User talk:Bzuk/Archive 7

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter
The June 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead links at Amelia
You tweaked the format of my revived URLs from Richard Pyle, AP reporter, at the Amelia Earhart page, then in a subsequent edit, you returned them to dead link status. Mistake or on purpose? Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hawks photo
If you live near DC or know anyone who does, in the National Archives there is one public domain movie with Frank Hawks in it (http://research.archives.gov/description/66853) and one photo of Frank Hawks that may be public domain (http://research.archives.gov/description/2829135). These are probably the best bets for usable photos of Frank Hawks, unless you can find something pre-1923. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Licence template check
Howdy. As you probably know Dapi89 has gone and gotten himself a week long block. (Silly!) In the meantime he has overlooked putting any copyright information on File:Sedanplan1940.jpg; I thought I'd help out by adding a couple seeing as how this will expire before his block. Would it be okay for you to check and see that I've added the appropriate templates? In the meantime the article lacks this map. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
My apologies if this whole permission thing is a pain... it's really just because of the legal issues involved. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref Fix
I just wanted to say thanks for fixing the ref I put in the Richthofen article. I just couldn't seem to get the syntax right. Cheers! Colincbn (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Small request
When you have a minute, I wanted to point out this post and direct your attention to John Dillinger and Talk:John Dillinger. When I left a note at the editor's talk page explaining what was going on, I noticed you had some dealings with him a couple months ago and had left posts regarding similar issues. Maybe you could think of a better way to deal with all of this than I am coming up with, since I can't persuade the editor to discuss anything on the talk page when apparently the edit summary will do. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Violate WP:CANVASS much? You posted your cry for help at WikiProject Films, now leave it at that before I report you to an admin. ViperNerd (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Viper Test rig.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Viper Test rig.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. If you are not the original creator and copyright holder of an image, you cannot license it as "PD-self". If it is public domain or free licensed for some other reason, please correct the description. If you have questions you can't find an answer to, ask. Thank you. Infrogmation (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like there may be additional problems with some of the images you uploaded to the VZ-9 AV Avrocar. Could you please review them? The photographs which you yourself took, please add some info as to when and where you took them, and a short description of what is shown. If there are any images which you are not the original author of, please correct the description and licensing if it is not accurate. Thanks much. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again, please respond. I'd like to know if you are the photographer of File:John Frost colour.jpg and other images in the article. If you can confirm you are the photographer for some or all, great.  As the images you've tagged as PD-self seem to come from a variety of sources in different types of media from several decades ago, I hope you can understand why I raise the question. Descriptions on the image page (eg, what is shown? When and where did you photograph it?) would make the images much more useful. If some of the image info or copyright tag may be incorrect and you're not sure how to correct it, I'm happy to help if you ask. Some older images may be public domain for one reason or another, though information on source and date is usually needed to determine that. Historic or important illustrative images which are still under copyright may qualify for fair use. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Mantz.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mantz.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. Damiens .rf 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Fleet Fawn.jpg
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Fleet Fawn.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-3.0 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Image policy
Hi saw your note at. If you check out Image use policy you will see hwat needs to be done. Basically you are going to have to add a suitable license Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Julie Clark
BillZ, I saw that you were the author of File:T-34 Mentor "Free Spirit" of Julie Clark.jpg. Would you happen to have a head shot of Ms. Clark that can be added to Julie Clark? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh
I noticed you undid my revision of Charles Lindburgh. Ok. Just so that you know why I did it, I think that the article is too chronological and doesn't need to be. I believe that if we group like things together such as later life and burial, early life and family and military career, conolidating the items that are scattered throughout the article it will be more meaningful to the reader. I also am planning on doing some major work on expanding the references and adding inline citations as well as rewording the bulletized popular culture section into prose. There are also a number of references that I would consider to be uneeded or weak and I am planning on cleaning that up as well over the next few weeks. I think this is a very important article and should be at least a good article if not better. Obviously you have strong feelings about it as well and I wanted to let you know my intentions so we aren't stepping over each others edits and getting into an edit war.--Kumioko (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I started restructuring the article in one of my sandboxes. Here is what I have done so far. CAL Article so far. I started restructuring some of the sections, created subsections for his awards and reorganized them, I still need to expand on them but I will get to that soon. I also changed some wording on a few things but there are some more things I need to reword in order to comply with WP guidlines. --Kumioko (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I will bare your comments in mind. As far as the stature of my edits I am just getting started and will be adding more content in time. Once I am done I think it will turn out all right.  The biggest problem with this particular article is the sheer volume of information on CAL and trying to whittle it down to a manageable amount without the article hitting critical mass. The truth is IMO he did so much in such a sporadic manner that its difficult to read through the article when the subject is bouncing back and forth from subject to subject. I will keep working in my sandbox and we'll see what it looks like when I am done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

