things are decided, I have to think about life outside Wikipedia. If someone else would like to argue for the status quo, they have my best wishes.

I propose that the term used to denote rigid wing aircraft used for recreational purposes is 'glider (sailplane)'. I have contended that the word 'glider' be used for the most common type of these aircraft. I maintain it to be a position that is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. However it does give rise to difficulties. In particular there is no doubt that many other unpowered aircraft are technically gliders, even if they do not have this as a common name. The intro to glider has to become complicated (at least it had before Wolfkeeper edited it recently) to explain which aircraft are being described. There are also a few occasions when all unpowered winged aircraft need a name. 'Glider (sailplane)' preserves both worldwide and US terminology. It also allows the continued use of the word 'glider' in all the hundreds of existing articles. It isn't what the knowledgeable majority wanted, but I have to make a practical decision based on how Wikipedia operates.

As I understand it, a simple move will leave the word 'glider' as a redirect. The vast majority of articles link to 'glider' as sailplanes (I have checked them all). If the word glider is re-used for an article with a more generic definition, all these links will be misdirected. If possible a bot should be used to rename everywhere there is [[glider]] to [[glider (sailplane)]]. There will be a few places where this is not appropriate eg 'primary glider' but it would be easier to change a few rather than many. If a bot is not possible, then we will have to leave 'glider' as a redirect and think of a generic name for for all types of glider. I dislike 'glider aircraft' as tautologous. 'Glider types' I suppose is a possibility. Whatever the generic article is called, I hope it does not become another 'cut and paste' duplicate.

I hope that the other articles in this field are non-controversial. If an overarching summary is needed of gliding, hang gliding and paragliding, then Air sports is the obvious article to pull them all together. I feel that others should impose further scrutiny on 'gliding (flight)'. I still think the current scope of this article is unnecessarily wide. It is easy to create yet another article with cut and paste. If you came across it first, you would think it wonderful. However in my experience, redundant articles are not well maintained. The more overlapping articles there are the less chance that someone with any knowledge of the subject will be able to update it, even just to preserve it from vandals. With a limited scope of descending flight 'gliding flight' has a better chance. Consequently I would still like your response to my latest posting (yesterday's) on the Glider Talk Page. JMcC (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, so much energy was devoted to combatting Wolfkeeper's unrelenting tactics and imperfect knowledge, that little time was available to think about the issue. I hope Wolfkeeper reflects on his behaviour. A different philosophy would have saved him a great deal of time. JMcC (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

The edit you undid on the Hypersonic page included a table that I did not mean to insert, but I'll stand by my technical tag. Most of the page is unreadable to someone without a background in aerodynamics, and technical terms are not defined or linked to other pages. Timaster735 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace

(Moved to User:AKAF/Barnstars)

Thanks, I hope. AKAF (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually...

Not that I intend to invoke it in the current debate - this should be resolved on policy grounds, not personal authority - but I am a qualified demographer. It's not what my degrees were in, but I work for an organisation that's prominent in Australian demographic work, I've done demographic research work on their behalf, and they've published that work with my real name on it. --GenericBob (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian Deer

Dear AKAF,

You removed one of my edits, saying this was the funniest thing you ever read. It was about the link between the journalist Brian Deer's boss Rupert Murdoch and GSK. Could you explain to me why you found it funny ? Here are some facts you can easily check on the internet on reliable sources : 1. Brian Deer works for the Sunday Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch (see Rupert Murdoch and Brian Deer in Wikipedia) 2. James Murdoch is Rupert Murdoch's son (see Wikipedia) 3. James Murdoch is appointed as of May 2009 in GSK board (see GSK's own website)

The only source that may be unreliable up there are 1. and 2. But anyway, this is known to be correct. In my edit, I just said that people should have that in mind when reading the papers that Brian Deer wrote about the MMR and autism controversy. What I think is funny is that on the page describing Andrew Wakefield studies, big warnings are made on these studies, relying on Brian Deer's research. But warning the reader about the link between Deer and GSK seems irrelevant to you ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.244.10 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have never removed your edit and this edit [1] did not remove anything from you. AKAF (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is about a revert that I did over on Andrew Wakefield recently - this user seems to be rather confused about how talk pages work, and has misread your comment on my talk page as something to do with that revert. --GenericBob (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Never the twain shall meet

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Never the twain shall meet. Or so I thought, and which you have now proven wrong. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) AKAF (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are funny

need I say more? no complaints, just a thumbs up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.233.42 (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Freudian slip

Hi AKAF! I may be wrong, but I believe you intended RfA and not AFD in your latest RfA commentary. Unless, of course, you are referring to a specific AfD in which the candidate participated. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry

Accidental misclick on blackberry.Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Accidental

Just FYI

I saw you trying to trigger SineBot. It's kind of a coincidence that you have just a few short edits ago passed the threshold (800 edits) where SineBot will ignore you. –xeno^talk 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Your message left on the Lightbot application left me wondering why your name rang familiar. So, our paths have crossed before... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)