User talk:Bzuk/Archive 5

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter
The June 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:MAC Logo.JPG
An image that you uploaded, Image:MAC Logo.JPG, has been listed at because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Though I did not tag this image, I'm placing this tag here because it seems you were never notified of this matter. The image was tagged on June 17th. Since this report has been around a while, I am moving it over to Copyright problems/Older consolidated. Please leave any comments about this there. Obviously, we wouldn't want to delete it without your having a chance to clarify the copyright concerns. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very quick! :) I have responded to your note at Copyright problems/Older consolidated with some further steps you might take. As I pointed out there, it wasn't the bot that tagged the article, but another user. The other user seems just not to have followed through in notifying you or listing the problem at WP:CP. The bot took care of the latter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ann Pellegreno
Hi Bzuk! I am in the process of writing up a new article on "Ann Pellegreno". As you probably already know, she is the one that did the Amelia Earhart flight on the 30th anniversity - similar to Linda Finch. In the research I am doing on this article I am working out in a sandbox now I came across this picture of Pellegreno. Do you know if I can use this publicity photo in the biography? Can I download to Wiki-Commons and under what conditions? I am reading her book ''World Flight. The Earhart Trail'' (1971) now to get additional biography information. You don't know of any other picture of her I could use, do you? Should have the article up and going in about a week. Will let you know so you can "tweak" if you want. What about this picture of her and this picture of her plane? I'll check back here on your talk page for any answers later. Thanks. --Doug talk 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Ann Pellegreno, out of my sandbox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

Nice article, much better than I could have done. You are a specialist in this field. --Doug talk 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominated your new article for a possible DYK. If you can think of a better hook, feel free to submit an alternate one. Tried to use a hook that you already have a footnote on. Would it be correct to use additional references from websites that say basically the same thing, so they can verify the hook? If so, I'll locate some. --Doug talk 16:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewart and Sullavan
Dear Bzuk, I don't doubt that Stewart was enamored of Sullavan, but such wasn't because they worked together in the University Players. They never did. Stewart would have first met Sullavan when she was in Princeton during his junior year and in the cast of Strictly Dishonorable with Princeton's Theatre Intime. Additionally, Stewart would have partied with the University Players in Baltimore in the winter of 1931-32 when his Princeton Triangle Club was there in January 1932 performing their show Spanish Blades, in which Stewart was cast. At that time, Fonda and Sullavan had been married less than two weeks. Half the males of the University Players were Princeton graduates, including Joshua Logan, who had been president of the Triangle Club the year before, and others, such as Norris Houghton, Myron McCormick, and Bretaigne Windust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrenrut (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Eliot describes an infatuation but your edit, (my slight revision in the cite) clearly establish the correct timeframe of the Princeton period. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

B-2
It is not a bare URL. You can see the webpage. I am not accessing the site from work so I am not on the secure site. That means everyone can see the web page I posted. If I went in from work I would be on the secure server and would be accessing a site that wouldn't be accessable to you. I know this one is. Cbreseman (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Do 17
Thanks for the "tweaks", and goodnight! :) Dapi89 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ashanti.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashanti.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) 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ann Pellegreno
Congratulations on your accolade. --Doug talk 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pusher configuration
A dispute seems to be developing about this between me and another user. Here is the argument as on the other party's talk page. Just between us, am I being very silly? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Was intrigued by your idea that a "pusher" prop "pulls" - although actually on the same grounds a tractor prop "pushes"! The difference is of course really the location of the propeller rather than the nature of the thrust applied to the aircraft. I have tried to keep the sense of what you had to say by leaving your "giving the impression of pushing" - but have cut your sentence that it is "really pulling". The image behind the terminology may well be a bit meaningless (especially in the case of a "push/pull" layout - if that was really what it says the propellers would be thrusting in opposite directions, and would cancel each other out!) - but on the other hand we don't have to get dogmatic about the physics of the situation, I feel. Get back to me if you feel we need to discuss this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Let's keep this discussion in one place - even move it to the article discussion page? - anyway I have put your reply here)


 * I've undone your edit. Aerodynamics is aerodynamics; dogmatics is just POV. Props "pull" and there just isn't any other way. I would, in any rate, suggest you bone up on some basic flight theory. Cheers--Phyllis1753 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Basic laws of physics (and, I suspect, aerodynamics) have nothing to do with "push" or "pull". A force is applied in a particular direction (strictly, "sense") - forward or back. "Push" and "pull" - in ordinary English (as opposed to scientific and technical language) indicate where the force is "coming from" (itself not a very scientific" idea) - we use the word "push" to indicate a force that comes from behind and "pull" to indicate one that comes from the front. You can push a shopping trolley backwards and pull in forwards as well as the other way around, for instance. The difference is where you are standing! This is, as you very rightly point out, not a very scientific use of language - in fact in terms of physics, at least, it is pretty meaningless - but it is the (ordinary language) sense in which the word is applied here. In fact - the propeller is part of the machine itself - it "propells" rather than pushing or pulling!!


 * In THIS sense it is quite true that a "pusher" propeller "pulls" an aircraft just as a tractor one does - but in the same way a "tractor" propeller "pushes" it (in a forward direction of course). This is nonsense, but it is where you quibble leads us, I'm afraid.


 * I think my edit - that left the first sentence of your edit intact but removed the essentially nonsensical second one, actually kept what was valid in your argument. I remain open to further persuasion, of course! I haven't reverted it (yet) -until we've had a better chance to make sure we are talking about the same thing!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 18:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

F-16 Citations
Hi Bill, I have a question regarding formating of citations. I'd been using the format shown in WP:CITE/ES, so your changes were a bit novel to me. Is there a preferred citation format? (I know there's not an "official" one, but is there one that tends to better pass on FA/GA reviews?) If so, could you please provide me a link for guidance? I can seem to find anything. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bill. The reason for the variety of styles was because I’d not gone through all of them.  I was the one who added the “Anons”; it’s not uncommon, but I mainly did it to signify that there was really was no identified author – as opposed to the more common (on Wikipedia) simple neglect to identify one (a problem with several citations I did clean up).  I don’t like the “date forward” style either, but was just following WP:CITE/ES.  I will probably restore publisher info where appropriate because that’s proper traditional citation, and I do plan to restore parallelism in listing author’s names where there’s multiple authors. Using mixed forms drives me nuts.  Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Miss Sunshine A-class review
I have fixed and/or responded to the issues you raised at WikiProject Films/Assessment/Little Miss Sunshine. Please let me know if I didn't completely address your issues or if any more have arisen. Thanks again for reviewing, and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to remind you that I have addressed the issues you have raised. If you believe the article meets the criteria, please consider recommending support. If there are still some issues that need to be worked on further, or if you see new ones, please leave your comments on the assessment page. Thanks again for your comments, I appreciate your help. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Biblio & notes
Hi - saw your revision of my edit on Jean Arthur. No beef from me, just wondering what's the logic of the biblio going last? BTW, How have you been -- how's being a film coordinator going? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See comment your talk page. Just a rule of bibliographic formatting. I have never seen an example of the bibliography appearing before the citation guide/end/footnotes or appendices. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain
Apologies for this becoming a bit of an editing can of worms. To mind, the section on the fighters has become overdone, from being a straightforward analysis of the aircraft it has become a jungle. I have made my comments, at length, about unverified, contradictory or inadequately referenced statements being used to push a particular barrow. In the meantime I'll withdraw from editing this page because I'm wanting to concentrate on other articles, and my time is better spent on more important things in life.Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurfürst needs to be blocked - look what he's doing to the article. Dapi89 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My granpappy warned me before I woz born not to get caught up in Wikipedia editing! "Boy, jus' ya leave that kinda stuff to th' masochists!" he'd say, "Oh ya porr blin' fool! Ya gonna wish ya ain't gone and done that ya cretin!" I shoulda heeded my granpappy's advice...Minorhistorian (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
Looks like another admin beat me to it! Sorry, I was out at a roller derby, if you can believe that! Maury (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A-26 etc
Thanks for your comments. My biblio and refs styles are mostly based on examples I find in the individual articles, where I am generally concerned with technical details and overall sense and presentation to the readers, and standardization of refs comes after standardization of other stuff. As to extra refs for the Third Party section, as the author, I feel I should offer my own refs, although apologetically late. PeterWD (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I proclaim you WP:Air's "Master of Tweak" (i.e. Tweak Master). Use this power wisely. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could You Be of A Bit of Help?
I need your services, if possible. I've added a statement to the P-61 page and I need someone to link it to the book "Queen of the Midnight Skies" in the reference section. Much obliged. Ken keisel (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try for a page # tonight. Much obliged. Ken keisel (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned user alert
BillZ, we had an uncited text dump [here. I hope I'm wrong, but it did raise my Steph-alert flag. The IP is registered in Rome, but did have a decent edit on another Italian aircraft page (its onnly other edit). Probbly bears watching. Thanks. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:EAA Ford Trimotor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EAA Ford Trimotor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Miles M-100 Student.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Miles M-100 Student.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill, tagged an image you uploaded as public domain - it obviously was not taken before 1 June 1957 as the registration G-MIOO was not issued until 1984! - comment welcome, Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LMS A-class
Hey Bill, I was just wondering if you had any further comments or objections to the Little Miss Sunshine review. If not, your indication of a support should be sufficient to conclude the review and confer the A-class upon the article. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:138.88.35.77 and CSX Transportation
Hi The edit summary used was of course extremely rude, but he was right, and it wasn't misleading either: The source wasn't quoted correctly, it didn't say "T for Transportation", and that's what he removed. Also, he was already warned for both of his rude edit summaries. Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, as a matter of fact I was about to warn him myself when I saw that EronMain already warned him about both edits. FWIW, I also redid his edit on the Air Force One article (with hopefully a more civil edit summary), since that one too seems OK. --Amalthea (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing date and other links
The guidance in the Manual of Style on what shouldn't be linked has recently been clarified. The relevant bits are at WP:CONTEXT and WP:CONTEXT.

