User talk:Bzuk/Archive Dec 2007

Copyright Status in Question
I have noticed that you have uploaded many images directly from the website WWII in Color, however, many of the images which you loaded failed to cite the source or copyright status of the images. I noticed that there was an old Wikipedia copyright template used for licensing images for the WWII in Color website but it is apparent that this template is obsolete and no longer valid. It is fair to say that at least some of the images were indeed copyrighted from various websites and the copyright which you provided on several of the images were simply made-up license templates. FAQ for WWII in Color

Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. '''This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain''' (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions). Most of the images in the gallery are products of government works and therefore are required to be in the public domain by copyright law. However, some of the images were photographed by private individuals, media or other government entities (such as the United Kingdom) that do not fall under public domain law.

-TabooTikiGod 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:P-59 Airacomet.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:B 26.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B 26.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:P-39N.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:P-39N.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Capturedfw190 red.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Fw 190A starting up.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Fw 190As in flight.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Me 262 Abandoned.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Junkers 88.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Junkers 88.1.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Junkers 88k2.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Spitfire V 316.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If it helps this image appears on the current BBMF website: and is labelled as Crown copyright which implies to me that it was taken by a UK government employee. The date from another reference is September 1942. The Squadron is noted as 303 not 316. Cheers -- Nimbus227 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mosquito Fighter-bomber.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Mosquito Fighter-bomber.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DH98 Mosquito bomber.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:DH98 Mosquito bomber.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Beaufighter252sqn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beaufighter252sqn.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Fairey Barracuda.1.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Consolidate Discussion
For all intent and purposes, please consolidate all discussions in reference to unsourced images from WWII in Color on one talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Help_needed_on_Image_challenges instead of being scattered on various pages. Thank you -TabooTikiGod 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful
- be careful when you're editing. Corvus cornix 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hi Bill. I answered to AH-64 Apache peer review request by submitting a proposal for improving the "development" paragraph. As I wrote there, I did not dare to post directly in mainspace and I posted a draft in my sandbox for reviews. Improving that text, I am now wondering if it is better to consider that work suitable for AH64_Apache article, Attack helicopter one, both of them, none of them? Thanks in advance for your opinion and help on the whole matter. --EH101 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review
F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli closed
The above-linked arbitration case has been closed. Stefanomencarelli is banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. 219.104.30.216 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith- Washington (film).jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith (film).jpg. The copy called Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith (film).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for the comment, appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mooner72
''This user appears to be a sockpuppet of TougHHead. Be wary. Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC).''


 * Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe this? (This is not an indictment, just fact-gathering.) Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Book Cites
Thanks for your tweaks on my latest edits, I have used the cite book template thing before - is it not the right format to use? MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks - I did not realise there was a difference but bottom line is if it has cite style already in the article stick with it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

G'day
Hey Bzuk, how's it going in sunny Canada? I've been keeping an eye on the Beechcraft King Air article, mainly because people keep on putting stuff in it which belongs in the Super King Air article. Anyway, I came across an interesting situation. Someone did an edit a day or two ago, adding info to the section about upgrades. The person did a poor job with the referencing and did some damage, so I reverted it. I did a little mouse clicking; this is the interesting bit - the person thoughtfully registered a user name, which is identical to the name of the manager of the company that the info was about. In other words, it looks like someone is touting for business using Wikipedia. Have you seen this before, and is there any need to do anything else? YSSYguy (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the info is actually accurate, the company holds an FAA STC for the mods. BTW we have a Federal election this weekend, hopefully that will be the last we see of some national embarrassments, fingers crossed. Howard himsef is in danger of losing his seat as the Labor party has inserted a very well known television political/current affairs journalist named Maxine McKew as its candidate, and the demographics of the electorate have changed somewhat. Didn't your Tories cop a caning a few years back?


