60:. Great! I was beginning to think that I was playing a lone hand keeping that page up to date! Right now it's just a plain vanilla list, but in the back of my mind I figure that, sooner or later, it can become a sort of master index to all the Knowledge aircraft entries, something that is really worth browsing through. I seem to be working on the other, even more interesting, sort of flying machines this week (the ones with feathers), but no doubt I'll be back to do a few more aircraft entries, or un-stub some before too long. Cheers --
152:. It might be better to have corrected my addition rather than simply revert it out of existence. Maybe the word "British" could go in there... it's hard to find too much history on the very early use of ejector seats prior to the allies work on them post WW2, so if you know much about the german work, maybe you could have a look at the article (on seats) and see if it can be worked in there somehow. Thanks.
282:. If I had said "Rlandmann is a fool," that would be an ad hominem comment. If I say "Rlandmann's comments are arrogant and patronising" (which I found them to be), I don't regard that as ad hominem. Having said that, I have no desire to pursue the argument. If you found my comments offensive, I apologise. I agree that the issue of the article's title ought to be submitted to somebody else's arbitration.
266:
03:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- I do indeed intend to go back and sort out at least some of those pages, although I probably won't be the first to get to all of them. My rationale is that it is better to provide a frame work on all the pages, thus allowing others to fill it in, than to have perfect pages
491:
Seahawk is on my
Watchlist (because I put the pic on) and I think I see a mistake. You've redirected SH-60 Seahawk to SH-60 Sea Hawk. I think this is backwards. The manufacturers site (www.sikorsky.com) uses Seahawk throughout and it’s very unlikely the US Navy will have changed the name. So I think
463:
article. I was actually thinking about writing an article about it, so my answer is "Yes"Â :-). Although there is quite a bit about it under the Mirage III already, but it is a bit long and unstructured. I suppose some can be re-used and the rest deleted except for a short reference once the
Cheetah
294:
With respect, that remark just shows that you are in no position to be commenting on this subject. You are clearly unfamiliar with the literature, "specialist" though you may consider it. Reichsluftfahrtministerium may not be suitable for the simple
English wiki ("Gee! Look at all those letters!"),
354:
because (a) those terms are reasonably well known in
English, and (b) I would not win those arguments and I do get sick of arguing with people all the time. That doesn't mean I can't and won't object to particularly egregious examples of incomprehensible foreign-language titles (like
168:
No problem with copying the stuff across from E2 for me. Sorry about the lateness of my reply but have been on holiday for a week and the only access to the internet I've had was through a 14.4 modem (usually I have a 50.6 connection which although not fast is better than 14.4). -
441:
Ok, so now that Adam has given up on the argument AFTER causing all the damage, what exactly AM I supposed to call my article on the RLM? "German Air
Ministry (1933-45)" is about as stupid a title as I can imagine, how he could possibly consider that am improvement is beyond me.
369:
I am being slightly facetious, as I tend to do during extremely tiresome arguments. So sue me. My entirely serious opinion is that 90% of people will never have seen the acronym RLM. I must confess to being absolutely astonished that you are persisting in the view that either
195:
you've put out all notes about Vojko Kogej's work of PotoÄŤnik's life and work. You should consider that Kogej is one of the most qualified persons to discuss PotoÄŤnik's work. I think his detective work in 1984 in Berlin's
Staatsbibliothek was not just a cat's cough (as we
306:
I didn't say I found the comment "offensive" in a personal sense - I have a very thick skin. I said I found it indicative of your attitude, and decided not to argue the matter further in the light of that. My use of the word "rubbish" was perhaps undiplomatic, but it
289:
I really don't want to have this discussion over again, but since you insist: this is the comment I found to be arrogant, patronising and contemptuous of people who don't read German and/or are not as familiar with German aviation history as you are.
409:
a standard designation. So I made one up. I am now persuaded that German Air
Ministry is not the best possible choice, but I maintain the view that in an English-language encyclopaedia articles should have English titles unless there is a
480:? If so, then there's a small error. The capital letters for EMBRAER are correct but there is certainly no hyphen in ERJ 145. I just like WP to be accurate! Have a look at www.embraer.com (the manufacturers own site). Best Wishes,
417:
You also say: "It doesn't help when people so often attribute decisions and actions of the RLM to the
Luftwaffe as if the two bodies were one-and-the-same." No doubt. The way to solve this is to write an accessible article on the
445:
You know what's astounding? On his page he claims that only registered people should be able to edit -- I assume so that one can discuss edits on talk pages. So this being the case, why didn't he ask first?