The names of geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should generally not be linked where, in the context, they are unlikely to be confused with other locations of the same name, and the linked article would not specifically add to readers' understanding of the topic at hand.

I'd say in general the same principle applies to universally understood concepts such as World War II, and common professions such as actor, singer, and quite a few other examples that are often unnecessarily linked. No-one is ever going to click on those links, so they're just clutter.

Dates that contain day, month and year or day and month may be linked using MediaWiki's date autoformatting mechanism. Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.

Wikilinking dates provides a small benefit to a small proportion of readers but is at best useless and at worst a distraction for the vast majority, so when I'm making some other change to an article, I'm also de-linking dates. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a recommendation, not a rule - but the emphasis of the MoS guidance has definitely changed towards linking less - only things that the ordinary reader of the article would want to find out more about - and not linking/autoformatting dates unless there's some special reason to do so. The problem has been that the autoformatting mechanism and the linking mechanism are inextricably entwined, so there are masses of completely valueless blue links on pages just for the benefit of the small number of users who've registered and set a date format preference. And because the rules of the autoformatting mechanism are not particularly intuitive, the mistaken impression has grown up that all years shoud be linked as standard, which is another source of link clutter. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Optional" was your word, not mine. It means "not compulsory". That means that if I, in my judgement, think an article would be improved by unlinking the dates, I'm entitled to do so. If you, in your judgement, disagree with me, you're entitled to re-link them. It's not something I propose to get into an edit war about. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If I thought that the linking of dates in an article was the result of "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism", then I would be reluctant to unlink them. But all experienced editors know that >99% of the date linking is just there because that used to be the recommendation, and editors just copied the practice from other editors. When I was following the previous recommendation to link dates, occasionally - but rarely - another editor would raise an objection. Now I'm unlinking them, occasionally another editor will object to that change. If any particular editor feels strongly that s/he wants to keep the linking, they can have it, I'm happy to explain my reasons, but ultimately they can have it if it matters so much to them - it's not important enough to battle over. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 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) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Doolittle Raid
Saw your edit of my edit and your reasoning. I rewrote that because the impression left by the previous text and the footnote seemed to imply that the Chuchow bases were not the original interim stop for fuel. They were. (The map in Craven and cate seems to imply that Kweilin and Kian were planned as bases, when in fact they were well beyond the range of the B-25 even if they had reached the planned launch point). Without the tailwind, none of the raiders would have made the China coast, period. York didn't even try because the civilian maintenance in Sacramento had replaced his pre-set carburetors against Doolittle's orders. Even so, a number of the raiders dead-reckoned to C'hu-hsien, which the Allies mistakenly call Chuchow. (The topo maps show that Lishui to the SE is actually Chuchow). Doc Watson, Brick Holstrom, Bob Gray, Major Hilger, and Davey Jones all reached and flew past Chuhsien--Watson by more than 100 miles. Joyce, Greening, and Bower bailed out in the vicinity while they had a little gas left. So while Lawson, Hallmark, and Smith all had to ditch because they ran low on gas, and Hoover and Farrow came down at Ningpo, it wasn't so for most of the crews. They were fouled up by the storm front and the lack of radio beacon to guide them in. That is why I used "locate". If you can think of a better way to phrase it to encompass both situations, feel free to try.--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS Elitists
Wow, what a mess? Seems pretty clear who the elitists are there, huh? It's obvious they only want to scrap the date autoformatting, and they couldn't even get a concensus for that. Yet Greg point blank says that is what the consensus is! And with all the name-calling from theire side - elitist, brain-damaged - it's obvious there just don't care what anyone else even thinks. And to, that is true elitism! I think we need to find a place to take this issue over their heads, and get broader community involvement on the issue. - BillCJ (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Citizen Kane
If you're going to work on Citizen Kane, I invite you to check out User:Erik/Citizen Kane and User:Erik/Citizen Kane/Draft. It was something that Alientraveller, J.D., and I attempted to start, but we kind of dropped it. Thought it might come in handy for you. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. The journals marked (saved) mean I have electronic copies of them in case you're not able to find them yourself.  Just email me if you want to see about using them. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of properly sourced information
Once again we have one editor sneakily removing or altering properly sourced information in order to trundle his own barrow. Another example can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolls-Royce_Merlin&action=history Same thing with the Spitfire variants article, where information has been altered and a reference removed with nothing cited as a reason for altering things. I ended up doing that. On top of that he resorts to rather laughable personal attack. Is there anything that can be done about this? Sorry to complain, but this kind of behaviour begins to grate.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interject but I have been watching what's been going on. He is blocked now and you are right BTW. Better to take it to User:Rlandmann who is an admin or just shrug your shoulders and carry on! Nimbus (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right Nimbus, I should have taken this elsewhere. Sorry about the grizzle; ps am I doing better with my citations? Cheers!Minorhistorian (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Read WP:EL
Please read WP:EL, Wikipedia does NOT link copyvio.

The removal of the URL's in the cites was because the site linked is not necessarily hosting the material with the permission of the copyright holder.

If you can make a justification for fair-use please feel free, especially in the case of Google Books.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been held in the US that, linking to sites that then link to copyright material hosted without the consent of the copyright holder is a form of contributory infringement.

I do not remove links indiscriminately, and in most cases have left details of the ORIGNAL work (as opposed to web linked scans) which would enable someone to find the relevant document.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More specifically, WP:ELNEVER covers it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire heading photo
Hi Bzuk. Perhaps a compromise would be in order? I have changed the photo to one which I hope both you and Kaiwhakahaere can work with. I have discussed this on the Spitfire discussion page.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Hola amigo. Thankyou for your kind words. Always nice to be appreciated. Yes sometimes I don't meet eye to eye with others unfortunately which is to be expected on a site this size, but I generally get on very well with most people I come across. Best  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

P.s excellent work with Anna May Wong!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 14:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this new "guideline" on screenshots. I've seen screenshots removed from articles which not only identify the main characters but describe a key event or moment in that film. In many caes it seems like a point of view of the editor who removed it rather than a general community feeling. I'm not for overuse or unnecessary use of screneshots in articles but personally I think a screenshot which identifies a key moment or cast in a film is far more encyclopedic than a film poster can ever be and in identifying a film we need such images for something which is primarily visual. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Now who could that be? Carefully read the preamble, and then make a request here. Please be as specific as possible when making a request - it may be worth perusing the closed cases and their outcomes before posting. If you need any help, please give me a hoy. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Signaleer with a mission
I just don't get it. Signaleer can't seem to be satisfied with ANY version of the story other than his own. I wrote a balanced and reffed sentence about the XB-17 nomenclature, INCLUDING it in the article, and that STILL isn't enough for him. I don't know what it is he wants... Mark Sublette (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Naval Aircraft Nicknames
Thanks for your help cleaning up my references. I found the article in an old magazine and thought it might help some of our contributors who knew those names by heart, but couldn't locate a citation. I'm a big fan of your work with military aircraft articles. Well done. Thewellman (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart article
Hi. It's not a big thing really but you reverted out my addition to the Amelia Earhart article with the popular cultural reference in the new upcoming animated film, "Fly Me to the Moon". I just saw the movie in a reviewer's pre-screening this past weekend. I can't back it up since I don't have the script in hand but I did see it and it had a major sub-theme where the grandfather had saved Amelia Earhart's life on one of her solo flights. Admittedly, it's not high scholarship but I thought it was worth a fleeting mention. You apparently didn't and without discussion before the purgation. Best. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Reply on your talk page. Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your kindest note and well taken points. I will ponder it and figure out if it's worth adding in any fashion at all. It is just a little item. The parallel in the film was that the children go to the moon as a consequence of "grandpa" having flown with Amelia Earhart and saving her. But it's a fictional bit although charming in its own right. Now, Joni Mitchell's song is quite another matter. ;) Best wishes and many thanks ! Yours. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, a pleasure. Cheers ! -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard Appendices
Please see WP:LAYOUT, which clearly states that while Bibliography may be using in place of the heading Further reading, it is preferred to reserve the heading for a list of works by the subject of the article. This is about the consensus standards for the end material, and not about what the heading might be used for off Wikipedia. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the talk pages of the articles involved and find no consensus on the topic at the articles involved. I have no desire to edit war with you, as I can see it is simply a waste of time. However, there are preferred forms as evinced by WP:LAYOUT and I will hardly be the only editor to prefer the consensus expressed there. I assert that your continually reverting from a written standard to a more idiosyncratic layout is also a waste of time. Why not go with the flow? That's all I have to say on the matter. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. On the negative side, you actions have alienated me and taken a couple articles off my watchlist, which I will no longer patrol for vandalism or otherwise help improve. So I ask, what have you gained by having it your way? Anything? Wednesday Next (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Please read your talk page, that was not the intention. FWiW Bzuk (talk).