 * I'll keep an eye on things to see if the guy figures out what he did wrong and edits again (he made such a mess I had an easy excuse to revert), but as I said, the info is accurate, and it is something I might have discovered and included myself if I had done some more digging. Regards YSSYguy (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Malton, Ontario
Malton, Ontario is located in Mississauga, not Toronto. :) And as you can see, it has an article to go with it. vıdıoman  (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just link to the article next time. It's simpler. :) vıdıoman  (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been edit wars regarding Malton? If Malton existed at the time of whatever the event was, it as in Malton. If you link to the article, it exists. You must be dealing with some pretty stubborn people. :P Linking to the article itself should be enough to end most edit wars over whether or not it exists, and if it isn't, then someone has a problem. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 03:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned highway. 'Nuff said. What a mess that has turned into! At least a megabyte of arguing in less than a month and not even close to done. The edit wars lasted only a couple days and was quite minor, but trying to find something to replace it has been a bitch. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

More than me, all I have is Decommissioned highway and there was another but it was really short. Terry Fox gets a lot of vandalism but that isn't edit warring, it's just tedious. They won't protect the thing. It went for ten days without vandalism earlier this month, which must be a record for this year. Oh, and there was an odd debate about how to pronounce Winnipeg. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Win a pig, Man a tuba. :) vıdıoman  (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean Teranna? There really is a Tirana. I thought that was interesting when I first found out. Congrats on the barnstar, btw. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Finding a publisher is hard. It must really suck to find one and then have it die on you. :/ vıdıoman  (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well congratulations! :) vıdıoman  (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * You're welcome! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Minorhistorian; help needed
Hi Bzuk From NZ. I'm finding the process of uploading images a tedious, frustrating process; The photos I'm trying to upload are all UK Government crown copyright and over 50 years old (eg Hawker Typhoon etc.) The instructions for downloading templates and providing information are, to me, downright confusing. Please, I need some help!!! Cheers and TIA Minorhistorian (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help; I've written your templates to an Open Office document. Most of the photos I intend uploading are covered under Crown Copyright or Public Domain.

CheersMinorhistorian (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Ju88-5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ju88-5.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at 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 uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bell 533
Bill, a question on your comment: I would like to see some additional inline citations and those APA styles for references still don't look right to me. Did you mean you'd like us to cite them more often in the article, cite more references, or both? Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life
I apologize. I only wish to defend myself by saying that I thought I was improving the article. I will attempt to condense it pronto; please feel free to edit it if you feel it isn't up to par.

I hope that the non–plot-related changes were okay. Sincerely, thanks for your input! –TashTish (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I pored over my additions, and I couldn't figure out what to delete. (Ironically, I found it easy to condense other parts of the article, but when it comes to plot, I tend to get a bit fanboyish.) I'll leave it to you or anybody else to cut 'n' slash.


 * In defense of myself, I don't think I added that much: I put in the part about the bloody lip because it's mentioned earlier in the plot summary then never mentioned again; I put in the part about Zuzu's petals because it's related to the bloody lip; and I felt the emotional impact of the finale was give short shrift, so I addended what I thought was as concise an addition as possible (about eight lines). Oh well, I'm just a pushover I guess. –TashTish (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I did read the article's talk page, and past edits, and boy, you're right: the past plot points were way too long. I'm sorry I rolled back the clock, to a degree. Again, maybe I'm not the best to pare it down; if you (or anyone) feels strongly about it, I won't object to just reverting my additions (really). Thanks again! –TashTish (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I didn't mean to sound like I was self-flagellating; I was really just trying to be plain civil. Anyway, I attempted to break the plot summary up to make it more manageable, but in trying to cut some of the fat, I think I also ended up throwing more things in. (It's a good thing I didn't rewatch the film, or it might have been worse.) The net result is not horrible, but a less jaundiced eye might actually improve it. Oh well, back to the drawing board. –TashTish (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Please be careful when reverting vandalism, as sometimes it isn't vandalism you're reverting (see this recent edit of yours). Good job otherwise! Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm not going to suspect for a second that you're a malicious vandal. And I know what you mean, sometimes the Wiki acts in strange ways. Just thought I'd give you a heads up though. Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell
Hi Bill, I'm continually amazed at the amount of vandalism that crops up on that page! I know that you're trying hard to improve it, and constantly having to keep one eye on these idiots doesn't help. How about asking for page protection? --Red Sunset | Talk 21:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (Thought I'd brighten up my sig.)
 * Red, see "View logs" at the top of the page when viewing edit history, and you will see that the page has been protected and unprotected more than once. What about using Twinkle? Snowman (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Secondary?
If the lack of "P-38" means it doesn't count, then you better do something about the 19XX entry that states the plane in question is the "Lightning," and links directly to the Wiki entry on the P-38. It doesn't say "P-38" in the entry or the game, so it must not be a P-38 then. Right?

