User talk:Bzuk/Archive 3

Montreal Airports
Hi. Just to let you know that I have left Montreal not disam b/c Montreal is served by 1 international airport (Mirabel does not have any passenger service as it is only served by cargo carriers). We only disam cities that are served by more than one airports with passenger service. I have posted a discuss on WP:Airports if you are interested in responding. Cheers and happy editing! Bucs2004

Have you considered simply formatting your references into the standard inline format, since your the only one that knows what source goes with what information? I see you have been addingthe references, want me to help finish them? I formatted one to show you what it looks like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy
I see we have some common interests.

I remember reading of the cancellation of the Arrow in AvLeak when it happened. I was upset then, but had I known about the U-2 photos I wouldn't have been. No use for an interceptor with nothing to intercept.

My primary interest in Earhart is in the "mystery." I have arrived at an "opinion" which satisfies me, but not without much investigation and introspection.

I am a bit concerned when I see stuff like the outright assertion that radio communications were heard for days after she failed to land at Howland.

Although I was born in the first half of the last century, I missed the "golden age" though my library didn't.

I had the good fortune to talk to a number of the old heads and understand why some folks on the Earhart discussion page cannot comprehend the nature of the time and thus have problems with context.

I have been trying to get a feel for the contributors before I spend any time editing.

Most of my work on the Wiki has been on lighter than air and atomic weapons. Mark Lincoln

Gene Tierney
Sorry about that.Time to go to bed it is late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

F-86
I saw cleary where are you going, and not like it. But i would suppose that you are still in good faith. Let's repeat with last edition of F-86 performances:

And so i think you'll agree to read this part of Joe Baugher ency, that reports too the sources he used: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_13.html

Specification of F-86F-40-NA: Engine: One General Electric J47-GE-27, 5910 lb.st. Dimensions: wingspan 39.11 feet, length 37.54 feet, height 14.74 feet, wing area 313.37 square feet. Weights: 11,125 pounds empty, takeoff weight 15,198 pounds (clean), 18,152 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks), 20,611 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks plus 2 1000 pound bombs). Maximum speed 678 mph at sea level, 599 mph at 35,000 feet (at 15,352 pounds combat weight). Initial climb rate 8100 feet per minute. Altitude of 30,000 feet reached in 5.2 minutes (clean). 47,000 feet service ceiling. Combat radius 463 miles. Ferry range 1525 miles.

Now let's see how it matches my numbers:


 * Engine: Joe's: J47-GE-27. Aerei: J47-GE-27
 * Thrust: Joe's:5910 lbs= 2680 kg. Aerei: 2680kgs
 * Dimensions:

Joe's: 39,11ftx37,54ftx14,74ftx313,37ft2.=11,92 m x11.44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

Aerei:11,92 x11,44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

=Matched


 * Weights:

Joe's: 11,135-15,198-18,152-20,611lbs=5,050-6,893-8,233-9,351kg

Aerei datas: 5,046--6,894-8,234-9,349 kg

=Almost 100% matched


 * Performances:

Joe's 678/599 miles at 35,000ft= 1,091/964 kmh at 10,600 m

Aerei: 1091/964 kmh at 10600 m

=Matched


 * Climb; Joe's 9,150 m in 5,2 min Aerei: 9,150 m in 5,2 m
 * Ceiling: Joe 47000ft=14335 m .Aerei= 14325 m

=Matched over 99%


 * Range:

Joe's 465 m and 1525 m ferry= 747 km-2452km

Aerei=745-1795 (internal)-2454km (ferry)

=Matched almost 100%

Weapons: Joe 2x747 l + 2x454kg bombs. 907+1100-1200kg fuel+200/300kg tanks=well over 2 t.

Aerei: max. 2455 kg total, of which 1100 kg weapons (possible that included M2 cartridges, 1,600 crts x 0,1 kg each are 160kg+907=1077)ù

SOLUTION: Take max weight and clean weight and the result will be, 20.611-15,198 lbs=2455 kg! Exactly the same weight indicated in Aerei. 100% matched.

All datas sobstantially matched one each other, with an average of over 99%. Minor differences of 1-10 km are simply ridicolous to tell as 'significatives at all.

Dimensions matchings, weights are almost exactly the same, speed and climb are equals, range and endurance are pratically equals, weapons load matching as well.

What about sources? If i presented them, they will been obviousely unreliables-rubbish-BS. Well, judice yourselves:

Sources: Joe's:


 * F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
 * The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.
 * The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
 * The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966.
 * The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
 * Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.
 * F-86 Sabre--History of the Sabre and FJ Fury, Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1993.
 * Thirty Seconds over Sargodha, John Fricker, Air Enthusiast, Vol 1, No 1, 1971.

Aerei:


 * Aerei 6/79
 * Aeri modellismo 5/92
 * Air Enthusiast 17
 * F-86 in action (Squadron signal)

Moreover, the not exactly silly site: http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/northam/f-86f.htm has datas widely matching mines.

Just to realize how silly these discussions are, seen how i am seen as the Antichrist of wikipedia.--Stefanomencarelli 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

superscript
added to the Flying Tigers discussion page: Someone keeps putting one instance of 1st American Volunteer Group in superscript. Could we belay that, please? Wiki gravely informs us: 'Sometimes, ordinal endings for numbers are written as superscripts (1st, 2nd, 3rd rather than 1st, 2nd, 3rd), although many style guides recommend against this use.' Indeed. The Chicago Manual (14th edition) nowhere allows it. Further, the usage isn't consistent in this article or in the main American Volunteer Group article, nor are superscripts used elsewhere e.g. 23d Fighter Group. AVGbuff (talk)

Barnstormstar
While I'm gratified to get it, it's called having good sources handy... It's not like I can do it off the top of my head. (Also, I've been collecting these books since Grade 8...) Trekphiler (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, Happy New Year. {I'm still getting used to that...})

Congratulations!
The Boeing 747 article has just been granted featured article status! The star isn't shown yet but it's listed among the promotions. Even though you're listed as only making the 9th most edits in the article, you did help a lot recently, especially with the references. Thanks! Archtransit (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Those Magnificant Men
"Aircraft" seems a little portentious for a 1910 flying machine! Given that this is after all a British subject I can't see what is drastically wrong with "aeroplane". "Aircraft" calls to mind a jumbo jet or something!! I would have reverted this if it had been most people!
 * "aeroplane" is correct. "airplane" is a casual perversion/Americanism of "aeroplane".  An "aircraft" could also be a helicopter or a balloon, but balloons and helicopters are not aeroplanes.  Hoserjoe (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bristol Boxkite was intended to impersonate a typical American 1910 aeroplane - at this stage the Americans were already slipping a little behind Europe in aviation technology - both the Wright and the Curtiss types still had fore elevators, for instance. Yet rather than build an example of a Wright or a Curtiss they chose a Bristol Boxkite, which while hardly cutting edge technology even for 1910 had a reputation of being exceptionally easy to fly (which neither of he American types did!!) plus that all important fore elevator.

While I accept that the sentence meant to convey this quite intricate idea is a little idiomatic, your replacement seems ambiguous and ungrammatical into the bargain.

Sorry if I am a bit frank here - this is why I have put these remarks here rather than in the article's "discussion" page. I am trying to be helpful rather than to score points. Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - I suppose we can live with "aircraft", which is certainly better than "plane" or "airplane". Although "Aeroplane" remains the usual "non-North American English" term - "aircraft" also includes balloons and airships so it decidedly less "specific". And this IS a British subject. Never mind, let it pass.

I have tweaked your wording a little - hope this makes some things clearer. The references in the "aircraft" section should refer to Wheeler, Allen H. Building Aeroplanes for "Those Magnificent Men.". London: G.T. Foulis, 1965. (incidentally (if you haven't already) - get hold of a copy of this if you can and read it!! it is really where most of the info in this section was originally drawn from.

The Lee Richards Annular biplane, like several other of the more far-fetched types was, as I understand it, NOT actually flown at all - but used as a static display, and "flown" using special effects. If you have an actual cite to the contrary (apart from it "apparently flying" in the DVD then this will need to be included.

