User talk:Bzuk/Archive 8

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)

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. - BilCat (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Diefenbaker
I appreciate the help you are giving, very much. I'm finding this to be a pain in the butt article, and I am having to revise the structure on the fly because I see that US relations will have to immediately precede a discussion of Dief's fall, but I am very hopeful of having this article done this weekend. Thanks again for the help.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph on the Arrow was getting pretty long. I cut it back a bit.  I don't think I removed anything of substance that you inserted, though I moved the sentence about the Pentagon being willing to keep it alive to a footnote.  Can you look over the paragraph and see what you think?  This is not an area I have views about, I'm just trying to keep length under control.  Thanks for adding the materials and the references.  I'm pretty much done with the article and have submitted it to peer review, let me know what you think?  Hoping to take it to FAC later in the month.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you have something reliable in one of those books that says that it affected the PC vote in 1962, by all means put it in. Did the Tory MPs in the Malton area keep their seats?  Note that I'm not looking for something that says it was decisive, as it almost certainly wasn't, none of my bios on Dief seem to think it was.  But it was a factor, and obviously did not help the Tories in Ontario.  God knows Dief had enough problems by 1962.--Wehwalt (talk)


 * Please feel free to gnome away if you like. The article is done, I'm just polishing.  It's at peer review, hoping to get it to FAC in two weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I wouldn't mind adding an image of the Arrow to the Dief article, if, and only if, we could find one we were certain was out of copyright. That means it would have been taken by the Canadian government and (key word coming up) published not later than 1959.  Taken then and held in archives wouldn't be good enough.  I don't want to put a fair use image in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also on the Arrow, Bzuk, the Smye reference has been flagged at peer review, self published references won't do at FAC. You only rely on it for one point.  Can you find another reference that makes the same point and change that?  We can move Smye to "Further reading" or some such, I'm sure the guy is well regarded on the Arrow but I do not want to have the FAC fail over so trivial a point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've inserted your comments pretty much wholesale as part of the article. You know the subject matter much better than I do.  Could you take another look at it when you get a chance?  Thanks very much for your help.  Both Smith and Bliss take a very much pro-Dief view of the Arrow situation, and it is good to get this feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be cautious about the removal of non breaking spaces and alt text. A featured article candidate is expected to have those things to the satisfaction of other reviewers.  Many thanks for your help, as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Chain Lightning
I just replied to your inquiry on my talk page.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Buon Anno
Happy new year from Thailand... regards and best wishes for us and the old dear wikipedia... gian piero

WikiProject Films December 2009 Newsletter
The December 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) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo Joe?
I can't find the article for this 2008 film mentioned in your move, where is it located? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew his story, so that should be interesting. Who's in it? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Citations
Thanks, I will take note of that, MoS is my Achilles "elbow".--Darius (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Slingsby Hengist
In the infobox caption you mention the AFEE - what was that?TSRL (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Airspeed Viceroy.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Airspeed Viceroy.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. Damiens .rf 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Massive edit to The High and the Mighty (film)
Hello Bzuk: Please help me keep an eye on The High and the Mighty (film) to which an editor with whom I am not familiar just made |a huge edit (which I reverted) removing all the images and making many formatting and other changes to the text. I reverted this within ten minutes with an edit summary advising that edits of this magnitude must be discussed and agreed to in Talk for the article before being arbitrarily made out of the blue. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Citation Style
I don't know if you are aware of this, but I thought that Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style might interest you.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Google book links
There were several relevant discussions on that at WP:FA talks and elsewhere and I do not recall any resolution banning or disencouraging such links, even at FA level. On the contrary, they do provide access to the text otherwise hidden. At Erich Hartmann, I added only selected links where full texts are available for viewing. Materialscientist (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Insufficient warning
I declined your vandal report one warning is not sufficient to place a block. Jeepday (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding...
But...how do I remove that annoying ToC banner on my talk page? It always messes up my formatting/layout and looks sooo uneven. Is there a way to remove it permanently without having to just "hide" it? Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Place operator on that page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Spitfire move
I'm not trying to split any content. I just did a history merge to make sure all the edits to the article are in one place. Graham 87 15:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Silver Bug
You removed a link to Silver Bug in the Avrocar with an "unrelated" check in message. Given that the Avrocar article covers the Y-2 times, in depth, it seems a mention is definitely in order. What I think we really need to do is remove the Silver Bug article, and turn it into a redir back to avrocar. Make sense? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter
The January 2010 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) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann
I left my comment on the talk page. Please have a look if this would be okay. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

substing templates
I really wish you'd stop doing this  8-(  Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

External Links - Avro Arrow
The potential conflict of interest of your putting an external link to AvroLand seems evident here:
 * "AvroLand would like to thank the following people and sites for their KEY assistance in this project: Michael Deschamps, Karls Arrow and Jetliner Websites, Ron Page, Graham Wragg, Bill Zuk (Check out your local book store / retailer for Bill Zuk's latest books on Avro including a new children's book!)".

