Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 7 June 2008

You may have been redirected from:User talk: Anynobody

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his/her edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Anynobody.

Archives

Archive - Archive 1 - 04/2007 - 05/2007 - 06/2007 - 06/2007 2 - 07/2007 08/2007 09/2007 10/2007 11/2007 12/2007 01/2008 02/2008 03/2008 04/2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arrow Air Flight 1285

I have another image request for you if you get a chance to visit your talk page. I am interested in an image for the article on Arrow Air Flight 1285. You can handle this request after you fulfill the other requests you received before mine. Like the Turkish 981 image, I would like the size to be 1600 X 1200 or equivalent.

You can find an image for this plane at the following links:

• ASN: Photo of Arrow Air Flight 1285
• Airliners.Net: Photo of N950JW, the plane that would become Flight 1285

And003 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in the process of re-doing most of my previous images to take advantage of new hardware and software I recently obtained. It shouldn't be a problem of course, but may take a bit while longer than you were expecting. There is good news though, I'm starting with my DC-10/737/747 models first so I'm going to be doing a new Turkish 981 image. Check out the difference between the DC-10 model I used for the old image, and the new one. I can really add detail to my images, including interior details. When I start on my DC-9/MD-80/90s I'll try to work this one in as I don't have a DC-8 model yet and the fuselage looks very similar to the DC-9. (Kinda like the 707/727, though they had different wing/engine configurations, the fuselage was almost the same.)

(I've also been increasing the resolution, so if you want I can make a 1600x1200 version and e-mail it. The new ones are around 3200x2400.) Anynobody 04:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, this URL may be of some use to you:

• http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=41515

Also, if you're going to make it 3200X2400, I can just download it and downsize it myself. Thanks for the offer, though.

And003 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I'm gonna build my own DC-8 :) (It's actually easier to make the 3D model than it is to create the textures, aka "painting" it.) I've actually ahead of schedule on my redone images so I've started on it. I figure it'll be done by the end of this week. Anynobody 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, since the letters and such are in shadows, the livery looked like this right? (Blue A and stripe with red Arrow Air) Anynobody 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like that. And003 (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delay

I'm sorry this is taking so long, on the plus side it's gonna look great :) Anynobody 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty slick! Might not be flying with the cockpit lighting so bright, though. If this is a 3D model, can you spin the perspective to animate the image too? Could even generate a fly-by this way...LeadSongDog (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question first; Yes and no, I can render the model in any position and choose between orthographic or isometric projections in png format. I can animate the models as well but the only format supported here is the gif. While png files allow full 24 bit color, gifs are limited to 256 colors meaning that the visual quality is noticeably "worse". (Someday soon I'd like to see support for mng files included here, which are animated pngs).
In regard to the preview, this is actually just to show And003 I really am close to being done. The cockpit lights in the final will indeed be much dimmer,(or I could just say the F/O took a flash picture ;) I just needed these to get the mapping correct + I need to change the passengers in the windows since this flight was carrying 101st airborne soldiers not tourists and in "final" resolution it might look like there were some cross dressers aboard. Anynobody 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your final image! It's great! Thanks! And003 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a look at your second Arrow Air image, and it's just as impressive as the first. Do you think it will be enough to satisfy everyone concerned? And003 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Thanks, but I had plans to improve the wing ice which would've made the first picture awesome :) I don't see why it wouldn't satisfy rational objections. (I could understand the argument about WP:NPOV if the caption didn't mention it being based on the majority report and the article ignored the dissenting view.) I can't think of a non-whimsical way to illustrate the dissenting opinions so unless someone has a free photo of the plane my illustration is our best option. (Better than an experimental NASA version incorrectly labeled as being "similar" when we have better plain DC-8 pics available.) Anynobody 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1982

MS Johanna has photographs on the Hartland Point article, which was the ref for the fact.

I don't want to come off as a jerk, really, but photos aren't references (unless they have their own article in which case I'm sure an exception would be made). Especially these photos, honestly even if they (photos in general) counted as references these would fail our rule about verifiability.

(PS Because this thread is about the list I'm gonna move it to the talk page there so others can participate if they want to.) Anynobody 07:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this reference sufficient? I know it doesn't give the exact date, but the location is confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious about why you challenged the information in the first place? WP:CITE only requires that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" requires a specific source, and says that "editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." Did you have such a reason to believe? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious about why you challenged the information in the first place? I don't mean to be exclusionist but the sourcing was, well, non-existent. If you've had a chance to look at the list in question each item either links to an article about the vessel in question or a source. The ship in question was first unsourced, then cited by a couple of photographs. The photos picture some kind of wreckage, which is supposed to be the ship's remains. While I don't doubt a ship met its fate there, how do the photos show the remains are really the ship identified (including the fact it was Panamanian flagged)?