I am a bit scratchy on how to fix the reference properly - if you know how can you do it??? Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the 'Ardam' engine mentioned for the Demoiselle would have been an Ardem as in this link: Great work, this film has not been on TV here for ages. I am lucky enough to live close to the Shuttleworth Collection, I have some books that may have some useful stuff for this article, will have a look. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

SAI Ambrosini or Ambrosini SAI ?
Happy new year Bill ! Here ther is a brand new request for an opinion from you. In it.wiki aviation project we checked and debated the most appropriate way to name Ambrosini company’s airplanes (see Category:Ambrosini aircraft). Our research efforts led to consider, as an example, "SAI Ambrosini 207" more correct than present day en.wikipedia "Ambrosini SAI.207", being the correct company name SAI Ambrosini and not Ambrosini SAI (see http://www.passignanosultrasimeno.org/italiano/storia.html italian site which recalles the SAI Ambrosini plant at the bottom). What we can do ? What is the best way to suggest a global renaming action ? Who should be informed, in order to verify consensus on the topic, prior to perform any action? Thank you for your support --EH101 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See http://www.bancaero.it/shop/product_info.php?cPath=1129_241&products_id=4192 for an Italian book about the SAI Ambrosini 207.Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in which it is clearly stated once again that proper name is SAI Ambrosini 207, differently from en.wiki's article Ambrosini SAI.207--EH101 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New word
Canidalism - the belief by some Canadians that the USA wants to eat their country. :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Text lines
Funny, that edit put it in the text lines for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourth generation jet fighter
Could you please take a closer look on Downtrip ? Downtrip's reference for F-15E and F-16 block 50/52  was a recursion! A clone can't used as a reference!--HDP (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

F-22
The same for the F-22. First vandalismus from a IP than suspicious changes from Downtrip. Especially Downtrips sources are very questionable.--HDP (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, is Down-zilla still giving trouble? THat's why I stopped editing those pages!

Water?
I hadn't heard anything about that! But given that Cnada has a tenth the US's population, but 75% more land, much of which is covered with water, seems reasonable to me. Given that Americans pay more by the gallon for bottled water than for gasoline, you guys should make a killing! (Written in between sips of my Dasani!) :) - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian eyes needed
Hi Bzuk - know anything more about the Curtiss-Reid Rambler? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Radar Reducing Features in Eurofighther
I really don't want to get into an edit war with him and I am hoping we can revert and if necessary lock. He is basing his entries on a reprint of a book published in 1989 which makes claims that are not in the public domain and are unsourced in the book. He further makes claims from an Austrian discussion forum which I thought wiki does not recognize as a legitimate source. Thanks.Downtrip (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill he mean the Austrian site www.airpower.at from Martin Rosenkranz and Georg Mader; Janes Korrespondent is not a reliable source. Faq Eurofighter at Airpower.at RAM coatingRAM coating Bill you can compare the protocol, which contain 96 pages, what's the point? This citation is 1:1 from this Austrian parliament protocol protocol page76 and 77. Thanks --HDP (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the recognition. I'm glad to help the project by cleaning up messes. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mine, too. Not exactly sure what it is :-) but I'm grateful any efforts of mine have been acknowledged...I'll try to be worthy! Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Provincial constitutions?
Bill, I asked this at Talk:Provinces and territories of Canada, and I thought i'd run it by you also. Do Canadian provinces have their own constitutions? This is not covered in the Provinces and territories of Canada article, and it seems to me it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:172.143.18.73
I noticed that you reverted an edit because this user is banned. I found an indication of a block but not a ban. Please give me a link where the ban is indicated. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DH 6
I am a little concerned about your "sweep up" on this one -

1. Having just stated that an aircraft had its origins in the First World War - it grates heavily on my stylistic sense to belabour the fact that the years that followed that war were post First World War years. If you have a strong antipathy to the phrase "post war" - perhaps we need to completely recast the sentence? Although I really thing that the original was perfectly OK.

2. Most sources baldly state that de Havilland HAD two aims in designing the DH 6. This is NOT good "encyclopedia style", however. As we can not read de Havilland's mind, all we can say is that he apparently had, or seems to have had those two intents. Nor can we say he "seemed" to have had. This refers to what "seemed" in the past - which is not something we can make a statement about. Not without a direct and very specific cite to that effect anyway. The original wording is considered, carefully worded, and correct. The alternative is to recast the sentence - perhaps by leaving out any statement of apparent intent altogether. But this would seem to be expunging important information.

3. The statement about the engine fitted to the DH 6 is that the "RAF 1a aircooled engine" (cf the Dragonfly radial engine, or the Mercedes DIII inline six engline) NOT "the RAF 1, a aircooled engine". The latter is almost impossible for an native English speaker to write, even as a typo. I can't see that, without the space and the comma, there is any ambiguity either. You might recast the sentence to read something like "an aircooled V8, the RAF 1a" - but I honestly can't see that as any clearer or less ambiguous. As it is, you have changed the sense of the sentence, and introduced a technical inaccuracy. It needs to be changed in order to restore the original sense.

3. "Aeroplane" may seem like a totally unacceptable Britishism from where you stand - if so, so be it. "Aircraft" on the other hand, is a different word with a much wider meaning. In this case I really can't be bothered arguing - except to point out that a mass conversion of every mention of the word "aeroplane" by "aircraft" would produce some very strange effects. Consider "aircraft type" or even "trainer" for instance.

4. If you think an in-line reference to the fact that the DH 6 was "too safe" to make a good trainer then this is almost too easy - I have not been able to find a reference to the type anywhere that does NOT include this fact. None the less, for people with any aeronautical knowledge whatsoever, the description of its flying characteristics alone would make the fact that it was virtually useless as a trainer for pilots destined to cope with (say) the Sopwith Camel(!!) all too obvious. By all means delete this if you think it improves the article. The "flying joke" reference, on the other hand, can certainly be expunged if you don't like it. It (like several other things in the article) is not in fact directly stated in so many words in any of the sources. The article is not a slavish repetition of another source (which would probably be a breach of copyright) but a synthesis of facts gathered from a number of places. Any aircraft type that collects as many rude nicknames as the DH 6 was very obviously regarded with a good deal of mirth. If that is OR then just leave the whole sentence out!! Most readers will surely make the inference for themselves anyway. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(refer. to your reply to the above on my discussion page)


 * A great deal in what you say, of course - sorry if I caused any offence - such was not the intent. Of course "our own writing" can be like our own children - and we can see criticism of it as criticism of ourselves when this was not necessarily the case. Perhaps what we both need is greater detachment? Once we have written something and presented it to Wiki then it is really no longer ours, after all. I never mind constructive criticism, especially from fellow enthusiasts like you who "know their stuff". What I (foolishly, I admit) let get to me was an impression that the implied criticism of my writing was petty, and didn't add much (if anything) to the quality of the article. So much real work on Wiki (especially in my fields of music and aeronautics) needs to be done that I get hot under the collar at the level of interaction we get sometimes between apparently intelligent, well-intentioned editors who end up wasting many hours arguing over banalities.


 * I know anything you do on Wiki is always in good faith (refreshing, in the presence of so many silly vandals and erratic nongs) - and I try to be as accepting as I can. I have in fact edited the article in question - trying hard to cover the problems you seem to have with it. I honestly don't think the "new" form is "better" in any sense of the word - and I would rather have simply reverted everything (except, perhaps, for the "aeroplane/aircraft" question), but I accept that it is not MY article, but "ours", ("us" being the community of "good faith" editors of Wiki).


 * Anyway, have a look at the article in its mutilated form, and see what you think. Within reason I leave you with the last word.


 * Happy landings! Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just looked at your latest edits - adding references etc. - much more like it! AT least that kind of editing leaves the article better than it was. You may note I have moved your comment about the type's low stalling speed to a more appropriate place. it seems to me to belong with the other remarks about the type's "forgiving nature" rather than its low performance. Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For the Barnstar. :) I keep the Amelia Earhart page on my watchlist, and yes, I get to revert quite a bit of vandalism from it. Thanks again. Acalamari 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Those magnificent men DVD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Those magnificent men DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Diefenbaker
An editor has nominated John Diefenbaker, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LondonGazette/Dieppe Raid
please don't change the reference from this template. The source has a habit of completely revamping its website, using a template means it's much easier to fix all links to it by changing the template, rather thn by having to manually fix all references to it (I still haven't fixed all the article following on from the website change in October). You may have a point about the style, italicising the title, and using an en dash, I look at fixing those in the template. It is useful to provide a link to the wiki article on the gazette so people full understand what it is.David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Set your user preferences and it doesn't really matter what format dates are written in, you'll always see them in a consistent style. David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * remember that yyyy-mm-dd is unambiguous, and indeed is the ISO standard for date representation - yes there's a problem with dd-mm-yyyy/mm-dd-yyyy but I don't believe anyone uses yyyy-dd-mm. There are certainly places within wikipedia where that is suggested as the bes format for retrieval dates.  Personally I can see a lot of advantages to templates, they encoruage the collection of date for all the parameters, so that we have good metadata about references, they centrally control presentation, and where as in this case you are supplying parameters to a website it isolates the user from the construction of urls.  Which when the Gazette search engine is playing silly beggars as it is at the moment, and refusing to give direct links to the pdfs, you can more easily construct the urls for yourself.  Each to their own though.  David Underdown (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The templates may not be entirely consistent yet, but they do make it easier for those of us who don't have your experience. And should standards change, at least if the data is collected in a machine readable format, it makes it much easier to change the data en masse.  David Underdown (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's worth a bit of your time getting (for example) at least the "cite" series sorted out, and then there would be less for you to do in individual articles? Some rationalisation of templates would be good, as I agree there are a multiplicity out there (each with there own subtle variations), but at least when data is entered as a named (or ordered) set of parameters, it is a relatively trivial task for someone to programme a bot to convert from one type of template to another.  If it's all freetext, far more work is needed later.  Again, if the data is in templated form, it's also much easier to search for articles which have missing bibliographic data.  Those are my thoughts on using templates, but then I'm coming at this as an IT type (albeit one who works in a fairly major archive, so has some experience of cataloguing problems).  David Underdown (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this place except a triumph of wishful thinking (albeit somewhat gnawed around the edges by human nature reaserting itself)?