Howard Hughes and talk page icons
Hi there, sorry it took so long to get back to you. With regard to the Howard Hughes thing, I think the ANI thread shows it's best stepping back from sniping at each other for now, no matter how justified you may be in doing to. Any administrator will rightly dismiss it as a mere content dispute that has got a little bit heated. My advice to you is that any further edits to that article's talk page should be firmly on-topic, no matter what the other editor says to you. Simply do not respond to any comments of a personal nature (my advice to him would be the same). That way, the moral high ground is retained and maybe a civil disagreement can be had at least. As for resolving the issue, perhaps issuing a request for comment would be appropriate, though it could be an overreaction for a trivial issue which is clear-cut as far as Wikipedia's guidelines go (see the comments I made regarding WP:CITE). As for my user and talk page icons, I stole the format from User:WJBscribe. I created a user subpage at User:Steve/Menu, copying the code from WJBscribe's similar subpage. Then I merely changed the link descriptions and swapped the images for ones I found at the Commons that were more appropriate for the use I was making of them. I then transcluded on to my user and talk pages by placing at the top! All the best, Steve  T • C 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

References and full stops
It is not true that reference citations always go after full stops or other punctuation. Nature (journal) places references before any punctuation, but Chicago Manual of Style erroneously recommends placing them after punctuation (see also References). What happens here is that some people follow Nature's convention while others follow Chicago's. However, these two conventions are not equal, but one is correct while the other leads to ambiguity, and the reason is that when you place references after punctuation you create a barrier separating the reference from the sentence to which the citation is attached, and it is possible that some readers may perceive the reference as being attached to the next sentence (since it is perceived as being a logical part of it, as it is separated by the previous sentence by punctuation).

See here:

''Trees breath air(ref). Earthquakes happen.''

The above is unambiguous since the reference is attached to the first sentence.

Trees breath air.(ref) Earthquakes happen.

Now this is not unambiguous. The reader sees two sentences with a full stop separating them, and they see a reference at the beginning of the second sentence. Some readers could assume that the reference supports the fact that earthquakes happen.

Thus, just like Oxford comma, placing a reference before full stops or other punctuation helps to remove ambiguity and help all readers understand to which sentence the reference is attached, and in this way this style is inclusive as it tends to accomodate all readers, regardless of whether they are familiar with citation style or not. However, placing a reference after punctuation (especially after full stops) is exclusive, as this style assumes that the reader should be familiar with citation styles and aware of the way Chicago style works (while Nature's style does not need the reader to be aware of it as it unambiguously keeps references within identifiable sentences).

I suggest reaching a consensus as to whether the article should follow Nature's or Chicago's style in references and punctuation (see Talk:A-10 Thunderbolt II. NerdyNSK (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi Bill: You are welcome! I agree that it takes lots of people working on these articles to make them good! I was the one who put out the plea for some help in finding refs for the article, so I thought it only fitting to say "thanks" to those who have helped out. I just want to encourage everyone to keep helping out! - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Simpson 1991
Hi Bill. I tracked the addition of "Simpson 1991" to this edit by User:MilborneOne. It looks like he put the citations in, but not the book itself. I think you will have to ask him for clarification. Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of date and country links
You already warned him to stop this apparently, but here he is at it again, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What will you do about it and should I revert all those unlinkings, please? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bart, there is an ongoing discussion about the use of autofromatting for date links, and there is no clear consensus yet as to a course of action. What the aforementioned editor has been doing falls into a "grey/gray" category of making somewhat "frivolous" edits although he has carefully explained his reasoning on his talk page and other forums. I have been taking a "watch and see" attitude at present, but when some of the edits become a bit of a personal decision such as delinking World War II, it is the next editor's prerogative to change the edit if needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
 * I will revert those. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ralph Richardson and Merle Oberon.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ralph Richardson and Merle Oberon.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. ViperSnake151 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.
Thanks for the welcome. Dsimonis (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.
Thanks for the welcome. Hope I'm not stepping on any toes. Dsimonis (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT
I understand, Butwhatdoiknow implemented that section, I only added several minor tweaks. I don't recommend a revert since it is an improvement to what we had previous, but you can help us resolve this in Wikipedia talk:Layout and Wikipedia talk:Layout. As to why they pursue using Bibliography as such is because it is, despite being inaccurate, a common practice. If we achieve a consensus that reserves the Bibliography section as part of the referencing block; then we may be setting a precedence. It'll take some push, but I think its possible. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The ideal of a Wiki is that anyone can contribute, please don't hope: help. It will be unlikely to pass if I am the only one actively pursuing it. Wikipedia has experienced changes in practice before: disambiguations used to be simply a single article with horizontal rules dividing each item that it disambiguates; Quotations used to be pursued as part of the standard appendices; and so forth. For Wikipedia to achieve maturity, we need people like you — conflicts of interest can get messy, but that doesn't mean nothing is achieved. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember Wikipedia is not a forum. I have interest in writing several essays about Wikipedia, but that's only for interest. Wikipedia has a strongly egalitarian, and we do not value (almost to the point of irrelevance) pretense as much as other academic societies. Instead you're value within a discussion or otherwise is almost entirely measured by the content you contribute and its quality. The method in which we view information is built from the bottom up: we are against any form of bias (WP:NPOV), we do not pursue a "truth" — instead we simply place what is known in a non-teleological manner (WP:V), and for Wikipedia to ultimately mature we establish guidelines to help present information in more intuitive methods (WP:MoS). Please remember that what we look is not pretense, its your understanding — and potentially this a much more accurate measuring system than a title or a resume. People who do not succeed in this can often time run into serious conflicts of interest, which can ultimately lead to arbitration. I believe you understand this, but its important to organize your thoughts so applying it isn't so hard. These are, of course, how I organized it and ultimately my views. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Beech Twin-Quad
G'day Bill,

crikey, I just looked at this article a couple of days ago and was thinking about how little activity there had been (and how it would be nice if there was an image); then Whammo, about twenty edits in a single day.

You may have noticed an absence of activity on this site on my part; there has been much upheaval in my personal life in the last six months. To cut a long story short, all of my books and magazines are in storage and will be for the foreseeable future until I find a more permanent home. I have begun to make edits to the Beech 18 article, and boy do I wish I had a couple of the books at my fingertips! Anyhoo, the upheavals were as a result of my decisions and choices, so I'm not complaining. You seem to be powering on as usual; do some of you guys get together and decide to 'hit' an article, or is it just coincidental that there is suddenly a major multi-contributor revamp of a particular page (I notice that the Beech 18 article has also received a flurry of attention in the last ten days or so after a fairly quiet time)?

I hope to be a little bit more active from now on, as things have settled down a bit for me, so I'll see you around the traps. See ya! YSSYguy (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a bit of time on my hands and an unused photo of a Hamilton Westwind in my image gallery, and when I looked at the Beech 18 page to add the image I thought, "that could do with some work". And I am still going; I am still amazed by what is available on the internet when one searches hard enough.... YSSYguy (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one!!! Just what the article needed. YSSYguy (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Need a position
There is gross misinterpretation in WP:LAYOUT and subsidiaries. We need to understand our positions before it begins to degrade. WhatamIdoing appears to believe that you and Boracay Bill wish to replace References with Bibliography. That I appear to be pursuing to subordinate External links to References along with Notes and Bibliography. This has to stop, and I believe that in our next comment we need to establish where each of us stand. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Flight of the Phoenix
Good work on the Flight of the Phoenix articles. With the renaming of the book article we should set up Flight of the Phoenix and Flight of the Phoenix as the primary disambig page (unless the book is particularly notable)). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for getting the book/film split done - it's been longoverdue. I was planning on doing it myself on two separate ocasions in the past 48 hours, but was unable to because of my bad health. I was going to do it a few hours ago, and you both had just finished the major work! Both articles look good now, especially the book cover in the novel article. Thanks again! - BillCJ (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks!
Bzuk, that's a nice thing to have corrected. Tony  (talk)  14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I get an opinion?
Can I get your opinion in the article Jane Austen? The question is over infoboxes and Further reading. See discussion. Thanks! ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See note on your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks, and you're right about not persisting. On the contrary it's probably too early to state that infoboxes can be accepted universally — though it's certainly getting there. I don't think this is too bad of a case or a case at all of WP:OWN; and I certainly appreciate their good faith (my last encounter was with Tony1, he accused me of sock puppetry, vandalism, and so forth here's the links 1 2 3). ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

James Stewart (actor)
Sorry for bothering you, Mr.Zuk. Probably there was a misunderstanding. 90.198.115.94 and 92.10.115.13 are two different people. The former is sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user Patkirkwoood ( I made a statement on the talk page of James Stewart yesterday ), who have committed lots of image-related vandalisms ( 90.198.115.94 had been blocked for six months yesterday ). The latter is sockpuppet of HarveyCarter, who is still at large. CDChen (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Query
These kinds of comments always intrigue me; have I forgotten some difference we may have had once? Since I don't tend to hang on to negative things, you'll have to jog my memory, or more importantly, let me know if we have any unsettled business :-)) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation :-) Yes, the dear sock-admin.  My gut was on that one from day one, based on his insistence on my talk page during the FAC, but I didn't have the justification/proof to oppose his RfA ... so it got through.  Since then, I've learned to trust my gut more and just speak up at RfA when it doesn't feel right.  All the best, and pardon my memory ... too many articles :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection of F-16 Fighting Falcon
Sorry, but I'm going to decline this request for a couple of reasons. One of which is any potential appearance of favouritism, since I recently declined a similar request by another party. Secondly, protecting the article in its present state would lock it to a version that I've just publicly endorsed, so again, I'll pass on the potential COI. Please feel free to refer this to a non-Aviation-involved admin if you still think it meeds protecting, but actually, I don't see that it does - everyone involved is experienced enough to be aware of the consequences of 3RR and edit warring in general, and some have been blocked in the past for similar reasons - so everyone should know where they stand! Thanks for doing your bit to try and keep the peace over there, and I'll of course continue to watch what happens... --Rlandmann (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I raised a request for protection but it has been declined with the comment Dispute is so far about one user. I'll keep an eye on the page and block if necessary so we do have an uninvolved admin keeping an eye on it. Thanks for your work. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire nonsense
I'm annoyed and frustrated that this type of thing has re-emerged - the simple problem is that Kurfüst, for reasons I cannot comprehend, is writing absolute nonsense, written around a non-existent paragraph he claims comes from a publication which can be found and verified by anyone who cares to look. Personally I'm heartily sick of the whole stupid thing; I will avoid all things Spitfire, except to use secondary sources to replace those which are of unknown reliability. Once again I apologise, which I seem to be having to do a lot of late.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Invoking?
Huh???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

And wots with da slam about a dicanary? I was an A/B-student in hi-skewl. Except in Typing! A dictionary has never helped me much with that!


