User talk:Bzuk/Archive Oct 2007

FORK
What do you mean as 'fork', Bzuk? Is it another kind of censorship?--Stefanomencarelli 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fist, Bzuk, IF the article is contended, then the thing must be decided as soon, if not it's CENSORSHIP and nothing else.

Second, end to shxtting my articles/contr. with 3 tags. Why you not add also 'the author of this article must be fired'?. You so deeply amusing me.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my dear, you have missed Ro.41... Greetings, now wiki is *really* improved by your triple tags. Is not a personal question, obviousely. Just like CF-104, Tomcat, Viggen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Handy trick...
I've always complained about the fragility of the REF system... in the past a simple cut-n-paste could potentially render all the refs unreadable. This has been fixed, and now it's possible to put the "body" of the ref anywhere. This is really useful when combined with CITE's, which are generally so large and annoying that I avoid using them.

Check out the water memory article to see what I did. The body of the CITEs are hidden at the bottom of the page where they are easy to read, and they no longer break the flow of the article itself. The only problem is that the REFLIST sees two instances of the reference, so every one gets an ab tag, but that's a small price to pay while I see about fixing that too.

Maury 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell
I've reverted a few vandalisms, you've reverted several. Has the time come to request semi-protection? Sbowers3 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you were doing a lot of work there. Blocking the vandals should make it a lot easier for you.
 * I'm going through the history, warning the vandals, and probably reporting to WP:AIV. Sbowers3 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. One of the vandals has a long history of vandalism, came off a six-month block, and has now been blocked for another 2 years. One vandal down and nine million to go. Sbowers3 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dashes, punctuation and other sundry topics
Pardon me for responding so late, but to which editions in particular of The Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA guide were you referring, and where in them may I find those citations? DocWatson42 07:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Request
Would you mind looking at the citations in 111th Fighter Squadron and help me do a better style that is more consistant? You can put it way down low on your to-do list if you want, I just know it is one area on that page that could use work, and I still don't completly understand how to do it correctly. --Colputt 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell article
I've been keeping an eye on it and it seems its died down a little. Do you still want the sprotect? I'd be happy to put it on, just holler if it starts up again. Maury 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hughes
Just keep on sourcing. Good work. If they're objected to as primary sources or whatever, consider the RS Noticeboard. DGG (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

YWG-SLC on DL
I could not find any flights from SLC-YWG operated by Delta or Delta Connection in schedule's on Delta's website. The only flights I found from YWG-SLC is that you have to go through MSP and that is operated via a codeshare either Northwest or Pinnacle. The airport's official website does not even list Delta as a carrier operating out of the airport. Thanks.Bucs2004 02:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NoMoreLinks template
Howdy Bzuk, I agree that I wouldn't have written it in quite that tone, but the nomorelinks template has been discussed and is generally accepted: see TfD:NoMoreLinks. Of course, that isn't to say that it couldn't be improved (and shrunk!). I'll see what I can do.&mdash; Mrand T-C 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling question
BillZ, per this diff, is it "centred" or "centered" up there in in the Great North? I can't keep the differences straight in my head right now! - BillCJ 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Strategic Air Command's" Oscar Nomination
Bill, the film's Oscar nod was for the film year 1955, not 1956. True, it was nominated in early 1956, but all nominations -- and Oscars given out in Feb-Mar ceremonies -- are for the PREVIOUS film year. Google the term "Academy Award Database" (sorry, I don't have the URL handy) which will take you to the Academy's official Web site. Enter the film's title under the Academy site's "Basic Search" function and you will see that "SAC's" Oscar nomination was for 1955.
 * Right you are, my source was wrong. FWIW ever think if getting a userid? Bzuk 12:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

Image tagging for Image:F-104S-Italy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:F-104S-Italy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