How about we get a consensus on the talk page before we put it back? Addionne (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindburgh
Um ... why should "fame" be linked? Can you please read WP:OVERLINK. The Lindburgh article is spattered with so much blue, it will ensure that hardly anyone clicks on a useful link. Why are Garden City" AND "Manhatten" AND "New York City" all linked? Why would a read want to go directly to the general ones rather than through the most specific (the first)?

Integral to the story has nothing to do with whether a link should be created. "The" is integral to the story, too. Tony  (talk)  07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Bzuk. Please see my comment in section three of this "New Georgia Encyclopedia" talk page and add one yourself if you feel it is appropriate. I am not sure what these folks have in mind to do to Slim. Thanks! Centpacrr (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Swing Vote Edit question
Hi there. I saw that you edited out the cast member links in the plot summary of the 2008 film, Swing Vote. I'm new to WPFilms, but I thought that those kind of cast links were encouraged in the summary, even though links are provided in the infobox and cast links sections. I wanted to clarify in case there was a discussion about this somewhere I was unaware of; I wasn't sure if it might not be a personal preference of yours as an editor. You can reply here or on my own talk page; I'll see it either way. Thanks in advance. =) Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for the info. Logically, I could see a reason for people liking it to do it either way (and hadn't seen any edit warring or debates on the topic).  I've seen a few folks go through the summaries I've done so far and add the same kind of links you removed, thus my asking.  Since plot summaries are my obsession I will keep it in mind for my future efforts.  Happy editing!   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  15:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter
The February 2010 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) 04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

75.80.151.51
Hi Bill. I saw your AIV report on but I don't see the vandalism. I know you to be a pretty solid editor so I thought I'd ask for more info before dismissing the report. I suspect there is more than meets the eye. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Guadalcanal edit
You're going to need a citation for that. I've read around 40 books on the Guadalcanal campaign, including several that give the Japanese side, and none of them say that those Korean laborers were slaves. They may have been, but we can't say that unless we have a RS that says so. Please reply on the article talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A-10 Thunderbolt II formatting
Hi,

I see that several times in the last six months you have insisted on enforcing a particular citation style on it, going as far as to summarily revert some recent improvements to it because they went against that style. I see nothing in WP:AVICITE which mandates the use of non-templated references, and the template style offers me significant advantages as an editor (not least the recent change which ensures that the various Air Force links are presented as being from "U.S. Air Force" and not a random assortment of "af.mil", "USAF" and "Air Force"). I've recently nominated this article for GA review, which requires consistency in footnotes. If there isn't some better reason to have the untemplated style than personal preference then I'd ask that you refrain from enforcing this style in future. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

NB
Hello Bzuk.

Can I ask you to leave your opinion here about the latest Kurfurst saga? (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review requested for Kurfurst). I'll understand if yu can't be bothered with it. Dapi89 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for article review
Greetings again Bzuk: I compiled an article about an Ohio State alumni, Douglas M. Webster, who was lost off the USS Ticonderoga in 1965 in a Broken Arrow. It has been challenged for speedy deletion. I would appreciate it if you would take a look and offer your opinion. I am not soliciting support - well, maybe I am - but if you disagree that is fine too. I just want more than one opinion... Mark Sublette (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 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) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Anna_May_Wong_in_Thief_of_Bagdad.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Anna_May_Wong_in_Thief_of_Bagdad.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. feydey (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft cost/effectiveness
See Talk:Fighter_aircraft Perhaps that you are intrested in cooperating ? Thanks in advance KVDP (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

La-7
I'd prefer not to bump heads with you over the La-7 article, so please do not make any changes until I'm pretty well finished with it. I have my preferred style which I'll bring this article up to, but at my own pace. I'm perfectly happy to discuss any changes that you think should be made, although I may not agree with them. I've already written several A-class aircraft articles, notably Petlyakov Pe-8, Yermolayev Yer-2 and Petlyakov Pe-3, which is going through an ACR right now, so you can see how I like to do things. And I invite you to comment on the Pe-3 article, if you're so minded. The standard that I've run into there is that books not referenced should be moved to a further reading section as they're less immediately useful than those actually referenced. And with reliable Soviet information only surfacing after the end of the Cold War, I'm not inclined to list any book that dates prior to that as they are contradicted by more recent, and reliable, sources and are only going to confuse a general reader. Frankly I'm not inclined to perpetuate their myths and mistakes in any way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

15/88 Macchi C. ratio

 * To be honest, this ratio refers only to the Saettas... The 202 were much better but for what I read, for what I know, there is no trace of Macchi C.202 air victories against Soviet aircraft, so...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds of Silence