330:
use a title which will be meaningless to most readers, when rendering the title into
English will make it more comprehensible. I am quite consistent about this. I would call an article about the Kuomintang
202:
it was clearly written that beside Oberth also
Wernher von Braun and Arthur Charles Clarke seriously took PotoÄŤnik's ideas (or concepts (what a difference?)). Now sentence says something else if not enough,
405:
standard way of referring to these things in English (the language of this encyclopaedia), since they are not sufficiently well-known to English-speakers, except for German aviation history buffs, to
258:
Hi, would you have a look at the talk page for sherbet? I would have given you my sources if you'd asked, it's definately slang for beer in some places whether you've heard of it or not. Â :)
500:
Black Hawk on the Sikorsky site). If you agree with me can you make the correction? I can’t because I only do illustrating and don’t know anything about Redirects. Sorry to be so fussy.
85:
75:, which has, as its aim, to standardize these tables as well as parts of the articles themselves. If you're interested, feel free to join in the discussions on the talk page. --
383:
332:
211:(addition 1) his calculation of Syncom 2 is also left out now. I thought that one of the purposes of encyclopedia is an information, (but now I'm not sure anymore), ....
311:
rubbish to say that Reichsluftfahrtministerium is a word that is as familiar to English-speakers as Reich or Luftwaffe, which have been popularised by war movies etc.
140:
Is there a significant difference between a minesweeper and minehunter? Would it be appropriate to link both to the same page, perhaps with a clarifying paragraph?
271:
12:21, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- I made no ad hominem comments and I stand by what I wrote. I am also opposed to editing Talk pages to remove evidence of discussions.
185:, so why such a major revision? I have to agree with your copyedits and I would like to give here some of my arguments for unacceptable changes: (just in short).
215:
So, in a general I agree with your language improvements - but I can't agree with so many changes of contents. I hope you'll respond somehow. Best regards. --
375:
387:
496:
Seahawk. So the article now looks odd, with the title being SH-60 Sea Hawk and the rest of the text saying (correctly) Seahawk. (Oddly the Black Hawk
205:
you've moved out also all Russian "middle names" ("father's names")- I can see that this is common habit in English language, originally is not, ....,
181:, since it was not written by a native speaker. If you take a look to the page history, the article was already extensivelly copyedited, mostly by
335:, even though Kuomintang is more widely used in English than is Reichsluftfahrtministerium. When I wrote an article about the Bund, I called it
123:
Ok thanks. I'll put it there probably Friday - I have a huge school project due tomorrow night... or I may put it there in the meantime :).
401:
You say: "the standard way of referring to the German Air Ministry (1933-1945) is by its native name or acronym." My point is that there is
243:
231:
and wondered whether you'd like to provide the details of the source, and why you think the image can be used in Knowledge.
72:
390:
convey much information to you? They are all well-known organisations, but 90% of readers would not be able to determine
225:
192:
what is wrong with Clarke's letter on 1993-01-15? For me it is interesting and I guess it is also for other readers,
299:
Given this attitude, I didn't feel inclined to debate specific issues any further, and that is what I then said.
35:
27:
426:
your article behind an esoteric title which no-one not already familiar with the subject will recognise.
247:
370:
Reichsluftfahrtministerium or RLM is a suitable title for an English-language encyclopaedia when it is
336:
133:
Have you considered how to breakup the List of Aust. Naval Ships to make more manageable sized pages?
39:
433:
I'm not inclined to spend the rest of my life debating this, so I won't push the point any further.
208:"ordunga" is a Slovene colloquial language word not of literary one, so it should be stated so, ....
419:
246:
to its original title. We greatly appreciate your help; please review our naming standards at
189:
my language uses the word cosmonautics equally as astronautics. I can't see why English do not,
47:
31:
452:
161:
339:, which is the English translation of its name, even though the word Bund is widely used.
8:
17:
472:
Please forgive me if I am talking to the wrong person but did you do the Redirect from
263:
216:
112:
379:
318:
Of course many article titles are meaningless to many readers. If you don't know what
115:
Enterprise? I think the data I and the anonymous user added on it could be used. --
268:
89:
502:
482:
374:
to use an English title with redirects from the German ones. Do the article titles
101:
477:
473:
465:
178:
51:
434:
427:
395:
363:
356:
340:
312:
300:
283:
272:
251:
170:
57:
43:
460:
322:
are, you won't understand the article title. But that doesn't mean we should
259:
182:
153:
199:
Von Braun's note that PotoÄŤnik was one of his teachers is now also out, ....
319:
235:
149:
141:
134:
116:
97:
76:
61:
347:
68:
351:
295:
but is perfectly fine here, as even minimal research would show you.
177:
Hello Rlandmann. I am glad that you've copyedited the article about
42:. If you have any other questions about the project then check out
234:
Good to see another Aussie doing quality work, keep it up!
71:, and I was wondering if perhaps you'd like to help with
362:
Yes. Most people will thank RLM is a misprint for REM.