I think considering the planes look exactly the same in all the games (except for the detail levels capable on each type of hardware), and are identified in at least one as actually being a P-38, then I can accurately put 2 and 2 together and make a factual edit.

Or you could have just removed the titles of the games in question.

Wycked (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that secondary use law mentioning Ace Combat. Bandai actually has the rights to faithfully reproduce the planes, not make look-alikes of them, as stated in the lengthy opening copyright/trademark screens at the beginning. I wonder if they consider Microsoft's Flight Simulator to fall into that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wycked (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "It's hard to make a case that any game is significant in reaching the general public. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)."


 * No doubt, unless it involves "accidental" nudity, the F-bomb, or repeated gore. Though a good number of the 9/11 terrorists were found to have trained on MS Flight Sim... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wycked (talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Aiight, I'm all done here. Wycked (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation style
Hi Bill. Just a quick question; is the way you write citations (and correct citations) founded in any regulations or just your personal style?

I'm mainly referring to this edit.

If there's some rule involved then I'd like to learn about it so I can amend my own citations, if not then I don't see why its better to keep everything inside like so: [text]. Isn't it better to keep the website name outside the box and the link name itself inside? I'm just thinking here. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again Bill, thanks for the very thorough lesson in MLA citations. I appreciate it. I must admit that I haven't used the MLA system for citations much, when I've created articles or brought them up from stubs I've used the system they taught us in university a couple of years ago, can't remember what that was called again. Well, anyway, I'm sure the MLA is a fine system. When encountering a article that already has references I usually use the same system used previously on that article. Often that's MLA, and that's good. The Brits have a different system, and we Norwegians another one. All professional, I assume.
 * As to the website citations, isn't it a bit over the top the include all those details? Is it really neccessary? I totally understand the need for a detailed system for book citations, and I've always included the required information in my references, but for websites I don't really see the use. Its there, you click it and you're on the page, a simple "name of site, title of page/section, and language of the site (if its not in English) should do, shouldn't it? I understand the ideal, but is it really required for websites? Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, agreed. But why is " " better than " "? They include exactly the same information? Manxruler (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Bill. I think you might have missed my last question (you did get a lot of questions from several users at the time). Why is "Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)" better than "Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)"? Manxruler 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift response. Its appreciated. Good we're in agreement. I have the same problem, sometimes messages just get lost in the stream of info. Be well. Manxruler 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill. I have been looked at this interesting dialog since the very beginning as I am obviously interested in the specific article. Here below I post the article references transformed by using standard templates.
 * What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article ?