F-86 references
Could you add the F-86 page to your to-do list? It needs reference adjustments that you are so good at. --Colputt 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.310
Hi Bill. I've worked on the Caproni Ca.310 article recently. Could you drop by it and see if further wikifying is needed? I've rewritten most of it and provided citations the language and reference parts are good. Thanks in advance. Manxruler 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Thanks for the help on this article, but I have some concerns with regards to the picture of a Ca.310 you uploaded. That's a Norwegian Ca.310. I think the picture is very likely to be Norwegian and hence does not fall under Italian copyright legislation... Manxruler 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think its wise to change the picture. I seem to remember that photograph from a Norwegian book on the air war during the Norwegian Campaign I read years and years ago. That might be Sola Air Station in the background of the picture. Can't be sure, but I'd say its fairly likely. Thanks for giving the article a good work over. I'll get an email address up and running soon, we should definitely cooperate. Manxruler 21:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Bailey
Greetings, Bill Zuk. Thanks for your many contributions to the "Wonderful Life" article. As further information checking, I just watched the relevent portion of the film. The narrator remarks that Harry Bailey shot down 15 planes, two of them about to crash into a transport full of soldiers. At that moment we are given the briefest glimpse of a convoy of ships. From this it seems clear that the troop transport was a ship, or possibly ships in the plural, and not a plane. Cheers, Hertz1888 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stategic Air Command (film).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stategic Air Command (film).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 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomcat - Engines and landing gear
Hi Mr. Zuk!

I just saw You further divided that part to split these two. Pasted them together because I wanted to separate engines and gear from fuselage and wings, the "top" from what is the "base". It was my intention to do so, to "force" and challenge others a bit to make shortening of the whole section easier. ;-) I contributed also to the talk page for that. If You don't mind please rearrange. Otherwise I feel that this section won't shrink...

Greetings, Andi 11:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for revert. You said: > "... but much of this technical description is nonsensical anyway- ..."

I can't tell if some this is nonsense or not, since I'm really no pro in this topic. So You could be right with critizising that section. ;-) But all in all the english version of this article seems to be the longest. May be there is some stuff needing correction or improvement/more precision, or should be found in other articles, but I am not able to do this on my own. Just got the impression that to make it more compact in a simple and effective way could help. And there wasn't much that was told about the gear so I packed both together, to prevent too much subdividing.

Thanks again, Greetings, Andi 12:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:F-104S-Italy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:F-104S-Italy.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 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

B-50
Your kindly friend BillBC has rollbacked my contributions in B-50 page. This is motived fro what? It's just a vandalism! And i cannot understand why i should been censored by someone that even is able to explain me, to not to talk collaborate, why he rollback everything i write on US machines. It's definitively amusing, mind you. And obviousely if i will contro-rollbacked you'll arrire and block the page, right? Still waiting where and what was wrong with my version 'unsurced' in CF-104, still i waiting civil manners by my fellow 'english' wikipedians. --Stefanomencarelli 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I only had to ask to you: 1- what's 'uncomprensible' in that article and 2- why -just happened with CF-104 you rated Joe Baugher american aircraft encyclopedia as 'shxt? Just to understand if it's worthing to waste time with this enclypodedia so 'kindly' manned.--Stefanomencarelli 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress
I'm working on getting this article up to FA status, and right now the references (format, etc) are a mess. Since you are quite adept at references, could have a look at cleaning these up? Thanks, - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

