User talk:M Van Houten

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Aircraft article assessments
Thanks for taking the time to assess aircraft-related articles. It would be a big plus if, when you do so, you also add comments (link is on the project tag in small print), as that's how us authors get an idea of what you'd like to see improved. Thanks! Akradecki 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dornier Do 335
About the assessment of the Dornier Do 335. Wouldn't it be fairer to give the aircraft a "mid" importance, instead of "low"? It is quite a famous type in aircraft circles, although only operational in small numbers.--MoRsE 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sopwith Dolphin
M. Van Houten, you have done a magnificent job in documenting this aircraft, congratulations! Bzuk 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian 1918 Flag
You've changed flag template in SPAD S.VII article from proper 🇺🇦 Ukraine to 🇺🇦 Ukraine. I'm aware that flag in first one is not displayed, but it's SVG file issue, not template. I've made revert of your edit. --Piotr Mikołajski 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked your solution a bit and I hope someone will repair that flag. --Piotr Mikołajski 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image width
Please don't set fixed width in aviation articles, we use thumbnails instead. --Piotr Mikołajski 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, please conform your edits to WP:MOS. You may not be aware of it, but by putting fixed image widths into the thumb coding, you are disabling the user preferences feature that allows the users to decide how big thumbs get displayed. This is a part of Wikipedia, because not everyone around the world (or in the US for that matter), have nice big hi-res monitors. I sometimes edit/read on a 800px wide monitor, and having large, fixed thumbs is a serious annoyance. That's why MOS stipulates that unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, thumb sizing should be left to the individual to determine. If you're not familiar with how to set your thumb size preferences, go to the "my preferences" tab and select the "files" tab. Thanks! Akradecki 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it seems like it's selective enforcement. Just because some folks are not aware of the MOS stipulations doesn't mean everyone gets to ignore them. MOS exists for a reason, to standardize things. It seems a bit presumptive for you to intentionally disable the user preferences that others decide on, and force your view of how things should look on them. I realize that you're relatively new, so that's why I wanted to give you the detailed explanation. The bottom line, though, is that you should honor the MOS and give other readers and editors the respect of not disabling the user preferences function. Akradecki 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't like the term presumptous, but what else do you call it when a person ignores what the MOS says, ignores a polite explanation of the technical reasons of why you shouldn't hard code thumb sizes, and insists that everyone should view things the way you want to see it? You are presuming to know what's best for everyone, presuming that you are exempt from our guidelines, and presuming that your view of how the images should look supersedes all others. If you want to see them that size, then set your user preferences to that size, and allow others to view them as they prefer. If you don't think this whole thing is a good idea, take your argument to the MOS talk page. In the meantime, that's our guideline. It allows some deviation for some very specific reasons, none of which apply to what you're trying to do. As for infoboxes, there has been talk about addressing them in the MOS, but meanwhile they are addressed in the Project guidelines, and images used within an infobox are generally considered exempt from the thumb sizing rule. Again, please honor the MOS. Akradecki 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all offended by your questioning me. I am disappointed, however, that you don't seem interested in conforming your edits to our guidelines, but that's about as far as it goes. I think it's rather ironic that you protest my tone, yet you use a confrontation tone in your edit summaries, and your are clearly unwilling to respect the guidlines around here. A project of this magnitude takes a lot of folks working together, and guidelines are important to make sure there's uniformity. I don't like all the guidelines, either, but what I want and what I like is irrelevent. Likewise, you may not like the way thumbs are done around here, but if you want to work as a team with everyone else, it really helps to work within the guidelines.Akradecki 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to kindly reccomend that you listen to the helpful editors above. The mos is generally drawn up to help with the ease of understanding for all parties involved, not just the editors.  The above editors have work3ed on aircraft articles for quite a while, and are generally understand the manual of style pretty well.  If you edit war over this, or show disruptive behavior, you may end up with a short term block.  i really hope it does not come to this.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image placement

 * Copied from my talk page: "Hi Bzuk, I'm in doubt. Do I understand correctly that standard says there is no images put between and first sections' heading? I couldn't find any reference for that, but from my point of view it's logical - it's easier to edit one section than whole article. If I'm right, could you be judge in Sopwith Dolphin article? I don't want to revert someone's revert. Regards and TIA, Piotr Mikołajski 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * My reply: Good question. I know when I saw that note on the Sopwith Dolphin article's edit history, I wasn't sure what the "standard" is and made a mental note to check back later. I will do that now and get back to you. BTW, fantastic work on the aircraft articles you have been editing.