 * What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article ? In order to improve our knowledge on this topic, which parts of these results you do not agree with ?
 * Moreover, I have several black and white RE2000 photos in my books. Do you think I could move present Swedish variant color photo in the article body and putting an Italian variant one in the infobox ? --EH101 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am impressed ! Really ! It is a pleasure to meet a real expert on these matters. What do you think if I create a MLA cite book and a MLA cite web template in my sandbox, just to experiment. It should not be too difficult. Then I could move them in mainspace and authors will have more possibilities for citations, choosing what they prefer. At the end, after a consensus check, existing and MLA templates could merge, maybe with a field MLA/APA initial switch. May I try ?
 * Relevant to the picture: the story is not so simple. Re.2000 were indeed Italians, but production figures state: 158 built of which 60 exported to Sweden, 70 to Hungary. This leaves only 28 of them in Italian service. My books say this is due to the cold welcome given to its innovative metal wing fuel filled design Regia Aeronautica felt uncomfortable with. So, amazing to say, Re.2000s could be considered Hungarian planes much more than Italian ones. Anyway,  I will upload my picture, filling the textbox, moving the other in the text body. Let’s see the result.--EH101 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article ? In order to improve our knowledge on this topic, which parts of these results you do not agree with ?
 * Moreover, I have several black and white RE2000 photos in my books. Do you think I could move present Swedish variant color photo in the article body and putting an Italian variant one in the infobox ? --EH101 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am impressed ! Really ! It is a pleasure to meet a real expert on these matters. What do you think if I create a MLA cite book and a MLA cite web template in my sandbox, just to experiment. It should not be too difficult. Then I could move them in mainspace and authors will have more possibilities for citations, choosing what they prefer. At the end, after a consensus check, existing and MLA templates could merge, maybe with a field MLA/APA initial switch. May I try ?
 * Relevant to the picture: the story is not so simple. Re.2000 were indeed Italians, but production figures state: 158 built of which 60 exported to Sweden, 70 to Hungary. This leaves only 28 of them in Italian service. My books say this is due to the cold welcome given to its innovative metal wing fuel filled design Regia Aeronautica felt uncomfortable with. So, amazing to say, Re.2000s could be considered Hungarian planes much more than Italian ones. Anyway,  I will upload my picture, filling the textbox, moving the other in the text body. Let’s see the result.--EH101 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am impressed ! Really ! It is a pleasure to meet a real expert on these matters. What do you think if I create a MLA cite book and a MLA cite web template in my sandbox, just to experiment. It should not be too difficult. Then I could move them in mainspace and authors will have more possibilities for citations, choosing what they prefer. At the end, after a consensus check, existing and MLA templates could merge, maybe with a field MLA/APA initial switch. May I try ?
 * Relevant to the picture: the story is not so simple. Re.2000 were indeed Italians, but production figures state: 158 built of which 60 exported to Sweden, 70 to Hungary. This leaves only 28 of them in Italian service. My books say this is due to the cold welcome given to its innovative metal wing fuel filled design Regia Aeronautica felt uncomfortable with. So, amazing to say, Re.2000s could be considered Hungarian planes much more than Italian ones. Anyway,  I will upload my picture, filling the textbox, moving the other in the text body. Let’s see the result.--EH101 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

G'day again
Don't know if you've heard/read about our recent election; some national embarrassments have fallen by the wayside, and some have proven to be very sore losers. Regards from Oz, once again a land for decent folk. YSSYguy (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Little Johnny Boy was never a buffoon, he was for a long time a very astute political operator who in the end seems to have been infused with colossal hubris. His government was one that did what it wanted, come what may. See MV Tampa and articles linked from that article. See also Karen Chijoff and linked articles for an attempt during the recent campaign that backfired. His government routinely blocked Freedom of Information requests. If a member of his government was accused of wrong-doing or misuse of office, he'd just wait it out until the fuss died down. He sat on his hands for days while East Timor became a bloodbath and IMO only sent troops in because there was so much clamour among the public. He did nothing about David Hicks for years, until that whole mess began to stink to high heaven. Hicks might be a terrorist, I don't know; and we will probably never know the truth because he never actually received a trial (as for Hicks' gutilty plea, what Stalin taught us is that sooner or later anyone will say anything to make "it" all stop).
 * There are commercial flights between Sydney and Canberra about every 15-20 minutes - LJB would make the trip in an RAAF BBJ (it takes about 2.5 hours to drive between the two cities). He used the BBJs even though RAAF Challengers are also available (his predecessor, also from Sydney, would charter a Cessna Conquest to make the trip at a time when the VIP fleet consisted of Falcon 900s). His trips between the two cities were far more frequent than they needed to be because he simply refused to live in the Prime Ministerial residence in Canberra, but in the PM's Sydney residence (on Sydney Harbour, with nice views of the Opera house and Harbour Bridge) instead, the only PM to do so. He justified this by saying his children were attending school in Sydney; his youngest is now 26 years old (his successor's wife flew to Canberra this week with the stated mission of finding a school for their youngest son to attend). To sum him up, IMO he is a cunning, nasty, arrogant man who got used to the trappings of office and who wanted to remain in power for its own sake, and who never twigged that there is more to life than money and selfishness. The last comment goes to his supporters too. They are howling with dismay and anger now that he is gone and I think that it is significant that one of the few Liberal-held seats in Sydney encompasses the location of the 2005 Cronulla riots. It seems likely to me that LJB's legacy will be the acceptance of hate as a political tool in this country. YSSYguy (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good riddance to Little Johnny Boy!! As an Australian as well as a New Zealander the guy was a disgrace to this part of the world.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From Noo Zeealnd
Where it's warm and sunny! Appreciate once again your help and advice over the last couple of weeks. I've spent some time editing and updating No. 485 Squadron RNZAF as well as Typhoon and Tempest related stuff. Is it possible to become addicted??? (Wikidicted?). Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft
Bill, I was following the Kelowna Flightcraft link from the Convair CV-240, and saw it redirected to Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, which is set up (correctly) as an airliner page. THere seems to be a little info on Kelowna Flightcraft's other activities there, but not much, and nothing whatsoever on their being the Convair type certificate holder, their CV5800 conversions and similar activities. Would you be interested in setting up a dedicated page for the parent company that covers a braoder range of its activities? I figure you probably have some first-hand knowledge on the company to work from, and better access to local sources. If you can't, just say so, and I'll try to throw a stub togother in a few days. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! - BillCJ 19:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