 * Your silence worries me...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ubi maior, minor cessat

 * Ok, dont worry best regards

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CF-104.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CF-104.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the 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 CC-BY-SA 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 , 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 file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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 file'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. Files 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. Gump Stump (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pulqui II
Thanks for the help with this! - The Bushranger (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! This article just keeps getting better -- one of the more intriguing "what-ifs"...
 * Just one question, though -- what makes this image unable to be replaced by a free image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pulqui_II_CAD.jpg -- this is somebody's contemporary work. It seems to me that anyone with the skills and suitable software could recreate this, or create an equivalent image, no? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, just like any other image of an object. But somebody has to spend the time and effort to do it, which is the limiting factor as I see it. And until that happens I see no reason not to use it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True; but just because an image takes effort to replace does not mean that it cannot be replaced (indeed, what image takes no effort to replace?) The relevant policy (WP:NFCC, criterion 1) only allows non-free content where a free alternative cannot be created. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did try to find an alternative and even tried my hand at creating an image. FWiW, the purpose of using this particular image was to show the design features that were retained from the earlier 1945 Ta 183. Bzuk (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
 * And I think that that policy is far too strict and, if followed, would prevent use of virtually all non-free images. Much to the detriment of Wiki, IMO, as most obscure articles would be deprived of an image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Pulqui II.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Pulqui II.ogg. 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.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 Non-free content, 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 created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:De havilland dh95 flamingo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:De havilland dh95 flamingo.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:M52 model.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:M52 model.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Mk1 Defiant.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mk1 Defiant.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2010 Newsletter
The April 2010 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) 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Goodyear inflatoplane.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Goodyear inflatoplane.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Debate about Red Baron's funeral on Missing man formation
Someone who apparently imagines that Von Richthofen is a figure from the SECOND world war is madly reverting over a silly idea that funeral flyovers originated from his funeral. His source indicates that it is a supposition, but he insists is "useful" and "accurate". Anyway, I would appreciate your having a look at this as we need to get a consensus.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for hopping in so promptly - among other things it helped me to keep my head (says he!) and stay (relatively) civil (Well, civil for me, anyway!). I think we just about have a consensus now? Incidentally "the person" involved detected that I invited half the people who have edited the Richthofen article, and carried on as if it were a mortal sin to do so. I don't think it was, was it? I've never seen anything forbidding or discouraging such invitations, in fact I've answered a few myself. My motives were (pretty much anyway) pure, in that all I wanted was an article without any BS. I'm not an empty point scorer (at least I like to think I am not).


 * By the way - talking about the tendency of some people to overdo copyright purity - I removed his tag from "my" photograph and replaced it with this...


 * This photograph is over ninety years old


 * It is of a service aircraft, and was taken during the 1914-1918 war - at a time when all photography of service aircraft except by service personnel on official duty was strictly forbidden. There is therefore a strong legal presumption that any original copyright belonged to the British Crown - which copyright has long expired.


 * It has been published many times in various source during the past ninety years.

It may well be difficult to specifically demonstrate the "free" status of these photographs where their possession of an official Imperial War Museum number is doubtful, and the original provenance is unknown, but it would seem somewhat unproductive to "pursue" images in this category.


 * Do you think a tag to this effect could go on all old WWI photographs (British ones, anyway)??? Point two, in particular, is pretty conclusive, I think.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Planet Satellite
Just found a golden oldie while going through the de Havilland Gipsy Queen article, love the writing style! Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   00:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spring Byington
Bill, please see my comment on Talk:Spring Byington. I'm a bit new to all this, but I posted a request to protect the article, and the response was to block the offending user. The rest of my post should be self-explanatory. Because you're an established editor, I was reluctant to remove the material, but, in my view and that of others, it's clearly objectionable. Take a look at the revision history. I'd like to remove it, but I'll wait a bit to hear from you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill, between the two of us, we certainly are cleaning up the Byington article. Thanks for changing my change from "Mother Byington" to "Her mother."  Much better.  I originally made the changes because the two Helenes were confusing. I thought the sister had gone to medical school, but, of course, she would had to have been only 6 years old if that were the case.  It's very hard to find references for Byington.  While I was hunting for some, I saw several different birthdates for her - probably not unusual for actors - but I decided to leave the one in the article the way it was based on a preponderance using that one.  I finally found another source of the gay rumors in an article I read about Marjorie Main (apparently not the one you read) calling Byington Main's "companion."  If that's the only evidence of Byington being gay or bi, it's pretty flimsy.  The assertions that Main was gay are better documented in her Wiki article.
 * One more aside question. In the Byington article Infobox spouse field, it says she had two children.  I thought I read somewhere that children shouldn't be in that field; is that true?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Pzl p-6.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Pzl p-6.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Bd4 2.gif missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Bd4 2.gif is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hans Multhopp
I was just going by what was on his wiki page with the Paperclip reference - I guess that's wrong, then? Ouch. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification - there seem to be a lot of sources out there that claim Multhopp/Germans designed the Lightning themselves (!), that was my compromise, as it were. Feel free to change it to something more accurate - at the moment I can't think up a non-awkward phrasing to say "provided aerodynamic data that may have..." etc. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks muchly! :) It's a pleasure working with you as well, hope to be able to work with you again too. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

