User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 15

RFA Thank spam
-- White Shadows There goes another day 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dazzle!
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I (think I) answered your question at WT:DZ!. I'm still not actively maintaining the script, though, so I completely understand if you want to stick with Twinkle/Friendly/FurME/etc.. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why
Why did you remove the link I added? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was spam, plain and simple. See your addition, my reversion. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But http://mudkipz.ws is funny! Just go to it and see! --138.110.206.101 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is considered classic vandalism. Please go waste someone else's time with your jokes. (note: I did not go and see) Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 03:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment @ Airplaneman: You better have been glad that you didn't. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh oh... did you? Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 03:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Face-sad.svg-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you (and your computer) are alright. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 03:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to log off to get off the webpage but were still okay. Now I just need to figure out how to make these.Face-grin.svg-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wish I knew how too :). Which reminds me, I need to get on with that GA review of your nomination! Sounds like the site was malicious; will contact an admin about it (to put it on an edit filter blacklist or something). I suggest running a virus scan on your computer (if you have antivirus software) and deleting all cookies from your browser, among other things. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 03:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to make it here, but I'm having a little difficulties. About the site, if I had something my antivirus software would pop up, in which it hasn't. Yea, I was wondering what happend to you on the GAN, again.Face-smile.svg-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... so the file on your computer looks OK, but when you upload it, it is cut off? I'm no image expert, but try adding some whitespace to the top of the image while trimming excess space from the bottom. Otherwise, looking good! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 03:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you click on the link that takes you to inkscape? I asked for help from someone who always does these, and no I don't have a clue because I created everything on it. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  04:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might have better luck with the person you asked, then. I am more clueless than you :) Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 04:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha; ye probably, I think I know whats wrong, but I don't know how to fix it. I believe that sectionsl of it is below 0.000 which will cut it off. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  04:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, looks like you fixed it. Nice work! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 04:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a box that I had to put it in. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  04:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible to create an edit filter that blocks malware sites, but I'd have to say I'd want to use it as a last resort. We already have a blacklist of sorts that can be used to block URL's, and supposedly doesn't consume as much processing time as an edit filter; however I'm not aware of it being used for malware.  I've only seen it used to block spam sites.  It is called the Spam blacklist after all.  However, the spam list on Meta seems to be more oriented towards malware and shock sites in general, and so there's definitely some precedent for having such sites be blocked (additionally, having a blacklist on Meta absolves us of the responsibility to separately blacklist a site on each wiki).   —  Soap  —  10:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for dropping by, Soap. So it looks like the edit filter is not the most efficient way and the spam blacklist is maybe the way to go. The problem is, I'm not sure if this is a widespread link. Sounds like a shock site to me, not spam. So are you suggesting leaving it be or adding it to the blacklist on Meta? Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 16:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOTD
Hi there, Airplaneman! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By Beluga  boy  21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tables
Do you think the sponsors and make should be listed in the reults table. Also please look at the qualifying table. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  18:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a preview. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  19:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better, but I want your opinion.-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the flag icons are necessary, as they add almost no relevant information. Instead, list their team and make. As for sponsors, they should be fine in the results table. More at the GAN page. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see how you would do it. So could you change it at my sand box?  Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - see my edit summaries. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * okay, so I need to add Laps and time. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the make and sponsor really nessary? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Make is, sponsor isn't. Don't forget to add points earned in the race results, as well. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Make is the appropriate name on the table, and okay.-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am ok with that. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't add the time because there is no good link for it. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're saying there's no reliable source for it? That's OK, then. I don't think it's emphasized in NASCAR, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is. How do you like the table?-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you like the new lead being prepared here? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  19:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's coming along well and definitely better than the current one. I'll make some tweaks to it as well. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I think it should have a mention about being one of two road course races in the season, as this is unusual. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm where? Also you have new messages at the GA review. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead you were working on. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 02:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read: this]! -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good resource for many parts of the article – a must-have! :) Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 02:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now here are the questions: Is the lead at my sandbox ready. 2: Where should that ref go. 3:What else? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am about to sign off for tonight and will check back tomorrow. As of right now, yes, the lead can go into the article. I'll give some more suggestions at the GA review tomorrow. I fixed a few things on User:Nascar1996/bottom. Hope you don't mind :) Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 02:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mind, and I may strike out what I have completed so it will be easier to see. See ya tomorrow. :) -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it okayt if I remove the ✅s and strike your comments that were done with out? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'm going to ask RoyalBroil about the ref issue in the race section. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, he normally replies late Eastern time. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a question. It is: Do you think the current article is better than mine. Sponsors are not that notable. Colors in the background?? I think it is all messed up. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are sponsors notable on season articles? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know what could be wrong here?-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have two duplicate userboxes on GA's written (the first one says "This user has written or significantly contributed to 3 good articles on Wikipedia." Right under it, another says "This user has written 3 Good Articles on Wikipedia."). Other than that, nothing seems amiss. As for the GA review, if you're adding manufacturer and all, I don't see why sponsors should be omitted. I think background colors for the table headers would be a nice touch. I don't get what you meant here: "I have a question. It is: Do you think the current article is better than mine." Airplaneman  ✈  Review? 03:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We had decided on that earlier, but thanks anyway. My navigation template background should cover the whole article, but it isn't. I probably will have to ask NerdyScienceDude. He fixed it last time. How do you like WP:NASCAR so far? Thanks anyway. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  04:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Will add more to the GA review tomorrow. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 04:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you look at my sandbox to look at a template to see if it should be WP:NASCAR's new navigational template? Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think "laps led" is important enough to be included; it can be mentioned in prose in the race summary. Otherwise, the tables look great! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 02:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished, you have new messages Wikipedia talk: WikiProject NASCAR and at the GA review. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  02:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to try finish the GA review tomorrow? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully; it really depends on what real life throws at me. We're nearly there. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  04:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Review
Hey, I gave you some advice on your percy jackson GAs on your editor review. Derild 49  21  ☼  00:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I needed a fresh opinion badly. Any recommendations on where to start looking? Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 02:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for themes I just go on google and type in Sea of Monsters themes. I found this one already. For the setting either find something in the reviews that can be used or cite the book it self. Publication history is anything you can find on the release date in any nation of the different editions. Good luck! Derild  49  21  ☼  13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link; I just need to make sure places I get the reviews from are reliable (this one looks OK). BTW, you signed with five tildes :) Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Roald Dahl task
sillybillypiggytalk to me sign! 16:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL at "wonderedering" :). Thanks for the invite; I am busy with other things right now, namely GA reviewing, copyediting, PJTF articles, and APPLE articles, so I don't have much spare time. I don't think joining would help the project much right now. Sorry, Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This really isn't worth a new section, but do you like today's logo at this page? — m o n o   (how's my driving?) 18:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you like it, I like it :)… the flares are a bit too bright, though, IMO. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Istanbul vs Constantinople
Constantinople is the name of Istanbul before of 1453. In the year of Abdulmecid's life, It is Istanbul. Now what I did is called vandalism still?--85.104.71.27 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; your not leaving an edit summary left me confused. I still think it should be Constantinople, as the article on it says: Constantinople as the name of the city was officially deprecated in favor of the Turkish name Istanbul in 1930. Since Abdülmecid I died in 1861, the place was still called Constantinople. So yes, your edits weren't vandalism . Thanks for contributing, and happy editing :).  Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of articles
the reason I took them out is because the singles are already on every rock radio station across the nation.174.61.35.159 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still don't get it ; please elaborate why this justifies the removal of references. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 19:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * what i'm saying is, it's been months since the singles were first announced so I decided to do it.174.61.35.159 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason to remove the refs. If you don't mind, I'm going to undo the changes. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved here. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 20:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Barrington, Illinois page refs
Thanks for your help with the Barrington, Illinois refs. Appreciate it! Sueswim03 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem :). For future reference, this tool is what I used. It gets most if not all bare links and is really useful. Nice to meet you, Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 22:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:Kayavak
