User talk:ArgentLA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Edit summaries
2 Yak-28
3 Welcome to Wikipedia
4 Article Licensing
5 Tupolev Tu-22
6 Sway bar
7 Super Turbine 300
8 Wikiwings Award

[edit] Edit summaries

[edit] Yak-28

Hi ArgentLA - I've just trimmed back the extra categories you added to this article. Note that Wikipedia's general categorisation policy is to minimise "vertical" duplication in categories - thus if an article is already in Category:Soviet bomber aircraft 1960-1969, it should not also be categorised in parents of that category (ie, Soviet military aircraft 1960-1969 and Military aircraft 1960-1969). The general categorisation guidelines can be found here and those specific to WikiProject Aircraft can be found here. Since you're doing quite a bit of work on aircraft here, you might also like to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content - following this format helps to maintain consistency across our coverage of aircraft in the encyclopedia. Cheers! --Rlandmann 23:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ahh--got it. I was wondering about that.

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the Sandbox.
For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Tupolev Tu-22

Hello. How reliable are numbers of aircraft built, that you've given? I was basing before on Н.В.Якубович - Бомбардировщик Ту-22. And, would it be only 15-20 original Tu-22B to be exported?.. No more?.. Pibwl 22:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sources I've read (principally a recent article in World Air Power Journal written in collaboration with Russian pilots and engineers) indicate that the original Tu-22Bs were written off fairly early, and the exported models were actually later-build Tu-22Rs converted for free-fall bombing rather than recce. Given that the "Shilo," especially in early-build form, was dubbed "flying defects carrier" by its crews, that made a lot of sense to me. ArgentLA 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sway bar

Great work at the sway bar article. Since you seem to know more about it than me, I had two questions. First, I think it makes sense to redirect sprung mass to unsprung weight, since they're closely related topics. Do you think that's a good idea? Second, I'm doing an illustration for the unsprung weight article, but I don't think I've quite got it right, see here. When I saw this properly diagramed before, it was definitely an "Aha!" moment, so I'd like to get this right, if you have any advice on fixing it (or if you know of a picture online that diagrams this already, even if non-free, I can trace it). You can reply on your talk page. Thanks. --Interiot 23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a short page for sprung mass. It just feels counterintuitive to me to have sprung mass defined solely in the unsprung mass page. The diagram expresses the basic idea, but what might be more useful would be to do a simple cutaway diagram color-coded or shaded to indicate which components are part of the sprung mass (body, occupants, cargo) and which are part of the unsprung mass (suspension arms, shocks, wheels, tires, outboard brakes). I'm also tempted to rewrite these articles to reflect that this is true for any vehicles with suspensions, whether snowmobiles, tractors, or main battle tanks! ArgentLA 09:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That kind of inclusiveness is always a very good thing. And I don't think I have the skill to diagram that cut-away, but your edits continue to be extremely helpful, so thank you very much. --Interiot 09:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I'm up to doing a completely original diagram, either (I could fake it, but it would be crude), but maybe I should figure it out. Good diagrams make it vastly easier to understand. Check out this article (which diagrams we can't use because of copyright restrictions), particularly Fig. 5. -- ArgentLA 21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a rabid fan of illustrating articles too. Figure 5 wouldn't be too difficult to trace a non-free version of. Want me to give it a try? --Interiot 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)