User talk:Emt147/Archive 3

?
How do i join wikiproject:aircraft?--Signor Pastrini 03:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces
Although I understand the benefit of non-breaking spaces, they are not a big deal for me. Right now, I prefer not to increase the scope of my work to include them. Sorry about that.

However, I have edited my unit formatting script and invite you to take it and make it your own. Simply follow the two steps:
 * copy User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/units_nbsp.js to User:Emt147/monobook.js/units_nbsp.js
 * add the following line to your monobook:
 * winc('User:Emt147/monobook.js/units_nbsp.js');

Also, please use the dates tab on articles you edit, articles in your watchlist, in categories of interest to you and elsewhere.

I would be more than happy to advise you on amendments.

Keep up the good work. bobblewik 09:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have something you may want
I recently found I had two copies of "The Martin B-26 Marauder: A Bibliography and Guide to Research Sources" by Esther Oyster and John O. Moench. As I know you are active in aviation history articles and the B-26 Marauder article in particular, I figured i'd offer it up to you. Hit me back if your interested. ALKIVAR &trade; 04:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RNZAF P-40 footnotes
Thanks for your help - all referenced up now :-).

Lyulka AL-7
In the Lyulka AL-7 article you mention that the engine has supersonic flow in the compressor. Can you provide any more details on this? I was under the impression that supersonic compressors were still entirely experimental; the last time I asked was about a decade ago and a guy from NASA state this. Maury 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I found your userpage had been vandalized today so I took the liberty of restoring it. And updating your little userbox to reflect your fourth vandalism. The second edit was because when I restored your page I accidently formatted it incorrectly. And I'm about to warn the vandal. LWF 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. LWF 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Douglas XP-48.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Douglas XP-48.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 fair use images 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. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Help Please?
In contacted you a couple a days ago, but you must have missed my message. Anyway, I was just curious on how I could join WikiProject: Aircraft. Could you please provide an answer on my talk page, thanks!--Signor Pastrini 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft engine
Did you ever re-write the Aircraft engine article? You laft a message on the talk page in February of 2006 saying that you would re-write it. If you have, please remove the clean-up message. Thanks, -- Weatherman1126  (  talk  ) 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Klimov VK-1
Hi,

Can you give a source for your additions concerning british technology transfer, and russian metallurgy problems? Thank you Carstenrun 21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick answer. Carstenrun

Merges and a question about your migration task list
I'm getting ready to do a couple of merges (C-6 Ute and U-21 Ute into the Beechcraft King Air), and in checking the "what links here", I came across your migration task list. Not knowing exactly what that is, I thought I'd check to make sure I'm not gonna mess up something you're working on before doing the merges. As an aside, given your username, are you an EMT in real life? (I work for a medevac provider, which is why I'm asking). Thanks! Akradecki 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) --

F-4
Hi, first of all i should warn you that one of the basic principles of wikipedia is to assume good will Assume good faith. We are trying to help to project, not to harm. Your information is not correct, cause just check the site of Turkish Air Forces. You can see the technical details of the inventory. Furthermore, Turkish Army bought AIM-120 AMRAAM just for F-4's. I think there exits a spelling mistake in your source, "able" maybe falsely written as "unable". If you are insistent, tell me your references or sources. I'd like to check them, too. Thanx e104421 8:12. 4 September 2006 (UCT)


 * As i told you above, the web site is the official site of Turkish Air Forces, there you'll see the modernization details.e104421 03:55. 4 September 2006 (UCT)

sorry
I apologize for that, my friend (who made the copy of the page) told me to copy the history. I'm actually being more serious now and not vandilizing. Once again, my apologies.