✅
 * Beluga boy  11:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted EL on "Desk" Page
The burden is on the editor to provide substantiation to include an EL. Until you do this, I see no reason as to why we should include this link. I would discuss the issue on the talk page of the article and find a consensus if you want it to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * R'd there. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Morthland Page
Hey thanks for the welcome! I want to become a more active wikipedia contributor. Can you help with my newest article? I need critiques and direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonthn (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonthn. A good place to start would be to read the links provided in the message I sent. Do you have any specific questions? Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Wikiproject
Ccwillwerth has expressed interest in the Aviation Wikiproject. I did my best to help him/her out, but you seem to be the airplaneexpert here, so if you have anything to add, feel free. (Wow... your talk page is huge)  Bramble  claw  x   16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I would not consider myself an expert; I'm just what you would call an enthusiast. But yea, I'll try to help! As for my talk (yea, it's getting looooong), I will archive after I wrap up my conversation with Christos somewhere above (the biggest thread). Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR and related pages
Hello, Airplaneman I have a major question to ask. This and this havn't been updated by anyone other than me lately. I was wondering if you would believe that most unused pages in WikiProject NASCAR should be deleted so the project can be recreated. Also, if you havn't noticed, the project has lost about 130 editor since it was created to know, and it only has 25 memebers. I believe this project needs to restart fresh, but I don't know anyone to ask who would delete them so the project can recreate it. We do have to say WikiProject NASCAR has passed its hay day, when articles were being created left and right. I believe NerdyScienceDude and I are really the only big contributers really updating and editing the articles. Of course you are to, but if we weren't here the project would become more like WikiProject IROC. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the pages should be kept for historical reference, even if you don't want to update them anymore. If you really wanted to start over on a clean slate, move the pages to a historical page (for example, move Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards to Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards/Historical). This is so contributors can be given credit for their work. I don't think deleting pages is necessary, though, and I would object if an admin did delete them. As for the editors this project "lost"… well… I wouldn't say you lost them, especially if they just signed up and never actually did any work. 130 names may have been removed from the list, but the 25 people left are the ones who were and still are active. As you mentioned on WT:NASCAR, a newsletter would be a good way to reach out to members. I've added my thoughts there as well. Hope this helps, Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does help. Thanks. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  12:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Check this out!!!!!! -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  15:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll make some tweaks. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 19:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need to add the race winners from this month, but I'm not sure how to put it. I have put the skeleton of the points for all three major series on there. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  20:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Try it under the "How to help WP NASCAR" section, as there's some blank space there. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 20:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I belive its not enough because there were 11 top three division races this month. Hummmm???? Every time I try to edit it I get a edit conflict. I wonder whose editing it? :) Thanks for becoming a contributer, please add your name at the main Newsletter page though. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please do it, I am experiencing computer difficulties. Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  20:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * conputer problems, and ✅. :) -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note these edits (this and this) while choosing a time for the GA review. Thanks. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)\

Thanks, Nascar1996. The article looks like it needs some work; how about I begin it while you're on vacation, so I have time to add plenty of comments but I will not put it on hold (if needed) until you or NSD gets back? Airplaneman  ✈  01:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be semi-active. Which means I probably will watch my watchlist more than editing, but I do need to finiswh the latest race article.

I quess you can start it, but please give us a while to finish them where the article needs work. Please preview the Newsletter since I have added thing. Thanks. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will make sure you guys get seven days starting August 5th. As for the newsletter, is reporting NASCAR stats really necessary? I would think the newsletter would be more centered around the project and not the actual topic (NASCAR). Airplaneman   ✈  01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a special edition so it can have it the others may not. Also, next month will not be a active month for me, I will go back on vaction then on Aug 19 I restart school.-- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  01:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello when do you believe I should begin sending the newsletter the WP:NASCAR members?  Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look below :)


 * Thanks so much, Nascar1996! :-) And yea… I forgot about the template. I'll try to remember next time! I'm still pondering your question above, and will get back to you on that soon. I'll pick up another NASCAR race article review after this. Thanks! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, and your welcome. I'm also happy because I starting to regain GAs. Happy Editing. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  19:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever it is ready, and before the end of the month, as it is the July issue. I'll take a final look and tweak as necessary. I suggest you submit it to MessageDeliveryBot. Airplaneman   ✈  03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes. I think it should be ready now unless you have anything to add. Airplaneman   ✈  04:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sooo...
