Talk:Caproni Ca.165

Image
Ok.....so apparently a 10-year old boy did a project for an art class and it wound up being a picture in this article. There are almost certainly no free images available for this plane so we have to make do with this crudely drawn charicature which may well have been drawn on a napkin. Are there ANY free images of this aircraft? But hey, I guess we'll have to take what we can get. Antimatter--talk-- 04:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Few is better than nothing. I am not a 10 old year boy (diffrently to many other wikipedians) but this is what i done. If you don't like it, you always have two possibilities: find autorized photo (unlikely) or post another, better draw. In every case, i inform you that any kind of effort in improving wikipedia should be welcomed, and this is the case. What is pissing me, it's the attitude to insulte who AT LEAST, tries to do 'something' to fill the holes in wich the copyright often leaves the wikiepdia articles. I, atleast, i have do something and you can have the chance to see how this plane was (an image is better than 1000 words). Where are the 'artists' here, that can solve such problems? Where are 'critics' like you when it's needed to override the copyrights presents all around?--Stefanomencarelli 09:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa..ok I'm sorry I was not aware that you were actually the artist...I suppose I should have checked the copyright status. If my comment sounded like an insult, I apologize. That type of contribution is exactly what wikipedia needs: someone taking the initiative and using their talents to improve these articles; I made that comment after a serious night of copyediting with my computer freezing just as I was about to save it all...very frustrating indeed. I can't draw to save my life, and I don't even know what the plane looked like. Given the fact that only one was produced, it is amazing that any representation of it at all is in the article. My comments were out of line; please accept my apologies and thanks for your contributions, Stefan. I know a lot of people have been giving you a hard time lately, I don't want to be one of them. I also try to avoid conflict on Wikipedia wherever possible. I like to think my copyediting work improved the article enough to be more widely understandable, i tried to keep your language usage wherever possible. Cheers Antimatter--talk-- 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, i know well how stay at computer is boring and your words sound exacts and nice. If you want to have fun, check also SAI SS.4: at least there i've painted even a 3-view. Not a masterpiece, however, but it was hard to explain with words how such airplane really was..--Stefanomencarelli 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Quite a unique looking aircraft...it kind of reminds me of one the Japanese made towards the end of the war. Antimatter--talk-- 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite intended
As I have just come across a very informative article, I intend to rewrite this article. Any comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Go for it. Antimatter--talk-- 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)