User talk:Drifter bob

Hello Drifter bob! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 05:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

As of 2018, this user contributes to Wikipedia as LankhmarJoe (talk-contribs). - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. I've been back to the library and gleaned some more details from Brown's book as well as Alexander's bio of Caldwell. Most of it is in the P-40 article now. BTW, I have to warn you that while Brown's book is very detailed, his writing style is somewhat convoluted, requiring great concentration. Alexander is a terrific writer though and very readable. Grant | Talk 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks grant I'm going to get the PDF of Alexanders book today. Does Brown offer any evaluation of the P-40 vs the 109, Mc 202 or Fw 190?

Drifter bob 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question and one which I will have to revisit Brown to answer. I was looking for general material about the P-40 on my last visit.

Among other points, Brown doesn't seem to have a high opinion of Tedder, whose emphasis on bombing, in the absence of air superiority, seems misguided to say the least. Brown also mentions how 3 Sqn RAAF destroyed a whole flight of six Vichy French Glenn-Martin 167s (A-22s) in a matter of minutes over Syria. They were sitting ducks without fighter escort, just as the DAF bombers would have been without the P-40s. Brown's account of the DAF squadrons' conversion to the P-40 is also staggering because it was so inadequate. One squadron lost about half a dozen planes, mostly to landing accidents, while converting. Some squadrons had an experienced USAAF pilot with them to advise, but they still struggled at first to land P-40s without breaking the landing gear! Grant | Talk 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought there were only 17 Wards in New Orleans. Where is Number 23?

BrassTacks 06:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is an old joke. Where did you see 23rd ward? It goes back to a group of friends from McMain High School in the 80's, has become kind of an inside joke around town with some people.

Drifter bob 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! - It is yet another reason I love New Orleans. There are SO many "inside" jokes in that City. Only natives know about "Monkey Hill", "Neutral grounds", know that due East is the only way to get to the West Bank, - know what a "Tchoupitoulas" is, ... the list goes on and on. Thank you for sharing another.

BrassTacks 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, Thanks for the message. My point of view is simple. If the sources say that Celts had certain sexual practices, then we report what the sources say. If the sources have been disputed by citable experts, we report that. So far that's what I've done. Personally, I don't care whether the ancient Celts practiced homosexuality or not. That's why I find it very hard to understand your seeming desire to deny it. Nor do I understand your preoccupation with paedophilia, which as far as I am concerned has nothing to do with this. If you have extra sourced information on sexual practices or marital relations add it. We also have to be as clear as possible about when and where certain norms prevailed. Much of the time we can't of course, because ancient writers simply speak of "Celts" in a vague way. Paul B (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is spot on, this is the way articles are written on Wikipedia. Debate takes place in academia, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia talkpages are strictly speaking only for debate on how to best present the various academic opinions in a structured way. This is encapsulated in WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a pre-occupation with paedophilia, the Celt article was vandalized three times in the last five years by people who used the Atheaneus / Poseidonius quote to claim definitively that the Celts specifically practiced pederasty (iirc in a section they titled pederasty). According to the current wikipedia article pederasty means "an erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family" which overlaps with the definition of pedophilia. This kind of vandalism is not at all unusual in Wikipedia, as I'm sure most people are aware. I reverted one of those edits and provided some of the current references which are now in the article, simply in the interest of having a relatively accurate Wikipedia article and because they were clearly vandalism. Paul got involved late in the discussion the second time I edited one of these entries, and we argued about the section. Paul's subsequent accusation that I have an 'obsession' with pedophilia is offensive and seems disingenuous, it seemed like a dishonest attempt to stifle discussion on this section of the article, although if Paul is a French speaker it is possible it stems from confusion between the French and English definitions of the term (Pederast).

I felt since his edit that it did not accurately reflect the best information on the subject but since the overt Pedophilia references had been removed I really didn't care that much about it and didn't think it was worth getting into a personal battle with someone who was going to start making accusations implying that I was bigoted in some way.