I've been a little busy lately, but things seem to be getting a little less hectic. Hence, I've not spoken to you as much as I'd like since you very rarely crop up on my watchlist! Anyway, my main reason for dropping in here out of the blue is I was wondering if you'd given any thought to another shot at adminship. If you're interested, I can stalk your edits, logs, deleted edits and other stuff, though I'm pretty sure my stalking will confirm my suspicion that it's about time you tried again. I'd be happy to nominate if you wanted to give it another shot in the near future. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Airplaneman is ready for attempt #2. He said something earlier about waiting until as late as December. @HJ Mitchell - The drama earlier today has been fully resolved. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm… I wasn't considering it, as NSD said, but I've given this some thought and I'd be honored if you would nominate :). Would mid-August be considered the near future? This will give me extra incentive to address the remaining issues raised at my first RFA, all pertaining to a sub-par creation and a less than stellar GA. The other issues I feel like I have addressed, but I would like to have a little extra time to prepare. My last RFA was rather hurried, which contributed to its failure. Soo... in a nutshell, yes! Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can deal with mid-August. :) There may be a week or so when I'm not around in August, but we can either work round it or it might be good for my health- I got rather angry during the Connormah's 2nd attempt. :S Your first RfA was a funny one- if you'd gone for it a month or two later (and if it hadn't been for the lack of recognised content) you might have scraped through, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to fail your first attempt. I did, and my second got me a slot on WP:100. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. The worst thing that could happen is that my rights go unchanged and I get feedback :). It would be great if I could have tools to help me in the areas I work in, tough, instead of asking admins to do it! Airplaneman   ✈  13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any need for the tools though?-- White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Airplaneman would have a use for the block tool. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 17:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If I make it, I plan to use the tools mostly for yes, NSD was right, blocking, granting user rights, CSD, and RPP. Airplaneman  ✈  17:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good you have a use for them. That was one of the many things that killed my RFA :) I llok forward to supporting you.-- White Shadows It's a wonderful life 21:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a tip: if you mention CSD in Q1, you'd better have many hundreds of perfect taggings in your deleted contribs and you'd need flawless answers to the inevitable "how would you delete..." and "explain xyz criterion" questions. The block button is always useful and RPP and the permissions requests are always in need of another admin to look in. Make sure you read up on things like WP:PP and WP:BLOCK and getting a feel for current practice at AIV/RPP etc would do you no harm. :)  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, HJ; I will be sure to look. Here is the only fairly recent botched tagging of mine. The vast majority if not all of my other (few) mis-taggings were from last year. Airplaneman   ✈  22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ, I stumbled upon Talk:Anne Frank/Comments. I was compelled to G6 it, but it doesn't really qualify for any specific CSD criteria. Airplaneman   ✈  00:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I zapped it under G2. I thought about G6 but it's not really eligible. It could have gone under G8, I suppose, but G2 is broad enough to catch it. You kind of bollocksed up on that A7, but the article wasn't asserting any significance (the letter, but not the spirit of A7!) A quick Google search never hurts and it only takes a few seconds, but it's good to see you followed up by improving the article a bit. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was not happy about that slip-up. I'll make sure to always search Google, at least, before A7-ing. Airplaneman  ✈  01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi Airplaneman,

Thank you for the message. I'll try to explain all my edits. Regards -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Random comments
I think it's awesome that you're almost ready for RfA again. Anyway, I just wanted to stop by to say "hi" as it seems that I haven't run into you around here much recently. So, keep up the work and good luck when the RfA starts! PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I've seen you regularly on my watchlist but haven't had anything to discuss, so I have contented myself with talk page stalking :). Thanks for the morale boost - I'm just a bit nervous already! Airplaneman   ✈  01:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here...I was just looking for an excuse to say hello. I've been working a lot over at Simple, trying to expand my horizons. I'm really liking it over there. I'm also working over at MOTD, which is cool, although not actually substantial work. Don't be nervous. Like you said, best case scenario (or worst): you get some new tools, worst:you get some great feedback. (Just don't remind me of those words if by some miracle I ever run)  I'm sure it'll be fine. I think a lot of people really wanted to support you, just couldn't based on experience. With a strong nom from someone like HJ, I think that will help a lot.  PrincessofLlyr  royal court 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Simple as well, though it feels so… empty. There, unlike here, I have the chance to create articles on more notable topics, which is fun. Thanks for the support. iFeel better already . Airplaneman   ✈  19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd mention it here rather than on my page: Is your talk page supposed to read ":Airplaneman" or "Airplaneman"?  Bramble  claw  x   21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is supposed to read with the colon :) Airplaneman   ✈  21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion templates