He 111
I had nominated this page for GA, but I'm not getting much attention. If you can, could you have a look? Dapi89 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FA you say? I am pleased. Although they might complain about the length. I'll fix the raised issues, thanks again. This maybe a little early, but is your book selling well?! Dapi89 (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Air Command
We seem to have a user insisting on removing the material you restored. I restored it (again) and opened up a discussion on Talk:Strategic Air Command (film). You are welcome to comment! -OberRanks (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Beurling
Buongiorno Bzulk, what is very dubious? (And what is about your new book? I just sent the final draft of my novel about italian pilots in second world war and today I am going to Malta to visit the Beurling places overe there, Ta Qali, Luqa and oters...)

regards from Roma! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A-1 Skyraider‎
Thanks for the edit of my additions to the A-1 Skyraider‎ article. It is much improved and looks great.Sciacchitano (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings
I see you recently added uw-vandal1, uw-vandal2 and uw-vandal3 in a single edit at User talk:86.155.38.51. Actually, you don't need to issue a warning for each instance of vandalism by a user. Just warn for the most recent instance, and then wait a while to see whether it makes a difference. If the user continues vandalising having had a chance to read a warning, then escalate (per advice here). BTW, it is OK to jump straight to uw-vandal2 if there's no way the edit could be a good-faith edit/test/mistake. Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reggiane
I know what you mean but these sorties are interesting because they were rather few and the REggiane shot down few Spitfires as you know.... even if they were considered inferior.... what could we put in the operational history of this plane? There is not that much, it is not like the Spitfire, the Hurricane etc. Salve da ROma --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger!

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Macchi 205, the Italian Greyhound

Yes I know that the Mustang was faster, and even more confortable and in some way more modern with its type of wing, oxigen mask, gunsights they could almost produce for you a hot coffe and rock music on the radio :) But I quoted that author and did not want to add more personal informations... I met pilots who flown both types and they told me the well known history: the C.205, designed for low medium height over there was superior to P-51, P-47, P-39, P-38. Spitfire, Hurricane, Kittyhawk Messerschmitts and Focke Wulf, and even to Fiat G.55 that was regarded as best Axis fighter...  but we are not going in that discussion, right? :)etc. About Doglio-Beurling, that is the only air combat of C.202 that ALL books on Malta airwar quote... for the importance of the two pilots involved, let's remember that Doglio held 9 world records and was probably the most experienced and renowed pilot of ww2 (he had many hundreds of hours of aerobatics only, where Beurling was a novice compared to him..) and he was killed without even knowing just because of the radar guide system... and of course Beurling could shot...) Saluti da Roma and best wishes for your book...


 * Peacocky? Waht does it mean? Sorry but I am a simple man, the words confuse me sometimes...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:17,

28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hardly"? We should ask to those two able Malta Raf SPitfire...

saluti--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation - Anna Anderson
I would like to thank you as an uninvolved observer taking the time to enquire as to whether a mediation process had been attempted at the Anna Anderson page. DrKiernan is quite correct that there have been other administrators look at the problems associated with the page. Both Trusliver and Alexius Horatius were very helpful. I have been associated with this page for a number of years and have tried to improve it adding numerous credible resources. What has happened was that the page was pushing a very strong POV agenda that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia. That has been totally proven to not be the case. Sadly what has eventuated has been an edit war where supporters of Anderson have tried to push their POV agenda in the face of known fact. Both administrators Trusiliver and Alexius Horatius have clearly tried to stop this. Their viewpoints have been ignored by the Anderson supporters. DrKiernan has tried to create a new article. What has happened though lately is that those pushing the Anderson is Anastasia agenda have been once again causing issues and those trying to present fact have been told they were no longer wanted hence DrKiernan wanting to ban me from the page. Niether Trusilver or Alexius Horatius believed that was necessary. In fact both were quite objective. The real issue with the Anderson supporters is that they continue to wish to push sources that while published are no longer at all verifiable or accurate. When this is presented those who wish to see reality presented are attacked and informed they are unhelpful. In fact both Trusilver and Alexius Horatius were worn down by the constant POV campaign by Anderson supporters. Real mediation is no longer occurring. Gwen Gale did step in but as archives display was not helpful and tended to back only one side. In fact there was a problem between this administrator and DrKiernan. I have tried to be supportive of DrKiernan. If you check his discussion page and archive on the issue this is fairly apparent. I feel now he has lost his objectivity as an administrator and needs assistance to allow consensus and a NPOV. I have purposely been keeping away from the webpage since DrKiernan put his opinion on the Administrator noticeboard. Sadly the Anna Anderson page has been in a state of edit war for far too long. DrKiernan has tried to stop this. What appears to be happening now though is he feels he is the only one capable of making edits to the page. It is of course necessary to stop edit wars. I agree with that totally. Locking out viewpoints not in line with Anderson supporters is not only preventing historical reality being presented, but also making the article very POV and inaccurate. I don't know what the solution is. I do know I am not the problem I am being painted to be. Other editors need investigation. DrKiernan for whatever reason does not wish to do this which would seem to be rather unobjective. There have been considerable problems caused by User talk:ChatNoir24, User talk:JohnK and one who has gone by Usertalk:RevAntonio and also uses 75.. and 76.. entries. User talk:Aggiebean is constantly attacked for expressing an opinion contrary to the Anderson supporters. It's all a sad situation. Certainly the article is no longer a place for discussion and no mediation is taking place. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Finneganw 04:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