CF-103
Neat project, and one I'd never heard of before today! One note, the reason I'd switched to the other specs template was so that the 'empty' span and height categories wouldn't show. Hopefully there's a source in your collection that has that information? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, is there a dry thrust rating out there for the Orenda 17? Putting an afterburning thrust wihout a dry thrust on that template keeps the reheat thrust rating 'hidden', unfortunatly. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, interesting stuff. Thanks for the background. I see Marketing was somewhat Dilbertian back then too! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hans Multhopp
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

P-51 in USSR service
Bzulk, Old Lad, are You joking? :) Appraisal of Ussr? :)When? :) I only quoted a book where there are reported the notes of test pilots... is that appraisal of Ussr? It seems to me that the appraisal is of the P-51 in this article... it seems sometimes an advert of the P-51, dont You realize it? I can understand that is not pleasant to hear some voices out of the choir, that somebody says that even the divine Mustang had its defects but we should look for truth here not for nationalism support, or am I wrong? I mean: what You think is Your opinion or is the truth? bah... unuseful to complain... right? You do what Yo think is right and disregard the rest... Glad with it... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

P-51
Bzulk, you can wrap me around the files and links of wikipedia many times..You know exactly what I mean: the P-51 article in more parts looks like an advert of its factory. No defects is listed, no shortcomings... it seems the perfect planes, come out from the Gods' hands... Please!!!You know that if Russia refused the Mustang in a time when she accepted everything with a pair of wings is most significant... unfortunately that new should go in the contrary opposite direction of the rest of the whole article, that looks lika a "santino", in italian is an article celebrating somebody or something... I repeat it to You: I can understand it, because we are all, little or more, nationalist... but what is written in the P-51 article goes against the truth and - at the end - what comes in your pockets to alterate the truth? regards, Gian Piero

Mustang "santino"
Sorry but I smell perfum of nationalism... :) are you sure that if Germany won the war that to be used in 55 nations should not have been the Focke WUlf Ta 152 (not less effective or modern than the P-41) or the new Macchi 207 or the Fiat G.56? If I am not wrong the Macchi C. 205 shot down not few Mustang even in big inferiority  of numbers... and that should could be extremely telling, but this is not the point... it is not correct for the readers and the aenciclopaedya projecdt to show only a side of something, even if it is the Glory of the American/english plane... if a plane has shortcomings those have to be pointed out like you do so well when it comes to write about italian or not american/english aircraft Please consider it a little before running to delete others' contributs

Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FIAT G. 56
Have just a look, please! "The Fiat G.56 was basically a Fiat G.55 with a German Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine. Two prototypes were built, flight tests starting in March 1944.[9]. On 30 March, Commander Valentino Cus reached speeds of 690/700 km/h (430/440 mph). [14] Official maximum speed was 685 km/h (426 mph) and the aircraft was armed with three 20 mm MG 151/20s, one firing through the propeller hub, the other two installed in the wings.[15] While performance was excellent, the aircraft proving superior to both the Bf 109K and Bf 109G and Fw 190A, outmanoeuvring [2] all types in testing, production was not allowed by the German authorities." Short-legged? :) What do you mean? Short range? Please remember that Italian engineers worked in extremely difficult conditions under continuous Anglo/American bombings and partisan sabotages with heavy shortage of all strategical materials... Italy nerver developed long range fighters because she did not need them (or she thought so)...... Anyway this is not again the point ... the point is that the P-51 (and other similar articles) bend (is it correct?) to show the Anerican/English products in a better light undervaluing or not mentioning enough the (many?) shortcomings that they had.. do You thing that is fair? Or You think that I am absolutely wrong? Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Avro Canada CF-103
Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Air power

 * You are right, I lost a "c"... Sorry!