David, the use of one consistent dating pattern is preferred because the vast majority of users do not have date preferences set and in Wikipedia groups, a decision was made to provide a consistent date format, The reason that day/month/year was chosen was that it was unambiguous. If you use 01-10-2008, does it mean January 10, 2008 or October 1, 2008? For foreign users, the issue was always interpretation of dates since dd/mm/yr was often mm/dd/yr in their countries. BYW, all my comments were definitely "tongue in cheek" and you will observe, that I subtly altered rather than completely revised the templates (which I still don't like!) Have a nice day. Bzuk (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Having had a 33+ years background in Library cataloguing, I have a propensity to "scratch catalog" rather than using templates, which although useful for some editors are still "buggy" and do not have the kind of stable features that are required for consistent bibliographical records. Almost all the Wikipedia templates are "after-the-fact" add-ons that came about when a need arose. Templates are still being developed and I have seen so many alterations in their formats that I simply abandon them and use full MLA or APA formats for cataloging references. As to dates, the numerical system was discussed thoroughly in many project groups and although you may consider yyyy-mm-dd as a standard (and indeed the ISO standard), so many editors did not understand that and a uniform format was therefore adopted (at least in all the military and aviation groups in which I dabble). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I can share your enthusiasm for a "brighter day" when all templates will read correctly and perhaps the Easter Bunny will oversee that... LOL, just being facetious; my main contention is that templates are an aid to those editors that are not professional cataloguers and few of that ilk have ventured forth into this WikyWacky world. For many non-library types, a simple, yet efficient system is possible, I just haven't run into a template that does that (maybe someday soon...) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I give you credit for wishful thinking, if nothing else. Meanwhile, back to ramparts, trolls and vandals afoot! FWIW, thanks for the "across-the-Atlantic" conversation. Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
 * "What is this place except a triumph of wishful thinking (albeit somewhat gnawed around the edges by human nature reasserting itself)?" Pure poetry David, and the only reason that I still devote any time and energy to this project is in meeting people like you and being able to collaboratively work on topics of like interest. It sometimes makes me question my commitment when there are so many on the outside that "poke and jab" often malevolently but sometimes, merely in jest. They serve to strengthen the resolve and when there are the sillies about, maybe it's good to look at the Wikyworld and not be too serious about it. What is being done is remarkable and already has become a reference source that has to be at least considered alongside other sources. It may never arise to the standard of a peer-reviewed, authoritative work, but the input of so many experts must, at least, give rise to a new electronic guide to the future. FWWI Bzuk (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

your end-section edits
Hi, I'm all in favor of regularizing end-sections, but your edits don't conform to WP:LAYOUT and introduce a Notes section without any notes. --Jtir (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi J, thanks for writing. Let me explain my reasoning here- I fully intend to place inline citations and reference sources in the various articles that do not have full sourcing. It's also an incentive for other editors to follow up and continue the work of providing verification. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
 * That sounds great. May I suggest an edit summary that says so, and cites a section of the WP:MOS? I usually cite WP:LAYOUT when rearranging the end-sections. What guideline are you following?


 * Why did you remove the cite templates and the examples (which I put into articles to help editors use them). I use cite templates because they are flexible, and ensure consistency in the formatting of references.
 * --Jtir (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your informative reply.
 * As for cite templates, I agree that they are not perfect, but have encountered almost no bugs. The main problems I have had with cite templates have been fitting certain info into them -- e.g. when a book is reprinted and therefore needs to be described by more than one date, or when there are several contributors, such as editors, translators, authors of forewords, etc. I have started adding annotation and providing exlinks to bibrecs at libraries as partial solutions.
 * Russell, Jeffrey Burton and Summers, Montague in Malleus Maleficarum
 * Zamyatin, Yevgeny ([1962]) in We (novel) (it is at the very end; see also the Russian language editions section)


 * I imagine you could give more examples. Unfortunately, most editors don't have your expertise, so they are better off using cite templates, where they can "fill in the blanks".
 * --Jtir (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit from my talk page:"Hi, I'm all in favor of regularizing end-sections, but your edits[4] [5] don't conform to WP:LAYOUT and introduce a Notes section without any notes. --Jtir (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)." Hi J, thanks for writing. Let me explain my reasoning here- I fully intend to place inline citations and reference sources in the various articles that do not have full sourcing. It's also an incentive for other editors to follow up and continue the work of providing verification. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
 * At this point, templates are useful for some editors but are entirely buggy and the ones used in the articles in question were for the American Psychiatric Association style guide which while used for some reference sources is not the usual standard for social history works, that being the Modern Language Association style guide which I incorporated in a "scratch" cataloging. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard:  Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.


 * This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."


 * Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Reggiane Re.2000" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.


 * I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing in citation/reference notes. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. Bzuk (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

questions at Talk:Propliner
Hi, could you look at a couple of aviation-related questions at Talk:Propliner? --Jtir (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking Common Words (response to your suggestion)
Hi Raymond, I have recently noticed your submissions have centred around adding wikilinks to common words such as Machine gun. This is actually not encouraged as only significant words should be wikilinked. FWIW, I realize these are "good-faith" edits but if they do not provide value to the articles, the submissions are considered nonproductive. Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
 * WP:OVERLINK is a guideline on this subject. --Jtir (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Winn here. Thanks for your suggestions. I have noted that you have reverted at least one of my recent edits, with the notation of 'too many wikilinks'. I need all the guidance that I can get, but I think that reverting a whole day's work, just because you feel that "machine gun" is too common to wikilink, is a bit much.

I know that you are coming at this topic as a highly educated, native-English speaker who is intimately familiar with the aerospace field. I wonder whether we should assume that all users who access the airplane pages are similarly equipped.

The Wiki page on overlink says that we SHOULD use wikilinks for:
 * word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker;
 * Geographic place names;
 * Technical terms, unless they are fully defined in the article and do not have their own separate article;
 * Common words, if their use in context of the particular entry is restricted or specialized (it gives the example of "price" and "goods" needing to be wikified in an article about "supply and demand").

The guideline that I have used is twofold:
 * "Would I have to explain what the word means if my non-aviation-oriented daughter is reading the article?"
 * "Would I have to explain to my overseas friends who are struggling through the entry, using their spanish-english dictionary to assist their understanding?"

So, let's compromise: I will try to be more selective; and I suggest that you look at the possible misunderstanding that would result when a non-aviation type or a foreign barely-english-speaking female tries to picture what the "fuselage" or the "propeller" or a "machine gun" or an "ejection seat" would look like. Does that sound fair? Raymondwinn (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Raymond, thanks for your very thorough and insightful comments. I do agree that there are easily compromises to be made in the area of wikilinking and you will note that in the last article I reviewed that I used a lot of the submission you provided. Please be aware that I value your efforts and hope to work again with you on topics of like interest. Like yourself, I am located in North America, frozen half. Although there are many commonalities in language for Canjans and Amerikins, you are quite correct that there are many non-English speakers who still would like to participate in Wikipedia, will appreciate links to unfamiliar words and terminology. Keep on rockin,' it was nice talking to you, electronically. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Tuskegee Airmen
Ab, first let me congratulate you on the tremendous job in creating a very visual and informative chart for the Tuskeegee Airmen article. I had some concerns about its application and have actually revised the information into a more standard format used for popular cultural references. I would like to direct you to the talk/discussion "string" for the article that outlines some of my reasoning more fully. I would also like you to consider the use of this chart for other purposes such as comparisons between individual variants of an aircraft or piece of military equipment, for example, or in documenting a period of time, such as a battle or the rise and fall of a corporation. I invite comments and further discourse on this issue. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I guess I'm not clear on why the chart was removed. I understand your point about popular culture references being less important, but that is the reason I moved the information from the main portions of the article and the trivia section and consolidated them at the end of the article in chart. Most of the items within the chart had Wikipedia articles or were already a part of the article, so I saw it as adding to the knowledge base for someone interesed in the Tuskegee Airmen. Making a chart of other equipment is fine if someone has the information you have requested. I don't own this article, so I'll leave it as is, but I think discussion on such a major revision would have been nice. Peace and blessings to you. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ab, and again, let me again extend my compliments for a fine effort in the development of a very useful chart layout. I think it there are a great number of applications that would benefit from such a graphic layout. The only reason that I had concerns is that the section in which it was utilized is one of those "gray" areas in an aviation (or in any Wikipedia) article and that is the "popular culture" section. There is an ongoing debate about the relevance of these references and has been the cause of numerous edit wars, even involving an admin who eventually quite the project in a huff over the use of what he considered "trivial" and inconsequential lists. There has been a very restrained and studied approach that is now emerging, with advocates such as myself who have campaigned for their retention, and that is why a "popular culture" section still exists in the WP:Aviation Group. My overriding assessment was that your chart was very colourful, allowed for a great deal of information to be shown in a clean and dramatic form and would be extremely suitable for many aspects of an article; I just wished it wasn't used in a section that is still an area of contention. If the chart had appeared in any other area of the article, it would not have been challenged; it would have been applauded. Rather than drawing attention to popular culture, many editors are striving to maintain the section as is, but I certainly understand your concern at what you may have perceived as a cavalier action. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I certain didn't see the removal as cavalier, and as I said, I understand your point about the popular culture sections (I've certainly seen abuse in such areas). What has been most helpful in controling such in other articles I've assisted with is to require references and/or Wikipedia articles before an item can be included in the popuar culture section. On a seperate note: I know the Aviation WikiProject is monitoring the article, but it is also under the pervue of the African-American Culture project. That's why I recommended that future major edits be discussed. What may make sense from a military or aviation standpoint may raise questions from a cultural standpoint. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolon, thank you for your erudite and thoughtful discourse. I appreciate your comments and I endeavoured in my talk page and editorial change comments to explain my reasoning as I was certainly aware that after the extensive time and effort you extended towards creating the Tuskeegee Airmen popular culture chart that I did want to personally assure you that there was no malice intended in my revision. Instead, let me reassure you that I readily acknowledge the work of a skilled and experienced editor. I can see unlimited potential in the use of this graphic although I still have concerns over its use in the section in question. In closing, as well, peace be with you... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the Aviation Barnstar
Hi again Bill.