MLA citation
Just showing off. I used an MLA style citation on Helicopter flight controls. --Born2flie 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this one, found through the link you pasted in our discussion on my talk page. I think it is going to become a tool for me. --Born2flie 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation Style II
Quick question: You changed this


 * Jim Finkle, "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios", in Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005.

to this


 * Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios"

Aside from the last name first and the commas vs the periods, isn't the latter MLA style redundant, whereas the former style incorporates the hyperlink into the citation without repeating the article title? It seems that's how the other citations in the article do it. –TashTish 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * TashTish, this is how I would change this citation for simplicity as the entire tracings are embedded into the URl description and would read flawlessly as a title:

"Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios" by Jim Finkle, Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005 FWIW, check your talk page for more details as to how this all works. Bzuk 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, 9 March 2005. 4 December 2007 .
 * Taking a stab at this one. Instructor, how did I do? (P.S. I used the link I shared above.) --Born2flie 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty good, I would only make one alteration as to the dates, to be sure that the retrieval or access date is linked to the electronic file and not to the reference source (and it's usually good to have a full stop at the end of each entry:

Big Hint: Read this "string" in edit mode to see all the intricacies of editing. 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, 9 March 2005. Sunset-Gower Studios Access date: 4 December 2007. FWIW (see above for an alternative style that is perfectly acceptable in our WickyWacy world.


 * Yeah, the MLA Style guide site has the access date after the date of the reference, without a notification, and just before the link for linking to magazine internet sources. I also redid an inline reference on Autorotation (helicopter) and minus a period that I missed, I had it exactly in the MLA style the site recommended. I like that it is a standard format, or an expected standard format, regardless of the type of reference. --Born2flie 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation style III (frequency)
Hi Bill, these issues are old chestnuts for me. While I hate the Harvard system, I am obliged to use in the course of my paid work as a uni teaching assistant, I tell my students "if in doubt, cite", and that is what I stick to here as well. My boss, who is a PhD, is even more extreme, and sometimes uses citations after commas,1 <-- like that, which sometimes means more than one in a sentence.2 However, I do feel that is overzealous ;-) Grant  |  Talk  07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisunov Li-2
Hi! Yes - all is well :) Just wondering what it is about this article that you think is fishy? --Rlandmann 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WJR
Bill, that's a coincidence! Just a few weeks ago I received a request from Neil Corbett, the author of the TartanTerror Blogspot site for information to add to his Test Pilot pages! I gave him a brief outline, promising to ask my family for more detailed information on e.g. the number of WWII tours of duty (four, I believe), the number of aircraft types flown for the RNZAF, RAF and Shorts etc. There is some material at the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre and also in the London Gazette (about decorations, promotions etc). As for a wiki article, I'm sure that there are some wiki rules (there are so many!) precluding close relatives from writing biographical (hagiographic?) articles! Are you offering to help!? I could provide references (or PDFs in the case of the London Gazette) quite easily. The blogspot article provides a stub and, as it quotes more or less verbatim from my email to Neil, there would be no copyright issue there, I'm sure. --TraceyR (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Category
Does Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Flying Cross need to be changed to have a U.S. in it? Snowman (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