About your latest edits to Boeing 247...
I have a few questions: I hope you don't mind my asking these. If you prefer, we can move this to the article talk page. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit reverted my edit about the 247's forward-sloped windscreen not being unique to Boeing. May I ask why?
 * That edit also restored the quote "Ordered off the drawing board", moving it to the intro. I had removed this phrase because, as written, it's not clear what it's trying to say, and I still feel this way, so I'm wondering why you restored it.
 * You seem to prefer hand-coded citations to the use of citation templates. Since you mention the MLA Style Guide, I assume this is for style reasons, and I do prefer your style for book references, but I thought that Wikipedia prefers that the templates be used.
 * Thanks for the reply on my talk page; I've responded to you there. In short, I'm now OK with your changes. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirming Gavin Bailey

 * Hi Bzuk, I can confirm that I contacted Gavin via the email address given here. I had grave doubts about Kurfurst's claim and I contacted Mr Bailey because I thought it only fair that he knew his name was being used in this way. In a way I feel responsible for creating this situation by posting the associated forum - at the time I was tired of Kurfurst's constant undermining of my work; I wanted to make it clear that this wasn't just happening on Wikipedia. Nevertheless he chose to reply in this petulent and underhanded way. Personally I am furious about this, because it is this type of behaviour that undermines Wikipedia as a whole. I'm not certain that I want to continue. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh
I was going through some of the articles I have been working on for a while to see which ones where ready to submit for various things (FA, GA, A, peer review, etc) and I think this article is well beyond the requirements for GA so I was going to submit it. Before I did though I wanted to run it by you since you are the number 2 editor. I will also leave a message on Centpacr's page since he is by far the #1. --Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have submitted the Charles Lindbergh article for GA. Before I make any changes (presumably there will be some suggestions) I will consult you and Centpacrr before making any changes. Although there are several categories he could fall in I placed it in the Transport category.--Kumioko (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of templates
What's your problem with templated references? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unusual/Interesting
I understand that the accomplishmewnts of the aviatrix in question are both unusual and interesting; however, we need a reliable third party source to point that out for us or it is original research. Threse adjectives are highly sujective.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A few too many bourbon and cokes, but you catch my drift ;)--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that they were both interesting and unusual. I see that you are an scholar in the field. Policy is to list the ocupations and allow readers to form their own opinions about it. If there are reliable sources that make the point, then you can use them. You really are on the wrong side of policy here. Now if you have published on it, then you can quote and attribute to yourself in the third person. I understand your passion here, but it may be clouding your judgement a little bit.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"SUPER Super Sabre"
BillZ, I just want to confirm that before you reverted my addition of the Verify Sources tag, that you actually know for certain that the given sources do in fact state "Super Super Sabre", and not "Ultra Sabre". The verify source tag is used to either ask for sources to back up the clims, or to ask someone to actually check the sources themselves. I am questioning this because the claimed names have been changed several times, and we need to know what the sources actually say in order to verify which name is in those sources. By Removing the VS tag, you are asserting that you do in fact know tha thte sources state this becuase you've actually looked on those pges, and seen it your self, either now, or in the past. Is this correct? Your edit summary was not clear on this point. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I juat wanted to make sure, as I'm sure the issue will keep cropping up from time to time. Btw, do you ever remember seeing "Ultra Sabre" in any of your books? Just to be faur to the others ;) Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ki-61
I read the usual, annoying reverting about my edits. It's more than enough: since you and Ahunt are so interested to revert my edits, then you should explain WHY someone can censor another editor everytime he edits. It's really amusing.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear mr. Bzuk, since you laugh when i speak about a 'plot' against me, you surely can explain why two aviation contibutors like Ahunt and Nimbus are suddently so interested in the movies like Robin and Marian, right?

There is obviously no plot agaist me: these are the last 5,000 edit of Nimbus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090124231714&limit=10000&target=Nimbus227

And Ahunt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090124231714&limit=5000&target=Ahunt

Strange thing, isn't? 10,000 edits and no one about movies, except to revert my poor edits. This is a casuality, cleary: we have just 3,000,000 articles, and 5,000,000 users, but wait, i am the only one that deserve, in the movie section, the careless rollback from two wikiaviators. Hmmm, it's toooooo strange to be believed. Too easy, instead, that there is a play against me and whetever editing i do. Even two lines in the DB-603 engine are not welcomed and not because being poorly written, but because G.56 was 'experimental' and Ta-152C was good (wrong, they were both prototypes, why one yes and the other not?).. the usual Ahunt strikes again.