I also don't want to appear confrontational, however your interpretation of WP:CITE, only requires that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" is incomplete, the whole sentence is: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." To answer your specific question, Did you have such a reason to believe? Yep, I was unable to verify the limited information provided combined with the lack of other data about the vessel made the entry unencyclopedic thus unnecessary. (PS I wasn't able to find where CITE says "editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." but in general anything which doesn't abide by WP:V is removable unless a reliable source is provided.) Anynobody 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Usual service resumed

I don't intend to comment further, but I'm sure that you'll see what I'm getting at; read this discussion first, followed by this one. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing about Misplaced Pages, it illustrates everything people want to stop doing - but don't. Like allowing double standards such as the one seemingly applied to DL and Giano. (I couldn't help noticing how much the idea of comparing their blocks met with, shall we say, unintended results. Also the second link was an excellent illustration of irony, considering who it came from. I doubt she'll respond, as I can't remember ever seeing a reply to my replies regarding similar "warnings") Anynobody 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least there are warnings being given now! I think that it illustrates your 'teacher's pet' observation very well; an editor acknowledged to do good work has an Admin shadowing him ready to intervene on his behalf and, effectively, a license to ignore the community norms that the rest of us abide by. I read the first thread, incidentally, as a warning-off from the associated AN/I discussion. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually with the use of E-mail and other forms of communication, an admin need not shadow their favorites who can instead "sound the alarm" thus bringing in covert reinforcements when needed.

(I'm surprised nobody has ever called such attempts what they really are, cover ups. Putting myself in their, the warners, place...if I was sure my actions were most likely accurate but if not clearly in good faith... I wouldn't give a rat's ass who posted what on ANI regarding a situation I was involved in. The only reason I can think of trying to dissuade further pursuit of a neutral admin, is to avoid exposure of a mistake. (Which only serves to make one look even worse in the end, which is why I -- and I suspect you-- own up to them.) Anynobody 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

JAL123

This guy says that there may be an error with the JAL123 image:

"The render of JAL flight 123 shows the aft pressure bulkhead and tailcone intact but the tail almost completely gone from the bottom up. This is probably based on a photo floating around the net that's been over-enhanced. You can see the real photo and a perfect analysis of it here: http://vision.ameba.jp/watch.do?movie=195915

The render should probably be adjusted or removed, because it visually implies that the plane crashed because it lost its tail. In fact, yaw wasn't the main problem - inability to move the ailerons due to loss of hydraulics was the direct cause of the accident. --Badasscat (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great timing, I was just getting set to revisit that image :) While I do intend to now incorporate the info in the video provided, this it visually implies that the plane crashed because it lost its tail. In fact, yaw wasn't the main problem - inability to move the ailerons due to loss of hydraulics was the direct cause of the accident. is missing the broader picture. Since all 4 hydraulic systems connect to the rudder (albeit in different places) when it was lost so was the hydraulic system. (Essentially it's like saying JFK died of brain damage without mentioning the bullets.) (PS He/she also seems to not understand what the rear pressure bulkhead is since you can't see it from below, the part missing appears to be the rear tail cone surrounding the APU.)

This info makes me wish I'd of gone with my gut and made more extensive damage. Anynobody 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 006 info

Hey WhisperToMe, do you still have the link for the report showing the debris field/take off diagram you wanted? Now that I've figured out how to animate with Blender I think I'll try to make it move. However I seem to have lost the .pdf while moving between computers. Anynobody 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• The flash diagram showing the debris field is here: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/sq006/popup.htm
• The official accident report is here: http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/ASCAAR-02-01.pdf
• WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :), check this out: Image:Anygallerya.gif. I won't be doing the textured 747 since gifs are limited to 256 colors (which is why the plane in this animation is, well, plain) and the more colors the larger the file (which is also why this animation is only 420 x 200, I traded resolution for color.) On this one I'll have to sacrifice color for resolution. Anynobody 07:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the color scheme here works fine - I like the rough draft :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to work in simple windows and flightdeck too. Anynobody 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for new CG image