 * )- BillCJ (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Except perhaps for throwing at the keyboard when the keys stick! - BillCJ (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comment.I found this quite disturbing given also the reputation and quality of the admin involved. I am a Canadian too.:0)(olive (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Spitfire image
Hi. I think you added the image of the Submarine Spitfire to the The Lion Has Wings article. Were you aware it was going to be deleted? I ask because I don't believe any notice of it ever appeared on the article's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Downsview Park
In regards to your summary that more or less undid my edit on de Havilland Canada, the park has two official names, one for each official business. The reason everyone keeps calling it "Parc Downsview Park" is because the governing body for the park is Parc Downsview Park Inc., a federal crown corporation. Except for the logo text for the park, even the governing body simply calls it Downsview Park on such places as their website. It's just another one of those cases where the bilingualism policy screws up perfectly sensible things (not that I'm against bilingualism; it's just like most things Ottawa does, they're doing it wrong). --coldacid (talk|contrib) 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists
Hi. How do you feel these days about the formatting of cast lists? Do you still prefer using tables? I ask because when I come across a table in a cast section, I generally convert it to a list, which I think is more attractive and uses less space, but I've held back on some articles, feeling pretty certain that it was you who had added the cast list in the first place, and not wanting to give offense. So I thought I'd check: do you still favor tables? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. As you probably recall, I'm not a purist when it comes to consistency of formatting across all of Wikipedia, I'm much more interested in functionality; so I'm not suggesting that if you favor tables and want to keep them, that's a bad thing. I happen to feel otherwise, but I see nothing wrong with both formats existing at the same time on different articles.  All of which is to say, please don't interpret this as an attempt on my part to push you to abandon tables, if that's what you think is best to use. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Years in aviation
Hey, I noticed this. I don't think there is currently a consensus to do this, is there? --John (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

captions
Hi Bill. Thanks for the pointer. Some of mine are too long, I know. I prefer to "write long" and cut back later. I also have no problem with other people reducing mine. Grant |  Talk  12:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Flyboys
With regards to Flyboys, when I created the current Cast section, there was not one at all (or at least not a visible one due to a screwed up reference which hid it, and since I had only edited a section I did not see the accidentally hidden code).

Once I realized that there was an existing section I combined them using the format that takes the least room. Lists take less vertical space and the data does not need multiple columns. As for whom to include, I could see removing the Other cast, but decided to leave that for other eyes, although given your comment I will take care of that now (I was going to add citation requests for the sketchier "based ons" anyway).

—MJBurrage(T•C) 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we were editing at the same time, given that the data does not require multiple columns, a list is more efficient, and easier to edit. I also wonder at some of the "based on" claims. They seem tenuous without a source. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on your reversion, I thought I had explained myself pretty well. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the version of the page before I added a Cast list, you will see that there was none (actually hidden, by a broken reference, but I did not know that at the time). The list I created was from the actual credits which I have on screen in front of me right now, and was in the same order as the film's actual Main Cast credits. At least one credit in the table is also an error, it is "L.T. Giroux", not "Lt. Giroux". Furthermore your simple revert removed some valid citation requests, and kept an unneeded citation vis-a-vis IMDb, since the film itself is a valid (and better source). —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's move the discussion to the article talk page to have a centralized location for further commentary. Bzuk (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

BoB
Hi Bzuk. FYI:. Dapi89 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Plane
Not sure what the answer is Bzuk as this has just become a continutation of the May 08 discussion on the same point which started at the use of airplane/plane in Charles Lindbergh, I dont see a consensus to use plane except in quoted speech but although we must AGF in the end Centpacrr is going to use Plane whatever we say! so having a consensus vote may just be wasting everbodys time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The polling guidelines can be found here, but please take note of the caveats about their use; in particular the observation that polling will often exacerbate a situation rather than relieve it. Like MilborneOne above, I also not encouraged by the possibility of such a move actually achieving anything. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

M Van Houten and the DH.6
This article has been repeatedly attacked by M Van Houten - by adding innumerable tags. Although these efforts have been very obviously NOT in good faith - but part of a childish reaction to my efforts to improve some articles this person somehow regards as his/her own property - I have none the less "assumed" (a non-existant) good faith and endeavoured to resolve the matters raised - adding citations and changing wording. This latest batch of tags seems to go beyond all reason - it is incidentally NOT a "restoration" as claimed - most, if not all, of the tags are new. What can I do? I have been impressed by your patience and wisdom - can you suggest something that may make this person desist? Or should I just leave "their" articles alone in future? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Just a friendly warning that if you revert me again it will be your 4th revert. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

terminology required caps for titles
Hello! You changed "light attack squadron VAL-4" to the USN term of "Light Attack Squadron FOUR (VAL-4)". Why? As far as I know this is just a USN terminology and not proper English. I the German language we have it as a rule that everything is written like in normal German, as there are zillions of companies and organizations which capitalize letters, because they like to. Therefore I did not write "FOUR", since this is USN and not Oxford advance or Webster's dictionary English. Maybe you can help me. Thank you. --Cobatfor 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories
Hi Bzuk. May I point you to this article. As you can see on the talk page, I have had enough of Markus (of "P-40 fame"), and I was wondering if you (or another admin) could perhaps explain to him the very simple point I am trying to make, so this does not enter into another misunderstood and misguided dialogue/edit war. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the 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 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 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) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image concern
Hi, I had to delete Image:Mew_Gull_(new).jpg as it wasn't released into the public domain as you tagged it when you uploaded it last April. As you said, "Original file found on: www.carairo.com/ Breighton.htm" - that page notes that "Copyright of these images is with Carairo - you may however use them for non profit use providing you tell us first and put a link to our site from yours. Click on an image for a larger version". This naturally is not the same as releasing them into the public domain, and indeed that copyright release isn't sufficient for Wikimedia projects. Content on Wikimedia projects, excluding fair use content (which this doesn't include), must be released in a way which allows for commercial reproduction and even resale.

The point of this message was simply a courtesy to let you know that I had deleted one of your images, and also to ask whether there are any similar images that you know are in a similar situation. If there are, could you let me know either on my talk page or via email, so that they can be reconsidered?

Regards, Daniel (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Daniel
''Image concern Copyedit form my page: "Hi, I had to delete Image:Mew_Gull_(new).jpg as it wasn't released into the public domain as you tagged it when you uploaded it last April. As you said, "Original file found on: www.carairo.com/ Breighton.htm" - that page notes that "Copyright of these images is with Carairo - you may however use them for non profit use providing you tell us first and put a link to our site from yours. Click on an image for a larger version". This naturally is not the same as releasing them into the public domain, and indeed that copyright release isn't sufficient for Wikimedia projects. Content on Wikimedia projects, excluding fair use content (which this doesn't include), must be released in a way which allows for commercial reproduction and even resale.

The point of this message was simply a courtesy to let you know that I had deleted one of your images, and also to ask whether there are any similar images that you know are in a similar situation. If there are, could you let me know either on my talk page or via email, so that they can be reconsidered?

Regards, Daniel (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)"

Hi Daniel, thanks for your note. The author of the image, Michael Rushforth has a similar image that was taken at another location that he is willing to insert in place of this image. I will go through the process of having his image clearly identified to replace the infobox image. This image copy was not exactly the same one as described as it was apparently taken at Reno, Nevada while his new image is from Brigthton, England. There was probably some confusion over the image sources. Thanks for your help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC).''
 * Hi, i've removed this from Daniel's page as he is at least temporarily retired. Try looking here for another person who would be helpful with your issue. Cheers, &mdash; Sunday  Scribe  23:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice or action:
This is the tip of the iceberg on a rapidly growing problem. See HERE and HERE. The longer PAMP and its sister articles sit here, the worse it is going to get, as the darn thing simply does not exist, and more and more off-Wiki sources are including it as if it were real and referring back to Wiki. Help!

Request for assistance sent to User:Girolamo Savonarola, User:Bzuk, User:Erik, User:Limetolime, and User:Nehrams2020

With growing concern,   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The more I look into the history of the article's creation, the more concerned I become. At the very least it suffers from lack of reliable sources. But with it having rested quietly for as long as it did and then having "award" pages created, it looks more and more like a carefully orchestrated hoax... specially since now there is a growing reliance on the original Wiki article outside of Wiki, and with so many decent editors assuming good faith in their own contributions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bishop
Oh, I know. I just happen to be reading that book right now. I'll get another one when I'm done and change some refs to it, fix any inconsistencies I find, etc. It's all part of my ongoing effort to get it up to FA class, which I sure a review of will ask for many refs. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Irving quote
Re: Authoritive statements of Irving in [Battle of Britain] article.