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
 * Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
 * Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
 * Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RAF Squadron
Might it be possible to deprecate RAF Squadron and use Infobox Military Unit instead? As far as I can tell, all the fields in the RAF template are available in the general one. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. I highly doubt anyone would complain—or even notice—but WT:MILHIST is usually a good place for these sorts of discussions; I've raised the question here.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the quote from CNO Mullen
Regardless of what you think of USA Today, Michael Mullen is a reputable source and a quote from him about a naval airplane is legitimate content for the F-14 Tomcat article. 66.167.139.50 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

"HAL Tejas" Assessment
Thanks for taking the time to assess the HAL Tejas article, but "Better but still needs a lot of work, including English, readability, NPOV, citations, no editorializing, etc. etc. etc." is rather broad-brush. When you can spare some time, could you please take a few minutes to offer some more specific guidance? Since I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, I've been using the WP Aircraft grading scheme examples for guidance and the F-35 Lightning II for the peak standard, and these appear to be no longer representative of current grading standards. Appreciatively, Askari Mark | Talk 01:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. Can you recommend a good example to emulate? I've taken the time to read through all of the Aircraft FA- and A-class articles and cannot say I'm very impressed. When I get the time, I'm going to look through non-Aircraft articles for better guidance, but since you're a much more experienced Wikepedian than I, you're more likely to already be familiar with some real top-notch examples. Cheers, Askari Mark | Talk 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution needed about the F-14 article
Please refer to Talk:F-14 Tomcat for a response to comments you made there, particular these comments from you about the need for arbitration:
 * This is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. Claims made by one man are given undue weight and are clearly used by the anonymous user to advance his or her giddy fanboyism of the aircraft. I will continue to revert this addition mercilessly -- if you think it belongs, call for an arbitration now (23:51, 24 September 2006)
 * This is a PR quote of no encyclopedic value and I will revert it. If you disagree, call arbitration. This conversation is over. (18:13, 28 September 2006)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Opinon
Would you please take a look at Talk:Charles de Gaulle (R 91)? We need some outside opinions on an ongoing dispute. Thanks. --BillCJ 18:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted user page?
There is a tag requesting speedy deletion of your Archive 2. There is only one edit. Is this an error or do you really want this deleted? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Thank you for your help, I'll try to do better in the future! Uhu219 09:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Giovanni Pauli images &c.
Yeah, I tried to get that deleted a while back, but it was shot down (unfortunately). I think it's extremely unprofessional, both on the part of wikipedia and the artist, to have the spam listed in articles, but whatever.

As for the specs template, yeah - I've kind of given up trying to herd the cats that keep adding fields. I suppose it doesn't really matter, in the long run, when you consider that parametrized templates are no longer a hot-button issue, but it's certainly getting a bit disorganized. I've actually stopped following WP:AIR (and removed myself from the list), stopping by there only occasionally to bitch about things like assessments and the like. Anyway, hope you had a good Christmas. ericg &#9992; 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary
The comment: "Please reconsider using "rewrite still may be required" as your routine edit summary. You are effectively showing a mile-tall glowing "f* u" middle finger to all contributors. If you don't like the article, expand it to make it better, but lay off your "you all suck" attitude. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Wow- where did this come from? I am an editor by trade, I edit an aviation magazine as well as writing aviation articles, books and the occassional screenplay. When I say, there might be a rewrite required, it's because I give articles a quick cursory look and then move on. If there are things I can't do, fix or manage right away because I am a neophyte in Wikipedia, I say that just to remind myself that I will revisit the article some other time. I do not think of any other contributors as anything but fans of the Wikipedia concept and I enjoy reading the aviation article in particular. BTW my routine edit summary is "tweaking"- that you can check out on my contributions. That is exactly what I do- I edit student work at home, give lectures on editing, work actively in a professional writers' group and I write, write, write. Something you also do for pleasure or you would not be an active contributor. Where you connected an "attitude" in a wholly innocuous statement is your problem and perception, not mine. Have a good day. Bzuk Wednesday, 27 December 2006 T 01:13 (UTC)

EMT, I have no interest in entering a flame war with you. Bzuk Wednesday, 27 December 2006 T 01:51 (UTC)

Henschel Hs 123
I see that you have cut the ending of the article where I had summed up the achievements of the aircraft. I do understand if you think that it had a tone more in line with popular history than an encyclopaedia, something I have nothing against, as I personally also wonder whether I should edit it. However, I do think that the phrase about its achievements being remarkable thinking about the number of planes manufactured could be left in the article. The comparison to the Hs 129 might have been unjust, but it is a fact that the Hs 129 suffered from a number of faults, including a cramped cockpit and being underpowered.

