Hellbus

Thanks for the table! I have been away from Wiki for ages and have not had a chance to tidy the article up. --Ozsteamtrain (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This site does not require registration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter209 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

"A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." Per WP:EL. Hellbus (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You said you took a picture of that Ushanka yourself and removed the background. Do you happen to know where I could get one almost exactly like it, particularly the emblem of the USSR on it. Thanks in advance. 209.33.36.146 05:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I got mine on ebay. EASports 07:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hellbus, I can see from your userboxes that you love cats.

Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee?

If you want to join, you can add yourself to the members list and contact the committee founder, me, GeorgeMoney on my talk page.

Thank You. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am working on improving the article with this name. I am one of those considered a "SLIder" (described further in the article). This phenomenon has been happening to me for over 20 years. Last June I had my apartment maintenance supervisor hold my Sony digital camera on me while I went under some lamps to make them go out. The Sony P72 camera makes MPEG movies. The shortest movies I have that have demonstrated the effect are 4 MB and 10 MB. I don't know if I can e-mail to you to show you what I am talking about(?). I would like to show this effect by a short (i.e. under 100k) GIF movie of a "flickering" mercury vapor lamp going on and off (continously cycling on & off); that I could then place into the Wikipedia article on this subject to show the effect that I am talking about. Is it possible to make such a file? I am NOT computer software sophisticated and am not able to make such a file myself. Would it be hard to do (or even possible to do)? Could it be "cropped" from one of my movies that does show the effect? I noticed the digital neon movie you made and then thought maybe my idea could be done. What do you think? --Doug ^talk 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might put the video on Youtube and then link it in the article. I don't think an animated gif could be made that would both show the effect and not be huge. Hellbus 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hellbus, will you join us in creating a new Genesis for Mankind? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thought I ought to tell you that since Bulleid's time the usual received wisdom about the strange valve events is that they were due to chain stretch. Personally I have very strong doubts about that and have put a note on the Discussions page where I tried to explain why. If chain stretch is not mentioned in the article that does not come from ignorance. I would interested in knowing your views as my intention was not to impose a monologue.--John of Paris (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw it elsewhere and thought it belonged in the article. No reason other than that. Hellbus (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Union Pacific Rail-Way, while an erroneous name for the company, is a mistake that might be commonly made among Europeans. Redirects are cheap, and redirects for likely mistaken titles are never speediable and rarely deleted at AfD. Although I wouldn't suggest anyone go around creating deliberate redirects of this sort, they are normally allowed to remain if they exist. Redirects exist primarily for reader convenience, not to enforce any orthodoxy about "correct names". Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the liberty of flipping your image in this article, in response to a request on the talk page. You remain attributed as the original uploader. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

My dear Hellbus, according to my old dad, who was a machinist on the Chesapeake and Ohio, the leading wheels were referred to as the 'engine truck'(with the trailing wheels called the 'trailing truck', or 'trailers'). Can you tell me if this is standard nomenclature in the States, or not? If it is, may I suggest a mention of that in the article? Please give me a buzz at my talk page. Many thanks.--Lyricmac (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to say that you made a terrific replacement with Sunshine spacesuit.jpg! I think that it is a better shot of the spacesuit, especially with the Kenny-esque slit. Appreciate the improvement! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had a question, though; I've revised the fair use rationale for that image, and I was wondering if you had a link to that image found somewhere online? It would strengthen the "Source" part of the rationale. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No online link. I have the DVD and took a screenshot myself. I'll add some more detail to that description. Hellbus (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you please explain why you think "Traser" should redirect to Self-powered lighting? Other than the dab template you recently added, the term "traser" does not appear in the article and I, for one, have never encountered it in connection with this sort of lighting. Thanks. Pzavon (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Traser redirects there. I didn't create that redirect; I just added the link because the spelling is similar. Hellbus (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

However, as far as I can tell, the word "Traser" has no relevance to self-powered lighting, neither does "tracer," which does not redirect there. Do you know what Wikpedia policy is in such a case? Pzavon (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's already a discussion on the talk page for Self-powered lighting regarding why "traser" is there to begin with. The reason I put the link on the tracer page is because of similarity of spelling. If it bothers you, go ahead and remove it. Hellbus (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! I came across {{User:Hellbus/Userboxes/User V-Cube 7}}, amongst others, on Tetracube's userpage. They are fantastic. Do you mind if I steal them?