Any chance you would be prepared to do up something for 2008 Hewa Bora Airways crash? There aren't any free images of a DC-9-51 in HBA livery, although there are many unfree ones on the net. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You have good timing :) I was just working on improving my DC-9 model in order to create a derivative DC-8 from its nose/fuselage. Long story short, I have to redo all previous textures to use the new DC-9 and am really more in the mood for something new, like this. Anynobody 04:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Thank you.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered difficulty pinning down the exact livery of this airplane. I usually start at http://www.airliners.net to see if any pictures exist, and indeed one does a 2006 picture showing plain white livery. Given the age, I decided to see what the crash scene looked like keeping an eye out for identifiable pieces which indicate that it had stripes not in the 06 picture. Ordinarily what I'd do is look at their fleet of similar aircraft during the same time, only they don't appear to operate enough DC-9s to get photo coverage and to complicate matters Hewa Bora has a diverse fleet with different livery schemes for each type. (They fly Boeing (including McD-Ds) and Lockheed planes.)

Since I can't determine its livery at the time of the crash I'm thinking the best way to handle this is by using the 2006 livery and render the plane in the air. (The caption would explain the CG pictures old livery.) However I'm open to alternatives or new sources, do you have any? :) Anynobody 02:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a peek at , , and Most of these are unfree, but you can judge for yourself.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, there were some images I hadn't seen, but like those I had the parts of the plane I needed to see appear to be burned. I assume the stripes were added to the plain white Hewa Bora 2006 livery the plane is shown in on airliners.net because it'd be cheaper to add the stripes on top of the white livery than it would've been to paint over the airline name on the fuselage to move it. I'll put together some ideas :) Anynobody 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it took so long to get this ready, the good news is that the rest is easy so when we decide how to have the plane look creating the final image will not take long. I still couldn't find any info about where Hewa Bora appeared on the a/c at the time of the crash. Anynobody 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture Question

How do you create animated pictures? Is there a specific program you use or do you not need a program.    Juthani1    03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two programs I use, Animation Shop which came with Paint Shop Pro and Blender (which I downloaded for free). You could possibly do it without an animation program, but the difficulty could be extreme and would only work in specific programs (like theoretically one could create a really fast Power Point presentation using images.) Anynobody 03:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please note that you are close to violating 3RR. Back and forth reversion will accomplish nothing, while a talk page discussion can. Crum375 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what a reversion is? It's removing changes and reverting to a previous version, which is what you're doing. Anynobody 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so are you. If you keep doing so, and violate 3RR, you will be blocked (not by me, as I am clearly involved.) Crum375 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so are you. No... like I said above reverting is removing changes and reverting to a previous version. Perhaps you've been reverting too quickly to notice that I've been adding to the article and you've been reverting to an old version. What old version am I reverting to? Anynobody 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anyeverybody - sorry to butt in here. but it looks like this is now skating perilously close to an edit war. Neither of you seems to be able to convince the other of the "rightness" of your positions, so that means it's time to get some outside perspective on the question, either at a project level, or through an RfC. Do you have a preferred forum in which to take this up? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, indeed I've been considering such an action. However if the opposition were actually correct it seems like he/she should be able to prove it through our policies and guidelines. Instead I've been pointed to irrelevant aspects of them (ie saying WP:OR is somehow being violated without specifically saying how.) Moreover analyzing the article's history I think WP:OWN issues may be in play which indicates a bigger overall problem than a disagreement over an image. Anynobody 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps - but often it's not a simply black-and-white case of right vs wrong, which is where wider perspectives might help out. The one thing that is plain is that kept between the two of you, things aren't moving forwards at all. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I also suspect he/she hasn't stopped to either look at the image in question or read the new material (per his/her latest arguments), until I'm sure I want to avoid bringing in outside editors and causing any unnecessary embarrassment. Anynobody 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The one thing that is plain is that kept between the two of you, things aren't moving forwards at all. I totally agree there, usually I've found this occurs because someone is operating under either an incorrect impression or on emotion. If it's the former I wanna make sure I give every effort to fix it, if the latter then I'll definitely need outside help. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not emotionally attached to the image, has Crum made an argument you think I should look at again because honestly if he/she made a valid point to exclude an illustration over a generic photo I'd accept it.) Anynobody 02:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody, you have violated WP:3RR and if I report it to WP:AN3, you could be blocked for it. You are also persisting in violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV by forcing in your own self-made images that take sides in disputed issues. Please take this opportunity to revert yourself, so I won't need to report you. I am assuming you are doing all this in good faith, and your goal is to help Misplaced Pages, but you must realize that we need to follow our policies while doing so. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)