User talk:Anyeverybody

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:An3.gif

You may have been redirected from:User talk: Anynobody

This is my talk page.
This is my talk page.

This user is currently on editor review. You may comment on his or her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody.
Image:golden_file_cabinet.png
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

Contents


[edit] 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 Wikipedia, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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 [1], [2], [3] and [4] 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)

[edit] Picture Question

How do you create animated pictures? Is there a specific program you use or do you not need a program.    Juthani1   tcs 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia, but you must realize that we need to follow our policies while doing so. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody - I've left a proposal on Crum's talk page - could you please take a look and say whether you find it agreeable? Crum - I think invoking 3RR or AN3 will only be counterproductive at this stage, since it looks to me that you're equally culpable here. Let's just call a truce for now, cool down and wait to see what others think, OK? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Crum's page)I'm fine with your suggestion, assuming by freeze you mean Crum and I leaving it as is and not locking the page? (I'd prefer to minimize the impact on non-involved folks wishing to edit the page.) Anynobody 03:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyeverybody, I have reported you for 3RR violation, since you have not reverted yourself. I would remove my own report if you do it before an admin acts on it. Crum375 (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Crum375, again you've baffled me. When person A adds sourced material, person B reverts it, and A replaces the reverted material and adds even more sourced info only person B has committed a reversion:A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. Anynobody 03:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care all that much, but I don't think a 3D rendering of an airplane is what the policy had in mind by saying that user-authored images are not original research. Users "are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams", but the media needs to be appropriate. For example, we wouldn't illustrate Frank Beamer with a user-authored 3D model of his head. Even in the case of someone deceased for whom no free content is available - like Frank Loria - we would not use a 3D model. A disagram might be useful for showing a timeline of the crash, points of impact, or some such thing (see Image:World Trade Center 9-11 Attacks Illustration with Vertical Impact Locations.svg for a good example), but using a 3D model essentially as a stock photo showing what the plane looked like isn't much more useful than a 3D model of Frank Loria would be. Anyway, that's just my opinion as someone not involved. Take it for what it's worth. --B (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
...we wouldn't illustrate Frank Beamer with a user-authored 3D model of his head. Nor would I advocate doing so, in fact I actually try not to depict people whenever possible. I understand your point, really, but there is a huge difference between illustrating a person like ...Frank Loria... and an aircraft. Going into this I assumed some people wouldn't like such illustrations, but figured more people would and thus far that has been the case. In fact you and Crum are the only editors to object. I hope you understand that though I sympathize with your feelings, I'm still gonna render accident aircraft. Anynobody 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the disputed image

Hi Any. I don't know if you've noticed, but Crum is now accusing you of "violating the 3RR with impunity" because the page protection still allows the image to change when you upload new versions of it. In the interests of keeping the peace, could I ask you to (1) revert the image with the current image name back to the (mostly black) version that was in place when the page was protected, and (2) upload revisions under a different image name or names while discussions are taking place. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) revert the image with the current image name back to the (mostly black) Sure thing, I reverted it, but I don't understand why since his issue seemed to center on minutia related to the incident itself and the simple illustration addressed them.
(2) upload revisions under a different image name or names while discussions are taking place. Honestly I can't say I won't do this again,(on other articles, not this one of course) because changing the image mid-discussion has actually served to amicably end disputes up till now. In fairness I must point out that this was an attempt at compromise. Anynobody 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)