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Convair Model 118
BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sud-Est Grognard
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter
The May 2010 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) 03:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Avrocar
Hey there, just read over the Avrocar article again. Might want to see about adding a few more inline citations to it when you get the chance? There's a number of uncited paragraphs and that's just asking for the GAR people to demote it, alas. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 01:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see. I reckon I can handle that, if you'd like. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet references
I reverted your revert of my edit. The link you posted is simply a very abbreviated version of the G&M article, and even cites the G&M article as its source. It makes far more sense to use the full G&M article to provide context and more information, not to mention that, not being a blog, it's a far more reputable source. Quoting your link in full: Globe and Mail Ottawa to spend $9-billion in sole-source deal for US fighter jets Globe and Mail Ottawa — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Jun. 07, 2010 7:56PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 08, 2010 8:28AM EDT Ottawa is moving on a sole-sourced purchase of high-tech US fighter jets to replace its CF-18s despite furious … Government set to spend $9-billion dollars on new fighter jets 680 News Report:Ottawa set to spend $9B on new US fighter jets from single source Charlottetown, The Guardian Canada Buying New Fighter Jets: Globe 580 CFRA Radio AHN | All Headline News  - As you can see, it's talking about the same G&M article posted, and provides absolutely no background information or the detail provided in the actual G&M article. Please read the actual G&M article for comparison, and review Verifiability. - Jonathon A H (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
Hello Bill, First let me say I am quite impressed with your background and contributions to society in general, both here and in the academic world. During the 'Bell stamp dispute I was unaware of this and the fact that you were the senior editor on the AG'Bell page. My oversight, as I was too heated and busy looking into Gold' and co's trackrecords. On retrospect perhaps I could have embarked on the scene from a different approach. I have been an avid reader of Wiki history pages since the beginning, but am relatively new to editing and therefore am still in the process of learning some of the various protocols...but all of this blurred when the image I contributed was removed in the fashion it was. The 'national origin' issue caught me completely by surprise and frankly almost sent me through the roof, as I have never encountered such before. I still feel Gold' should have approached the matter with a discussion first, as after all, I included a Bell telephone stamp, not one of 'Bart Simpson', the likes of which would merit immediate removal. In any event, your words about an international page are indeed heeded, another perspective that was blurred during the dispute. Yes, one could say I am on a crusade to include stamps (where appropriate), as years ago it was the Bell stamp in particular that led me back into reading history, not to satisfy a required subject in a curriculum this time but to indulge in the fascinating aspects of history itself. When I introduce a stamp image to a page it is because I have a keen interest in the subject, and also, I do so to draw other collectors (I have learned there are thousands here at Wiki') to the page, as I often link up the image of a stamp with the corresponding history page. So far I have authored one page U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps. It was sort of a trial run for the much larger history on stamps page I am still drafting in my user space, among others. To my complete surprise, the Space history' page ended up as a featured article in DYK on May 19th! I go at length here to convey these thoughts as I now realize you merit such, and to also let you know where my heart is and why I do what I do. All the best, John. GWillHickers (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear!
Used to fly, briefly, a Piper Cherokee back in '76. logged 'a whole' 44 hours.

-

GWillHickers (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Pearl Harbor (Film)
Freind, Please Review Relevant Policies of WP:NPA particularly "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." In addition Consensus as consensus has been built against your position. Please Note leaving a post at Third opinion does not count under WP:Canvass.

Review Policies WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:WP:OR and If you still feel that consensus is in error than you may by all means post an Requests for comment on the topic.

Thank You Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy+Majority = Consensus
 * Review Policies WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:WP:OR and If you still feel that consensus is in error than you may by all means post an Requests for comment on the topic. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have observed the Much needed Rewrite and commend you on it, however the list Violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:WP:OR] and should be removed at this point. The idea of the Daughter Article is equally unproductive as it would Be Speedy deleted under the same [[WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:WP:OR issues. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, i came back. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I had come to believe you were a neutral editor
I had come to believe you were a neutral editor, but this shows your own PoV has more sway in your edits than WP:V. en.WP is not a forum for your personal beliefs and nobody knows what happened to AE. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart
Replied on my talk page. Thanks. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 05:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

question
Since you are knowledgeable about planes, do you know where I could find out what kind of planes the U.S. mail service was using back in the late 1930's, early 1940's? Thanks. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  15:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS June 2010 Newsletter
The June 2010 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) 05:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

United States military aircraft designation systems
You corrected my editing of the Grumman F-11 Tiger designations, as I wrote F11F instead of F-11. The US Navy/USMC/USCG changed their designation system in 1962 as you can read in United States military aircraft designation systems, and the F11F-1 became the F-11A. It is sometimes confusing even today, as a designation like F/A-18 should not exist according to the tri-service desognation system, correctly it would be FA-18 or AF-18, but it is perhaps military ingenuity ... Kind regards Cobatfor (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC).