My personal opinion is to put the "its achievements being remarkable thinking about the number of planes manufactured"-phrase back in the article, while leaving out the rest. Perhaps also including a short mentioning about the fact that the Henschel company's next ground attack aircraft did not live up to the reputation of its predecessor.

The reason I am discussing this and not editing it myself is that I am quite new to Wikipedia, and that I don't want to start editing something only to have it re-edited by some more experienced user.

Opinions? Uhu219 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't the fact that the few aircrafts remaining at the start of Barbarossa lasted until -44 in combat an achievement in itself? Especially when thinking about the fact the design had been scheduled for retirement years before the war and the large quantitative edge of the VVS. Of course numbers on combat missions, targets claimed or munitions expanded would also be useful, but in this case I think that the aircraft can be claimed to have been successful even without further statistics. Uhu219 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it seems you are right. The word "successful" might be too strong, I see if I can find some figures and some wording that better would describe its achievements. In fact the Hs 123 is not really a favourite for me, it is just that this is one of my first articles here, so I have my feelings in here a bit too much. But lets drop this question for now, and then see what the figures say when/if I find anything. Thanks for the guiding! Uhu219 09:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:A.W.52.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A.W.52.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:A2J.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A2J.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:AF Guardian.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AF Guardian.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: cites
The problem is that you're now mixing citation types. And, even worse, the same source is cited twice in two different sections of the references section. If you're concerned with inline citations taking up space, don't use the template, just type it out. I guess I'm not seeing the issue with just using the footnote system. ericg &#9992; 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just that it was frustrating knowing that the work of generating the citation had been done; IMHO it is just as easy to copy the cite from the other article than put a fact tag in place. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Su-6
Thanks for fixing it up. :-) I'll try to pay more attention to referencing from now on. Which reminds me - if you get a chance can you look over the Beriev Be-103 article? Thanks! - Aerobird 19:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

P-38s in films
Reply: Hi EMT147, thanks for your comment and support in this issue?! As I had indicated before to Joseph/N328KF, there was some value in that the P-38 was treated as an iconic aircraft during the war years and after. The reason for including some of the minor film documentaries is that they had some intrinsic value- a rare film on Richard Bong, the shooting down of Yamamoto's Betty and a look at the P-38 production line "Rosie the Riveters" and an unusual documentary on the P-38 photo Joes. I did not go into "true" pop culture wherein Hartley Earl based the design of the first postwar Cadillac "tailfin" on the P-38's streamlined shape and twin booms. That would be streching it, but irregardless, the P-38 was an important symbol of the US war effort and the contemporary films that featured this striking aircraft do deserve a note (IMHO). Thanks again for your efforts in making Wikipedia aviation articles accurate and "readable." I really enjoy your submissions and find them very far-ranging and authoritative. Bzuk 21:44 7 January (UTC).

A6M Zero
EMT147 can you help? The same vandal has "blanked" the article again- I don't know how to resurrect the article using "popups" but I believe you do. Bzuk 3:31 9 January (UTC).

B-52
No prob. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17
As the person with the most ideas on how to improve the B-17 Flying Fortress, I'd like to get some more input. I've been working at incorporating your ideas, and could use some feedback on my progress. Thanks. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a standard wait time between A-class nominations? I don't want to rush things if it still won't pass. Also, I'm still considering your comment "Survivor does not equal Notable B-17", which I agree with but am unable to come up with an idea on how to change the section. Should it talk about planes involved in particularly interesting situations, but will never become an article? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