No dear mr. Bzuk, i don't buy it. You can laugh at will, but there is no need of Sherlock Holmes to see how there are things too strange to be believed as 'normal'. To not to talk about Joe Baugher: strangely enough, when i take it as source, well he was not good, when another contributors discussed about this, strangely enough, J.Baugher was considered as an 'reliable source'. Such miracles!--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:One of our aircraft.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:One of our aircraft.JPG, has been listed at Files 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. Diora (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS A NOTE TO MR. BZUK:

Hi Mr. Bzuk,

Now that you have finished your book, perhaps you can fix the photo shown on Ted Lawson's article. The photo contained in the article is not that of Lt. Lawson; it is a photo of Charles McClure, Lawson's navigator. This is a serious error and I hope that you can fix: I don't know how to fix it myself. This error was pointed out by several people a year ago.

Paa123 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Paa123

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Pattle.jpg
File:Pattle.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Pattle.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) 08:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Douglas DC-5.jpeg is now available as Commons:File:Douglas DC-5.jpeg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Vickers 432.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Vickers Type 432.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Christmas Bullet.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Christmas Bullet.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Stout Bushmaster.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Stout Bushmaster 2000.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:He 100D colour.jpg is now available as Commons:File:He 100D colour.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

the PZL P.7 to P.Z.L. P.7 move
I have added my pennorth at the discussion page. In a nutshell I think article names for aircraft in particular shoud accurately reflect the name and/or designation given to the aircraft by the designer/manufacturer, and not some americanized simplification.Petebutt (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added few details in disscussion about PZL naming convention on project's talk page. I hope that modern Polish sources will be enough to keep PZL and forget about P.Z.L. variant. Best regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"bare" urls
Thanks!--Panzertank (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

== AN

ANI Reports about other users
Please note - you are required to notify users when posting about them on WP:ANI - this applys even to IPs/suspected socks. Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire contributs
Hello, sorry if I disturb You but I have a problem with a contributor that is deleting wildily my contributs to the Supermarine Spitfire even if they are pertinent and referenced with notes... I had warned him not to do it but he did it on proposal i think... could you tell me how to solve this problems? Can you have a look please to the page? Can yuo tell me how I can stop this guy... i dont rember the nickname.. thanks gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey BillZ, I'm the contributor in question! My edit summary should be enough explanation, since you actually read and comprehend English at a functional level: "Removed unnecessary details, which belong in film artilces, not here; removed songs with no references attesting to their notability." The Spitfire article already approaching encyclopedic length on its own! Thanks. - [

First of the few
Hi Bill, hope all is well. Do you know this film, The First of the Few? Article seems a bit 'unloved' to me. I have seen it many times but not recently, it cropped up because a line from it seems to have started a myth about the Rolls-Royce Merlin being named after the magician. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought you might! Well first I wanted to know if the line about King Arthur and the Merlin is in there (and can it be used as a reference or a footnote in another article if it is?) and secondly I thought you might be able to improve the article generally. Bed time over here, speak later. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Million in one
Sorry, had to let you know: I was editing the Macchi 205 page and came across an edit conflict, went ahead anyway and it came out that we made exactly the same edit. Unless there is an error somewhere. Have a good one, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Bf 109
I think that BOyne means that the project of the Messersch. was so advanced and modern, the most advanced and modern, in fact, they say... think of what flew at the time... Gloster Gladiator, Avia, PZL, Polikarpow etc.. anyway I learned here not to questio about what the historian says... regards gian piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

PZL.50 Jastrząb and other redirects
Bill, I've added request for cleanup work on several PZL aircraft articles. I'm really angry (not to say sth worse) about Petebutt's edits which removed my cleanup and standarisation with most recent sources available. OK, I've cleaned up PWS and RWS aircraft but PZL ones are over my editor's priviliges. I left a little bit harsh note on Petebutt's talk page about age of his main (and only) source and about existing more updated sources. I hope he will leave Polish aviation articles because editing them with such old sources are closer to vandalism than to preserve knowledge. Best regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Me 262
I checked... "..influenzò (the 262) i progetti degli aerei postbellici North American F-86, Boeing B-47 AND, AT LEAST AT THE BEGINNING, OF THE CIVIL TRANSPORT BOEING B-737". Mursia is a prestigeous publisher but... regards gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