Thanks, --BlueNovember (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and use them. That's what they're there for. Hellbus (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Folken keeps forcing his edits on the Rebuild of Eva 1.0 article and I keep reverting them to my version, and basically I feel that Folken is ordering us around even though he has no authority to do so because he is not an admin, and he didn't do much to help setting up these articles, only nitpicking on things we wrote. Be that as it may, I feel the only way to stop him from bullying us around is to make a formal vote at Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone#Summary length for consensus. Heck, vote against my position if you feel that is the proper course of action; the point is that Folken does not have the authority to single-handedly constantly be laying down decisions like this and such decisions should be made, I feel, with the support of the whole project. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've chimed in on it. I've also noticed that Folken has a history of doing stuff like this. Hellbus (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey guys, great news, even if you think your opinion is better than the WP guidelines and styles, it's not. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried being civil? It's really not necessary to step on everyone's toes just to make your opinion known. Hellbus (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For crafting a good encyclopedic account of an odd incident, including a reference for the F-106 Delta Dart article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Hellbus (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem - credit where due! - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gas turbine-electric locomotive article needs some "professional help", several of the locomotives mentioned are Gas Turbine-Hydraulic, not electric, examples of these include the French RTG, the UAC TurboTrain, Amtraks Turboliners, and CN's "Turbo"Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a professional. Hellbus (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but your level of Wiki experience far exceeds my own..... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yes I looked at the other IPs. They are all registered to the Bulgarian Telecommunications Company Broadband Service, so they are possibly dynamic meaning that the link to Jetwave Dave could be coincidence. The user has now been warned and subsequently temporarily blocked for abusive behaviour, so can be blocked without further warning for similar behaviour in the future. —Jeremy (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

All the edits to GTEL come from Bulgarian IPs, whereas most of the suspected socks of Jetwave Dave are in Denver, Colorado. In marking one of the Bulgarian IPs as a suspected sock you commented that he could be using a proxy. If this is true then the best course of action is to try to find out if these IPs are open proxies because then we can place indefinite blocks on them. Otherwise, Jetwave Dave or not, the only course of action is short term blocks following any abusive edits.

I'm not 100% sure how to confirm an open proxy. The best evidence I can see is these three edits: [1], [2], and [3], where he rapidly switches between two of the IPs he has used. I'll take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies and see what can be done. —Jeremy (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I requested an open proxy check on 213.91.242.146. —Jeremy (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Hellbus (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

your photograph of the train is amazing, i am using it in the research for my photography project called Time and Space. i go to university arts london. if you'd like to contact me, do so on llcreamphotography@gmx.com

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.135.142 (talk) 09:50, February 1, 2009

Are there all pieces of the v-cube 7 on the image? I don't think so, because of some pieces shown in the picture of the v-cube 6, wich are not in the picture of the v-cube 7. If it is so, can you make a photo of all pieces? (Sorry for my bad english) --FUZxxl (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