30:
to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to
250:
so that your work will be as effective as possible. --
376:
Obed'enniy Gosudarstvennoi Politicheskii Upravlennie
84:Another closet Aussie? Consider adding yourself to
34:. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit
414:why they should not, which is not the case here.
459:Hi Rlandmann. Regarding your request about the
100:page that you wrote. I found it hilarious.
278:Perhaps we have different definitions of
224:
111:Do you know the hull number, etc, of the
67:Hey! I noticed you added the table to
14:
56:Hi Rlandmann. I see you are adding to
422:that explains the difference, not to
244:German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin
73:Knowledge:WikiProject Space Missions
23:
449:Anyway, back to the real world...
24:
515:
38:or how to format them visit our
86:Knowledge:Wikipedians/Australia
13:
1:
355:Reichsluftfahrtministerium).
223:G'day. I notice you provided
160:Excellent article on Walter!
36:Knowledge:Naming conventions
7:
492:its certain the helicopter
248:Knowledge:Wikiproject Ships
10:
520:
346:I don't attempt to change
337:General Jewish Labor Union
144:17:35, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
137:14:34, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
92:00:53, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
485:15:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
468:22:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
455:01:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
437:00:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
430:08:09, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
398:06:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
366:05:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
359:04:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
343:03:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
333:Nationalist Party (China)
315:01:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
303:00:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
286:23:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
275:23:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
254:14:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
238:00:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
219:04:42, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
173:- Dec 31, 2003 22:35 UTC
164:13:23, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
119:01:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
104:07:27, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
79:16:17, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
64:13:35 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
46:or add a question to the
505:14:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC
394:organisations they are.
179:Herman PotoÄŤnik Noordung
156:06:51, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
420:Reich Aviation Ministry
227:File:V1 flying bomb.jpg
96:I enjoyed reading the
464:article is written.
129:moved from user page
18:User talk:Rlandmann
384:RĂ©nmĂn JiefĂ ng Jun
113:All Good Things...
388:Tsusho-sangyo-sho
511:
503:Adrian Pingstone
483:Adrian Pingstone
412:very good reason
372:perfectly simple
230:
228:
519:
518:
514:
513:
512:
510:
509:
508:
489:Hi from Adrian!
478:EMBRAER ERJ-145
474:Embraer ERJ 145
226:
40:manual of style
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
517:
507:
501:
490:
487:
481:
470:
457:
439:
297:
296:
256:
240:
221:
213:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
193:
190:
175:
166:
158:
146:
126:
125:
124:
106:
94:
82:
81:
58:Aircraft types
44:Knowledge:Help
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
516:
506:
504:
499:
495:
486:
484:
479:
475:
469:
467:
462:
461:Atlas Cheetah
456:
454:
450:
447:
443:
438:
436:
431:
429:
425:
421:
415:
413:
408:
404:
399:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
367:
365:
360:
358:
353:
349:
344:
342:
338:
334:
329:
328:unnecessarily
325:
321:
316:
314:
310:
304:
302:
293:
292:
291:
287:
285:
281:
276:
274:
270:
267:immediately.
265:
261:
255:
253:
249:
245:
239:
237:
232:
229:
220:
218:
217:XJamRastafire
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
188:
187:
186:
184:
180:
174:
172:
165:
163:
157:
155:
151:
150:ejector seats
145:
143:
138:
136:
131:
130:
122:
121:
120:
118:
114:
109:
105:
103:
99:
93:
91:
87:
80:
78:
74:
70:
65:
63:
59:
54:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
26:Hello there,
19:
497:
493:
488:
471:
458:
451:
448:
444:
440:
432:
423:
416:
411:
406:
402:
400:
391:
371:
368:
361:
345:
327:
324:deliberately
323:
320:hermeneutics
317:
308:
305:
298:
288:
279:
277:
269:David Newton
257:
241:
233:
222:
214:
176:
167:
159:
147:
139:
132:
128:
127:
110:
107:
98:Holy Prepuce
95:
90:Tim Starling
83:
66:
55:
50:. Cheers! --
48:Village pump
25:
242:I returned
102:Maximus Rex
466:Elf-friend
348:Kuomintang
280:ad hominem
148:Regarding
69:Shenzhou 5
52:maveric149
352:Luftwaffe
252:the Epopt
171:enceladus
260:fabiform
183:Rmhermen
154:GRAHAMUK
424:conceal
236:Andrewa
142:Skeetch
135:Skeetch
117:Pakaran
28:welcome
77:Pipian
62:Tannin
453:Maury
392:which
380:ליכוד
196:say),
162:Maury
88:. --
16:<
435:Adam
428:Adam
407:have
396:Adam
364:Adam
357:Adam
341:Adam
326:and
313:Adam
301:Adam
284:Adam
273:Adam
264:talk
108:Hi,
32:stay
476:to
386:or
382:or
378:or
350:or
498:is
494:is
403:no
309:is
262:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