F-86 white space eliminated
Bill, Why did u revert my tweak of the pics to eliminate the white space?? YOU like all the white space?? I tried 4 or 5 different combos with left/center/right and different px sizes. My fix was the simpliest and most logical. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never used or seen Mozilla Firefox, heard of it tho. I used Explorer 7, and all that white space is elimiated with the map on the left and the two pics immediately on its right. Taaa daaa. I have one more idea to fix it. Then take another look, please.  If it doesn't work, please take a shot at it. Thanks, Lance.... LanceBarber (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look now> Lance.....LanceBarber (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's either one or the other- your version works in older browsers while mine works best in the Firefox browser, no problem with me, take one last look at it in either version and change it to the one you think looks best. My changes were all predicated on making a two-column list of operators but it necessitated alterations to the other two sections and a move of four graphic images (two photographs, one map and one 3-view drawing). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Lets use the single column format with multiple pics along the right side as many other articles are oriented. Other a/c articles like the F-100, F-104, and F-4 have one column with some text under each or most counties. I can not recall any a/c articles with a 2 column orientation.  THe single column with pics along the right side is common, neat, clean, and "eye" balance, thus being viewable under various browsers.  --->> Idea, how about you and I do a joint effort in researching and updating the 86 article with a touch of data or info on as many county operations and give more depth to this section.  A list of operator is nice, but some details under each one would be beneficial.  What do you think? ... Lance  LanceBarber (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, I've begun editing in some operators data. Could you please find some models, numbers, dates, and assignments for 86s delivered to Iran and Iraq. My book does not have any data. Thank you. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter references
If you have time, I've redone most of the references into an MLA format...sort of. I was moving under a timeline, so I wasn't being uber strict on format. Also a quick read through the reworded History section and what you think of the Uses section would be appreciated. All, only if you have time. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir! I shall remember all the little things as well. --Born2flie (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Bill, what is the Canadian spelling of manoeuvre/maneuver? Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

page names
Several individual named aircraft have had name changes today, including "Shoo Shoo Baby (aircraft)" and "The Pink Lady (aircraft)". A lot of the named B-17 aircraft use the name pattern "Aircraft Name (B-17)", but "Aircraft Name (aircraft)" is probably clearer for most readers. I started many of the stubs. Is there a wiki standard or wikiproject aircraft style for this? I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Hey Bill - you've been here more than long enough now - how would you feel about an RfA? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:BA Swallow.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BA Swallow.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter
I moved the article to this name since that is what was used in the article as the name for the airline. I have no idea what Kelowna Flightcraft is so I can not say what would happen to an article on it. I will say that it is apparently not the owner of Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter based on that article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kelowna Flightcraft is not listed as the owner of Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter in that article. So either the article is in error and should be corrected or your information is in error.  The question you pose is can Kelowna Flightcraft meet WP:CORP?  I don't know what that answer to that question is.  If you have sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS it may be possible to write an article.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Bill, I've replied on my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hughie Edwards
Hi mate, been away for a couple of days and can't really talk right now but if you can bear with me a bit I'd be happy to discuss. Do you want to briefly tell me what you had in mind? I know the References are very basic on that one - this was not an article I initiated, just one I saw needed some cleaning up in a hurry (think I threw in the infobox/picture as well) so I don't take full responsibility for it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Title
Well it appeared awkward to have "Variant" by itself as a section.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747
I see your changes to the references format. There was some discussion about this and I thought we were moving slowly towards a "Retrieved 2007-12-13" rather than "Access date". The reason is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style uses "Retrieved". Access date is usually used in the source code for certain reference template but the word "access date" doesn't appear in the article after the computer server processes the source code.