All the pieces are there. The hidden pieces of the V-Cube 6 are still there on the V-Cube 7, just reshaped into pieces with stickers on them. The two puzzles have the same number of parts. Hellbus (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I started a preliminary writeup of the new puzzle by Meffert's, Super Square One, and I'm wondering if you'd like to take a look at it and give me some feedback: User:Tetracube/Super Square One. I didn't put this in the main article space yet because I'm still undecided whether this deserves its own article, or it should be merged into Square One (puzzle). What do you think? Thanks.—Tetracube (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've written up a draft article on the Master Pyramophix (with lots of pictures :-)), and wonder if you'd like to take a look at it: User:Tetracube/Master Pyramorphix. Do you think there's enough material here to warrant its own article? Or should we merge it into Pyramorphix? Thanks!—Tetracube (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think this should be a subsection, not a separate article, since the Master Pyramorphix is based on the Rubik's Cube in the same way that the Pyramorphix is based on the Pocket Cube. I'll handle the permutations section, since I have a pretty good idea of how to calculate it. I'm assuming that this puzzle has the ribbed stickers like other Meffert's puzzles; if I'm wrong, let me know. Hellbus (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, this has ribbed stickers. The "Meffert's Challenge" logo is laminated over the sticker, but that's just a minor detail. :-) I'll merge this into Pyramorphix when I get the time. Thanks for your feedback.—Tetracube (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Permutations have been added in. I think I got the right numbers but you may want to check to be sure. Hellbus (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've merged the page into Pyramorphix. I'll take a closer look at the calculations later. Thanks for the help!—Tetracube (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

(term "friend" used very loosely) Please see Special:Contributions/87.252.167.254. Any and all assistance dealing with his tendentious edits, belligerent attitude, and eastern European lack of grammar would be greatly appreciated. WuhWuzDat 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I must admit, I laughed at the edit summary you used for reverting him on the Baldwin loco article. Hellbus (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Empirical formula?? NaH is the formula. There is no empirical formula, I dont think in this case.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

From the empirical formula article: "The empirical formula is used as standard for most ionic compounds, such as CaCl₂, and for macromolecules, such as SiO₂." NaH can have an arbitrary number of atoms, but the 1:1 ratio of sodium to hydrogen remains the same, so an empirical formula is the simplest way to describe it. Hellbus (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

And what other formula would be possibly listed Na2H2? Never mind It seems like a distinction without a difference.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

you're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company! Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hellbus. You might want to check back to your post on "B AFB's" talk page. I left a note that I hope that you will find both humorous and historical. Things change so fast. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Saw that you added a link to that in dioxygen difluoride. I also came across that amusing page today, and almost choked to death trying to stifle my laughter in the office. Hilarious!—Tetracube (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

After reading it, I knew more people needed to see it. Glad to see that I'm not the only one who got a kick out of it. Hellbus (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've created a new Helicopter Cube article, complete with photos of the jumbling variant of it. However, I need some help with computing the number of combinations; do you think you could come up with something? Thanks!—Tetracube (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll see what I can do. Prior to seeing your photos I didn't know that it was possible to deviate from the cube shape. Hellbus (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, not all versions of the helicube are jumble-able. The ones sold by Meffert are; I believe the curvy copter variant doesn't.—Tetracube (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have the Meffert version, so when I come up with a figure I'll make sure to note that it applies to that version of the puzzle. Hellbus (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might just want to have two counts, one with jumbling, one without. I'm not sure how you'd count the jumbling combinations, unless restricted to cube shapes only; the possible jumbled shapes aren't obvious at all because jumbled pieces block certain moves but not others. It can get very complicated if you're going to account for all possibilities.—Tetracube (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I'm going to have to restrict it to cube shapes, but I could still have two figures: one where jumble moves cause orbital transfers and one where no such moves are performed. Hellbus (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please help with adding references to this article to establish notability? It got tagged last month while I was on vacation, and I've less time for WP these days. Thanks!—Tetracube (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been able to find anything beyond the references you added. As for notability, I'm not really sure what needs to be done to resolve that concern. Hellbus (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, great work on those nixie tube graphics. I'd like to use them in an application, are there any hi-res and/or 24bit versions of those shots? :) Thialfihar (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not uploaded yet, but I'll let you know when that changes. Hellbus (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, cheers! Thialfihar (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Images are available on Wikimedia Commons as noted on your talk page as well. Hellbus (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