I hadn't looked at my User Page for quite a while so I only just noticed the Barnstar - what can I say, I'm very flattered! - thanks very much! BTW, it's a bit late now I know, but Happy New Year! - LOL! Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A fellow IPMSer
Gidday As a former President of IPMS Dunedin, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ipms_dunedin/ NZ I say Hallo to IPMS Winnipeg. My thanks for your comments, by the way: I'm still learning the ropes, so to speak and I'm getting lots of practice at editing Wikipedia. I've just started a page on Group Captain Desmond J Scott, and will be gradually extending the biography. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

DH5
Hi, me again! I agree the DH5 article is poorly referenced. The snag is, whenever I try to add inline references I just get a load of red error messages (i.e. I just haven't worked out how to do it!!) - how about inserting some yourself? "pp" is a common bibliographic abreviation for "pages" - I have left your corrections stand, however, in case there is a Wiki ban on this convention. Hang in there! Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally - well done with the revision of the "Magnificent Men" aircraft! Recently relocated my old copy of Wheeler (my aviation bookcase is a dreadful mess) - on re-reading it noticed a things that were NOT as I remembered - and was going to have a look at this - but you beat me to it. Outstanding!! also by the by - I have located a reasonably priced copy of Jackson (titled De Havilland aircraft since 1909 (rather than 1915) - reckon they "extended it back" a little for a later edition. Looking forward to reading it (especially the DH6 section!!) Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling?
Have you seen [this]?68.244.31.203 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cute! FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

202.95.200.17
Thanks for that info you put on my talk page. If the editors stop humiliating me, THEN I will eventually cool down. I'm already trying to start discussions; I'm starting with the Fuel starvation edits. I'm sure that eventually things will settle.

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Sorry about any personal attacks against others.

Thanks for the wise words.

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks!
I just notice the barnstar... thanks! And it feels nice to be writing about aircraft again. Maury (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandals
Hello, Bzuk. Usually, vandals are warned with templates. The "uw-vandalism" series is often used. See uw-vandalism1, uw-vandalism2, uw-vandalism3, uw-vandalism4, and uw-vandalism4im. Users who vandalize after a recent final warning can be reported at WP:AIV. Thanks. Happy editing! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen
Just to inform you, since 1918 there is no German title like 'Freiherr' in existence, nobility titles where transfered to being part of the surname. This was in consequence to the abolishment of German Monarchy. So Freiherr, Baron, Prinz etc. are part of the name since 1918 in Germany. Germany doesn't have any nobility since then. --Oldnag85 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

MvR flying as an observer ON reconnaissance missions
Bzuk: My deepest apologetical "oops!" on that one! Frania W. (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Emeric and Michael
I was already looking at them. And as long as you don't call him Eric in any article (it was Emeric), what I see looks good. It did actually draw my attention back to a few other things in the articles that needed cleaning up and I so liked that structure of putting any Notes, Bibliography & External links all under References, that I've now used it in the articles for all of their films. But what is it about Powell & Pressburger (or Eric & Michael) that attracts librarians so much? In the P&P email list there are about 500 members around the world. Of those we have at least 10 librarians. Some are in local government libraries, some are in college or university libraries, a couple are at the British library. But I always did know what useful people librarians are :) Thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And I didn't mention that I'm a computer systems designer. Obvious really given my love of British films of the 1940s :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Powell
I took out "First worked as an actor." because he didn't :) He first worked as a general studio hand, sweeping the floor, making coffee, fetching and carrying. He progressed to other work like stills photography, writing titles (for the silent films) and many other jobs before Rex Ingram tried him as an actor - as a "comic English tourist" in Mare Nostrum (1926) -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote is huge. But I think it's all necessary to explain everything that Powell had learned so far and envisioned for his future "Life in Movies" and why Pressburger was so important to him. I think it has to be all or nothing -- SteveCrook (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a verbatim quote from A Life in Movies. He wrote it all in one breathless paragraph which helped show how excited he was at discovering Emeric and realising what they could do together. But it works well broken into paragraphs like that. And as it's only one paragraph from a 705 page autobiography (followed by another 612 page autobiography covering the second part of his life) I think his "estate" will allow it. -- SteveCrook (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your documentaries, anything I might have seen? -- SteveCrook (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old problem, percentage versus a flat fee. It depends in how much you believe in its worth, and how desperate you are. P&P initially had a fee plus 12.5% each for most of their films for Rank. When Rank didn't like the way things were going with The Red Shoes they were made to take a reduced fee - but the percentage was increased to 18.5% each. Rank never did believe in that film. For a long time it was in Variety's list of top grossing British films :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

citing sources for references
Your solution looks good.

You wrote: "The use of inline external links is discouraged". In the article body, certainly. However, WP articles must leave the site somewhere and that is at the sources. When a source is a book without an ISBN, a citation provides a way for a reader (or editor) to verify that the source is correctly described. (And it would be silly to provide a Note citing the source of a source.)

For example, I have found several early translations of We (novel) by searching various national libraries. I have documented my source for each by appending an exlink to the library or a permalink to a bibrec at the library (unfortunately, some libraries don't seem to support permalinks). The bibrec at the library is my source for the reference in the article.

As another example, in Malleus Maleficarum the references include a 1520 edition held by the University of Sydney Library. I included that edition because the image used to illustrate the article is from the USL. There is an annotated exlink to the bibrec at the library.

Quoting WP:REF: "Say where you found the material". IMO, that applies to references too. (I am not overly concerned with citing sources for books that have ISBNs, because the wiki software converts ISBNs to links that lead to the lists at WP:Booksources).

--Jtir (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I really did not think that the entry was going to cause such a problem in Typhoon entry to begin with. In fact I thought it put the part about the software to minimize RCS on the canards in context. Anyway, thanks for expanding on the citation.--Downtrip (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"aeroplane" vs "aircraft"
Sorry to bring this up after all the debate and resulting conclusions, but the WP definition of aircraft is at odds with standard world-wide ICAO terminology. From Title 14 FARs Section 1:

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air [includes all flying machines, with or without wings]. Thus, balloons, flying pigs, and F-15s are all aircraft.

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings [refers to aircraft with wings only]. Thus, an F-15 is an airplane, but a balloon is not an airplane.