MACCHI MC.202 "FOLGORE"
my 2¢... What does it mean this "my 2¢"? I know that my english is bad, that's why I am trying to buy english written books... I have ordered almost everything is on the market aboout WWII aircraft. About the eventual intolerance of other contributors... they should respect the rules, right? If a sentence has a reference, why they should remove it? Only if it breaks the rules... There are the rules for them, right? You know, I would like to avoid all this work and concentrate on my books... I dont like to write in english that is not my language so sometimes I cant explain well... I say that some articles are not well written because they seem to me not enough balanced... Honestly, can You tell me that - before my overriding contriguts - the articles about Italian aircraft were balanced and acknowledged ( I dont know if the verb is correct) the qualities (sometimes outstanding) that (some) Italian planes had? Honestly, please. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the explanations... and I agree with the peacock, but - as I already said to Eh 101 - that is the ideal, the absolute... reality is made of books difficult to find and informations even more difficult to track... I mean... to show that the Macchi 202 outmanouvred the Hurricane we should need not only the maximum speed, but acceleration data, climb rate, time of a complete turn at several height, roll rate, and a lot of other datas to show the strenght of the aircraft, the resistence to enemy fire... in a word: impossible to find at least for Italian aircraft... uff... If I only could speak in Italian... so we are forced to use sentences like: "The Macchi could outperform the P40s and similar". And the problem is not that the Italian aircrfat are "covered", but that in the articles, before my "opinions" there was nothing about their effectiveness, nothing about their qualities, but only "technical" datas...

Were you a teacher? ANd you retired? Here we have to wait until 65 years of age, or you dont get the pension... I would like to stop teaching and concentrate on my books but to get the same salary of a teacher you should sell about 30,000 books per year, and very very few writers here achieved that... Buona notte --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, anyway.

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Macchi C.200
Hi, I quote You from Ethell, pag. 69: "The Spitfire was the only Allied fighter that could out-climb the Saetta." I remembere to have read somewhere, from a British pilot, that the Saetta could do very steep climbs that the Hurricane could not follow, in a dogfight. I think that Ethell did not mean the climb rate that could be inferior with an engine of just 870 hp. (Any answer to my questions?) Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates
Please do not remove maintenance templates without addressing the issue identified. If an established editor adds a template to a page it's a damn good indication that it's not a "drive-by" as you put it. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Leslie Howard (actor)
Thanks for the helpful re-structuring of the page; I have been adding some citations based on reading the excellent Eforgan biography, good to see it cited in the bibliography. Npaskin (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Help/suggestion with referencing please
G'day Bill, I was wondering if you could give me some advice. You know a lot about referencing; I would like to use the info on this page for a revamp of the Super V article that I currently have lurking in my Sandbox. Do you have any suggestions for how to reference it? Do you have a copy of Canadian Aircraft Since 1909? If you do perhaps you could confirm that it it a verbatim extract and let me know the page number and book details so that I can reference the book instead of the web page; or is that not the way to do it? Thanks in advance. YSSYguy (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Bill :-) YSSYguy (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BOAC 777
Bill, I just noticed that there is a separate article BOAC Flight 777 as well as the Leslie Howard article you've been working on - the two are not currently linked. Should the section on Theories surrounding Howard's death from Leslie Howard, which you’ve edited and improved, be cross-referenced, merged, with that?? I’m not a WP expert and leave this to you. I have just added to the BOAC 777 article the conclusion of the Eforgan biography. Npaskin (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

R.E.8 article
Hi, a normally very reliable editor put a load of stuff into this from a source describing the F.E.8 - reverting this messed up some minor changes you made - you might want to reinstate these? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter
The July 2010 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) 06:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck
Hi Bill: I just wanted to wish you a smooth transition into your new (old) career. Hope it will leave you more time for Wikipedia! - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Through the Roof!!: The Ascension of African Americans in the U.S. Military
Please don't add multiple deletion templates to an article. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Franco Lucchini
Hello, sorry if I disturb, but I want to write a new article about the Italian top ace Franco Lucchini, but when I digit this name on wikipedia it comes out something about a Japanese comic or something about it... how can I edit a new article with this name, Franco Lucchini? Thanks a lot --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PZL.5
Thanks for improving it. How about uprating it to B class? (also, as a non-native speaker, I must ask, is "sport air aircraft" correct, or a typo?) Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 21:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mosquito
This IP joker keeps reverting and vanadalising the page. I can't revert again. Can you revert this blatant vandal edit. Dapi89 (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
I'm curious, why did you revert my changes to Curtiss SB2C Helldiver? My intent was to use cite news for a more uniform look & feel. 00:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing
Thanks for fixing my broken edit. I didn't see the references in the preview (and didn't yet know about ) so I didn't notice until after I saved it that I screwed up the reference. Mea culpa. Skysmurf (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for objective participation in discussion
As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Galland
I've just deleted a post left here. I was mistaken. Sorry Bzuk. Dapi89 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Harvnb
Hi Bill,