You have re-wrote the section as following:

Historian David Irving states that part of this reason was due to the totally inadequate production levels, with 250 single-engined and 64 twin-engined fighter aircraft produced on avarage per month during early 1941, and that as a result, the number of German front line aircraft were declining, and this problem would not be improved until the spring of 1942, with a huge effort to expand production, reaching 1,200 by March/April 1942.

In fact, however, Irving does not make these statements. If you read the book (which has been linked in free pdf format), here is what he writes on page 163: '' On Milch’s desk there were already the most alarming reports not only of the gathering RAF bomber strength but of bomber production in America too. To him, air defence rested primarily on the fighter squadrons, but at present the Air Staff was calling for only 360 fighter aircraft to be produced a month. Fighter production had averaged 250 single- and 64 twin-engined aircraft a month during 1941. Milch and his new planning chief von Gablenz wanted far greater numbers, and with more bombers as well - not only the 200 He 177s but 750 Ju 88s of the latest type as well.⁴⁰''

etc.

Ie. Irving does not state 'totally inadequate production levels' (and even less, mentions bombers), this is the addition of one editor to the Irving book, which has been described as 'Milchs diary' (which is it not, either) Kurfürst (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bzuk. Once again he is wrong. If you trace Irving's citation no. 40 in this section to Chapter 9 on notes and sources, he notes these were taken from Milch's notes during the conference with Goring on 29 June 1942. This can be called a diary of sorts. Further to the above editors claims about German production inadequacey, he should read the next page. Irving does indeed say that Miclh believed production was inadequate.Dapi89 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly here is a direct quote from page 108 of the Milch biography, which relates directly to the Battle of Britain;

"On 30 June 1940 the Luftwaffe had 841 serviceable bombers and rather over seven hundred fighters against a similar number of RAF fighters; the latter, Milch knew, were being replenished at over four hundred a month - over twice as fast as the production of the sole German single engined fighter, the Me 109.³ This made nonsense of any policy of conservation on the part of the Luftwaffe."

Arguably the 109 was the most important aircraft in Luftwaffe service; without it the bombers would not have been able to attack England without suffering from crippling casualties. Perhaps this could be mentioned as well.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Air Force One
Personally, I would think it most certainly would have counter-measures, but understood your edit summary.  Grsz  talk  03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Non-free image challenges
I'm not really sure what you're actually asking me here, but I will offer a general explanation of what I mean by 'decorative'. Non-free images should be used as a last resort- when someone is writing an article, and they discuss something in such a way that an illustration is necessary, and said illustration could only be a non-free image, that is when an image is used. Let us say, to take a film as an example, there were several sourced lines of discussion regarding the costume and makeup of one of the characters- then, a screenshot of that character in the makeup and costume may be appropriate. In many cases, screenshots appear to have been thrown in purely for the sake of having them- perhaps they appear next to a cast-list, or are placed next to something unrelated to their content- this is a "decorative" use. The non-free images should be used to complement the text, not just for the sake of placing them in. Ed's images that I nominated were being used in an entirely decorative way, and did not appear to enhance the article in terms of its content. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that these arguments are so general and non-specific that they can apply to almost every image in a film article, certainly to every example of a picture of one of the stars of a film. Should J Milburn succeed in deleting these images, he and other deletionists would be able to pick and choose which film article images to remove at will. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The main argument being put forth is that these 4 images which have been nominated for deletion, all of which are of the stars or central character of the films whose article they illustrate, are "decorative" and do not properly illustrate the article. If this argument succeeds, there is really no reason that any fair-use photo of a cast member in a film article can't be deleted at will, which, I would think, would be a bad thing for Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bengali film actors
Could you please see what's the problem in the page Category:Bengali film actors? The name and alphabetical is not wright.-Jayanta Nath 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bengali film actors
Could you please see what's the problem in the page Category:Bengali film actors? The name and alphabetical is not wright

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 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 fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun
I really do respect your work on that article. But the way cite sources is really awkward and different. I hope this doesn't expand on an edit war or conflict. Cheers. I will be back in like an hour.&mdash;Wildroot (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U needing your endorsement
Hi Bzuk. After Davegnz's latest outburst, I have decided to file an RfC/U to gain input from the wider community. Since I have specifically named you as someone who has unsuccessfully tried in the past to encourage him to work constructively with others, my version of events requires any corrections you feel are necessary, and then your endorsement. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Viper test rig.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Viper test rig.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ja Ga  talk 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:WS 606A.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:WS 606A.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ja Ga  talk 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce R
Hi Bill, hope you are well and not too busy to help me out. I am going through the aircraft engine articles slowly, I came upon an unusual reference section in the Rolls-Royce R article. There is lots of thanking going on, none of the books are used for inline cites, in fact there are none in the article! The list was added about March 2006 looking at the edit history. I have one good book which I will use for inline cites, perhaps the others would come under 'further reading'? Perhaps the thanks could be moved to the talk page or just deleted? It is possible the list came from another website (indicated in the edit history) Cheers. Nimbus (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stategic Air Command (film).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stategic Air Command (film).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) 05:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the kind message. I look forward to working with you, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Ashanti.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ashanti.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I added a FUR to the image. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

XB-51 image
Just came across Image:XB-51.jpg which you uploaded in 2007. It is marked as a USAF public domain photograph but the Martin XB-51 article says it is a screenshot from the film Toward the Unknown. The french source website does not give a source. Rather than flag it as a possible unfree image I though I would ask if you know it is a USAF image. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations
Congratulations to you, too! I'm pretty busy myself lately, but I will probably compensate for that by focusing more on WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM instead of my usual articles. A lot of them are in good hands already. What kind of writing assignments have you been undertaking? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thread concerning you
There is a thread at the help desk about a user trying to contact you. Please see WP:Help desk. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  15:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Bzuk

I'm pleased to be in touch with you. I've prepared the following off-line to provide you with considerable detail about the errors contained in two Wikipedia articles. I hope your writing assignment which you mentioned will not prevent you from addressing the errors. I believe there are two errors that I’d like to submit for your consideration. They are in two different Wikipedia articles both monitored by you: “The Ruptured Duck (B-25)” and “Ted W. Lawson.” I suspect the error in the Ruptured Duck article resulted in the error in the Lawson article. Since I am unfamiliar and inexperienced to make changes in Wikipedia, especially since the proposed changes require serious consideration, I am turning to you for help and hope that you will consider my comments and take action as you determine necessary.

Background:

Initially, I found inconsistencies on the internet (between Wikipedia and another website, Findagrave) in identifying Lt. Ted W. Lawson, one of 16 pilots who participated in the Doolittle Tokyo Raid, and who wrote “Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo,” an account of his experiences on that mission. Attempting to resolve this inconsistency, I found additional ones in the Wikipedia article, “The Ruptured Duck (B-25).” In trying to determine the accuracy of these articles, I contacted the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Washington as an official authority on the subject.

The Ruptured Duck (B-25) article:

The NARA sent me a copy of the group photo (identified as 342-FH-3A3008-94606) of Lt. Lawson’s flight crew which is the same shown in the Wikipedia’s Ruptured Duck article. However, its caption identifying persons in the photos was completely different from Wikipedia’s caption. The NARA (partial) caption is: “Here, Crew Nr 7 (Plane 40-2261): left to right, Lt Charles L. McClure (Navigator); Lt Ted W. Lawson (Pilot); Lt Robert S. Clever (Bombardier); Lt. Dean Davenport (Co-Pilot); Sgt David J. Thatcher (Engineer-Gunner).” On the other hand, Wikipedia’s caption has the same names but in a completely different order: Lawson, Davenport, McClure, Clever and Thatcher. This completely misidentifies all persons in the photo except Thatcher on the extreme right. On its face, I accept NARA’s caption as being correct.

A possible explanation of why Wikipedia’s caption is incorrect rests on two points: Point 1: The caption for the official Air Force photo does NOT attempt to identify by name individuals in the photo; it simply LISTS the names of the crew members without attempting to match names with persons in the photo. This LIST appears to be an Air Force “order of precedence” list reflecting the responsibility/duty of the individual crew members: pilot, co-pilot, navigator, bombardier, and flight engineer/gunner. (More on this later.) Point 2: In its caption, Wikipedia inserted (gratuitously I would contend) the words “left to right” by way of identifying persons in the photo. If the Air Force caption is a mere LIST, the Wikipedia caption (i.e., using the words “left to right”) is inappropriate and misleading because it misidentifies individuals in the photo. To correct this, it is suggested that Wikipedia should use NARA’s caption if it wishes to continue using the “left to right” designation; otherwise, (b) it should delete the “left to right” designation if it wants to use the Air Force LIST of names.

The caption (and photo) used by the official website of the Doolittle Raiders (www.doolittletokyoraiders.com) (Click on “Crews & Names” and select crew 7) is the same as the National Archives.

The Air Force link to this photo provided in the Wikipedia articles is www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=1300&page=4

Ted W. Lawson article

The image used in the “Ted W. Lawson” article appears to be taken from the group photo of Lawson’s crew standing in front of its B-25 used in the Ruptured Duck article. This image seems to be that of the person on the extreme left of the group photo. If the NARA caption is correct, this person would be Lt. Charles L. McClure, navigator of Lawson’s flight crew, and Lt. Lawson would actually be the person SECOND from the left. I suggest that this mix up of using the McClure photo instead of Lawson’s resulted from mistakenly inserting the words “left to right” in the caption of the group photo shown in Ruptured Duck article. I've noticed that several other websites (LibraryThing, Freebase, Powerset) have already shown the incorrect photo because they were using Wikipedia as the source. To show the correct image of Lawson, Wikipedia should select the photo of the person second from the left in the group photo.