B-70
Could you do me a favor and give the B-70 article a read if you have some downtime? I'd really like to get a second opinion on it. Am I going too far with the detail? I only ask because, to me, it seems like it's turning into one of the best articles on the topic anywhere. I want to be sure I'm not just imagining that, and going down the wrong path. Maury 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Venom picture
The picture in the heading para of the Venom article is a Vampire. See my comments on the discussion page, Brucewgordon 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bruce, I have made a comment on your talk page and on the article's talk page. FWIW Bzuk 06:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Ta for that - see my reply. Incidentally, what are the rules regarding photos. I have some excellent Venom images ex de Havilland, that would look much better on that page. Also, do Crown copyright pictures includethose taken by members of the armed forces whilst in service? Brucewgordon 06:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-colons, citations and Buffalo(e)s
Interesting, because I was taught the opposite, in both cases. Obvious I'm telling my students the "wrong" thing too ;-) And while we are on the subject, "Buffalos", "Buffalo" and "Buffaloes" are all acceptable plurals, but we should certainly be consistent. Grant  |  Talk  06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can say is this: there are many different national varieties of English (not two, with minor variations) and many different (and constantly evolving) theories regarding punctuation. Then there are the different local styles used by publications/institutions. So, I'm inclined to accept a great deal of variation, so long as people are consistent. (The same goes for other matters of dispute like split infinitives.)


 * I was taught, as a young undergraduate, that punctuation originally was intended to indicate pauses of difference lengths in speech &mdash; and that simple rule is the one that I generally apply.


 * Lynnne Truss's work, ironically, is riddled with errors &mdash; the edition that I saw at least.


 * BTW, by "Buffalo" as a plural I meant (e.g.) "the buffalo moved as one..." But that wouldn't be sensible in an article on the aircraft ;-)  Grant  |  Talk  05:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
Delivered by grafikbot 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AE source
Hey Bzuk, Have a look at this. All the best! Gwen Gale 01:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text changes: adolf galland page
hi, your correction to the galland page of yesterday has contributed to its accuracy. when i re-worked the paragraph it was because the overall text was too loose. although the exact quote is 'an outfit of spitfires' (i also have his book here) this would be a literal translation of his words. perhaps 'squadron' would be more appropriate for readers of the english text who would be more familiar with that term. i had to deal with many similar matters in my translation (with dave zabecki) of the WW-2 german field operations manual 'Truppenfuhrung'(Q.V. wikipage). in the english rough draft i had to immediately use 'dynamic equivalence' for most of the terms ie: rendering the mental intention of the author rather than translating the words. many of the essential terms had no equivalent in english. this can be very difficult (even more so for scholars of ancient texts) and for Truppenfuhrung the exchanges with the academic review board went on for more than 3 years. this may seem to be a long-winded commentary on a single word, but it is intended only as a discussion of a principle. best wishes, bruce bruce.condell@wanadoo.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Condell (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This needs way too much work for just a cursory look Fair and swift as usual. Greetings--

from bruce condell Bruce Condell 17:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
hi bill, thanks for your mail regarding my comments on the galland question. the copy of his boook which i have here is the ballantine books paperback edition, eighth printing dated february 1967. the remark in question occurs on page 29. as this is a translation from german, i think that the english wording differs from the german sentiment. i will try to get the original. what i suspect is that when he says 'i should like an outfit of spitfires for my squadron' the word 'outfit' is being used in the sense of 'equipping/outfitting' his squadron with spitfires as a replacement for the ME-109. the translation has not taken account of this. i see that the translator is a native/mother-tongue english speaker so that the usual 'germanisms' (run-on sentences, complex side-issue discourses etc) have been avoided, but the mood of the sentence may not be fully indicated by his use of 'outfit'. although it cannot be verified until i can find somebody in germany to send me the original version, it would fit the discussion with goering, and all the political and operational tension of the conversation if he said something like (in translation): "Herr Feldmarschal! give me a squadron of spitfires" he was lucky that goering did not kick him out, but such a valuable pilot could get away with such things. best wishes, bruce. bruce condellBruce Condell 17:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (i'm slowly getting my head around the wiki software etc. in the meantime, please be patient, thanks)

Ghosttown, Oakland, California
Can you take a peak at Ghosttown, Oakland, California for me. We are debating if a particular reference is appropriate on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate your patience and civility with the current disputes in Bede BD-5‎. Thanks! --Ronz 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sid Cotton
I did a lot of work on an improved version but lost it. I will try to come back to it. The article was in need of attention, so well done. Grant |  Talk  02:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)