me 163
Why you correct me Bzuk? I added details from Galland books, I am not going to expalin who is that man... am I? :) --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Me 163
sorry I apologize... I made a mistake... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Glancey
Sorry I was aware that Glancey...what? That he is the architecture and design editor of the Guardian and that he is also a pilot and a frequent broadcaster? Yes.... I know that... Grazie Saluti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wing configuration diagrams
Hi, thanks for the comment (moved here). Do your criticisms apply to the frontal elevations, the plan views, or both? Any suggestions to improve them would be welcome, too. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo
Let me check.... I think is ok....it I made mistakes I correct it --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Brewster Buffalo
I see you editing this article: Brewster Buffalo. After the third paragraph in the UNITED STATES NAVY section is this malformed picture: VF-3. I have no particular interest in this article. Could you do something with this odd thing ? GroveGuy (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open 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 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Amelia Earhart GA
Thanks for your note on the GA review page. I know that it's unlikely that it'll be up to standard in a week, but if they're willing to work on it, I'll give them a bit more time. You're welcome to join in, although if you'd rather stay out that's fine too. By the way...which Manitoba school divisions? I've got siblings in the system. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Typhoon
ciao... the quote says: "... as a rock. With the Hurricane I could throw it all over the sky and do any aerobaticas I liked. I Always felt I could never take such liberties with the Typhoon. You'd got to know what you were doing. They warnrd yo in the pilots' notes not to undertake anything under 8,000 feet - that was to give you a little bit of leeway." You know.... most pilote were illeterate... saluti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Commas in a series
Hello Bzuk. Please see here for the reason that I always include a comma before the conjunction that goes between the last two items in a series. Thanks Centpacrr (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See a reply for you here. Centpacrr (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
I was replacing a dud ISBN with an OCLC. What is it that's "basically wrong" in your view? Alarics (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. WP is not a learned journal, and we do not have to slavishly follow the dictates of citation systems designed for learned journals as long as whatever is done makes reasonable sense and is consistent within any one article. I cannot see where I was going against the general MLA scheme in the present case.


 * Elsewhere I have seen a general agreement that authors' names can be put in full since we do not have the space constraints that might require printed media to abbreviate them. In the case in point, I reproduced the author's name as I found it in WorldCat (see http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/65202527), since I happened to be there trying to find a valid ISBN to replace the dud one. If, as you say, in the book itself he is just called "Ken", I wonder where WorldCat got "Kenneth E." from.


 * I think it is a matter of judgment whether a place name is sufficiently obvious. I took the view that, since the article is about a British aircraft, anyone who doesn't know that Hertfordshire is in the UK would assume so. After all, we often expect people to know, or guess, that N.J. or Ga. are states of the USA, without spelling that out. But I don't think I feel particularly strongly on this point.


 * It seems to me immaterial that "the OCLC convention is not accepted as part of a bibliographic record at this point". The fact is that it can be useful to have, especially where there is no ISBN. I also think including the ISBN is highly desirable when there is one. -- Alarics (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BZUK has an agenda against the use of templates for cites and references, although consistently fails to give any good reasons why. His fondness for reversing other editors' contributions immediately after making them is verging on vandalism, certainly pushing at WP:POINT. 8-(  Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See response FwiW Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Could use your eyeballs if you have some time...
I'm going to try to get an FA on space debris. If you get a chance, could you give it a once-over for prose and such? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FixBunching Template
Hello, I see you reverted my good-faith addition to Short Seamew of the FixBunching template that is supposed to remove problems with stacked images on the right side of shorter articles. For more information, see the template:FixBunching and How to fix bunched-up edit links. Since FixBunching looks fine with various browsers that I've used it with, may I ask what operating system and what browser are causing the article to look badly enough to revert the changes I made? What kind of visual problems did it cause? It's supposed to work well across systems and across browsers, so maybe there's still something wrong with the template (which I didn't write, but thought was a handy tool when I found it.) Prior to my change I would see the 'Edit' links in the Short Seamew article positioned in weird locations, and now that's visible again since the revert. Regards, Itsfullofstars (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My response is here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Percival Gull
Evening Bzuk, I've just been looking at the Percival Gull page and added a survivors bit. I was surprised when I looked at the specs, which I think you added as they seem to be (according to the 1960 ed of Jackson's British Civil Aircraft, vol2) the specs of the Vega Gull, specifically the marginally faster Gipsy Six srs II powered one. They are not, if you believe Jackson, those of any of the smaller Gull Four and Sixes that the Gull page covers. The Vega Gull has its own article.

I was about to modify them, but thought I'd let you know beforehand to see if here is evidence to make that edit unsafe. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My response is here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

File:HP.115.gif
Just noticed this image File:HP.115.gif of the HP.115 in flight that claims to be in the public domain as crown copyright expired (over 50 years). The first flight of the aircraft was 1961 which is only 48 years ago so it is probably still copyrighted. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