Hi! When you tag an article for speedy deletion for WP:CSD (such as *Zeeshan Sabir), could you please use a more specific tag than ? One of the reasons is that when we come to delete a page, the tag is automatically called up in the reasons for deletion, and a more specific tag makes for a much clearer reason for deletion. These are the more common tags to use:, , , ,  and. Thanks! Stephen! Coming... 19:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; that is what I usually do :(. Will remember, Airplaneman   ✈  19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. You'll notice the difference it makes should you be successful in your RfA.  Good luck with that! Stephen! Coming... 19:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). Airplaneman   ✈  19:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Twinkle, twinkle little star... see WT:APPLE for me. — m o n o   04:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * R'ed there! Twinkle doesn't work on pages with * so I manually tagged. My brain slipped, as I thought, "Hmm… no assertion of notability… that would be a7. Tag and notify." Oh well. I'm sure this note will help remind me in the future. Airplaneman   ✈  04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start the newsletter in User:Mono/Sandbox/2; do you have any ideas? — m o n o   21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, sorry iDidn't get to work on MacBook Air like I intended to. Things I can think of to add to the newsletter right now:


 * Collaboration of the month/season
 * Portal (selected article votes)
 * New pages
 * To do
 * Ongoing GA/FA noms and reviews
 * New GAs and FAs
 * Delisted GAs/FAs
 * New members
 * A selected article for the newsletter
 * Other news and notes
 * Airplaneman  ✈  23:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thanks
Hi, thanks for your review. I see that you've also requested for an editor review. I'll do one for you soon if I've time. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 05:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem :). Keep up the good work, Airplaneman   ✈  05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Nascar1996 at 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The moment approaches!
I've done all I can from the suggestions listed in the GA review, so before I nominate Warriors (novel series) for GA once more, could you look it over and mention anything I might still need to fix?  Bramble  claw  x   16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker Well, I think that the lead shoud be expanded to have information on critical reception and themes. Maybe some of the other media information since the lead should summarize the rest of the body and so far it only covers book information. Derild  49  21  ☼  16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Derild. If you could, try finding some more refs for the Themes section. Otherwise, give it a go. It might take a few weeks for a reviewer to get to it; keep that in mind. I'll keep an eye on it. Airplaneman   ✈  20:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, on a side note I'm also about to nominate Into the Wild (Warriors) for GA after Airplanepro copyedits. Is there anything that needs to be addressed before nominating it? Derild  49  21  ☼  01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks generally up to scratch. Note that you may be waiting for a while for a review. I'll make some tweaks. Good luck! Airplaneman   ✈  01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have fixed the tags you added and will request a GA tomorrow as I must now sleep. :P Derild  49  21  ☼  01:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all the themes listed are probably in the two references used. And I have difficulty finding any more themes, since I'm not sure where to find book reviews for Warriors. I will now nominate; I can still edit while it's waiting for review.  Bramble  claw  x   17:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I use accessmylibrary.com which thankfully works with my library for reviews, but for themes I usually just go on google and type in "themes in book title". That's how I found the extra themes in Into the Wild and Fire and Ice. Also, it would make the themes section bigger if you just went to every warriors article that has a themes section and copy anything that's not already in the main Warriors article now. Derild  49  21  ☼  18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent.  Bramble  claw  x   18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the review for Into the Wild has begun here. Help if you want! Derild  49  21  ☼  12:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait time for editor review
I was just wondering what the average wait time for an Editor Review is, since there are some unreviewed requests that are almost a month old, yet others that are days old and are reviewed? Ronk01  talk,  02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Ronk01, nice to meet you (I don't think we've talked before…)! As you can see, the time it takes to get a review varies significantly, and so does the average time. A good thing to do to help get reviews would be to publicize it, maybe with a link in your signature and a notice on your userpage. Also, consider reviewing other editors if you sign up. They might just return the favor :) Airplaneman   ✈  02:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If your not busy...
