User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2008/July

A request, if you've got the time

Hi, Anyeverybody. I'm currently working on SMS Von der Tann, and in search of images of the ship (there are quite a few images, but they have unclear copyright status, so they're not yet usable). I was wondering if you could make a CG illustration of the ship, a la Image:Bb bismarck.png. I've got some colored illustations I can scan and send you via email if you need them (they're copyrighted and fair use wouldn't be valid, so I can't upload them to Wikipedia). If you can, great, if not, that's fine too, just let me know either way (if not, maybe I'll try drawing them by hand, lol :) ) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to illustrate the ship, it's so weird they put a turret on the starboard amidships but none on the port, but there are two problems: I'd need pictures (photos or official plans. Don't get me wrong, I love illustrations but because they tend to have errors_mine included_I prefer to use official sources in case they happen to be wrong I'm repeating the source's error not another artist's.) showing its hull form (placement of rudder and screws too) and we have a pretty good pic of her Image:SMS von der Tann LOC 16927u.jpg. Anynobody(?) 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a turret on the port side, it's just staggered to the rear (you can see a very basic outline in this drawing). I've got several photos of the ship from books I have, (but as I said, they don't have clear copyright status), but the problem we now have is that none of them show much of the hull form (there is one, taken during repairs after Jutland, but it just shows the rear of the ship). I'd probably have to go to the German archives for official plans, but I'm in the middle of classes, and don't speak German, so that's out. Oh wait, I just found a photo taken during salvage operations in 1930, of the capsized hull of the ship. That should do for the hull form and rudder/propeller placements. Let me scan them in and I'll send them to you. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...apparently you can't upload files with the Wikipedia email system. Would you be so kind as to send me a blank email so that I can reply and upload the photos directly from the mail provider? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can do, I'll work on the model ASAP. Anynobody(?) 00:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail :) I just realized the email formatted itself strangely, but that's ok, right? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep came through fine :) Anynobody(?) 01:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

Do you have any more photos of the ship's superstructure, weapons, decks, and other general topside details? I'll be done with the ship from the main deck down pretty soon, here's the basic hullform. (It'll be smoother and the paint will be more detailed when I'm done)Anynobody(?) 23:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks terrific already. I'll scan in some more photos and send them your way. Thanks again :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's something I wanted to point out, of minor detail. In the bow, you've got the shape generally correct, but the part you've got that appears to be some kind of fin keel is actually the submerged bow torpedo tube, so it should be thicker. I've got a photograph I'll send your way of the battlecruiser Seydlitz (basically an improvement over VdT) in dry dock, so you can get an idea of what it should look like. The updated version is looking good! Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, I figured it was one of the torpedo tubes based on something I read somewhere about the ship having a tube for each "side" (port,stbd,bow,stern) and this (incorrect underwater) diagram which I used as a baseline for the main deck up (the unpainted part) :) Though the details of the ship below the waterline are incorrect as I said before, topside it looks pretty accurate. (Actually it kinda looks like a Jane's Fighting Ships diagram to me). I'm interested in the pics though, and any others of any other details. (The deck planks go for/aft right?)

Back to the the thin tube, I'm actually gonna make a separate mesh for it (similar to the gun turrets) which'll actually surround it. I know it probably seems kinda like hiding a defect but in order to make the hull look right using as few vertices as possible it's the best way to go. (Plus it'll make it easier for me to have it fire torpedoes should I want to animate the model someday.) Anynobody(?) 07:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Please can you have a look at these two discussions: User talk:Alison#Charades and a bal masqué and then User talk:Counter-revolutionary#Blocked. You'll see my take on it at the end. Am I missing something, do you think? It seems to me like one of those weird episodes where everyone else seems to be mad or wrong but don't realise it.

I find my tolerance levels of the usual inanity dropping rapidly. I've got some stuff to add to Thomas Johnson (designer) and Marco Antonio Bragadin; only the enthusiasm to do so is lacking. Luckily I'm off to Poland next week, so that should give me a chance to recharge!

Please can we keep any discussion here on your page. Trust you are well. Major Bonkers (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, there might be something, somewhere, worth being pissed about but I couldn't find it, Where's the beef? I have couple of theories (with various reasons), only one of which makes any sense: Giano has dedicated himself to the aggressive pursuit of what he thinks is a sockpuppet of DL. The natural follow up to that is; Why? This could be because; Giano really feels sockpuppetry is unacceptable and only recognizes DL (meaning were he able to identify another sockpuppet of a different user he'd be just as vigorous), DL pissed Giano off, DL really is as terrible as Giano says, or of course any number of reasons I can't think of but which might be true.