 * M Van Houten, I am not sure about the answer to the question posed above by Piotr Mikołajski. Is there a "standard" as to placement of images in MOS? Bzuk 11:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Copyedits
Copyedit from my talk page: "We are both apparently copyedit fiends. I have to say, though, I'm not aware of any convention to e serial numbers. It's not in the WP style manual, and I don't see that in any of the books on World War I aviation, where referring to aircraft by serial number is fairly common. Maybe for civil aviation codes, e.g., G-FDFE, but I have no opinion on that. As for the word "frontline," that's in the dictionary. Send me a note, let me know what you think M Van Houten (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

No, I am just a pedantic fool, but as to italicizing serial numbers, it is invariably one of the "editor's choice" decisions as it serves to identify an individual aircraft, but I am not wedded to any particular convention regarding this type of edit. As for the word "frontline," it's a modern spelling convention that allows for both spelling derivations. If you read this text in edit mode, you will also notice that Mozilla Firefox which has an active spelling dictionary, identifies the word as misspelled, which is what happened when I read the original text in Sopwith Triplane; making a correction to "front line", and the word reverts to "correctly spelled." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

Sopwith Triplane production
Copyedit from my talk page: "Bzuk, could I trouble you to look in your Windsock Datafile and see what Bruce lists as the production number? I have only his very old Profile from the 60's, where he says 147 to 150. Actually, I would lobby for the number 152. M Van Houten (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)." I have varying figures but Winchester uses "150" in total with prototypes. I'll check my local sources at the library in the next two days to get a definitive answer. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC).

Every source I have come up with lists "150" as the total produced, although Bruce Robertson's Sopwith- The Man and His Aircraft (1970) actually lists all the contracts and manufacturers of every Sopwith product. Here is the breakdown of Sopwith Triplane manufacturing: Sopwith production: N500 Prototype (110 hp Clerget), N504 Prototype (130 hp Clerget), Contract (1 October 1916) CP125849/16 for 75 aircraft, N5420-N5494, Contract CP138323/16 for 20 aircraft, N6290-NN6309, Contract for French government, for four aircraft, N524-N541. Sub-contacting to Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd. (2 December 1916), Contract for 40 aircraft, N5350-N5389, Contract for six aircraft with twin Vickers armament, N533-N538, Contract for 106 aircraft (A9813-A9918) cancelled with allocation unused.

Totals:
 * Sopwith production: 3 Prototypes, 95 production aircraft
 * Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd. production: 46 production aircraft
 * Oakley & Co. Ltd.: 3 production aircraft
 * Final total: 147 Sopwith Triplanes

Now where do the missing three aircraft come from? Sopwith had proposed three "project fighters" based on the Sopwith Triplane including two single-seaters powered by 150 hp and 200 hp Hispano engines along with a three-seat reconnaissance version powered by a 250 hp Rolls-Royce engine. As far as I can determine, none of these three projects proceeded beyond a "paper" proposal. All other modified or "special" Sopwith Triplane aircraft were obtained from available stocks. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

I will accept that Oakley may have completed three aircraft but that is still a debatable point. FWIW "150" probably is safe. Bzuk (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

After referring to a number of different sources, Peter M. Bowers and Ernest R. McDowell's Triplanes: A Pictorial History of the World's Triplanes and Multiplanes (1993) has the most authoritative listing of all production contracts and emphatically declares there were only 147 Triplanes built. FWIW, I have changed the article to reflect the actual production totals. Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

Dates and such
Hi M, here is the pertinent section on dating: Longer periods Months are expressed as whole words (February, not 2), except in the ISO 8601 format. Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes. Do not insert of between a month and a year (April 2000, not April of 2000). WP:SEASON Seasons. Because the seasons are not simply reversed in each hemisphere—and areas near the equator tend to have just wet and dry seasons—neutral wording may be preferable (in early 1990, in the second quarter of 2003, around September). Use a date or month rather than a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest). Seasons are normally spelled with a lower-case initial. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Again reading into the MOS guide, it simply is a guide but a recommendation for a simple form rather than then more complex leads you to "summer 1917" rather than "summer of 1917" which brings you back to how you recognize years. Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Putting the issue into simpler terms: choose the more effective phrase below:


 * In the summer of 1917, Manfred von Richtofen was shot down.
 * In summer 1917, Manfred von Richtofen was shot down. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

Blackburn Blackburd
I see that you put a refimprove tag on this article. Obviously you did not actually read the article, otherwise you would have seen that it has five citations already, despite being only four paragraphs long. Do try to read articles before ignorantly slapping tags on them. And try to date them correctly. You might have heard that this is August, not July. M Van Houten (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can still see only one reference, although it is cited two or three times. The article could very well be improved (and even gain some additional interesting detail) with an extra reference or two - and the tag seems to me perfectly justified. This kind of tag is aimed at an article, not the last person to edit it, as you should know. I am profoundly mortified for being a day or two out with the date on the tag (not). I have tagged a lot of unreferenced and under referenced aircraft articles lately - as well as adding references and cites to others myself. This is a valuable activity that I would have thought a keen and productive enthusiast like you would have wanted to cooperate with rather than going into a sulk over. Look up "ignorant" in a dictionary - this may help your tendency to use this word as an all-purpose insult rather than in a meaningful manner. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I used the word “ignorant” in precisely the intended manner.


 * 1)  Try counting the citations.  As I stated, there are five. Do not misrepresent the article by claiming that there are “two or three.” I am not fooled by your cheap tactics.


 * 2) You state that you “have tagged a lot of unreferenced and under referenced aircraft articles lately - as well as adding references and cites to others myself.” Really? So you didn’t just slap a tag on the last five articles I edited after you found edits you didn’t like on the Albatros D.III article? I find your sudden interest in correct citation to be rather amusing. On this page [], you stated, “personally I ‘respect’ indiscriminate footnotes spattered everywhere for the sake of it much less than a sound basic knowledge of the subject concerned.” Your own words make it difficult to take your newly proclaimed interest in citations very seriously.


 * 3) Why not candidly admit what really happened?  You’re pouting because I keep deleting your absurd claims regarding the Albatros D.III and D.V. I’m going to add the footnotes now. Then you can alleviate your ignorance by reading the cited references. M Van Houten (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I rest my case. Very glad you have found some cites to improve the Albatros articles - that was all the tag was there for, although what that has to do with this I fail (no doubt due to my "ignorance") to see. I stand by my original comments as quoted above - references and cites do not, in my opinion, make a bad article good - but they can very well make a good article better, as I am appreciating more and more as I do more Wiki editing. Perhaps I should in future check if an article has been changed at any time by you and take it off my watchlist in anticipation of sulky behaviour from you if I have the temerity to touch it? I would rather not, especially as on the whole I respect your work, and would like to be able to treat you as a fellow enthusiast rather than a sulky child - which seems to be the image you are determined to project. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Boelcke's recommendation (re. Fokker D.III)
This currently reads:

On Boelcke's recommendation, the D.III was replaced by the the new Albatros D.I on the Western Front. The Albatros became standard equipment in German fighter squadrons as sufficient examples became available.

I would prefer:

On Boelcke's recommendation, the Albatros rather than the D.III became standard equipment in German fighter squadrons as sufficient examples became available, replacing the assortment of early Halberstadt and Fokker fighters that formed their initial equipment.

I agree that merging two sentences, especially if they form more than one distinct thought, is NOT always a "stylistic improvement" - but in this case what Boelcke actually recommended was that the D.III NOT be adopted as standard equipment for the jagdstaffeln, which were at the time equipped with a mixed bag of Halberstadt and early Fokker "D"s. Instead (also on his recommendation) the Albatros D types became the standard, replacing ALL the early Halberstadt and Fokker fighters (including the handful of D.IIIs) in the jastas.

The second form, as well as being a little more succinct, conveys the idea that, rather than the Albatros "replacing" the D.III in the sense of forming the new equipment of squadrons already fully equipped with D.IIIs - it "replaced" the D.III in any plans for future equipment of the jastas.

I have not (yet) edited the article in this sense to avoid another "revert spat" between us - and because, frankly, life's too short!