They're excellent. I want to use them in a sort of retro-looking live wallpaper for Android, tho I'm not sure yet how exactly. For that 1000x1000 is probably overkill, but still an excellent basis to touch up and resize them as needed, thanks a lot. :) The Z566M ones are beautiful also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thialfihar (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Love the Nixie tube gif but also your userbox (where I discovered it). Minorly re-edited it on my user page to "this user is old enough to fondly remember Nixie tubes". Thanks again. Juan Riley (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hellubs, I love your photo 'Chevy Nova SX-70 manipulation'. And I want to ask for your approve to use this picture in my essay 'Instant Camera Art'. It will print on our course book 'Art Write', but won't make any profit, it is just a project of our course 'Writing for culture and art'. I am a postgraduate student of COFA in Sydney. Hope you can approve my application. You can contact me via z3296381@unsw.edu.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shineshow (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Permission granted. Hellbus (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hellubs, you should contact this guy and ask if he plans to sell t-shirts with your Wikimedia Commons photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.224.250 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good find. I left a comment on the video. Hellbus (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

1) it's coming from a random youtube user, we have no idea where the information is coming from. 2)ti's just a simple video. We usually ask for text information, not videos. 3) Youtube is mainly a commercial site. But really, i feel like this was just a challenge seeing as you would agree with me anyways. You realize there isn't a Good Article on WIkipedia that uses youtube as a reliabel source. Questioning youtube as a reliable source is rather...well i dont know how to put it.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you had simply explained your reasoning clearly at the beginning (which you didn't), we wouldn't have as much back-and-forth as we did. Using a blank edit summary doesn't explain anything. I'm still unconvinced that having that link in the article is detrimental to the article, but I'll let it go. Hellbus (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

youtube, chi one of the more obvious reasons why it shouldn't, and has always been avoided. Remember, it's not the information thats unreliable, but the source. if the source isn't reliable, then we can't use the information, despite being true, plus, that wasn't an informative video. You see what I'm saying? If a reliable third party source talks about it, and has a video with it, then maybe, but again from a reliable source. youtube has always been an unreliable source.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I like this image very much, and have used it at Neon lighting. I posted a question about the tube's code, and its diameter, at Commons. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the caption in the Neon lighting article, and modifying the Commons caption to indicate the manufacturer. I'm a bit of a stickler for indicating the sizes of objects in photos. Easchiff (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you change "discovering" to "encountering" in [4]? "Discovering" accurately says that he discovered the bug. "Encountering" sounds to me like the bug was already known or that he didn't realize there was a bug. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

From the FDIV bug article: "On October 24, 1994 he reported the issue to Intel. According to Nicely, his contact person at Intel would later admit that Intel had been aware of the problem since May 1994, when the flaw had been discovered when testing the FPU for its new P6 core, first used in the Pentium Pro." However, on another reading I noticed the same article credits him with independently discovering it, so you can change it back if you like. Hellbus (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have changed it back. If a company keeps something secret then I think it's fair to say it's discovered by the first discoverer outside the company. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hey, I don't know if anyone ever pointed this out to you before, but the picture of your Rubik's Cubes is in the background of this other image. :) TheCoffee (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nice catch. I keep thinking I should redo that one with all the cubes having the same body color, either black or white. Hellbus (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.. You are receiving this notice because you are one of three editors with the most edits to the article. Brad (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know I have reused your Nixie Tube graphics in a freeware PyS60 (python for Series 60) application for Nokia Symbian mobile phones - about 2 years ago. App website here. Sorry the page looks bad, but Google killed the site and auto conversion to new location didn't quite work.

So why do I tell about this now? Because I want to convert the same freeware app to iPhone and was looking for higher resolution graphics. Quite surprisingly I discovered your new pics in Commons! Much appreciated, will give credit within the new app (if Apple approves yet another simple clock app).