I think it probably boils down to the same old "don't bother reading the post cause I already know what they're gonna say" mentality. But I could be wrong, enjoy Poland :) Anynobody(?) 10:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

PS What does a Venetian marine look like? Anynobody(?) 10:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. Yes, that's rather what I think. I certainly don't think that the evidence as presented supports a block and, as a second issue, an indefinite one at that. I'll go back and ask for 'further and better particulars', as the lawyers say.

Regarding the Venetian marine: before or after?! The Turks got a Jewish butcher to do the work; when news got back to Venice, they expelled the Jews living in the City to a ghetto. It was a bit of a mistake on the Turks' part, because the fellow also had family in the Venetian fleet which shortly afterwards caught up with the Turks at Lepanto. This, I suspect (although this is the dreaded 'original research'), formed part of the background to The Merchant of Venice. Othello, of course, had been away fighting the Turks as well. Major Bonkers (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I still can't understand why/what makes DL worth so much attention, did he threaten to blow someone up or something like that?

The after mental image is easy enough to put together mentally thanks to gorey movies featuring American governors and graphic photos from 9/11 (I can link em if you want but figured you'd prefer to skip them). As to the "complete" marine, I'm picturing a English/French marine with different colors on his uniform :) Anynobody(?) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just been reading a book called Empires of the Sea by Crowley (recommended), all about the run-up to the Battle of Lepanto. The proper answer to your question is that what happened was that both sides used galleys, and at the back of the galleys gangplanks were hung down. During the battle, the two flagships closed together, and basically tied up to each other; you therefore had a flat platform. As men were killed, they were continually replaced by men from the reserves coming up the gangways. The Turks fought largely (so far as I can see) in kaftans or dish-dashes, with perhaps the important folk having some chain-mail and helmets; they fought bare-foot, with a preponderance of archers and swordsmen. They also greased their decks with olive oil and butter beforehand, to make the heavier Christians fall about, although there seems to have been a lot of blood around as well once things got going. The Christians simply saw the whole thing as an extension of land warfare, and apparently had a ratio of 2 pikemen (extraordinarily enough) to 1 arquebusier. They wore helmets with face-masks - one chap put up his mask to shout orders and promptly received an arrow in the face - breastplates, boots, and I suppose much heavy leather. So: a Venetian marine (beforehand) must have looked much like a Venetian soldier.

I can't really see what DL has done that is quite so awful either. As I understand matters, whilst editing under a previous account, he came across a page which described him in less than flattering terms; attempts to deal with the matter 'on Wiki' failed, so the next stage was a solicitor's letter pointing out the potential legal consequences. The page was removed and the account banned pending resolution; but as the page had been removed, there was nothing left to resolve; that was the end of the matter. Oddly enough, our great leader has recently issued strict guidelines about 'BLP' which I would have thought would have subsequently justified DL's position.

As far as I can see, for having had the temerity to point out that posting libels on your web-site can land you with a large bill means that it's now officially politically correct to hate him; so he's banned from editing, despite a perfectly good record of adding valuable content. The ArbCom are quite happy to leave the matter as it is, despite editors with far worse records being welcomed back; Giano and the more militant Irish editors are happy because one of their enemies is kicked out; and anyone who sticks up for him or asks what is going on risks drawing unwelcome attention to themselves (which is where I suspect Counter-revolutionary comes in).

Honestly, old Jimbo Wales has got the perfect business model: get willing drones to contribute to this project for free, and bask in the reflected glory of others' labour; and coin it from his porn site when editors find that the frustrations of dealing with some of the inadequates who make up 'the community' becomes too much! Major Bonkers (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to reply.(I actually thought I had already, evidently not.)

Long gone are the days of naval combat quite like that. The Turks were invading I assume so I suppose it might have behooved the coalition to simply sink the attackers rather than board them. (I know the Turks used Christian galley slaves but wiping out an army at sea is a unique opportunity, rarely do military formations actually lose every last man and doing so here might've allowed a counter invasion. If the coalition had been more focused. War is hell., if one wants to win.)

Apathy, perhaps the greatest problem when it comes to the hierarchy here and complex issues, is probably insurmountable. It's so easy to vilify people here because admins/arbcom don't delve into issues they could care less about. Having accepted that people generally don't care about what doesn't impact them in some way or they're not already interested, I am able to cope with this problem because nobody* is getting paid for their "work".