You HAVE made it quite clear what you think of me - and I suspect you have a fair idea of what I think of you - but in this context this is TOTALLY irrelevant - all we are (or should be) concerned with is producing the best possible aircraft articles in Wiki (I suspect this is the only thing in the world we will ever have in common!) I would hate to see any personality clash (initiated, I think, by your reaction to my comments on that photograph of the line up of Albatros D.IIIs) prevent us from working together on occasion towards that end.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DH.6 "Possibly" first aircraft designed as a trainer??
I am a little at a loss to find a cite for this (responding to your "fact" tag) - in a way it is OR and might beed to be changed! Have you any information about an earlier "specifically designed military trainer"? Otherwise, "possibly" is pretty hard to refute, although perhaps it is too vague to be meaningful? As you probably know as well as me, before the DH.6 training was carried out in a combination of obsolete types still airworthy but no longer required at the front, with a few currently or very recently operational types for "advanced" training. Some old types were dangerous in the hands of novices and tended not to be used by training units, but there was no specific design for the purpose. I certainly know of no earlier attempt to design a type specifically as a trainer - but unless someone else has also noted this and published the fact somewhere we may not be able to mention it here! This seems a little silly - and I suspect that many Wiki articles (especially the better ones) contain this kind of "inference O.R.". All the same I want to stick to the rules.

Can you suggest a sensible "wikification" of the offending sentence, without losing any important information? Otherwise we may just have to say it was specifically designed as a trainer and leave it at that. Good to see your excellent work in improving (good) articles with improved cites, by the way. As I have said before, cites do nothing to make bad article better, but they do improve good ones.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * M. Van Hooten, I just noticed a flotilla of fact tags on a particular paragraph describing the genesis of the Airco DH.6. Since I was the primary author of the passage, I thought I would like to indicate that the citation at the bottom of the passage was to indicate that the entire paragraph was linked to A.J. Jackson's De Havilland Aircraft Since 1915 (1962). There has been a great deal of talk lately at the WP:LAYOUT that has revolved around the prolifereation of citations. Many editors involved in GA and FA reviews do have an evolving opinion about the use of citations. Although major statements or controversial issues still should have a verified source of information, the general tendency now is to recommend only one citation wherein the passage would have multiple "consolidate reference citations" from the same source or even the same page. If you have any specific concerns about the context, please introduce these at the article talk page. If there are no substantial concerns, the fact tags will be summarily removed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  23:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety talk 09:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

File:Ukraine1918.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Ukraine1918.png

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

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ORA reproduction aircraft mentions ON aircraft type pages, and the need to "leave such posts intact"...
There IS an ongoing need for short mentions for vintage aircraft type pages, backed up with reliable citations, for the authentic reproduction aircraft that have been built AND FLOWN —especially if they are powered with period-original, restored aircraft engines, by important museums like Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. A LOT of people in North America know about Old Rhinebeck, but there are even more who have very likely never heard of it, and might very well be searching for information about a specific aircraft type from the better part of a century ago (as with World War I designs) by that aircraft type (and might actually be searching Wikipedia to find where they can see that aircraft type for themselves),, and swiftly removing reliably cited mentions of ORA aircraft from the "aircraft type" pages simply does a disservice to Western Hemisphere residents who MIGHT happen to be aviation fans, AND might like to see them at a place like Old Rhinebeck.

Not everyone can easily get to Old World-located "living aviation museums" like the Shuttleworth Collection in the UK, or Omaka in New Zealand, to see authentically restored, OR authentically constructed reproduction vintage aircraft whose designs originated nearly a century ago, you know...and that's a significant part of the reason why Cole Palen created Old Rhinebeck in the first place!

Sincerely yours,

The PIPE (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Before you plan on "reporting" me regarding any "promotion" violations of any type here at Wikipedia, I'd be willing to bet the same thing MIGHT sometimes be thought of happening with things like vintage aircraft pages if, say, only British aviation museums' "survivors and reproductions" get mentioned to the exclusion of many others, as a reflection of someone else's preference for those over ones in other parts of the world. I have seen that happen occasionally at Wikipedia in a vintage aircraft article "here and there", and always wondered if those fellows got any accusations aimed their way as well.

To keep the peace, would a simple "external link" mention in the footer of a Wikipedia article, to Old Rhinebeck's OWN website page regarding a certain aircraft type that's been examined with a Wikipedia page, be an "all right" minimal mention, then? I'll still post any of my own photos (or public domain ones) of ORA's past aircraft through the Commons in that aircraft's Commons photo page, but I'd still expect (AND hope) that SOLELY an "external link" mention to ORA's own website for that type, especially if it's in ORA's collection, should still be welcomed and not "hit with a promotion call-out" of any sort.

Thanks in advance, The PIPE (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)