Oh, one more thing. Created this Wikipedia account ONLY to tell you about this! Not sure when/if I login next time... Email address is valid in case you see some problems? Jokohama (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I had someone else make a similar request once, so I uploaded photos of the digits of two different tubes. Here are the ones like what you have on your website. Just click to get to the 1000x1000 pixel versions. Hellbus (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gimli glider.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dcoetzee 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully, I have updated the Tillet page twice, and you have removed the information twice. I completely agree to your first removal. My wording was clumsy. It is something I continually work on. I completely agree with that removal. My second update I tried to keep to the subject of death masks created by Bobby Managoff. Every letter I wrote I can prove as fact. You removed it citing original research. There is very few people of the world studying Maurice, yet there is allot of data still out there that can be added. For example, I have a newspaper saying he graduated from St. Stanislaus, a Catholic School that takes children up until completion of High school, and another article that said he was going for his law degree at Talouse University in Paris. No one seems to know if he graduated. Is this "Original Research" Would you allow me to add it, because it is in some newspaper? I am finding the newspapers get it wrong sometimes, and in some cases, often! In fact what I see is people blogging and reblogging is the same old hyperbole on the man. For these death masks, I have been in almost constant contact with all three of the museums where the death masks exist now, and have been working with staff and curators to perform a proper compare that has PROVEN conclusively that a 4th death mask exists. I suspect this is the area you are citing as original research, however I back it up conclusively with pictures and details in the cited blog. It is likely that no one is more educated on the subject of Maurice Tillet than myself at this time. The man has been dead for going on 60 years and I refuse rehash the same old tired rhetoric on this most amazing man. I would like to add to the bulk of knowledge known on the man. The problem is I am now very concerned about your actions I have serious concerns that you will remove my posts even though the facts I have provided are based upon sound research. My last update could not have been more solidly proven, yet you removed it citing "Original Research".. I now know things that others do not about Maurice and I have the proof needed to back it up. If that is not what Wikipedia is for, then what is it? Respectfully, if you remove my updates, then you may as well remove more. For example - " Tillet wrestled for two years in France and England until World War II forced them to leave for the United States in 1939.[1]" Likely this is not accurate. When I read up on why he left Paris it was not to flee anything. He left for the money that could be made in Wrestling in the United States. The cited page was : "http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2011/12/14/19123831.html" They did a great job on their site, however it does not mean they got it perfectly accurate. "In Boston, Massachusetts, in 1940, promoter Paul Bowser pushed Tillet, who was wrestling as The French Angel, as a main eventer,.." Maurice became the French Angel after another promoter STOLE the Angel nickname and gimmick. He was originally just, "The Angel" until there was the need to clarify WHAT Angel he was. It seems I need something to the equivalent of your permission in order to post on Maurice. I am humble enough to know that my literary skills are sometimes lacking, however my research and ability to get at truth is not. If you want to be my proof reader, I would welcome that. In fact I would love a passionately involved proof reader. Before I attempt anything more on the Maurice Tillet Wikipedia page, I am seeking your thoughts so that we can avoid a repeat performance. I look forward to a civilized discussion discussion about this matter. Regards - Interested in the Angel. Interested in the Angel (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. A blog is not considered a reliable source. Your username and narrow focus for editing suggest a conflict of interest also. Hellbus (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

HELLBUS, you know what, you are absolutely right. I do have a mild conflict of interest. Please do not believe I have a narrow focus or that I stopped at research done on the masks. My original update contained more, and honestly I have a ton more details I could add, that are completely accurate about Maurice, rather than retold misinformation

My blog goes about as deep into everything Maurice Tillet as has ever been done. The reason I started researching Maurice was because I have a death mask created from the man, however I go much deeper. Maurice is likely is the inspiration for Shrek and I show why and provide details to back this claim, I correct misinformation out there on the net about him, and I provide the largest collection of details on the man himself. My intent is to remove hyperbole about him, replacing it with more accurate details.