[Airplane and aeroplane are mostly interchangeable]

The FAA definitions are identical to the European JAR definitions and the Canadian CARs definitions because all personnel licencing is based on the basic ICAO standard. I notice this confusion happens throughout WP on many topics because of the large number of inexperienced editors. Perhaps it's just the enthusiastic revisionist ignorance of youth? Regardless, the incorrect use of terms in technical articles is grating, and it degrades the usefulness of Wikipedia. Hoserjoe (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to pry open this can of worms (because I've got a life to live :-), but I'll remind editors whenever they get it wrong because incorrect usage, especially really obvious errors like this, adds to the mickey-mouse feel of WP. Hoserjoe (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Carter
Thanks for the note. Good work. It looks like user:The undertow has already blocked the account. Keep an eye out for similar edits and let me kno if I can help next time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Right Stuff
Hello Bzuk. I just wanted to say thank you for splitting apart Wolfe's The Right Stuff into the film and book pages. It was a task that was long overdue. I just want to make one suggestion. It looks to my eye that there are enough other The Right Stuff pages (and others may appear in the future) to put them on a seperate disambiguation page. I would be happy to do it if you don't want to, however, I did not want to presume to do this without checking with you first because if you don't think that it is necessary I will leave it be. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add my thanks, and I agree there needs to be a dab page. At present The Right Stuff is a redirect to The Right Stuff (film). A dab is justified even with two articles needing dabbing. I have already relinked in We (novel) and Sergey Korolyov where the article is referring specifically to the book. --Jtir (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not providing a link to MOS:DAB, which explains them. War and Peace (disambiguation) is an example. No "black art" -- they are really just another article page. --Jtir (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Powell (director)
regarding your statement: As tempting as it may seem to order by date, bvibliographical records are always ordered alphabetically by first entry, author or title....

can you provide a wiki mos underpinning your assertion? --emerson7 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LAYOUT --Jtir (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i see your point with that...however, i think WP:LOW is the reference that deals specifically with lists of works including bibliographies. --emerson7 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That Howard book
It just goes to show the lengths publishers will go to, and the lies they will tell, to get a book published. It's not really the first "systematic appraisal of (Powell's) early work". It's a few notes about his early films. Much of it looking remarkably similar to the notes produced by the BFI/NTF whenever they showed any of the surviving early Powell films. A lot of the rest of his comments on the earlier films were just guesswork or were taken from other second or third hand reports of what people vaguely remembered about them because many the films were "Missing, believed lost". Howard's comments have since shown to be hugely wrong for the few that have been rediscovered since he wrote the book. Don't get me wrong, it's a noble effort. But it is quite a cut and paste job with little original research. BTW there is a much better "systematic appraisal of (Powell's) early work" in Quota Quickies : The Birth of the British 'B' Film by Steve Chibnall. BFI, London. 2007. ISBN: 1-844-57155-6 (pbk). That's not only about Powell's early films but he heas at least seen all the existing ones and writes in some details about each of them -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for using it as a reference, let me know what you wanted to quote or cite. I may know the original source :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Very belated thanks
Bill, somehow I only just noticed the Aviation barnstar on my user page. Put my inadvertent rudeness down to the Christmas rush! Thanks again; it's always pleasure to work with you. Grant |  Talk  09:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

 * Sorry - have just woken to your message. User has been blocked for 1 week by another admin (although I notice a template was not added to the talk page).  I have also removed his edits at Steve McQueen.  Keep me informed if further action is required and if available I will be ready to assist.-- VS  talk 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL...I did wonder. Grant  |  Talk  01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger on consistency
I just wanted to shorten that one book title as one number too many was causing a line space. I take your point and thanks for fixing it. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger on the book ref style in Supermarine Spitfire, have you got time to help fix a few things in there? Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seversky P-35 Revert
Hey Bill - thanks for replacing the idea that the American P-35 was the inspiration for the Italian fighter. That is a debatable topic, and I assume it will continue to be debated, since the original Italian designer isn't here to give us the defining facts. Even as I was deleting it, I was halfway thinking that it ought to stay in the article, so I was glad to see that you cast the (deciding) vote the other way. Cheers. Raymondwinn (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

HC
You're right it is him, but I agree that the superman bit shouldn't be in the heading, Cheers. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks blocked for one week. Both this one and the recent one you referred to on my talk page (and banned by another editor) are also tagged as suspected socks of HC.-- VS  talk 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom - Reference subheadings - a minor point in all the madness
You changed a couple of the references to use a colon to separate the heading and subheading rather than a dash - on at least one of the references (the Air International Phantom Targets one, The title is written in the Magazine with a dash (or Hyphen - I have no intention of even trying to comprehend MOSDASH - perhaps the silliest part of MOS?) i.e. "Phantom Targets - The USAF's Last F-4 Squadron".Nigel Ish (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Zepplin box
There's nothing official, but Template:Infobox Airship is used on only 5 pages, is not very pretty or practical, and all information can be transfered to Template:Infobox Aircraft and Template:Aerospecs. Also, since they are aircraft I figures it's best to stay uniform. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

portrait format
You have noticed that the upright images cover a larger area than the landscape images when the upright syntax is not used, but this is not a mistake. Using portrait format intentionally reduces the image size to about the area of images that are in landscape format. I think that there is nothing to be added by changing the black and white image to the larger format on the Jacqueline Cochran page. If fact, I think that it looks unduly large without being in the portrait format. In addition, I carefully considered the change of size and I decided that no detail was lost in the smaller format. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki guidelines say that images should be autosized except where small detail is needed. Autosized images have same the horizontal dimension, and so if they are portrait format they can be quite large with a large height. I tend to reduce large images (unless detail is needed) because I think that this will reduce the strain in the wiki servers, although I do not actually know if this is scientific or not. The file size of black and white images is smaller than for colour image, so I am not too concerned about the image under the microscope here. I mainly mentioned it because I thought that you did not seem to understand what the upright format was for, but I may have been presumptive. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"mouth" vs. "cheek"
Don't worry, you may have written "mouth", but I read "cheek" anyway, and didn't even notice the error. And so we see in action the psychology of expectations vs. perception. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

re Wikzilla
Hi Bill, at first look, this seems very thin although I have left a WP:CIVIL warning on both IP talk pages and will monitor the situation. User:Wikzilla is only blocked indef, not banned, so I'm not sure there are enough grounds for a sockpuppet check at present. Let me know if things get out of hand and I'll step in. Meanwhile, thanks for your confidence in me! Regards -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is that those IPs have only made one recent edit each, and I wouldn't be happy just blocking either without more evidence. Can you give me diffs to show previous behaviour similar to User:Wikzilla to strengthen an SSP case? With the best will in the world, I can't block an IP address on the basis of one edit. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I blocked both accounts for two weeks pending a confirmation of sockpuppetry by Wikzilla. I am not that familiar with that users previous edits so I need to look into it a little later, and if confirmed, the accounts will be blocked indefintely. However, the user's edits included several (similar) personal attacks on you, which is enough for blocking.--MoRsE (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you got the responses you were looking for. This would be an issue for suspected sockpuppets. the_undertow   talk  01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Same user again, same measures. --MoRsE (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The two first ones are blocked indefinitely, the last one, however, is a little uncertain...I am keeping an eye on future contributions of that IP address. --MoRsE (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not have noticed this....
I am away. Due to real world commitments and frustrations here, I have blocked myself from editing for several weeks. No admin powers until then, sorry. Grant 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing my talk page
Hi. Although I certainly understand the impulse that lead you to do it, I would appreciate it if in the future you would not delete message from my talk page. The message you deleted was uncivil, impolite and unwarranted, but it was not vandalism, per se, and should have been left alone, or, if you felt the need, answered. In fact, I think the same about the simlar message you deleted from the "Captains of the Clouds" talk page - it should have been left in place. But that, at least, was on a public talk page, on not on a user talk page. In any event, please don't do it on my talk page again. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One of Our Aircraft Is Missing
Looking good. If you have any questions about it, give me a shout -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, I haven't watched it in years. I'll take a look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting one. Not as "high drama" as some of the other P&P films. It's more "British understatement" throughout. The women do play a significant part and get some good speeches about being in occupied territory. Some of it is decidedly weird, like Hugh Williams deciding to disguise himself as a Dutchwoman - despite his great height -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Those pictures are great, but they do mess up the page layout a bit. Many of the edit tags aren't by the articles. You can use the HTML instruction &lt;BR Clear="All" /&gt; to force a newline after an image. I don't know if there's a Wiki markup equivalent -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally! Lockheed J37
This one has been bugging me for years... the first US jet engine design and there's nothing on it on the 'web. Well, no longer! Maury (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks so much -- my first! I really appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Firefox
Do you have a cite for your contention that Microsoft has bought Mozilla and is going to stop supporting IE? I cannot find anything like that in various Google searches. I did see that Netscape has stopped supporting Navigator, but the Mozilla Foundation website has nothing about a buyout, and you can still download Firefox from Mozilla.com. From where did your information come? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind - I finally used the right search parameters and found something. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He's back!!!!
See here, among other edits. He starts out half-way normal, but you can see in his post in the diff that it didn'tlast long! Time to call in an admin to enfore the user:Opuscalgary block. - BillCJ (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maury blocked the IP, thankfully. Oh, I've archived the CF-105 talk page up to Oct 2007, which put's all the Opus crap off the main talk page. I also reverted ALL of Opus's changes to the article, but you might want to comb them on the off-chance there was anything worthwhile in his edits. - BillCJ (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Above you said, in Wikipedia groups, a decision was made to provide a consistent date format, a reference would be extremely helpful. Rich Farmbrough, 03:31 8 February 2008 (GMT).