F-104 Edits
I've covered the -104 loss rate extensively on the article's discussion page. The facts I've referenced show that the -104's overall Class A mishap rate is nearly twice that of the next Century Series fighter (the Hun). I backed up the data with verifiable references. How much more do I need to do? Dukeford (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why this is an issue. The original article stated that the Hun's loss rate was far worse than the -104's, which I disputed with Nimbus (who otherwise did a fine job on the article) in the discussion area. I get the impression that there are some big -104 fanatics out there who can't accept the fact that their fav had such a horrible safety record. They continually cite an out-of-date and highly misleading chart from Martin Bowman's -104 book to support their viewpoint. Unfortunately, the canard that the Hun's safety record was worse than the -104's has been referenced from the original article all over the Web. Dukeford (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See here FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it - and thanks. I don't want to perpetuate an edit war, either. Dukeford (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sopwith Camel Article
Just curious why my revision was taken out. The section doesn't seem that well organized, with repetition of certain facts and a bit about flight history smack in the middle of the flight characteristics. -FBM (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See response here. Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That works fine. Thanks. FBM (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Over the top
And this isn't? At least my edit summary said what I was doing. And the issues I raised about the writing quality must not have been too far-fetched, seeing as how you undid very few of the changes I made. Sure, maybe I could have been "nicer", but I'm generally not happy when I find that Wikipedia's supposedly "good" content is actually incomprehensible. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My response is here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC).
 * It wasn't just "author's choice", there were substantial holes in coherency. For example, in at least two places something was brought up out of the blue without having been mentioned before: the final paragraph said that the Japanese teen was shot by "one of Basie's companions" without ever mentioning that Basie and companions had shown up (the last mention of him said that he had escaped), and says that Jim "didn't recognize his parents" without ever mentioning that his parents came. Holes like this are not simple style issues; they're omissions that reduce the text's coherence. And they're bad writing, there's no other way to put it. If someone tried to read that plot summary without having seen the movie, much of it would not make sense.
 * There are other serious problems with the plot summary (for instance, undue weight on some scenes while completely ignoring others, with no rationale given for why), but they're not as urgent. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be "an author's vehicle", but it should still make sense and not illogically cherry-pick which parts to summarize. For example, why is the Japanese teen's crying important enough to be summarized, but not Jim & Basie's entire time in the temporary warehouse/prison (before taking the truck to the Suzhou internment camp). Why it's Jim's singing before the American fighter plane attack worth mentioning, but Mrs. whatever's death before the A-bomb explosion not? If a summary is going to be very detailed, it should be consistent in its level of detail throughout; on the other hand, if it's just going to cover the major plot elements, it should do so without missing any, and without adding unnecessary details in one place but not another.
 * This is already a difficult film to summarize because it doesn't necessary have a traditional "plot arc" with all things leading up to a big climax. That just means editors should be extra-careful, and clear, in determining what sorts of things should go into the plot summary and what shouldn't. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the new "in popular culture" section: do you have a source to verify that Ballard's use of "Cadillac of the skies" was the first? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is Bull's dictionary that claims it has a wartime origin, although if enough unpublished expert opinions disagree with that I can accept it. But since there's no published source for this, perhaps it would be better to reword to something more like "a phrase not attested before the publication of Ballard's book". r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Verbatim"? I would be interested to see how much more of the article uses text copied "verbatim" from it sources without putting it in quotes. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is simply whether you can provide a source that Ballard's book was the origin of the phrase, or whether it's your expert opinion. Like I said, in this case I think your opinion as an expert is permissible, but I think it should be reworded (I left a suggestion above). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm normally a stickler for citations, but in this case I think it can be weaseled around if it's an expert opinion and there's no source available. (Wikipedia has to find a better balance, I think, in its treatment of experts...the Verifiability and Citing sources policies are some of the most important ones on the project, but at the same time we shouldn't be driving away the few contributors who have expert knowledge to offer. This is partly based on my own experience in my main topic, neuroscience and linguistics-related articles, where sources can be found to support just about anything but lots of experts known that such sources are outdated or discredited, and thus the opinion of expert editors can be more valuable than sources.) Specifically, if there's no published source to say definitively that Ballard's use was the first, but you have recourse to lots of other sources that don't identify any earlier source, the best option might be to add a long footnote saying something along the lines of "X, Y, Z [...and so on] older sources do not have any mention of this term". That way the information can still be included, even without a direct reference, but there will also be a paper trail for readers to follow how you reached that conclusion. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

talkback
--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response here. FWiW, thank you for your prompt attention. Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for tidying up Tu-144 article, but I'd suggest that you exercise some caution and avoid excessively rolling footnote contents back into the main text, as secondary details then overwhelm primary and break the logical flow for the reader. That's why footnotes were invented ;-)

Oboguev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Book check
BillZ, can you confirm the authors on this book?
 * Kit, Mister and Jean-Pierre De Cock. F6F Hellcat (in French). Paris, France: Éditions Atlas s.a., 1981.

Per this diff, someone tried to expurgate one of the author's names, so I though I'd make sure it was real in the first place, on the off-chance this was missed vandalism. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See: edit comment and talk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Thanks for checking up on that for me. I did a quick Google search on the authors/title, and only WP and its mirrors turned up on the first page. That's when I turned to the mild-mannered librarian for help! - BilCat (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank´s a lot, Bzuk ! --Renzo Grosso Parla ! 01:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for formatting references and other corrections. Keep up the good work. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Biting
What particular comments do you see? After a cursory glance, I see only the normal warnings and such. Master of Puppets - <sub style="color:#7d7d7d; cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  03:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That one did look a bit testy, but not blatant enough to warrant a scolding. Some people tend to be short with users they see as disruptive. I'll keep an eye on the talk page and make sure nothing worse is said, though. Your concern is very appreciated, though! :) Master of Puppets  - <sub style="color:#7d7d7d; cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing reference templates
What's up with these edits? You removed the reference formatting templates that I had just added to the article. --Srleffler (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

"Mr. Deeds" Cleanup
Thanks for cleaning up the reference/cite on my addition to the "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town - Adaptations - Lux Radio Theater" text. It DOES look better. Mcwebeditor (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