I started using in the hope that people would stop giving references in the Bibliography section as {{Cite Book= etc. as some see fit.Dirk P Broer (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should try to work with Firefox instead of Internet Explorer and you will see advantages/benefits when editing Wikipedia! This includes the Harvnb template and the reflist|2 or reflist|3 templates.Dirk P Broer (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On my machine Harvnb|Green|1967|p=509. works {EXACTLY] just like #refGreen1967|Green 1967]], p. 509., only it is far easier to notate. It highlights JUST LIKE your example, and it is an official wiki citation template....(as is the method of very elaborate naming the sources using {{cite book|last name= etc. ), which some people think is handy, but I cannot imagine myself exactly why.Dirk P Broer (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Budanova Image
Hello, I was checking the article about Katya Budanova, while revisioning my book about Soviet Airwomen, and watching the picture of the article I remembered that when I was in Moscow, last May, to meet her two nieces, Irina and Ludmilla, I showed them that exact picture and they told me that the girl in the picture is NOT Katya Budanova, but another woman pilot probably Tamara Pamiathnyk. In fact, usually books do not show that image of her. Kind Regards from Rome --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

AWB
Hi Bill, out of curiosity I thought I'd run AWB on your user contributions as you seem to have a finger in a lot of aircraft pies. To my astonishment it returned 25000 articles in your list. I'll carry on with the clean up, but please let me know if it gets in your way or if I'm doing something wrong. Yours, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi, if you are interested would be nice to have a foreigner (and therefore neutral) view for Controversies_between_Clar%C3%ADn_and_Kirchnerism, thanks --Jor70 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter
The August 2010 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) 03:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open
The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

re: Flight for Freedom
Nice work on the expansion!  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mick
Bill, see Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash. You'll note that Mick allows himself to operate by different rules than everyone else. Unless you are his intellectual "equal", as he defines it, he feals no need to treat anyone civilly. It's quite amazing that he's lasted long enough on WP to make over 20,000 edits, but he has. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than nuking Britain, no, I don't know of anything! His latest response there is par for the course with him. He acts like that when he knows he's losing the agruments. Just know that that is how he treats everyone who disagrees with him. He'll go to far someday. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also been keeping WP:ROPE in mind, but now I've got so much rope laying aournf the house that I trip every time I move! ;) WP:TEND also fits. Mostly, I'm just humoring him, and laughing at his hypocrisy in lecturing on civility, as he's the most uncivil user I've met on WP. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pooring some cold water right now. I',m sure I'll be chastised for it telling the truth, in Mick's own dirty words! - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But as the Good Book asks, "If the infantry wear you out, what will you do when the cavalry come?" Cavalry he ain't! - BilCat (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And still it goes on
Is there really nothing that can be done about this? General consensus of the community, as evidenced by many AfDs on aircraft crashes is that those involving substantial damage or hull losses of airliners are notable enough to justify an article in many cases. Yet MMN still insists on badgering every editor who !votes "keep" in any AfD which he has started. It's getting very tedious, and frankly, disruptive now. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes he is very disruptive and is now removing comments by other editors that he doesn't like. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that one, but I've removed hi comment there. I was trying to make sure he didn't "cross-examine" my opinion, and he didn't! He still seems to think he's a lawayer in a court who has to skewer the oppostion at every turn to "win" his case. That style is genrally counter-productive in AFDs, but the sheer volume of his cross examinations, and their generally incivil tone, is disruptive. It's also a presumption that the closing admins are stupid, and thet they'l only make the "right" decision if he shows the fallacy of every argument made by the opposition. At this point that's very tedious for the rest of us. - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't give an opinion to cross examine, Bil. I don't need to do anything with a vote that says 'I agree with everything and everybody', at least on that case, I think the closer will see that for what it is. But I'm glad you saw the error of trying to restore your disruptive post with the excuse it was not a valid refactor. Anyone would think we didn't have a resident supposed admin watching the discussion for such silliness. And Mjroots, you really need to be not giving the impression right now that you are canvassing support for an opinion which, no matter how often you assert is the community consenus view, is something that you absolutely refuse to put into a Guideline so that editors outside the regular circle, who are the ones creating and editing these articles, and turning up on mass to ensure that vote counting rules all, can cluefully examine and approve it against all policies, not just ILIKEIT, NOHARM, and INTERESTING. And I really don't want to have to start stalking you, but this is the second time I've seen you casually drop a link to that Afd somewhere asking for 'something to be done', while you also continue to do the very thing that I have brought an Rfc on you for, badmouthing me behind my back when nobody has ever supported you in your attempts to 'have some thing done about me' for allegedly disrupting your right to create articles that fail EVENT miserably, and which are never defended in an Afd beyond lazy hand waves and invalid votes. If an Rfc/U can do nothing about this disgraceful and completely non-admin like behaviour you continute to display, then I'm sure arbcom will. MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do take it to ArbCom. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will if it continues. But I suspect that you have misunderstood what 'it' actualy is. Arbcom will not be the least bit interested in sanctioning me so that you are free to make vague waves in Afd discussions completely unopposed. Neither will they be interested in doing the work of an ANI thread which you yourself seem extremely reluctant to kick off, presumably because ANI is pretty good at spotting a hatchet job when it sees one. What arbcom are very interested in is admins who display partizan views in dispute resolution, who only bother about enforcing rules or proposing sanctions in venues they are watching, when they conveniently prop up their side in a dispute, and generally involve themselves in conduct unbecoming, such as canvassing, false and unsubstantiated accusations, and the besmirching of others behind their back, instead of following DR. MickMacNee (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