B-52
Just wanted you to know that your hard work on the BUFF article is appreciated! Akradecki 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress trivia
Hello. I saw you just created B-52 Stratofortress trivia. I think it's great to remove all that woefully unreferenced trivia from the main article but then again, why not just delete it? Creating a new article does not solve the main content problems namely complete lack of source and dangerously flirting with indiscriminate information. Just my 0.02$. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 06:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sort of sad, though, to realize that people will keep adding trivia to articles of that quality without realizing that it's not helpful. Oh well, we don't get to choose what reality is. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Engine Specs
Thanks for the info, some of the fields are confusing. Also thank you for tidying up after me on the new articles ! Aircraft like the Beardmore Inflexible had to be written about if just for the name !. MilborneOne 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Me-262
As I SAID, there is NO proof that the Me-262 in question was the one they did the report on. --Evil.Merlin 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I already provided my refernces, plus I updated your additions with the actual comments made in the book. --Evil.Merlin 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Sukhoi Su-12, was selected for DYK!
(Passing it along, since I accidentally got credited with starting the article - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 03:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC) : )

Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Source for Image:F6D-1_Missileer.jpg
I'm pretty sure that in order to have a valid fair use claim, you need to supply a hyperlink to the website you got the image from. Thanks, Karl Dickman talk 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Farman F.222 Picture
Hello, My mane is Diego Dabrio and I guess that you are the person who succeeded in uploading the Farman F.222 picture claiming the "right excuse" or "source" (in May 2006). I am the one who uploaded it first, and got it deleted for ignoring how hard some reviewers can be (ok, "because it's age" doesn't seem a very good reason to claim free/fair use, but...).

Trying to mend my mistake I wrote to some administrators of webpages in which there were pictures of this F.222, asking for permission to use their images, but no one ever answered. I think that most of the pictures displayed in The Internet must be violating copyrights; otherwise they would have answered something, don't you think?.

Then I forgot about this picture until recently, that I saw it there once again. Anyway, I want to show my gratitude for helping me in this quest.

I have recently uploaded some new articles about planes and engines. Would you please have a look and mend whatever mistakes you detect? You native English speakers and Masters of the Wikipedia can help a lot to all those who, like me, are neither.

Thanks a lot. Dabrio 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900
Hi, Emt147...

Last fall you were kind enough to offer your comments on the article grade for the Beechcraft 1900. I (and others) have tried to address those comments and improve the article. When you have time in your obviously (!) busy schedule, would you take a glance at the article and offer additional comment for improvement? I would like to get the article up to a "Grade A" and qualify for "Good Article" status. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikepurves (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC). Mikepurves 16:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

B-52
User:MSTCrow has taken it upon himself to remove "some rather silly fact tags". Given your post at Do we need 60 tags?, I thought you might want to weigh in on this. - BillCJ 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates
I have a question regarding the use of templates. I tried to find mention of them as being required. In a recent commented another editor echoed that in aircraft articles, templates were "required" and I cannot find that stipulation. As far as I can tell, templates are available and can be accomodated but are not mandated as the way to cite references. There are cataloguing conventions already in place in the literary world that cover all contingencies and the use of the Wikipedia templates has a form of limitations, since they invariably prescribe the APA Style which is not the "standard" for literary works. Most books utilize the MLA (Modern Language Association) guide which is more complete and adaptable, compared to the APA guide. Bzuk 6:12 1 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the prompt reply to my query. One of the problems I have with the Wikipedia entries is the constant reliance on templates where they are not required. IMHO, the Wikipedia template is a template for those who cannot "scratch" catalog on their own and is based on the (American Psychological Association) APA use for psychology, education, nursing and other social sciences. The APA style is typically used in colleges and universities as a "short" guide to references for research students. One thing that is introduced is that the date of publication is placed within the author note and not with the publication which is a bit awkward.

The style that I employ is based on the MLA (Modern Language Association) use for literature, arts and humanities which is the "standard" reference and citaiton guide for the majority of written work. Almost all publishing houses use this style with a variation called the "Chicago style."

