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)
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).
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:
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:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
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:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
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)
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. ArgentLA21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Interiot23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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! ArgentLA09:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Interiot09:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- ArgentLA21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Interiot22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Nissan Z-car. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. swaq14:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was in no way intended as spam. The links added are to external historical articles related to the subjects of those pages, and my assumption was that they would therefore be of potential interest to the readers of those articles. If the fact that those external links contain content by me constitutes a conflict of interest, or the fact that they contained Google AdSense ads made them prohibited, I apologize, and will not do so again. ArgentLA (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pave Spike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Nissan Z-car. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. swaq 14:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