VZ-9-AV
Nothing's easy with you, is it? From my understanding of the US Army designation system from 1956-62, all of them use the manufacturer code as part of the official designation. Granted, I don't have "speccial access" :) like some people, but I can't see how this case is any different. Also, I made other changes in that edit, which you[ve stomped, and then you made other changes, so now I can't revert without stomping yours! :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After a brief seaarch, I found this cite. It lists the manufacturer codes for the VZ-3 through VZ-12. I've seen this page before, and it shows that the manuf. desig. is not unique to the VZ-9. I have no problem stating in one place that "AV" was part of the official full designation, but I disagree that it is wrong to use "VZ-9" in throughout the rest of the article. I'll keep looking for a more-official source on the 1956 Army system. At some point, I'll take this up at WP:AIR to get a broader consensus from the project on how to go from here. - BillCJ (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruptured Duck (aircraft)
Someone has merged this page. Is this appropriate? Snowman (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion in a new section on the page "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation". Snowman (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedits
We are both apparently copyedit fiends. I have to say, though, I'm not aware of any convention to italicize serial numbers. It's not in the WP style manual, and I don't see that in any of the books on World War I aviation, where referring to aircraft by serial number is fairly common. Maybe for civil aviation codes, e.g., G-FDFE, but I have no opinion on that. As for the word "frontline," that's in the dictionary. Send me a note, let me know what you think M Van Houten (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly you are not a pedantic fool! If not for you, not a single reference in the aviation section would be in the correct format. I am inclined to deitalicize the serial numbers, if that's all right with you, though of course names are italicized, e.g., Black Maria or Mopps. M Van Houten (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:God Is My Co-Pilot (film).jpg
Rationale now provided.

Triplane production
Bzuk, could I trouble you to look in your Windsock Datafile and see what Bruce lists as the production number? I have only his very old Profile from the 60's, where he says 147 to 150. Actually, I would lobby for the number 152. M Van Houten (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 150 seems to be the most commonly cited number. Green's Complete Book of Fighters and Franks' Sopwith Aces of World War I use that number.  But it seems like research done for the Shuttleworth reproduction has brought the number to 152.  Hiscock's Classic Aircraft of World War I says 152.  Take a look at the link you added to the Shuttleworth Collection, where they describe how the replica was deemed the "153rd" aircraft by Tom Sopwith. So it's a bit up in the air, but I'm happy to go with whatever number Bruce put in his datafile. Cheers. M Van Houten (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, that's highly informative. I guess 150 is the number to put then. As for the missing 3 planes, perhaps they are from the Oakley order. Bruce metions Oakley completing a few aircraft before their order was cancelled.  Well thanks again for looking into that. M Van Houten (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. Is the Bowers and McDonnell book worth buying? M Van Houten (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoring vanity
Hi

Recently I tried to quit wiki by having my page deleted (so as not to destroy my studies), however this seems to have failed! The problem is I have lost the aviation barnstar you awarded. Is there anyway of getting this back? Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter
Just curious, when you cleaned up in your recent edits, did you add anything new? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft
Bill, I just wanted to explain my revision of Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd.. About an hour and a half after you created the page, some wag tagged it as speedy delete-spam. Fourtunately, another more thoughtful editor removed the tag. I hadn't seen you editing at the time that occurred or after, so I assumed you were busy or down for the night. Given that the version posted at the time was almost a direct copy of Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, I figured I better makes some changes before some discovered that fact, and deleted/redirected on of the articles. If I went in a direction you weren't planning on going, then feel free to make any necessary changes. All I'm doing now is making quick changes to avoind an AFD. We still need to find some published sources to show definitive notability, but perhaps the Industry Canada site page will suffice for now! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I certainly understand about intransigent editors! (And despite our "communication" difficulties, I don't place you in that category!) At some point one or the other of the articles may get AFDed, or someone will decide they should be merged. Hopefully we can get that done if it occurs. - BillCJ (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's looking very good now, especially with the pics you've added. We shouldn't have to worry about the Delete-cabals anymore! - BillCJ (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ruptured Duck (B-25)
Hi Bzuk, sorry for stepping on your toes, I have merged the history of your sandbox User:Bzuk/Sandbox/Ruptured Duck to that of and The Ruptured Duck (B-25), so the history could be properly recorded, and the sandbox could be deleted. (A fair use image was used in the sandbox, which is not allowed per WP:NONFREE.) In case you haven't finished your work with the sandbox, please leave me a note (so I can restore the subpage right away for you), and accept my apologies in advance. Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikicommons
Consider uploading images to wikicomons. You can log in and upload images in the same was as on the wiki. The images there link from en wiki and other wikis with the same name, without any prefixes or suffixes. Commons is better because the images can be linked from all the other wiki projects. Note you can not upload your fair use images to wiki commons, but you can to the en wiki, but the fair use explanation is needed. Snowman (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

High and the Mighty2
Have at it then, but that big edit fixed many inaccuracies and problems and the article needs to be refactored and rewritten further in a big way. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

--

''Hi Bruce. If you check the film article, I have restored your original edits and tried to massage the text some more. You may not have realized who Gwen is (the nom de plume for a very accomplished (published) author/editor) nor my userid. I am an aviation author primarily but I have dabbled in the film world as a filmmaker at times. Both of us use the Wikywacky world as a retreat from our daily grind- G from Switzerland and myself from the wilds of Canada. Speaking for myself, the Wiky editing work keeps me "sharp" and I treat it as a workshop experience. Take a look at the changes, see if they work. Feel free to drop me a line, I love talking to other writers. FWIW my sons are both writers and one of them worked in Winnipeg as the media rep for the Manitoba Moose (the re-incarnation of the late-departed and much missed Winnipeg Jets) and now as the media rep for the University of Manitoba Bisons sports teams. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your note. I first saw this film as a child when it was originally released in 1954 and have watched it many times in the years since. Needless to say, I was delighted when it was finally restored and released on DVD after many years on the deep freeze. I wrote most of my contributions on this between Dec., 2006, and Feb., 2007, but eventually deleted them all in July, 2007, after a seemingly endless series of edits by a variety of people that so badly confused and muddled the article that I just gave up decided to let it sit for six months or so before taking another look at the issue (See "Cleaned Up" in the film's talk page). As a professional writer of both hockey and transportation (primarily railroad, and to a lesser extent aviation and maritime) history for almost four decades (four books, several thousand articles, and a variety or websites including one on the First U.S. Transcontinental Railroad (CPRR.org) which exceeds 10,000 webpages), I pride myself in the care with which I am able to observe, understand, reference, and clearly relate detail in my writing.  You can see from my Wiki user page (Centpacrr) that I have worked in professional ice hockey for almost 40 years in many capacities during which time I have "worked" more than 3,000 games in one capacity or another. (See my personal hockey site at HockeyScoop.net and my History & Trivia blogs on HockeyBuzz.com.) I also learned to fly in 1964 (in a Beech Bonanza) but have not been an active pilot for some time. I do have have an extensive collection of unusual aviation artifacts which I have built over the years including Charles Lindbergh's last paycheck as contract U.S. Air Mail pilot (dated February 15, 1927, three months before he made his solo flight from new York to Paris), a small piece if the silver colored fabric skin that he removed from the "Spirit of St. Louis" at Le Bourget field in Paris the day after his arrival on May 21, 1927, and that presented to the Belgian Ambassador to France, several pieces of fabric from the "Graf Zeppelin", a charred nine-inch spar brace recovered from the "Hindenburg" after it crashed at Lakehurst, NJ, in May, 1937, a control cable pulley from the Martin M-130 "China Clipper" PAA flying boat from 1935 (acquired from the estate of a Glenn L. Martin Company. engineer), etc, etc. I still have some differences in interpretation and appropriate structure of the "The High and the Mighty" article, but I think those can probably be worked out. I also spoke with one of my friends in Winnipeg this morning who told me that it was -30C there today. In Philadelphia (where I live) things have been a little better this winter with no measurable snowfall at all this winter and the temp hit 70F last weekend for the third time this winter. (We'll probably pay for this in March with a Nor'easter though I expect.)  Many thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

''

Image copyright problem with Image:Me-163 Komet (Can).jpg
Rationale provided.

A question
Although you do not sanction the behavior, you issue a barnstar to the user who maliciously unleashed a bot? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
 * I don't condone the behaviour, but I admire BC's perseverance in ensuring compliance with our EDP. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An even more curious answer, like his spunk and reward him, regardless of the blatant attack he issued? I don't know... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
 * I thought I was clear enough. His actions in general are laudable; in this specific incident were not. I guess the juxtaposition of the warning and barnstar wasn't timely. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Book hunting at its finest...
So I flew out to Halifax for the weekend to see the kid. Before leaving I was poking about on abebooks to see if I could track down a copy of the biography of Gerald Bull, Arms and the Man. Sure enough, there's a copy in a Halifax used book store -- Halifax seems to consist primarily of hotels, bars, independent coffee shops and used book stores, I plan on retiring there. Unfortunately the store is out of the way and I never make it, but while wandering around I come to this major bookstore downtown. You have to see this place, there's books stacked everywhere. If there's ever a fire, everyone is going to die. It's so insane that they made up maps of the store that look like the London Underground maps. They have an entire section on "seamanship"!