*Except Jimbo and some elites of course. Anynobody(?) 07:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! I think that you're quite right in your analysis. Even a cursory reading of WP:AN/I shows more heat than light. In the present case, if we assume that Counter-revolutionary was the vandal, and he has past form of 'playing silly buggers' (as we English say) with non-abusive sock-puppets, it's still bizarre that he's effectively banned (along with David Lauder), two editors with generally good histories of adding content and keeping themselves out of trouble, whilst those with far worse records have huge amounts of time and effort spent on trying to rehabilitate them. It's a distorted priority that makes it unattractive to edit; if you're not even going to be given credit for your history when you do slip up, what's the point in trying to act properly to begin with? Major Bonkers (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

While I can't think of a really externally rewarding reason to act properly, and indeed it would seem not acting properly is encouraged, there is the satisfaction which comes with conducting oneself in a "better" manner than those who play dirty pool so easily. Or to put it simply, I could easily do the same thing but because I like to be different and enjoy a challenge it's more fun not to.

I also have been thinking this might be due to the increasing tendency of people toward "aggressive self assertion". Between people who take this too seriously, trolls looking for entertainment at the expense of others, people who usually don't self assert in real life, and other unique characteristics a sort of emotional equivalent to nitrating glycerol occurs. All the result needs is something to disturb it, like the Troubles or even fictional subjects like Star Trek to set of a blast.

(I hate coming off like a know it all so for anyone besides the Major who happens to come across this and feels like popping in: These are simply my opinions and I could be wrong.) Anynobody(?) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

MD-12 rendering looks like an A380!

We've got an A380 worshipper on Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-12 that's flat out stating your rendering of the MD-12 is in fact an A380. Just in case you missed it! You know what you did to make it, more than Jeff and I do. Thanks. My comment afterwards should let you know where I stand! Amazing tho how much flack people are giving original drawings, when that is what fair-use nazis claim we should use! Strange! - BillCJ (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks are funny about drawings, but this is truly amazing (I'd sooner set my computer on fire before I'd pass off one plane for another. If I ever do model the damn A380 I'm just gonna take my model and change a few minor features, so I suppose they saved me some time by being so close to the MD-12 concept.) Though I can kinda understand where the confusion comes from, I remember thinking while I was drawing it that Boeing ought to sue Airbus.

I've found the best way to shut up the fair use crowd is to have them read the first part of the WP:FAIR rationale, Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Though I prefer to be diplomatic about it by saying it like, "it's going to be fairly difficult to explain why we should be using the copyright material over the free drawing that accomplishes the same encyclopedic purpose." Anynobody(?) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main thing with the image you created is the angle, as it's harder to see the distinguishing features than in the fair-use images. Perhaps tweaking the angle a bit would help, ome that emphasizes the MD-12's tailcone and smaller "forehead", but then I don't know haw difficult that is to do. Anyway, I do support your images, and your right to make them as alternatives to fair-use. But given the flack you've been taking lately for your images, I'm not sure it's worth the bother. - BillCJ (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the difficulty involved in illustrating, sometimes :) I actually enjoy the flak somewhat because I'm debating having a go at this (illustrating) for money and the crap I sometimes get helps me decide if it's something I can deal with, so far I haven't been that frustrated. Re-reading my last post I'm concerned it may have come across more resentful than humorous. This is actually cool because situation like this was something I considered, so I was ready with differences between the two. (I do think Boeing is making a mistake going with the 747-800 rather than a full double deck design. I'd rework the 777 to include a third engine, move all the crew rest areas to one place in the front/back and use the space for the second deck... or they could use the MD-12 stuff they acquired with McD D.)

Back to the misidentification, I was actually thinking doing the A380 and somehow incorporating a comparison. (Maybe have em in formation with the A380 in Airbus livery.) Anynobody(?) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The comparison sounds good. Could you do one with "WhaleJet" plastered down the side for me? And perhaps "The Original Double-Decker" on the MD-12? Anything to tweak the A-380 worshipers! As to Boeing making a mistake not going with a double-decker, they did plenty of market studies, and I'm sure they had access to MD-12 analysis too. Had tehy gone ahead with a double-decker, I'm sure Airbus would have still done theirs too, and Boeing knows the market can't bear two double-deckers right now. I think the did the smart thing, but we'll see. Boeing is a copmany known for taking risks, and they've certainly done that with the 787. The delays with the 787 definetly show there were risks, but with fuel prices up and no sign dropping, I think they'll come out doing pretty good - assuming the 787 ever flies! And I think it will. - BillCJ (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as messing with A380 fans I was thinking of a posterish image of the aircraft with a slogan like, "Designed by the minds at McDonnell Douglas Airbus".

I totally agree the 787 will be a great replacement for the 767, but I think Boeing is missing out on a niche coming up in Asia. (They'll be more people flying throughout the area, so a double deck airliner with just economy seats might be just the thing for regional air shuttles in an area where the population, China/India, is extremely dense.) Anynobody(?) 01:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)