Any opinions to help us resolve this question. It may seem minor but I'd like to prevent a future issue where someone says "the references are wrong...." Archtransit (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'Description Missing' and 'Untagged' on photos
Sometimes the copyright issues have me tearing my hair out!! I'm using the templates you've provided, yet in my photo gallery in Wikipedia Commons I have at least one photo labeled UNTAGGED yet, as far as I can tell they all have copyright tags. Mate, for a simple yobbo like me this is frustrating So what's the problem? The site describes the copyright as "Unknown" - unless I can trace this photo back to its original source this template seems to be the most appropriate. As for the  Description Missing; again the only description I can provide is my own. Still learning....Minorhistorian (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * here's the UNTAGGED

49th Parallel
Moved :) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747 references
Thank you for your lengthy message about references. It wasn't too long a message. The topic of references has been discussed with the others. Perhaps your expertise will offer guidance. You are also welcomed and encouraged to help convert the references to a uniform standard. It is too much work for one person to do at one setting. I did a bunch but there's much work to do. The questions need to be resolved include:

1) Retrieved date or Access date.  It seems that Retrieved date is the preferred method.  Access date appears in one of the templates but the actual word "access date" will not appear in the text that the reader sees.  The reader can only see the word if they edit and look at the source code.

Therefore, it was concluded that Retrieved date is preferred over access date unless you can point out additional considerations (which I'm always interested in considering).

2) The exact formatting method.  Wikipedia allows editors to choose.  Your advice in choosing the best method is welcomed.  The usual editors of the article haven't decided yet.  One problem with the often used citation template is that it is long and negatively affects the readability of the source code, making it more difficult to edit.  It is also very difficult to enter the information compared to some of the simpler methods.

I think there was complete agreement to use one style of references.

The preliminary choice, I thought (but with no heated debate) was. Please advise us if this is wrong!

which would appear as Archtransit (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphan page
Hi, I have found a page that you might improve a little or save from deletion. It is not a page I am particularly interested. see "Larry Reithmaier". Snowman (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ♠ I started working on it.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 02:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Nikumaroro_islands_satelit_ikon.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nikumaroro_islands_satelit_ikon.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusjih (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EarhartBook.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EarhartBook.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Dream out loud (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page
for response. Usually, I respond here but since the discussion could benefit others, I'll reply on my talk page. Archtransit (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see! Need to change commas to periods so the capital R is ok. The examples given don't use a comma so we shouldn't use a small "r". Archtransit (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

AG Bell's nationality
The issue was not resolved. You have perpetrated a blatant falsehood. You have erased the indisputable fact the Bell was an American. He was also Scottish, but you can't deny that he was American. Please don't continue with this vandalism. I left in his Scottish nationality, but you have not left in his American nationality. Penser (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)penser
 * I've replied to this user on his talk page. The page covers all three, and notes Bell's American identification at one point in his life, and appears balanced per WP:NPOV. Nobody is yet in violation of 3RR, but another revert by either party would end up in such territory. Orderinchaos 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim there is consensus on this issue, but that's not true. My arguments in the discussion section, which I will reprint below, have never been refuted:

"Nationality is not some vague issue like degree of fame or greatness. It is black and white and easily verifiable. He was born and raised in Scotland, thus obviously he was Scottish at one time. He also became an American citizen, so it's undeniable that he was an American as well. Which country (of Scotland, Canada and the US) were most influential in his inventiveness? Well, they all seemed to have played a role. That's for the historians to hash out, but his nationality isn't an area of ambiguity."

Your justification for deleting the American label? Penser (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)penser

User:172.209.8.246
I'll keep a watch on the user and block him/her if there is one more undesirable edit. If this is a case of possible sockpuppetry, it requires more investigation -- you may report it to WP:ANI. You can report further vandalism from this IP to WP:AIV -- that will result in a faster block since many admins (including me) have the page on their watchlist. utcursch | talk 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)