So anyway I ask if they have a copy of Arms and the Man, and they say no. He even goes on to ask what the book was about, and I say "Gerald Bull", and he says "nope". Oh well. Then I'm in another store that turns out to be their sister store, and they say they have a different book on the same topic. *sigh* Ask a stupid question...

Maury (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada
Another bird you might be able to flesh out a little? Dayton-Wright FP.2. Since it was operated by the Canadian Forest Service, I wonder if there might now be some photos with expired Crown copyright? Cheers! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay! Many thanks! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

HATM
Hey Bzuk, are you aware that you've obliterated the identifying information for most of the article's citations? Did you mean to do this? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I must respectfully object to your removal of the cite request tag. The article is nowhere near adequately referenced yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than ok with how you've reformatted the cites this time through :) Strike that, you seem to be reverting the page and accidently obliterating citation information. If you want to reformat the citations that's ok but please don't revert the page whilst doing so, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now it seems I can say, I'm ok with how you're reformatting the citations :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As for this note about the credits, no WP article about a film lists the whole cast and crew (of hundreds, wontedly), hence such a note is highly non-standard and not needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

666
I'm not sure I fully understand your concerns. If the comment was totally untrue - there were no doodles, you are correct to remove it as nonsense. If you are not sure, and perhaps it was the inspiration for ongoing use of 666 in films, you should not have removed it, but marked it as uncited and added a comment to the talk page. If it turns out to be a correct claim, you've pissed someone off -- not that their subsequent behavior was justified. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to the YouTube link the anon posted and watched the video. I didn't see 666 but 999 and 333 were part of the doodles. Did a google and the only meaningful reference to 666 re films is for The Omen (2006 film) also known as The Omen: 666.-- Ѕandahl 01:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BillZ, if I may butt in, and respond to Sam: One can't claim something is an inspiration for something else without a direct cite to that effect, otherwise it is totally assumptive, and hence Original Research. Inspiration is very difficult to prove without proper sources. In fact, putting such a claim in an article could foreseeably lead to legal problems if the writers of the Omen film wish to contest such claims. In my opinion, BillZ was right to have removed the item as nonsense without asking for sources first - if he hadn't removed it, I would have! Besides, "666" has been around much longer than MDGT, generally being a reference to certain prophecies in the Bible, and was probably featured in some film before MDGT. While I have not seen the Omen film in question, it seems to have much more to do with the apocalyptic themes found in the Book of Revelation and other horror-type films than anything found in MDGT. Finally, please remember that the impetus for providing attribution is on the contributor adding the item, NOT the editor removing it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BillZ, I emptied your dustbin for you - I hope you don't mind! - BillCJ (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bit, as one admin recently remarked, it's a case of "Don't Feed the Trolls." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Perhaps a request to have your page semi-protected would be in order? Know any Canadian, pro-McCartythian admins who severed in WW2? Or was it anti-McCarthian admins who didn't serve? I rally havn't a clue! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Capra
Typically the way quotes are handled is to stash them in Wikiquote and then link to Wikiquote from the Wikipedia article. Just FYI. See the large debate that took place at the Maria Callas article and was finally resolved that way. Quotations, without context, violate the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" guideline, and, like unintegrated trivia sections, quotations sections have no place in encyclopedia articles. Robert K S (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Robert K S (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The War Lover
You should go ahead and rewrite the plot from scratch. I thought I could do it from what was there and the plot description on TCM, but it's no use. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing style
Bzuk, with all due respect to the many helpful contributions you make, I think you edit by revert far, far too often. Please stop reverting good faith edits on sight, especially when these edits are cited with wholly verifiable sources. Instead, if you have concerns, please discuss them on the talk page. thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Image
Hi Bill, I think that new image should go, it is not very good and is messing up the previously tidy section. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cast explanations
I strongly disagree with the undoing of my deletions in this section. There is no need to point out (twice) that only the main roles are listed, not every last actor and crew member. Let us credit the reader with a little intelligence. Nor is it necessary to add two references to IMDb. In all the film articles I have edited (and that's no small number), it just isn't done. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC). See my response on your talk page. Bzuk (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Talk:Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Yes, okay. Am I reading from here? Regards, Rudget . 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm thinking a block of 24 hours. It appears the IP is unrelentless in it's claims, not refraining from personal attacks (incivilty) after discussion flags it as the source of the disruption, which is evident from the spread of threads on the talk page, ANI etcetera. It also seems the IPs the person is using are dynamic (daily changing) which is apparent from here where the talk page is being intercepted by another IP with the same knowledge of the article/talk page. Regards, Rudget . 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Any time, and good luck! Natalie (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Would this sort of time line be any use on any of the long complicated biographies you are working on; see the time line on John Vanbrugh. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deeds-screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Deeds-screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Solved, it was displayed on some talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Deeds-screenshot.jpg)
Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, go to it. Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

Program(me)?
Is it "programme" or "program" in Canadian English? I can't keep track. Btw do you know of a university-run or similar "authoritative" site or online published dictionary with Canadian spellings, one that you would trust? THat would be easier than me always asking you! :) - BillCJ (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Island in the Sky.jpg
If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article title slightly revised to point to actual article. Bzuk (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

P-40 caption
Fair enough; I was mostly concerned with the duplication of material. Grant 10:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deeds
Hello from over there, as promised. The first thing to say is that I'm sorry we seem to be disagreeing, as more often than not I get the impression that I'm agreeing with you perhaps 70% or more.

You call me out on a couple of edits, or edit comments. One was Gwen's and not mine; I'm too sleepy and lazy to look into it. However, this one is indeed mine. "Plummets" is unfortunate; sorry about that. But really, though you did indeed cite two sources, one seemed a bit iffy and didn't seem to me to say quite what you represented it as saying, and the second one didn't seem good because it was by Capra.

Capra. . . you've described how Capra's truthfulness has and hasn't been questioned, but to me this is not the issue. I've been trying to come up with somebody who (has) won great respect, and who wasn't (isn't) at all self-promoting: an honest hero, as it were. How's Edmund Hillary? If there's anyone whose account of what he'd done were believable, it's Hillary. Oh, he might have made some tiny embellishments here and there, and a lapse of memory may have made an orange tent "red" or whatever, but I'd believe him. Still, I don't think he's a good source on Hillary. If he'd said something back in the fifties and had a reporter for a good newspaper write it up, that would be a start, but directly, no. Personally, I'd believe it; as a WP editor, I'd avoid it: if one allows more than an absolute minumum of this for people such as Hillary (and I'll concede that one can allow it for uncontentious claims about youth, etc.), then it's hard not to allow it for hucksters and braggarts (fear of libel prevents me from naming some examples) and then of course the hundreds of dubiously notable people who -- blatantly or subtly, directly or via a friend -- create promotional articles about themselves.

So what happened with this article, anyway? Some IP had a tiresome obsession with "666", I noticed that Gwen was asking for help, I tried to do a little. But I noticed that the IP was making a big deal out of the sourcing for the minor claim about "pixilated" and other words. The normal thing to do in such circumstances would be for a number of other editors to denounce him as a troll and try to move on. However, putting aside the question of his likely motivation for saying it, I had to concede that there was some substance in what he was saying. This was not the first time I'd encountered a thwarted would-be adder of silliness making a big deal of the sourcing of some of the material other editors thought was OK. The only intellectually honest options are, I think, (a) removing that material and (b) leaving it but ensuring that it's sourced at least as solidly as one has demanded the silliness should be sourced. (If this gives a troll undue influence, I don't much mind: I think that in just this one way the troll's influence is good.) Here, Gwen's approach was more toward removal and mine more toward source reinforcement. Luckily, "my" library happens to have musty old copies of American Speech, so I fished out the article. (Incidentally, the article is hardly academic. But it's written by somebody independent, it's written when memories were fresh, it does seem authoritative, it satisfied the editors of American Speech, and OED2 thinks it's worth citing: all in all it seems pretty good.) I stuck in the reference and did some rewording; I really think that I thereby improved this very minor part of the article.

I'm sorry if my hasty edit comments, etc., offended you. You've done a lot of good work on the article, and I do hope you keep on at it.