FYI My other problem is that I have a background stemming from 35+ years as a librarian and due my ancient teachings, I had gone through rigorous training for cataloguing and reference works. As you can visualize, I am an old fossil but I have in my last few years, been able to adopt newer technology. My last assignment in a high school library was eye-opening as my library technician and I simply downloaded MARC (Machine-Accesible Record Control) information from library collections where the questionable book was already cataloged. What a joy, simply copy someone else's cataloguing and paste it into our data base. To me that is like the "template" system but it isn't always the best way. I did have to resort at times to doing my own cataloguing to correct errors. (:> Bzuk 7:11 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Problematic ISBN in Polikarpov I-180 and Polikarpov I-185
Please see my query at Talk:Polikarpov_I-180. Perhaps you still have access to the material from when you copy edited these articles?   Thanks for whatever help you can give. Keesiewonder talk 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Need for members' help with the Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Comet articles
I need some help here. One editor has constantly (12 times under his user name, perhaps many others with an IP address only, since 30 January 2007) reverted the introductory paragraph to read that the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter. Now there may be compelling arguments for this claim, however, this editor has taken to using the article and the Me 262 article as the forum for his argument rather than taking it to the discussion pages. Since there is no consensus from other editors, I believe that the most effective path would be to have bonafide sources and provide them in the discussion page. From a cursory observation of the same editor's modus operandi, he has also been involved in a similar dispute on the de Havilland Comet article where again he has championed a very nationalist viewpoint which has been characterized as "POV." What can be done? Is there a way to block his constant reversions? Bzuk 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, one could perhaps refer to an offense against the WP:3RR rule and report him/her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Is it User:Michael Shrimpton that you are referring to? MoRsE 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Bzuk23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It all looks a bit arguable, the German and British jets had considerable overlap in their introduction period into service. You need to stick to only what can be cited, POV isn't wrong provided it's somebody else's. Using a technical policy infringement to what may amount to or be perceived as enforcing your own POV isn't likely to do anyone any favours.WolfKeeper 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, if you check the history of this argument, substantial references and citations have been provided on both sides, but the discussion page was only at times the forum for the back-and-forth, which is the key reason for my commentary. I stressed on the discussion page and with the editor that was posting that if there was a questionable point raised that it should first go to the discussion page and get worked out there. Instead, there has been wholesale "chopping and dicing" going on. I do not have an abiding interest in what argument prevails but there is a lack of decorum that is being instilled. Bzuk 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Now he's at work on the de Havilland Comet site, changing and reverting areas to suit what he considers his own research. There has to be a method to challenge these constant reversions. Bzuk 23:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Want a hoot? Do a google search on our friend. I was astonished at what I found. This is a classic case of a person highly respected in his field of expertise but...Bzuk 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked User:Michael Shrimpton for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and have outlined my position on his talk page. As I have stated there, I am offering the following advice: for those involved in this dispute, try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

I think that everyone involved needs to take a step back from these articles for a moment, take a deep breath, and make sure that what they are doing is correct. Do not continue to revert each others edits or further action will be required. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

F-86
It was is some dismay fading to outright shock when I saw what had happened to the F-86 article. It simply is no longer readable. Perhaps that is the wiki way to present articles with after every sentence. You seem to have had a long list of contributions so perhaps I shouldn't complain but the F-86 article is has gone from lots of unsupported statements to being completely unreadable. To make matter worse its now been that way over a month. I'd like to talk about this.

Alright I am just going to lay this out as I see it. To mangle an article and then present it to someone else to slave away on is hardly honorable. I marked up the Battle of Waterloo and it took me oh 3 minutes. Then I did the honorable thing and contributed to the work I didn't leave it mangled so readers can't read it and others had to slave away at my behest. So if I get this right you took (lets be generous) 5 minutes and left me with 3 days of work so that the F-86 article might get back to basic readability... Our product was unreadable for 40 days until I read it because you thought that was a contribution? I don't know when this got to be acceptable behavior and I am outright disappointed that we as a project took this road instead of trying to put the best product we can produce every day. While we are on the subject I hope that I never again see you threaten another editor about removing tags so that it can be read. We need smaller tags tags or a way to mark a paragraph as a whole. I am sorry you have lost customer focus and don't understand the consternation you have caused to me and others. nuff said Tirronan 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)