The likelihood I will ever sell the mask this in this manner is almost nill. Very little interest in Maurice these days. However, I have done a TON of research on Maurice, and it is much more factual and deep than what exists on him now. How do I enter, "Facts into Evidence" as it were, when I know what is written about him is incomplete or incorrect. After all these death masks are an interesting chapter in Maurice's legacy. However this is just the start of what I want to add. Then I ran into you, and found it was not that easy.

Here's my problem: I can look at details in the wikipedia page now, and prove things wrong. Such as "Tillet died on September 4, 1954, in France, from heart disease.[1] Tillet is buried at Lithuanian National Cemetery in Justice, Illinois in (Cook County, Illinois)" He did not die in France, and I have the newspaper article that gives the specifics of when, where, he died. WHERE did this information come from that indicates he died in France?

One of the reference pages is this: "The French Angel was more man than monster". Slam! Sports - Is this a reputable source???? In their online article they say, "Indeed, "unusual" is perhaps best used to describe Tillet, a far more fair term than the mean-spirited nicknames of "the world's ugliest man," "freak" or "human monstrosity." " Maurice and his manager intentionally marketed Maurice that way. It was not mean spirited, he chose it, for marketing.

Another questionable detail, "His friends nicknamed him Angel," reads The French Angel Record Book." I very much respect the author of that book however I have just as many quotes to show that his mother gave him that nickname.

Another incorrect detail of the article is this: ""The Angel" wrestled in England and France until World War II drove the pair to the United States in 1939. ".. He left before the war and by his own account in another newspaper quoting him, he left before the start of the war and was for opportunity NOT because of the war. Maurice was French navy to the core and would have instantly joined up and fought.. In fact he tried to join the U.S. war effort and was turned down and was devastated by it. And again - "At 5-foot-7, 270 pounds, Tillet was an awesome, if disproportioned" Maurice was 5foot 8, and 1/2 and was measured by Harvard Anthropologists.

Your allowing a reference to be in the Wikipedia page, that if scrutinized has its fair share of incorrect details.

You also have included in this page - "http://thehumanmarvels.com/110/%E2%80%98the-french-angel%E2%80%99-maurice-tillet/disfigured" - "He aspired to become an actor and was highly intelligent, allegedly speaking 14 languages and being quite gifted in prose. However, in his twenties, Maurice developed acromegaly." I have yet to see anything credible that shows Maurice spoke beyond 4 languages. I suspect he did, however this 14, I suspect is rampantly passed on hyperbole, to raise up the man. It was at age 17, from most reports he saw acromegaly start attacking his features, NOT in his 20's..

My issue is this. I will admit to a COI, since I would someday like to sell my death mask. So in that you are completely correct. You were also correct in removing my first post as my wording was not up to PAR. However, my research, is authentic and backed up with more fact than is presented anywhere else. My sourcing goes far and beyond the sources currently on the page that are basically repackaging what is believed.

I will NOT update Wikipedia with anything until we settle this little issue. Your saying I cannot use my blog as a reputable source, however I have been to one of those museums and have spoken to and received pictures of all the busts. I dig for details on the man, likely like no one has done. I never say never, and I try to avoid using the word fact, as it is hard to get to absolute knowledge.

So where do we go from here? Your allowing source materials and references that I can prove contain incorrect information. I would challenge anyone to critique what I present in my blog and read for factual accuracy?

Tell me, what do I do to get "Facts entered into Evidence"? It is known far and wide that Wikipedia is a great place to go to get leads and learn quickly on a subject, but cannot be trusted. I appreciate someone like yourself guarding the gates, however I have more details and facts than I have seen out there and would somehow like to update the page within policy.