Probably no need to reply, but of course I'd be interested in any response. If you'd like to reply, please do so here. -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and although it is still a matter of contention as to who said what, when and where (check the edit history; it was accurately attributed), you may not appreciate that I am still a bit touchy about questioning AGF editing especially when there are sourced statements, but I am. The barrage of accusations that had been launched by a series of anons (all the same editor judging by the dogged persistence in POV-pushing and the use of exactly the same wording) had included some preposterous statements. Although I am perfectly capable of dicing with anyone in terms of literature or film history since I have an interest and a background in both realms, the advice was not to provide status or prominence to a questionable campaign. Yet the reaction of removing edits that had been sourced and were reasonable summations of research sources, would not be the approach that I would have adopted. The acceptance of a flawed argument proposed by an inexperienced editor bent on a disruptive course of action did not seem to be the "intellectually honest option" as has been set out, merely the pragmatic and expediate solution. The use of the alternate source did not provide a better source, it altered the original intent and provided a revised but similar contention. Although I can scarcely consider it an improvement, it reverted to the earlier discussion of "pixillation" which I was trying to avoid and removed the declaration that two words, "doodling" and "pixillation" were popularized by their mention in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town to the extent that entries appeared in dictionaries following the release of the film, that is now lost. The fact that these two words became the battle cry of this extended tussle is still a bit of a puzzle but it looks like we have two mule-headed editors involved, that like nothing better than butting heads. There, have I mixed enough metaphors?! BTW, if you haven't detected a thawing in my frosty approach, bear in mind, I haven't resorted to throwing "bon mots" about or casting aspersions about the Army boots that your grandmother wears... (LOL, I have no idea if your grandmother wears anything other than loafers.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

I find it very difficult to understand what you are saying. (1) Are you suggesting that it was me who didn't AGF; and if so, whose GF are you talking about and where did I demonstrate lack of this assumption? (2) I am sorry that my explanation of principled avoidance of autobiographical sourcing (no matter how universally respected the author may be) seems to have made no impression on you. (3) I did not accept any argument proposed by the "666" proponent; I merely found some merit in something that he said (and regardless of any motive he may have had when saying it). Further, looking around a library's underground closed stacks for an elderly volume of American Speech, photocopying the relevant pages, reading them and summarizing them may have been a "pragmatic" course but it certainly was not an "expedient" one: like most other people (no doubt including yourself), I have other demands on my time. (4) Both my grandmothers are long dead, and neither served in any armed force; and I imagine that both would be as bewildered as I am by the "aspersions" that you are careful not to cast. (Perhaps all this alludes to some North American pop culture reference; perhaps even to this particular film, which I have never seen.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hoary, you merely have to read my explanation and see that an olive branch was offered, don't drop an anchor on it. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

Well OK then! Here, pass me your glass: try some of this Collioure. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * C'est bon, tu parle en français? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

Malheureusement, presque rien. Mais je peux lire un peu. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * à bientôt, mon ami. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

B-29 Superfortress
An IPer added a new section without any refs, I marked it as so. Should it stay or get deleted or reverted?? Lance.... 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well..... User:Anyeverybody went ahead and deleted the section. Oh well. LanceBarber (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for January has been published.  February's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wellman book
You know, there are copies available of the book written by Wellman in 1918, "Go Get Em", about his experiences in WWI - I found them on bookfinder.com. I don't know how expensive they are (I wasn't looking to buy, just for info), but it sounds like it might be right up your alley. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When you get a chance, could you check this out. This site has a painting of an aircraft that is labelled as being Wellman's. If I'm understanding what the site says, then the airplane is a Nieuport 17, but the article lists him as flying a Spad.  I think you added that info, so I assume you have backup for it.  Is it simply that he flew different craft at different times?  In any event, I added a footnote which is a pointer to the painting, so if you think it's not accurate info, you might want to delete the ref, or tell me and I will.  Sorry to bother you & thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR
Alexander Graham Bell has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

DH.6 Article
I have obtained a copy of A.J. Jackson's "De Havilland aircraft" - it is the 1987 edition and has quite a bit of new material - especially on very early (pre Airco) types - in fact the title has been changed to "since 1909" rather than "since 1915" to reflect this. I am doing a complete rewrite of the DH.6 article (!) mainly as an exercise in writing a really good "aircraft type" article that meets all the Wiki criteria. All this guff is preparatory to a question - the newer edition of Jackson's page numbers are (of course) not in synch with the old ones. In getting all the references up-to-date, I think I should synchronise all "Jackson references" to the '87 edition (locating your references in my volume)? A bit of a job - but better, I think, than leaving some references to the first edition and some to the third. What do you think? Just that I don't want to upset you by changing references you added without asking. Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TOPAC DC-4.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TOPAC DC-4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Year in film" template -
Because I got tired of writing out all those "year in film" wikilinks, I've written a little template which may be useful: filmyear or fy. It expands, for instance,   or    into 1999. I've tried it out, and it seems to work. Of course, I know nothing at all about template writing, so... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairchild Canada
Hi again Bzuk - I'm here with another of my periodic begs for photos and review of Canadian types. I've just created articles on the Fairchild FC-2 and Fairchild 82, both of which seem to have quite a history in Canada, and which were even produced there.

I'm also curious about a short entry on the aerofiles' Fairchild page that describes the Fairchild 81 as a one-off produced for the RCAF. Going by the description, I feel sure that it's part of this same family of aircraft, though whether most closely related to the FC-2/51, the 71, or the 82 I'm not sure! if you can shed any light on this, it would be much appreciated - we could almost certainly roll it into one of the existing articles.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks - that's fantastic! I've also just added the Fairchild 45-80 Sekani: details are very scanty on this one - I gleaned a few meagre specs from a contemporaneous Flight article, but that's it! Any expansion and elucidation most welcome :) And, if you feel up to it, the Fairchild F-11 Husky is the last of the Canadian Fairchilds missing - it's outside my current mission (not being covered in Jane's Encyclopedia), but if you could do the honours, it would plug a gap :)


 * I'll admit to not knowing much about the relationship between Fairchild and its Canadian subsidiary, but over the last few days I've been coming to realise that the latter had some quite distinctive types unique to it; do you think we should be templating and categorising these separately, like (for example) we do with Avro, de Havilland, and Vickers? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - missed the Husky! Thanks! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Deed's Goes Satanist!
I'm sorry I missed out on the discussion about this. Some of the arguments you were presented with were quite amusing though I suspect at the time they were pretty annoying. Malla nox  14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One of Our Aircraft is Missing
Hi! I wasn't messing with the article. I arranged the photos better to remove large number of blank spaces. I think it looks better - but no change to text. Kiefermadness (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See note on your talk page. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

Dates and seasons
Actually, I don't see that rule in the MOS. Perhaps you could be so good as to point it out to me. SEASON Thanks so much. M Van Houten (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't see that rule. I see as similar rule for months, but no corresponding rule for seasons.  Perhaps you could point out the specific provision which states that "it is recommended not to use summer of 1917, and instead use summer 1917."  Thanks again.  M Van Houten (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don’t understand your response.  Allow me to rephrase my query.


 * You have represented to me that “In the MOS guide to dates, it is recommended not to use summer of 1917, and instead use summer 1917.” I have assumed good faith thus far, but I would like to know if there is, or is not, a SPECIFIC  statement of that rule in the MOS.  A simple “yes there is” or “no there is not” will suffice.  Thanks again. M Van Houten (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It all falls under general guides of the year stating not to use "of 1917" and editors have interpreted this to apply to other aspects of dealing with events in the year, including seasons. I was recently informed that it is a phrase to avoid (see Tuskeegee Airman discussion below). I cannot indicate a specific notation of not to use the seasons other than what i had already indicated. An admin had first pointed out the recommendation to me but this is WickyWacky land, anything goes and usually does. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
 * You cite Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 as a “general guides of the year stating not to use ‘of 1917.’” In fact, it seems to do the opposite.  In the pursuit of “precise language” it discourages use of the words “recently,” “soon,” “currently,” and the phrase “is soon to be superseded.” “Instead, use either: [¶] more precise items (since the start of 2005....)”  Since the MOS provision you have provided to me specifically approves use of the phrase “start of 2005,” I do not see how it could stand for the proposition that one should not “use ‘of 1917.’”


 * You also state that you “were recently informed that it is a phrase to avoid (see Tuskeegee Airman discussion below).” In fact, that user makes clear that he is referring to the issue of hemispherical bias because seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere.  Moreover, the user directly below contests even that proposition.  I’m sure you will agree that there is no difference between “summer 1917" and “summer of 1917" for purposes of hemispherical bias. M Van Houten (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would pick the former over the latter. M Van Houten (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are unable to corroborate your claim that “In the MOS guide to dates, it is recommended not to use summer of 1917, and instead use summer 1917.” I will therefore revert your last edit to the Triplane article.  I would also advise you to refrain from making similar representations in the future as they may cause others to question your good faith.


 * I would also suggest that you read the following guideline, which is found at the second paragraph of Wp:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):


 * "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. "


 * Thanks for your cooperation. M Van Houten (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)