303 squadron
I'm somewhat baffled that you say "removing a staement with refs is not the best way to proceed". Did you not see that the statement with references has not been removed? It has simply been placed elsewhere in the text. The article currently contradicts itself!Varsovian (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See later revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Regarding your extended version: wouldn't it be better to say in the intro that 303 was one of the best scoring squadrons and the best Hurricane equipped one (there is consensus among the sources as to that) and then discuss in the body that there are varying views as to whether it was the best? Doesn't an intro give the essential summary and the body is where the detailed info is best put?Varsovian (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving the discussion to the talk page, but all good points. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for cite/links for me on this article.--Jacurek (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:Varsovian and Jacurek
I see your point. I'm not the blocking administrator, but I do agree that it seems that Varsovian had the intention of cooperating peacefully. I'd suggest taking this up with User:Someguy1221 (as you already have). Cheers, Master of Puppets  03:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for everything, especially for proving that not all editors see newbies as things to be either bitten or dragged into existing wikidrama!Varsovian (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Voodoo 1.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Voodoo 1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

was checking vandal reports and noticed a booboo
might want to fix your ipvandal report, you linked their talk page, not ip address, it broke the template. ;)<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Sand"> F ELYZA T ALK C ONTRIBS  14:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographies
Hi Bzuk, haven't heard from you for a while. Having read Layout/works it would seem that for Wikipedia the main biblography relates only to books and other scources cited in the article's text, while Further reading is "A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content." A number of books were listed in the Typhoon article but were not referred to in the citations, which is why I thought they belong under further reading. Sorry if I'm wrong. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm back again with a Reggiane concept plane this time
Hi Bzuk, I'm back (I have never been so far anyway). I am a little bit rusty with my en.wiki skills: would you mind to give a look to this draft article I am going to move to ns0? A good friend of mine, "Flanker", is planning to upload Re.2007 sketches under fair use, but this is forbidden if no article exist on the matter, so I quickly wrote a stub. Do you think it could be moved to mainspace ? Please feel free to edit in my sandbox and clean or modify whatever you want. See you around. --EH101 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your support. As I just wrote to Ahunt, it is a pity I had to come back for such a controversial article, but mainly it is a favour to a good colleague who is eager to upload that plane drawings under fair use. It is mandatory to have an article in order to keep a non-free image related, and that is the reason I promptly came back.
 * You are obviously invited in visiting my unofficial "it.wiki-en.wiki mutual cooperation page" relevant to Italian aircraft, in a sandbox of mine. In these years, I bought several Italian aviation books due to Wikipedia citation concerns and now, as a side effect, I am the proud owner of a big quantity of Wiki workable photos, with a Public Domain status in Italy and US. All wiki-colleagues on it.wiki projects now know this fact, and often they ask me some data o airplane shots. Ask me freely and I will help.
 * Probably you will remember our last chat about citation syles. I did more and more studies on the topic mainly for helping some aviation article to reach the "featured article status" on it.wiki. I am widely adopting the plus <cite id=Knaack> in  References (one among the so named shortened footnotes style). You can see an example of this citation structure in it:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress I took care. Ask me freely if there are articles I can help on this matter. Ciao. --EH101 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Bzuk! Thank you for your welcome!--MaxDel (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It´s great to be here Bzuk, thanks for wellcoming and high spirits for all! MigeruMadorido (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

File:John Frost colour.jpg
Hi. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have some questions about some of your image uploads. I brought this up a while back. Could you please add or fix the info on File:John Frost colour.jpg and any other photos with similar issues? I hope you understand why I might wonder if you took this photo in 1952, and if you aren't the photographer how you became the copyright holder. I'm mentioning this again to you here first rather than just listing this for discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If you have questions about Wikipedia practices and policies you can't find an answer to, ask and I'd be happy to help if I can. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response here. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I replied there as well. I think these images might be useful not only here but in Wikimedia projects in other languages as well. Some text explaining the source and copyright situation on the image descriptions would be helpful. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tu-144 article
Thanks for tidying up Tu-144 article, but I'd suggest that you exercise some caution and avoid excessively rolling footnote contents back into the main text, as secondary details then overwhelm primary and break the logical flow for the reader. That's why footnotes were invented ;-)

Oboguev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Possibly unfree File:Ford Mustang I drawing.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ford Mustang I drawing.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Fleet Canuck 3-view drawing.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fleet Canuck 3-view drawing.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Avrocar 3-view.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Avrocar 3-view.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Avrocar schematic.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Avrocar schematic.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Colour avrocar 59.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colour avrocar 59.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
 * Replied on my talk page. /Lokal_Profil 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * New reply on my talk page. /Lokal_Profil 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on F-94 Discussion
Dear Bill,

I added a reply to your comment on the F-94 Starfire "discussion".