UPS Airlines Flight 6 AfD
I've looked, and seen more of the same. As you are aware, I'm at RFC at the moment, so am wary of taking any action against MickMacNee as I don't want him to be able to turn round and yell "involved admin" back at me. I did consider posting a reciprocal RFC, but again I feel that if I did so, my motives would be questioned. If you feel that his actions warrent further action then you'll have to find another admin. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also made an administrative decision and closed the discussion at WT:AVIATION. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Il2 Suvorov controversy
Hi!

I removed the piece beacuse I think it goes against

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

Suvorovs work is not about the actual aircraft, and neither has it been shown here to be supported by another source.

I agree my editing was clumsy, but I am not got that far in learning to edit, yet:)

BTW, I'll post this on the Talk page too.

Cheers

Carl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Troll @ GD F-16

 * Relax, I just reported him to an Admin, best to ignore his rhetoric for now. Best. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185♪♫™ 07:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

CD Howe edits
Thanks for your help. Rr parker (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My RFC
Re your comment about the "root cause of the issue" - were you referring to myself, or MickMacNee's participation in AfD discussions? Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Mjroots (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite template use
A quick question on template usage&mdash;this might have been discussed at length elsewhere but bear with me&mdash;I've been wondering a few times why editors prefer manual citation like the change on Convair XFY, compared to using citation template? Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, thanks for the detailed clarification on citations; while I'm familiar with scientific citations, I do acknowledge better understanding on the finer subtleties of styles and don't have a personal preference on citation style. Within a certain field it is logical to use consistent manner on citations, no doubt about that. Perhaps I should've digged a bit more to find out, but your summary did explain quite thoroughly that question. Thanks for taking the time to answer! Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lytviak 31 July's kills
Hello, I can't find any references of the supposed kills of 31 july in Pennington, Cottam, Noogle, Sakhaida etc. books. I think that in this case the source is inaccurate. I think it is better to delete them. DO you agreed? Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Image File:BAC TSR-2.jpg - incorrect licence
Hi Bzuk, I've deleted this image as it had an incorrect licence. The image was created c 1977 but the licence you used only applies to images created prior to 1957. If I have this wrong please drop me a note and I'll reverse it - Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what can be done about this. There are free images (some on Wikipedia) of at least some of the aircraft and this non-free image would fall foul of non-free criteria #1. Now if the Imperial War Museum would release the image under a free license.... - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Warnings
Bill, once you've issued a wanring to a user, their removal of it is acknowlegement that they've read and understood it. Just report him for 3RR and that should be enough to garner him a short trem block. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hanger vs. hangar
yes... I meant hangar but in the book is written two times "hanger"... so I thought it was something of aviation that I did not know... regards... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

D.520
Ok, thanks for the correction. I am actually undertrained in the Wikipedia editings. BTW, some nice phrases like 'thanks for your contributes', would have been welcomed, even and despite my bad english. I did some adds to your editing, D.520s had only provisions for 'bomb d'eclarance', not always held them aboard. The injection system was useful (like Allison and DB.601) so i added it (see Merlin problems, as example). D.520s were little, fashinating things, Germans should had them in the B.o.B. instead of Bf-109E(:=)) (short range, until the Bf.109E-7 came, but too late). D.520 and H-75 managed to cross Mediterranean Sea, differently than MB.151/152s, too short ranged as well. Yes, i rate a bit too simple the English language, and in the meanwhile, i rate orrendously complicated the reference system, that everytime drive me crazy (and i am pretty sure, for thousands users is the same). Well, i said all. Good dayStefanomencarelli (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

It's a Wonderful Life‎
The "Ugly Betty" story, at least the bare bones of it as mentioned in the Wonderful Life article briefly, actually sounds more like a Mark Twain story, about a young girl who drowns, and it turns out that had she lived, she would have had a miserable life. That was probably in The Mysterious Stranger, but it's been a long time since I've read it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Frank Hawks.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Frank Hawks.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)