But I think it's time to point out that the way the Celt article is currently written places undue weight on Paul Barlow's personal interpretation of Celtic sexual practices. I think it actually qualifies as original research. Certain (Greek) sources repeated the single fragmentary claim of one individual Greek author (Poseidonius) which now dominates the description on gender and sexual norms in the Wiki. Poseidonius book on the Celts no longer exists other than a few fragments, and there is no mention that various complete later sources by authors with direct contact with the Celts (Julius Caesar, Tacitus) do not describe anything remotely similar nor is there a single description of such practices in any of the surviving insular literature. I had pointed this out in the article but Paul Barlow changed that to read 'There are no direct sources from ancient Celtic cultures to confirm or contradict these statements'. Which is placing undue weight on the notion that they existed - analagous to supporting the idea that the Celts played Jazz music on the Carnyx by saying 'There are no direct sources from ancient Celtic cultures to confirm or contradict' the idea. More significantly the expert Rankin who Paul cited in his restructuring of the article himself dismisses the notion that these actually were sexual practices of the Celts and believed the Greeks may have been describing bonding rituals such as those described in various Irish myth cycles. Paul apparently disagreed with Rakin so he edited the Celt article to imply that Rankin was incorrect. To me that is original research. Drifter bob (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a rather stale debate at this point. Contemporary authors are unanimous that the Celts practiced homoerotic "bonding rituals". There isn't much more to be said about this, because we cannot go back in time and check. If the same authors described Jazz music played on Carnyxes, we would also record the fact, but it appears they do not. The distinction between "pedophilia" and "pederasty" escapes me, but if there is one today, it is almost certainly an anachronism to project it into antiquity. We all seem to agree that we will simply report what the experts make of all this, so there should not be a problem. I am not sure what insular literature is supposed to have to do with this, since "Celts" for the purposes of Classical Antiquity equals "Gauls". Obviously, "bonding rituals" in warrior societies may or may not include homoerotic aspects, and I see no contradiction between "bonding ritual" and "pederasty" whatsoever. To the contrary, any form of pederasty accepted by society will invariably have the nature of a "bonding ritual". --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on several points:

1) Contemporary authors are actually not in agreement on this subject, as I pointed out. Tacitus and Caesar, our most comprehensive contemporary Classical sources on the Celts do not mention these practices, though they do mention other things like aggressive women, head hunting and human sacrifice.

2) Celts in Classical antiquity included the Celtiberians in Spain, the Gallatians (who invaded Greece and later settled in what is today Turkey... these were the people depicted in the famous statue of the Dying Gaul), the Belgians, the Britons the Irish and the Gauls. They also used the term Keltoi, Gallatian, Gaul, Gallati more or less interchangably.

3) The same authors may not have described Jazz music, but they did describe things like cyclopses in Lybia and men with one foot in Central Asia, which we do not emphasize as being real in articles describing the history of the people in these parts of the world. I was simply that pointing out that the insular literature and legal records of the people in question contradict this particular Greek claim.

4) I do not believe there is really a distinction between pedophilia and pederasty, that was Pauls assertion.

5) You misunderstand Raknin, this is a good example of why lay people don't always interpret primary source data as well as experts. Bonding rituals do not necessarily include sexual practices or even homoeroticism at all. In the Irish Sagas for example Chieftains are described as laying their head in the lap of St. Patrick during greeting. There is nothing sexual about it in that context, it is a sign of submission because he was deemed a Holy Man. Similarly, sleeping in the same bed did not necessarily mean having sex, it may have more to do with a shortage of beds. In insular literature of cultures where men openly had sex with boys or other men, it was prominently described in the literature. This is true of the Classical Greeks, the Romans, the Samurai, the medieval Arabs, the Ottomans etc. In cultures where there was less openness about such practices (say in the Icelandic sagas) it was not discussed, except in the form of insults. That is the point I was making.

6) I am advocating reporting what the experts make of this, but the article currently implies the expert it cites is incorrect and places a personal emphasis this expert himself does not make. Drifter bob (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happened across Il2 Sturmovik 1946, which includes the first three games, going half-price and snapped it up. I have been too busy to install, let alone play it so far. I also need a joystick but am reluctant to pay the big bucks for a Cougar, Saitek or CH. What do you have and what would you suggest? Do you use pedals etc too? Cheers, Grant talk 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Bob. Good to see you are still active here. After many games, I have to agree that IL-2 is a great game. I have found that its P-40 variants compare well to the Spitfire, Bf-109, Macchi, Zero and Ki-43 variants of similar vintages.