Possible Explanation of Mix Up

The possible confusion in identifying crew members is a consequence of the way the Air Force positioned crew members in the group photo and the way it listed their names. Looking carefully at the group photos of the 16 bomber crews (Air Force Link), the “second: and “fourth” person from the left stand a foot or two ahead of the other three crew members. This produces a “Front Row/Back Row” arrangement consisting of two persons (pilot and co-pilot) and three persons (navigator, bombardier and engineer/gunner). This arrangement would conform with the Air Force caption which LISTS crew members by order of responsibility/duty, rather than a left to right position. Unfortunately, this arrangement and listing, without proper notation, lends itself to a “single row” interpretation and a “left to right” caption. This would result, as seen here, in confusion in identifying individuals in photos. Perhaps, the Air Force needs to do something to clear up this confusion.

I understand there remain only 11 crew members of the original 80 who participated in the Tokyo Raid and soon all will have passed on. In their honor, I share with WIkipedia its commitment to accurately record their history.

I hope that you will be able to look into this and straighten things out as you determine. If it would help, I can email the complete caption for the photo from the National Archives. Please let me know if I can be of any help.Paa123 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're out there!
Can I bother you for your two pence on this topic? Sorry, trolling for consensus...

In other news, looks like I'll be getting back into the cockpit myself soon. The kid is finally ready to let me take her up :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Belated election congrats!
It is a great pleasure to see you returning as a coordinator, and I look forward to working with you again! I've presented another opening slate of items, and your comments are requested. (Additionally, if you haven't already, you must add the coordinator talk page to your watchlist.) Congrats and speak soon, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
FYI, I added an image, did some adjustments (lightening, very slight cropping), swapped positions of the three photos, and adjusted sizes. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:F8F1boxeroversf.jpg
Image:F8F1boxeroversf.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:F8F-1 VA-20A CVAG-19 1947.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * File:Dash 8 "Gonzo".jpg is now available as Commons:File:CT-142 Dash-8 Gonzo.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Canadair CL-415.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Canadair CL-415 C-GOGX Ontario 1.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Page redesing straw poll
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll in selecting five proposals. I thought you might be interested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sopwith pup replica in AB
BillZ, not an urgent thig, but I thought you might have access to some sources regarding this edit. Thanks, and good luck with the writing. - BillCJ (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TV Appearances
Hey, where do we list your tv appearances on your user page? :D Recognized the name immediately! --Born2flie (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Koolhoven-FK58.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Koolhoven-FK58.jpg I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Nard 13:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oldboy Poster
Hi, since you seem to be one of the coordinators of the film WikiProject, I was wondering if you could lend your opinion on a discussion concerning which poster should be used for the article. Thank you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arrow 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arrow 5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arrow12.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Arrow12.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Avro Arrow rollout.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Avro Arrow rollout.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spruce Goose model.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spruce Goose model.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) 05:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Metroliner interior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Metroliner interior.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image author problem with Image:Metroliner interior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Metroliner interior.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Perimeter Metro aircraft.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Perimeter Metro aircraft.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image author problem with Image:Perimeter Metro aircraft.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Perimeter Metro aircraft.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Perimeter Metro prop.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Perimeter Metro prop.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image author problem with Image:Perimeter Metro prop.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Perimeter Metro prop.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bearskin Metro.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bearskin Metro.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image author problem with Image:Bearskin Metro.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bearskin Metro.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

MLA style
I've been going through my sandbox article on the OH-58 and confirming publication information for the U.S. Center of Army Military History's historical summary volumes. I was noticing on the MLA style guide that I use (University of Illinois-Champaign Urbana website), that the inline text citation style simply states author and page. I've noticed that I've been using a bastardization of that style and the Harvard style, using both year of publication and page, including the abbreviation for page (p., pp.). I don't know if I picked this up from somewhere else in the project, or if I developed it by mistake. I think that although this format isn't strictly in accordance with the MLA style, that it will work well for the average reader of the encyclopedia, and I was wondering what you thought.

Another issue is that there are no standardized listing to these publications in the catalog (worldcat.org). For instance, several early years lists the corporate author along with an individual author, where later volumes list multiple individual authors. I'm familiar with how to reference the multiple authors, but can't find a reference for corporate authorship combined with single authors. Is it the same as for multiple authors and the corporate author is simply an additional author? Thanks for your time when you can get to this. --Born2flie (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will correct those errors. I was just trying out the collapsible table for fun. I had no plans to implement it, especially since in the collapsed mode, it does not allow accurate call to the footnotes. --Born2flie (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Perimeter Metroliner II.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Perimeter Metroliner II.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Removal of images in the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner article
I didn't remove the photos from the article. I tagged them as they need to have a Description and source information as I can't transfer them to Commons as they are/were with just the. Bidgee (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave you notice that the images are tagged and I can't control a bot that I don't even know about or even run. Bidgee (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Ar 66 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ar 66 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Hi Bill. Back in September you pointed out that dates on airplane articles are done in the international format (dd-mm-yyyy). Are you able to point to a discussion on this? I agree it makes perfect sense but I would like to be able to point others to where it was decided. If not, maybe we should add it to the project MoS? --John (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Ar 66 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ar 66 1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference format
Hi Bill,

I just saw one of my reference edit efforts in the vein of your suggested

The Aviator
Hello there. I noticed your awesome work at User:Bzuk/Sandbox/The Aviator and I just wanted to inform you that I have also have my own little "section" (User:Wildroot/The Aviator). It's far from being finished, but it's worth a start. Anyway, I know that we disagreed with formatting or referencing issue in the past on Empire of the Sun (film), but since your the guy that practically started work on The Aviator, you can take my written information and use it anyway you want.

But still, that article is really hard to write due to all the actors, directors, writers, etc. that were attached to doing a Hughes biopic at one pint or another. Cheers, I'll get back to you, but right now I'm off to a New Years party. Good day. Wildroot (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Anna May Wong in Thief of Bagdad.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Anna May Wong in Thief of Bagdad.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill: I've noticed that you haven't been around much lately, so I took it upon myself to add a FUR to this image's file, and to upload a reduced version to comply with the "Fair Use Reduce" tag that I found there as well. Please feel free to make any changes you'd like if what I did doesn't comport with your preferences.  Happy New Year and best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Avrocar red.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Avrocar red.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC) --Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:German soldier in One of our aircraft.jpg)
You've uploaded File:German soldier in One of our aircraft.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, it was I who removed this image from the One of our aircraft... article, since I thought it was too dark to be useful. I've now enhanced it a bit to make it a little lighter, and restored it to the article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Barton Fink
Hello there. Thanks for your preliminary feedback at the peer review for Barton Fink. I wonder if you ever got around to finishing the article, and — if so — what your thoughts were. I wonder specifically if you have any comments on the questions we never answered at the peer review, specifically the relevance of the various images (Hitler, Pearl Harbour) which was concerned about. (I think the images are all fine, and I hate quote boxes, which he suggested as alternatives, but I don't want to be autocratic about these things.)

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you'd like to share. Scartol •  Tok  01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Chuck Yeager with X-1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Chuck Yeager with X-1.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) 05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:X-1 movie model.jpg)
You've uploaded File:X-1 movie model.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Yeager and NF-104.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Yeager and NF-104.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Barnstar.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Barnstar.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator slot open
Due to an unfortunate recent episode in which Eco was indefblocked (and then retired) for real-life harassment, we have a coordinator slot open. See discussion here. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Review of Lebaudy Patrie
Bill, when you have time after your writing assignment, could you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Peer_review#A-Class_review to check the state of the Lebaudy Patrie assessment. I've been beavering away at this article for some time and think (in my not-so-humble opinion!) that it's potential GA material. Not having any experience in such things, I'd like a few expert opinions on what needs to be done to the article to improve its rating. I would appreciate your help some time, when you can manage it. Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Argus 1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Argus 1.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Sherool (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rocketeer in flight.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Rocketeer in flight.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) 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Film coordinator elections
That's fine, and I hope things are going well for you. I didn't mean anything by my "AWOL" comment (and hope you didn't take it the wrong way), I was merely making note of your absence. I recognise as well as anybody that the needs of the real world must take precedence over online distractions such as Wikipedia. Reagrds. PC78 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Welcome back! - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the funny papers - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes he is back, but hasn't been doing much! - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for improving recently on my contributions to several aviation articles. I do not have the 'Wiki skills' to do some of the 'clever' things you do. I'll just carry on with making basic contributions to the narrative - and look forward to your continued enhancements! RuthAS (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bzuk. Just looked at your Wiki 'CV' and am most impressed. Note your reference to Zurakowski - I well remember seeing him performing 'impossible' aerobatics at Farnborough SBAC Show in days gone by! Those were the days. . . RuthAS (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edo floats
BillZ, good to see you editing again. One question: Do you have any photos of aircraft using genuine EDO floats? I only found one on Commons that is clearly marked as EDO, but it's not a very good quality photo. See Edo Aircraft Corporation. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do you have any that also show the attached aircraft? (Any aircraft type) I'd like to make an article on Edo floats themselves, but I'm not sure of where to find reliable sources that would make such an article more than just a stub. - BillCJ (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Now I can put the Beaver in the top position, and move the poor-quality "Wildcatfish" photo to the F4f article. - BillCJ (talk)