Jackehammond (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Jack E. Hammond

Another "all-knowing" IP user
BillZ, a Canadian-based IP user has been making uncited changes to the Bristol Fairchild Bolingbroke article, per this diff. Would you mind checking over his info, and seeing if they have merit, and if they can be cited? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the edits and sources. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with 'nested' citations
Your expert help would be appreciated! The article Lebaudy Patrie contains at least two references (14 and 17 at present) to articles in Flight Magazine (from 1916/1917) each of which contains an excerpt from an earlier sister publication ("Auto") from 1906/1907. Currently the citations just mention the Flight sources, but they really ought to refer back to the earlier "Auto" sources too. The citations both make use of "cite journal", but I'm fairly certain that this template cannot handled such 'nested' citations. I remember you mentioning that you enter the citations by hand - is there a standard form for such citations? Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk)

Another Avrocar image problem
An IP user has raised a problem at although they dont appear to have told you. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gunston '80
Hello... How are you ... i had noticed that there was a similar book but the publilsher was different and so the isbn number... what is about your new book, prego? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gunston

 * Ah! Now I understand... I thought there could be differences in number of pages... Nice to know that... (But why you dont answer about your new book?)

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Compliments
A foreign translation? Compliments, I am still waiting just the publishing of my first novel, and yesterday night I discovered that the editors wants to change the title that other people regarded as "genial": Ménami, mamma! (Beat, me mama!) Do you have any idea, by chance? :) greetings... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLV (November 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I see you met another It.wiki aviation contributor. Good. Hopefully we will improve information exchanges and ideas. All the best Bzuk! Merry Christmas.--EH101 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry etc
Bill: thanks for the note. It has been great working with you here for another year and I look forward to doing more in 2010! In the meantime I hope you have a great Christmas and New Years! In January I am going to bug you with some book publishing questions, just to pick your brains, so "forewarned is forearmed"! - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Buon Natale e Felice Anno Nuovo

 * Thanks for your wishes... the same to You... Merry Christmas and Happy ew Year!!

Saluti da Roma!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought
Thanks for the mini "Chrissy Card" mate - best wishes to you and yours likewise. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto! Centpacrr (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes 68 of us. Felice Navidad, Happy Hanukkah, Cheerful Kwanzaa, Happy New Year, Happy Valentine's Day... <font color="#004225">Jose Feliciano  <font color="#004225">where's my glasses? 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Warmest season's greetings to you and yours. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!
Thanks for the good wishes. All the best to you too for Christmas and for 2010 - may it be a productive and successful year! --TraceyR (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
You have a great Christmas too! And all the best for the new year. Cheers!-- BC <sub style="color:DarkGray;">talk to me  wfo 00:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC) and Akasha Autumn and Ralph the Cat.

Have a Joyous Noel!
Hi Bill! May you and yours have a very richly blessed Christmas and a wonderful New Year! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Thanks for the Christmas wishes. Hope that you have a great Christmas and a Happy New Year. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
G'day from sunny Oz. I have just finished eating Christmas lunch (turkey, chicken, orange-and-sugar-glazed ham) with YSSYgal's family. Its a lovely day here, temperature in the mid-twenties, and I've just opened WP to settle an argument about some little bit of trivia and got your message. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks Bill, and I hope you and your family have a lovely Christmas. YSSYguy (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And a belated Kia Ora from NZ; hope you had a great Christmas. Like Oz we had a day in the mid-twenties, allowing a good old fashioned BBQ and a game of cricket. All the best for the New Year. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on this please?
G'day Bill, I was wondering if you could have a look at this article from your neck of the woods. It appears that the main editor of the article is the owner of the company. I took out a whole heap of guff a month ago and an anon. user (who I daresay is the company's owner or someone connected to the company) went and shovelled it all back in again. I have reverted those edits, however it seems to me that the article as a whole could be a CFD due to being just an advert. Do you have knowledge of this company, and if so, does it merit a WP article? YSSYguy (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
cheers ! Madmonk11 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2010
Hi Bzuk!! Thank you for kindly remembering me at the 'festive season'. Have been away for a few days. I have recently resumed contributing aviation articles to Wikipedia - but perhaps not at the intensity of earlier this year. There are some ideas I'm currently working on. Thank you for your past help and encouragement - and corrections! Best wishes to you for the New Year. Ruth. RuthAS (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Bill, Thank you for the pic and the Christmas wishes! Same in return. Cheers, and may our wiki-endeavors grow with bountiful results this coming year. Happy New Year, Bill! Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

asides & punctuation
Hi Bill. I'm responding to your edit on Arsenic and Old Lace (film). You wrote this: > Immediately after the wedding on Halloween, as it happens, Mortimer visits the bizarre relatives who still live there I don't like the use of commas there. I think it's incorrect. "as it happens" applies to the fact that the wedding occurred on Halloween, so "on Halloween, as it happens" should be marked as a unit. Otherwise, it looks like "as it happens" applies to the fact that Mortimer's visit was after his wedding. Also, I like either dashes or parentheses to indicate that being on Halloween isn't really a core aspect of the sentence. Thanks for contributing. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Willie" William Lidstone McKnight
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question)  09:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)