The biggest drawback with the 'hawks is perhaps a creation of the games' designers, who seem to have underestimated the stopping power of .50, .303 and .30 bullets. The same applies to other underrated, machine gun only types, like the Brewster Buffalo. Even the notoriously flammable G4M Betty is hard to knock down with machine guns. In reality, if we look at another sector where the P-40 and Spitfire V were both used, being northern Australia, the P-40s did much better. By comparison, kills seem to come (relatively) easily in cannon-armed late-war types, like the F4U, Tempest, P-63, FW-190D, Ki-84 and La-2. Cheers, Grant | Talk 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree kind of, and I dislike the late-war maps largely due to all the cannon, it makes the fights much more random. But especially on a mid-war map the heavy machine guns (especially the US Browning .50 cal) can be pretty effective in Il2 if you use them right. You have to use them differently than the cannons. The cannons destroy the fuselage and wings much better, but they have short range and dont' punch through armor well, and don't carry much ammo usually. The .50 can cause a lot of damage from long range, can cripple engines, and kill pilots (and gunners) easily. For bombers especially, long range shots can be useful, you can cripple it and then get it later. Similar for fighters, but you use more high angle shots and a little bit more 'spray and pray' shooting than you do with cannon (especially nose-mounted cannon). The US .50s, especially the wing mounted ones, have a lot of ammunition, and one or two rounds can seriously damage an enemy aircrafts engine. I also use long range shots esp. against faster planes lke a Fw 190. If a Fw 190 dives away from you in a P-40m, you can catch him as he pulls up, and make some careful long range shots from 500 meters or more.... this will often cripple them and then you can easily get them.

Generally speaking in that game, I find the P40B / Tomahawk holds it's own, the P-40E and P-40M usually do really well, you can own an Me 109 one on one and you can own a Zero too even more so long as you have some altitude (dont' ever get low and slow with one though). The whole trick to that game (and what makes it so interesting) is that the more you learn the subtle details of a given flight model the better you can do with it. A Spit is a better fighter in Il2, but I do better in a P-40 because I know it so well now and I know how to exploit it's two best features of turning (esp. using a little bit of flaps) and diving speed to maximum advantage.

The only issue is that you want to set the convergance differently for long range vs. short range spray and pray type shooting. I still fly sometimes on the Uk Dedicated server, I'm Othello13 I think (might be a different number) Drifter bob (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this might be of interest for you. I want to add a sentence telling the readers overclaiming was not unusual. I have several references, but Grant65 keep reverting and reverting and reverting. He either says what happened elsewhere is not context but irrelevant or alleges the explanation is meant as an accusation of DAF. Could you take a look at the article, leave a comment? Thanks! Here´s my addition to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curtiss_P-40&oldid=211024699#Combat_performance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(This is being cross-posted to everyone listed in Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans, Louisiana)

Infrogmation and I are organizating a Wikipedia meetup in New Orleans on Saturday, August 23. Everyone is invited. Raul654 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Origins of Democracy Project, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origins of Democracy Project. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. the skomorokh 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Bob, sorry for having the article deleted. I've left a comment here in reply to your question. If you like, the content of the article can be restored to your userspace (e.g. at User:Drifter bob/ODP), and you can work on it there until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Don't hestitate to ask if there's anything I can help you with. Regards, the skomorokh 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a talk page of a closed articles for deletion debate, this is not really a good place to go to get your concerns addressed. These talk pages are not really used as AfD is a discussion already, and I only stumbled upon your remarks while checking out newly-created pages. Click here for the deletion review page, or here to request a new article. If you have located non-trivial coverage from reliable sources, you could try re-creating the article, the sources don't have to be off the web, but they do have to meet Wikipedia standars for reliability, which are here. Thanks and good luck. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Pepe llulla, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://louisdl.training.louislibraries.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/LWP&CISOPTR=5919&CISOBOX=1&REC=5, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Pepe llulla and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Pepe llulla with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Pepe llulla.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Pepe llulla saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought since the article in question was written in 1888 it was public domain.

Drifter bob (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bob. These two edits suggest you might sometimes edit from IP 70.166.181.194, from which this edit to Vegvísir was made.

As I noted [1], I've been trying to improve the Vegvísir article by adding references/citations. Can you provide a reference for the "alternate type" of Vegvísir (the latest portion of the article is in this section: Vegvísir#Alternate type)? See the discussion here and comment, if you can.

Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	A neat little stub at David Leon Chandler. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]