Image copyright problem with File:Edo floats (EDO 4930).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Edo floats (EDO 4930).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Avro Anson
Hi Bzuk! I had intended to load an image of an operational Anson 11 in 1955 this evening. Have just done so. Now have noted you've just moved the preserved 'Annie' to the heading! Do you wish to consider which is most logical - an Annie earning its keep in the 50's or a nice action shot, but of a preserved Anson? Regards RuthAS (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bzuk - is the 1955 Annie photo I uploaded a few minutes ago, lower down the article, suitable for the heading shot? RuthAS (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bzuk - yes - yours is a very nice nostalgic photo of an early Anson - because of its bulged engine cowlings. Camouflage as worn from late 1939 onwards, but could also be taken later in the war. Cannot see from the photo whether its an RAF or RCAF aircraft. Early Annies were supplied to Canada from Spring 1941, before Canadian production got going. Have not seen this photo before. I've looked thru my prime reference book on the type with 200-300 photos, and your shot is not included. So I'm afraid provenance is 'unknown' - will that status suffice for Wikipedia? Any colour shot that I could come up with would be from the early 60's. RuthAS (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions about conflict of interest
Hi Bzuk,

I'm preparing a Wiki page on a proposed coal mine in Alaska. Until my job ended Dec. 31, I was for 26 years a newspaper reporter, the last six with a paper on the Kenai Peninsula south of Anchorage. My question regards a couple of references I'd like to use to support statements being written into the page's overview. They involve stories I wrote for the paper regarding the mine and regard factual details provided by state of company officials. Does it amount to a conflict of interest for me to reference my own stories published in a recognized daily newspaper? I am, as you might imagine, fairly familiar with the subject, and am now working for an organization that has asked me to venture into Wiki and produce a page. I'm new at this and want to abide by the rules. Thus, I am attempting to back up everything that will appear.

Regards, Hobig (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note to me dated 24 Feb. 09
Thank you for contacting me. I am rather suprised to read that someone might consider some of my edits as "vandalism." I have made a few very minor changes to several articles that are specific to a variety of aircraft. Your note didn't mention which edits were found to be objectionalble nor which one was in error to the extent it needed to be reverted. I'm only interested in accuracy. To quote the scriptwriter of Dirty Dancing, "If I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong." I don't want to be a hinderance, but rather a help. I would welcome any advise and specifity.

I am by no means expert or adept at the use of Wikipedia or of any of its conventions. I can probably hold my own regarding airplane trivia and mintutia.

I'll throw in the four tildes. I hope I've used this dialog page correctly.09:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aracfi (talk • contribs)

Hi Bzuk
Just a wave to say it's great to see you back again :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Glad to see you fixing things and posting. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto same as above. I hope your writing has gone well. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What's going on?
Seriously? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter
I deliver the newsletter based on the Active portion of WP:FILMS member list. If you add your name there, all future newsletters will be delivered. Or, you can add your name here, if you don't want your name on the list. Sorry for not getting it to you in the past. Let me know if you have further questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you already saw it. Here's a link to the newsletter. All future newsletters will be sent to you at or around the first of the month (depends on when I get it sent out). Let me know if you have further questions on it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What to do about a flag
Sorry, I keep forgetting the subject line.

Hi Bzuk. My new page Chuitna Coal Project has one flag asking for more internal links about the subject. However, there are sparse references to the coal project, or even the nearby river it is named after, and I've already made internal links to those. Within a few days, I will begin adding much more information about the project and its parameters. How do I remove the flag, or alternatively, should I just leave it there in case someone else can find Wiki references that I could not? Thanks for your help. Hobig (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Hobig (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bzuk"

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet
Re your recent reversions my my edits to the above article. I would like to point out that the book formatting is entirely consistent with almost all other WWII Military history articles (although some of the citations were still inconsistent, I was going to deal with that later) and the separation of footnotes (ie comments) and citations is also common and useful, making the comments easier to read (few people actually want to read citations so it makes sense to separate them). Putting book references into cite book templates preserves the book metadata which is used by the wiki programme for various data organisation, search etc purposes. Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your reply - although it didn't really address my concerns. These are
 * 1. It makes sense to separate citations and footnotes - footnotes tend to be longer than citations and so tend not to fit the preferred 2 column format. Furthermore if there are several footnotes they sort of go missing in the weeds if lumped in with citations.
 * 2. I spent a fair amount of time looking up the books in an online database to fill author, date, publisher, location and isbn gaps.
 * Unless you argue otherwise, I intend to restore the footnote / citation separation (as permitted in MilHist Style guide (footnotes section) and I will also restore the book data and formatting. I will endeavour to maintain your strict and consistent citation formatting though!!
 * Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 15:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't continue the argument about the notes separation - I'll leave it as it is although I don't really accept your argument. However, I would suggest that since the citations are in the format "Jones 1995, p. 23" then the bibliographic format which I have been using - which has the author followed by publication date - is a lot more sensible and easier to match up than the format which has publication date somewhere near the end. I am therefore still minded to restore the Cite book templates which will also preserve the metadata (I'm not a computer geek but I'm told that on balance this is helpful). Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A patriot
I see that you are an English patriot. The English did not do everything in humanity. Allegiance is always to one's country. That is why the English Generals were always OK with sacrificing colonials, as they were foreign. Nobody's allegiance is to the British Commonwealth. Wallie (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Woah! That seems entirely inappropriate. Also I think Bzuk is Canadian.....Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He explained that to me. However, this allegiance business you are attacking me on is rubbish. Wallie (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that some of you are interested in pushing England. You would like it if someone said that a Canadian had an allegiance to England or the "British Commonwealth". I wouldn't either. I would always say a Canadian had an allegiance to Canada. Wallie (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

3R
Actually, you have breached it. I will not. This whole article on Kain is wrong anyway. I will not edit it, as you will revert me again. That's what I like about Americans. They do see logic over patriotism. You can't discuss things with a blind patriot. Wallie (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

XB-70 edits
Bzuk, good work. I was going to move a paragraph to a more fitting place. Could you let me know when you have finished your round of edits. I'll watch this page, so you can reply here. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been a couple hours. I guess you are done for now.  I'll go ahead while I still have the attempted edit in a window. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ndsblws
Sorry not quick enough Rodhullandemu has blocked him/her indefinitely before I got there! doesnt matter who did what legal threats are not tolerated refer No legal threats. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WHAT in the hicky-boo was all THAT about? All that becasue they didn't like your assertion that all the models were flyable? And that's libel? Very strange! Sounds like a bunch of hot air intended to intimidate you, but again, legal threats aren't tolerated. (Nice that some kind of bad bahavior is not tolerated - too bad they don't treat vandals the same way, esp. since some of their "work" could be considered lieblous.) - BillCJ (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was really interesting. Since I may be away from my computer from time-to-time, in the future, bring this up at the administrator's noticeboard so that it can be taken care of right away. There's always somebody there that can swiftly take care of such issues like this. Congratulations, you just set a new milestone in your WikiCareer of getting a legal threat. I've been fortunate so far in not experiencing this, so hopefully it doesn't occur for either one of us again in the future. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwings

 * Concur! - BillCJ (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Air Force One
BillZ, I removed the Career infobox from the Air Force One, since technically that ariticle is not about specific aircraft per se, but the callsign and its use. However, your addition there remined me that it should be on the articles about the actual aircraft, so I have added the Career infobox there. VC-137C SAM 26000 and VC-137C SAM 27000 are about individual aricraft, not a type, so I removed the Infobox Aircraft Type from those pages (with clean-up help from Milb1!) Since the Boeing VC-25A page is about a type, it has both templates now (with the basic info that you added to the AF1 page). I just wanted to let you know my reasoning for the removal, and your welcome to discuss it further, either on my talk page, or at WT:AIR. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegiance
I don't agree. I think it depends on what country you are from. Allegiance is stronger than nationality. It is like re-writing history. For example, Cobber Kain is now being treated as British rather than New Zealand. This logic does not apply to more important pilots such as Billy Fiske, who has an allegiance of the United States, even though he too was in the RAF and no other service. Wallie (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC) You didn't answer my question. Why is Cobber Kain's allegiance United Kingdom and Billy Fisk's United States of America? Both cases are exactly the same. Wallie (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Definitely Cobber. Cobber is actually an Australian term. It means mate. They Aussies used to say "Gidday cobber" and the New Zealanders "Gidday mate". Cobber was later a bit old-fashioned, and so the Australians said "Gidday cobber" too. It is true what I said. My mother knew Cobber Kain very well. He was only a little boy at the time. She also knew Johnny Checketts and helped him pass his exams so he could get selected into the air force. She was his badminton partner. Johnny always wanted to go overseas. Lets change that template! Wallie (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Move done as requested - Perhaps just change the allegiance to British Empire! MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is Cobber. Can't ask my mother. She would not even be aware of his nickname (at least I don't think so). This is a reasonably reliable reference. The closer to the event, the better! I think the Wikipedia article is based on this anyway. view