HELP? Interested in the Angel (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:SPS also. Posting information on your blog is not sufficient to have said information included in an encyclopedia. I'm not indicating belief or doubt in what you have claimed. The message I'm trying to get through to you is that your blog is not enough. These claims need to be cited by other sources. If you have other sources to back you up, by all means cite them and add your information back. As for what I have "included," I haven't. If you feel the information is incorrect (and can cite such) then the other link can be removed. Hellbus (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would like to respond you what you said here, "Posting information on your blog is not sufficient to have said information included in an encyclopedia." I worked diligently to perform the research required to proof anything that started as theory. What is claimed in the blog is sourced. Sourcing is not enough here, because we have bigger issues. COI and Original Research, pretty much makes it impossible for me to present anything about these four death masks now known to exist. Anything I would add on the subject would constitute a COI. Almost every site on the net about Maurice say's three death masks exist. There is now four, and this simply does not sound like the place I am allowed to present this new fact.

I have gone to the Dan Gable Wrestling Museum and physically done a compare. I have also taken tons of pictures of all and shared them with all the museums in order to verify authenticity. I have done a detailed analysis with an artist that does body castings to review all physical evidence the remains on the bust. I have been in in almost continual contact with, and shared information with the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum at Harvard, and contacts at the Dan Gable Wrestling museum. Even if there was not a COI issue, not sure how to source the research performed and the conclusions drawn. All I can do is present the evidence and conclusions, and open myself to public scrutiny to make sure I am not making a mis-step. This is, in part, the reason I wished to post here. I want oversight, and to make sure I am representing things as they are.

What troubles me is that acceptable knowledge transfer in Wikipedia is not based on truth or fact, rather only the acceptability of source.

You have effectively pointed out that wikipedia is not a place for the addition of new facts or information. Wikipedia is a place for those with sourceable information to provide, what is already known or generally believed. The idea being if you can source it, you can sell it as fact here. My problem with this is misinformation. I can show you a half dozen articles written about Maurice, that completely gets things incorrect. I could very easily source those, providing completely incorrect information. My point, is hopefully well received. Sourcing, does not ensure truth or fact.

As you study any subject, there is always room for correction, and addition. I have turned over my research and all details to Harvard, as well as to the museums on the Maurice Tillet death masks. They have appreciated what I have been able to add about the masks as well as to the details of Maurice. Should they publish what I have added to the story, THAT would be an independent source. Unfortunately, Maurice is not all that relevant at this time. My research will likely be filed, and not published anytime soon, if ever.

It has been made perfectly clear that this is not the place to present any NEW information. Since I now understand that Wikipedia is about sourcin, and not a search for fact or truth, I will the misinformation presented, to remain, as it appears what is in there is somehow properly sourced.

With respect to what is on the page, everything is pretty accurate with the exception of his dying in France. He died in the U.S.

My specific complaint is with the source link, and external links. A proper critique of the details in those shows they contain too many mistakes on the man to be allowed to used as source material. My blog most likely contains the most thorough and accurate details on the man, correcting misinformation, adding new theories, and providing new facts, however it is not a proper source here.

What I have learned here about wikipedia has helped me immensely and I thank you. I now understand, more completely what Wikipedia is for. I should continue to do my own research, should I want to get at truth, or fact of a subject.