Could you help me with the tables on the 2010 Brickyard 400 article? I may need to add the references to make it easier. I am completely busy trying to finish the race summary, I'm a little Wikibonked, and I have five days to get ready for vacation again. After vacation I will work on the next race article. I would dearly appreciate your help if you can. Thanks ~  Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm booked tomorrow and might not be on too much (I have to finish copyediting Grid computing before August first), and am busy Thursday and Friday. I'll be away hiking at Shenandoah National Park for the weekend, and will be busy all next week. Other than that, though, I'll try to help :). BTW, I would be tempted to quick-fail 2010 Crown Royal Presents the Heath Calhoun 400 for GA in its current condition, so I'll wait until NSD is back before possibly picking up the review. Airplaneman   ✈  03:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oh yes, please add the refs. I'll work off those. It shouldn't be too hard :) Airplaneman   ✈  03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow your really busy. Have a great time at the national park. I will add the references. The race article is not ready and probably won't be until Winter so oh well. Thanks ~  Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  03:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, how do you like the new colors of this? -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it - looks brighter! Made a small tweak to the color. Airplaneman   ✈  18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you changed the background color which was greyish now all of its blue.....It is supposed to be the same as the portal -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Chrome must not be rendering something… Airplaneman   ✈  21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed the color code (33ddd4 or something) to "blue". Now it works on Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. How is it in IE? Airplaneman   ✈  21:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good! :) Now I better start finishing the Race article. I have ust completed this. ~  Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  22:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering - why a subpage? Airplaneman  ✈  04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It will grow to long and would make editing the real article hard. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its to late . ~  Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well. To be honest, if I had reviewed it now, that is what I would have done. Remember, there's no deadline here. Real life first! Airplaneman   ✈  16:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just saying. Of course it would have failed anyway. -- Nascar 1996   Contributions /  Guestbook  16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Non-free software screenshot/doc — Know what you are doing!
Hi Airplaneman,

On 29 July 2010, you came to Template:Non-free software screenshot/doc and tampered with the documentation, adding an equal sign that critically changes the meaning and misleads readers.

Please don't do that again. It is critical to understand the template's syntax before changing its documentation. I've reverted your edit.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, shoot :(. I'm not going near template documentations again anytime soon. Airplaneman   ✈  04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, man. You write part of your reply here and part in my talk page? Anyway, if you want to know "what the equal sign changed" as you said in my talk page, it changes the unnamed parameter into a named parameter. We do not write:
 * We write:
 * I re-wrote the syntax, just in case.
 * Fleet Command (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... for future reference, my statement was "Can you please tell me what the equal sign changed? I would like to know for future reference. Thank you for reverting." On User talk:FleetCommand, I asked for specifics. Sorry for the confusion. You sound upset; any other suggestions for how to improve my editing? The syntax rewrite looks better! Regards,  Airplaneman   ✈  04:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not upset. If anything came up, I'll drop a note. Cheers. And have a safe landing! 05:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for letting me know, and I hope to run into you again in the future. Airplaneman   ✈  05:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not upset. If anything came up, I'll drop a note. Cheers. And have a safe landing! 05:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for letting me know, and I hope to run into you again in the future. Airplaneman   ✈  05:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Accidental Asian
Hello! I noticed that The Accidental Asian is on your task list to create. I've take the liberty to create the article myself and have gathered a few reviews. Please feel free to help expand the article. There is a bit more material on the article talk page. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good! I'm glad someone actually got around to creating it :). I have some links sitting at User:Airplaneman/The Accidental Asian that might be helpful. I'll be gone for most of today and the weekend, but will be sure to work on it next week. Airplaneman   ✈  13:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)