 * How is the tempate going? Wallie (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How do we start this process? Wallie (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. Are you going to go ahead and request it now? That would be good. :) Wallie (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(copied) The revisionism is saying that Fiske is not American but in fact British. To my mind he is clearly American. The problem is that people are getting confused with the person and the organization. The RAF has an allegiance to the King, not one country. The person has an allegiance to all sorts of people, primarily his country. The concept of allegiance is confusing, and I think it should be axed, relating to people. Wallie (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This issue is getting bogged down again. I still think that allegiance should be dumped, as no one seems to be able to state what it is. It relates to a service branch rather than a person. For example, the RAF has a clearly stated allegiance. A member of the RAF has allegiance to his wife and children, his mother, his mates, his country and a number of countries, the King, God, and a host of other things. Allegiance is a personal thing. Wallie (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
Hello You changed my BoB topic editing (unregistered) by words 'did not operate independently but as part of RAF units'. Unfortunetaly it's not quite true... Here's the quote from Polish Air Forces in France and Great Britain topic: '' On August 5, 1940, the British government finally accepted the Polish Air Force as a sovereign, allied military formation. From then on the airmen were part of the Polish Army, flying their own standards and wearing British uniforms but with Polish rank insignia. Although still subordinate to British command, the Polish units were directly subordinate to a Polish inspector of the Air Forces, who in turn was responsible to the Polish government.'' That's why I put the polish airmen to 'Belligerents' section at the top of the article. Warm regards from Poland :) Mboro-bis (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * I put some of my arguments in Polish contribution topic in discussion section of the BoB article.
 * Cheers Mboro-bis (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DH 106 Comet
Hi Bzuk! . . . you had me worried for a minute, as I thought I had loaded the Comet 3 shot in the appropriate section of the article. . . Yes - I'm just a little proud of this shot, and it looks great there, BUT - this was a one-off version of the design, and is thus perhaps not truly representative. Leave it to you as the senior editor - but the Comet 2 photo should at least be restored in its own rightful section, as otherwise there's no image of that model. RuthAS (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardcoded citations
In your edit to Lockheed U-2 you replaced all of the calls to Template:cite web with hardcoded wikitext. Was there a reason to remove the usage of the template? -- Autopilot (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Vickers Vedette
I believe you originated this article. You have credited R. K. Pierson as its designer. I believe (and I have sources which say) that Wilfrid Thomas Reid is the designer. I am the author of the article on Reid. Any comments? Thanks. Bxr47 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Bxr47

Hi, Got the following when editing the Chuitna Coal Project page. It appeared after several successful edits. Can it be fixed? What does it mean?

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "ExternalStoreDB::store". MySQL returned error "1114: The table 'blobs' is full (10.0.2.160)". Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuitna_Coal_Project"

Thanks, Hobig (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Error Message
Hi, Got the following when editing the Chuitna Coal Project page. It appeared after several successful edits. Can it be fixed? What does it mean?

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "ExternalStoreDB::store". MySQL returned error "1114: The table 'blobs' is full (10.0.2.160)". Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuitna_Coal_Project"

Thanks, Hobig (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Google Books link?
Is there a reason the Google Books link to Graham was removed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SR-71_Blackbird&diff=229409335&oldid=229397880 ? AlanM1 (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been a matter of discussion that Google entries or search entries are of questionable value unless they are actual links to the text involved. If there is also a separate text entry indicating the sources of information (author, title, place of publication, publisher, date) then the google link is to be discarded or replaced because it is treated as WP:SPAM. Thanks for asking. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Because I used Graham via the Google Books previewer, I thought it useful to link directly to it, versus the user having to do the roundabout search via the ISBN link. Should I create separate cites with Google Book links to the specific pages used by each reference? AlanM1 (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Galeb
I agree with your edit on the Galeb page, I think at the least it should be brought into line with the MB-339 page. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell Articles
You left a few mystifying comments on my talk page;

"Using a condescending and "know-it-all" approach to making edits is not conducive to others who have worked on articles." No idea what you mean. I was stating exactly what my edit was doing and why, as is the point of the edit summary. They were addressed to no-one in particular, so could hardly be condescending.

The first was badly phrased (what function is the comma in the middle of the sentence performing?) and naturally he was a British citizen. If you wish to indicate something more involved, then why stick it in as an non sequitur at the start of details of his early childhood? Are we to take it that his nationality was especially significant to the infant Bell? Or, if it is something that is disputed, is this not a point that would be far better made elsewhere?

The other was uncited since November 2007 and looked like groundless speculation to me. Indeed, someone had added a further uncited refutation, resulting in an article that contradicted itself within the space of a paragraph. By all usual Wikipedia norms I'm entirely justified in removing the lot.

"Having a "drive-by" MO is also indicated" - Again, no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that only previous editors of the page are allowed to edit it? Wikipedia has a policy for this. If I have stumbled across an ongoing dispute then all you had to do was to revert and explain.

"please see WP:POINT" - And once more, I am mystified to what you are on about. What point exactly do you think I was making? (Apart from removing poor quality content.) Please see policy on assuming good faith and in future think twice before accusing others of disruption. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegiance
Copyedit from MilHist Forum: "..this query resulted from a sole editor bent on a "crusade" to assign allegiance as a factor of nationality. The questionable crusade ended ingloriously with a dispute across forums, talk pages and home pages that ended with the inevitable "block" of the original editor, more for inflammatory or incendiary rebuttals than the actual challenge that had been made as to interpretation of the terminology in the infobox."

Reply: Wallie, no offense, I was merely stating the obvious. I cast no aspersions on anyone bent on a "crusade" as I often embark on these myself. The fact that the contretemps ended on a sour note, was as I characterized it, "inevitable" as the issue was no longer the interpretation of "allegiance" but concerns over intemperate language. Once admins get involved, they deal with infractions, not content. I don't think, on the whole, that the original issue will be resolved to your satisfaction, but the topic can be brought up again. I believe that if there are controversial entries in the infobox category on allegiances, perhaps the best recourse is to leave it blank, as it is an optional entry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallie"


 * There was plenty of intemperate language hitting me, before I responded. You mentoned you were a Canadian. I think you might be upset, if a Canadian family friend who was a loyal Canadian was being described as "British" complete with a Union Jack! Polish people also get very annoyed if Polish pilots are described as being "British". The main problem is that most of the admins are British, and can never understand this. They would be upset if British pilots were descibed as being Poles, though. See my point? Wallie (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quinton Brand
Why do you keep reverting me? I want to know. I have made a legitimate edit. I really don't think this is correct. Wallie (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I just couldn't see why you simply reverted me. You could have removed the allegiance and stated that it was being reviewed by an admin. Wallie (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why have you removed the SAAF? I have provided references. Wallie (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

William A. Wellman and "helming"
Hi

Saw your edit to this page and edit comment. If he was both a director and a producer would it not be best to actually say that, rather than use the metaphorical "helmed" which is ambiguous and trade jargon? pablo hablo. 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that - it is a colourful world, I just don't think it's the best one! I know it's common in US film mags and on tv channels such as E! but I think it has limited currency outside them and is not as easy to understand as literally telling the reader what his various roles were. I was looking in the style guides for WikiProject Films but could see no mention so I might bring it up there to see what other editors think.


 * I grew a beard a couple of years ago, and my sons decided I looked like a pirate.


 * Garrr.


 * pablo hablo. 13:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've worked in the film industry for 40 years. "Helmed" is used exclusively for directors.  I've never heard it used of producers.  FYI. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dornier Do 17
Just a heads up to say thanks for your help. Just one thing, on the variant section I wanted subheadings! Dapi89 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Marlon Brando
I was looking over the dispute on the Marlon Brando page and, while I can appreciate your frustration, I can't find anywhere where this IP editor has been engaged in discussion over why his edits are considered vandalism. They appear to be sourced and factual. Can you point me to such a discussion? Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I spent some more time reviewing the history and I think you are right that it is a sock. The particular edit is not vandalism and seems pertinent, but it does look like the work of a banned editor.  I created a temp page for review.  Have a look at this.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hughes death
Good edit :) I must have stared at that for a good fifteen minutes trying to figure out how to best word it.  -- Tyler D Mace  ( talk  ·  contr ) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bell
The quote is in the book. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that I saw nothing in the reference list, suggesting that the quote is completely unsourced. If you find a reference, I'll gladly hold my hands up. My goal is not to distort the facts. I also looked online and I couldn't find a reference to the quote. Clydey (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Leroy Grumman
Regarding this edit, is there a good reason to reformat the citations? Since your edit summary noted more is to come, I figure you're going to replace the content you deleted, but...what's the reason for changing the citation format? Thanks! Frank |  talk  20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re; Children of Men edits
Hiya! :) Cold you explain what the 'TOC limit thing' means? I had not seen it before, and wasn't immediately able to see what it was supposed o accomplish. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks or explaining tht for me. If you could, could you explain how it goes about doing what it does? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like, say, Ronald Reagan? Might that be a nice candidate? The article is a juggernaut (yes, i immediately thought of the mutant, too) that might benefit from it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Bomarc.jpg
File:Bomarc.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bomarc B missile Canada Aviation Museum Ottawa 2006.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:CP-140 Aurora.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CP-140 Aurora.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mosquito pic
Hi, I think there was some confusion on my part regarding that image. That is the "disputed rationale" template I tagged it with said that it didn't have a templated rationale - not that someone disputed it. I'm a bit disappointed that you chose to ignore me when it does say to discuss with the editor who added it.

As for that image and my concern: The two parts of the rationale are "classic version" and "marketing". Now, the first part is clearly replaceable, its a picture of a Mosquito in flight during the war. The second half is the important bit: What exactly is that advert for? Its for the company not the plane itself. Furthermore as the ad was made in 43, not 39-41, I can't see its relevance to the design phase. The fair use and image deletion stuff is a confusing mess to me, and your edits haven't addressed my concern.--Diurnality (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the reply. I'm not that fussed either about the image to be honest, I'm trying to get my head around the rules more than anything.
 * The thing that gets to me is that the photo itself is probably from the RAF anyway and so would be free (I found a very similar one on the IWM site). Best thing might be just to crop the image to the photo - the sentence you added to the article says about the same as the advert after all (that de Havilland used the "fastest bomber" line).--Diurnality (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Snowbirds
Hi Bill, nice to see you back editing. Thanks for tweaking my edits. I don't know why I always misspell "its". Hope all is well. Cheers.-- B C talk to me  17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)