Thank you for your time Interested in the Angel (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you have done research, you should have third-party sources to cite. What is unclear about this? Hellbus (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can source everything, with the exception of this 4th Maurice Tillet death mask that I own. Since I own it I have a inherent COI issue. Also, sourcing of the authenticity of this mask is all but impossible, for the fact that it is Original research. I had no idea what I had, until very recently. I picked it up, only because I liked it. Then my research began. I scoured the net and spoke to everyone connected to the death masks in order to see if anyone had ever heard of another existing. I scoured the net and it consistently refers to THREE total being created by the artist. I contacted each of the three museums where the three known to exist are, and was able to do a detailed analysis by picture comparison. In one case I was able to travel to the museum with mine, and performed a side by side comparison. When you say, "What is so unclear about that?" I guess it is the obvious. I have no idea how to source, original research. I think we have gone full circle now. What I have, I can prove, however the proof is only presented in a blog that I created. Interested in the Angel (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, big thx for the nixie tube images. I wrote a screensaver using them. Do you have by any chance a picture with the tube switched off, i.e. showing no number at all. I tried to photoshop something but it looks weird. MrTridac (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Which tube do you need a picture of? Hellbus (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hellbus! We love some of your photos here at our designer agency & appreciate that you have popped them up on the wiki commons under the Creative Commons license for us to use. We would love to use some of your images in our presentations, but would find it difficult to attribute based on the presentation of our work. I wanted to see if we could possibly arrange an agreement or a donation to correctly use your work for our presentation style? my appropriate email can be found in my profile to discuss. Many thanks, Michael Pugs18 (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can't access your profile. Hellbus (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hellbus, sorry, not sure i created correctly. I can be contact at mpuglisi@sabanbrands.com Thanks very muchPugs18 (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Hellbus. You recently marked this edit as minor, but the edit added substantive/factual content. Minor edits are typically just cosmetic, such as fixing typos or formatting references and so on. Maybe that is not how you think about minor edits, but for editors like me marking that edit as minor is potentially misleading. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Q2 front-side view.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MM Leftovers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:T1 color photo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re [5]

In what way would the turret not have been the same? Obviously the centre gun would be removed, but we state that specifically. Do you mean that this would be a new build turret, with some inherent difference? Now that, even in the crazy world of Wunderwaffen, is a crazy idea. The whole point of it is that the Gneisnau rebuild freed up the spare turrets, just as for Austrått Fort.

Do you interpret 'same' as meaning 'the turret that was on Gneisnau'? Or 'a turret identical to those on Gneisnau'? Obviously it's the first that's correct, but so long as we state the major changes (we do), this is less confusing than any implication that it would be a different turret, built to order. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no way it could have been a modified Gneisnau turret. The ship turret was too tall (counting structure below the weather deck) and too heavy to fit with the published estimates of vehicle weight. The blueprints from Gneisnau might have served as a starting point if any design work was done. The article already mentions the unlikelihood of mounting the Gneisnau turret on a land vehicle. Hellbus (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's pure WP:OR. Now that's rather an inevitability with the whole subject area, but even so, the only thing we know for sure about this is that someone near Hitler's inner circle had the great idea, "Gneisnau has just been bombed and the turrets are to be replaced, so why not put one of them on tracks and invade Moscow." This is a crazy idea and also, almost certainly, an impossible idea. But yet, that's what the idea was. Not to build a new turret, or new guns, barrels or mounts. Even the ammunition was intended to be re-used.

As to shortening the turret, then that would have been needed. But it's hardly a difficult task, compared to the other problems of building the chassis! The original design goes down through 5 decks (Caesar turret was one fewer than Bruno). That's because the armoured deck was itself so far down, and the magazines were on two flats below this. But for La Ratte there's no chance of such armour, or of any protected 'magazine'. The credible likelihood is firstly much less ammunition storage, with the hoists shortened. The space below the weather deck is now about two flats high, not five, and the 'magazine' is restricted to a small circle within that space. Which fits with all the conjectured sketches of the vehicle.

Of course, this all makes much less sense than simply [sic] putting one of the guns from Anton onto the Monster chassis and not even trying to armour it. But hey, Nazis. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whether modified or newly fabricated, the Ratte turret would not have been identical to one from Gneisnau, so having the word "similar" in that part of the article is harmless. Hellbus (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the point. The thing it that this would have been a turret from the Gneisnau. Modified, yes. But its identity (not its design) was that of being the Gneisnau. We clarify the changes immediately afterwards.

You've also still not said what these 'differences' would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

One less gun, less vertical extent, who knows what else. Different vehicle, different design criteria, different turret, too much time spent on semantics. Hellbus (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply