User talk:Rlandmann/archive14

INCORRECTLY BLOCKED ACCOUNT
YEAH! HI YOU HAVE BLOCKED AN ACCOUNT DUE TO POSSIBLE SOCK PUPPET ACTIVITY of (ANigg) Unfortunately this computer is a SHARED Computer with many users at Los Angele Occupations Center, you have wrongfully BLOCKED MY ACCOUNT, I have no contact or knowledge of an (ANigg) I would Appreciated it if you would unblock (Skyfox265|Talk) We are many writers here contributing to the military and aviation articles of Wikipedia

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.157.244 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, Sorry I'm not sure if this is the correct way to contact you but its regarding the entry for 'Tilly bailey Irvine'. I note you removed information on the history of them because of a potential copyright issue with my This is Hartlepool website which for some reason made the news! I just wanted to confirm that they sought my permission last week and I said it was OK to use information from my site. Feel free to add it back in if you like, I'll leave that up to you. Just to confirm I do own This is Hartlepool Ive added the following confirmation page:. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.128.144 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Is this a sign of life? hope all is well and welcome back. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would second that, great to see you back. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We missed you, can you tell?! - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! A little over a year ago, I took up a very exciting new job. It's a fast-paced company, and initially, I was taking a lot of work home which effectively absorbed the time I had available for Wikipedia. Since then, things have settled down somewhat, and I'm happy to be able to start contributing again. It's nice to have been missed :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Wikipedia will always be here, there is no deadline apparently!! You might be interested to see how the aircraft engine task force has grown at WP:AETF, I think you created the first project page for us. We even have two featured engine articles that were promoted late last year!!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You disappeared so quickly and throughly we were afraid you'd been kidnapped. Would they kidnap wiki-admins?? Yes, indeed your non-nonsense brand of wiki-sense has been in short supply. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I was afraid something terrible had happened. Good to have you back! --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, good to have you back, RL. Btw, the project (well, Trevor did most of the hard work!) has developed a new specs template, Template:Aircraft specs, to try to replace the 2 older ones by combining the best features of both, along with some new functionality. It's currently in beta testing, and being used in new articles and existing ones that previously had no or little specs. Could you have a look, and see what you think? Thanks again! - BilCat (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome back!83.138.172.72 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC) - must check I'm logged in before signing!Petebutt (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Short S.45 aka T5
I have replied to your question on my talk page, to keep it all in one place. Welcome back from me too! --TraceyR (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

JAE
Just to let you know most of the missing aircraft were added to WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles which I have been working through. I have been trying to create redirects or articles for them all. I didnt create it and it includes a lot of unbuilt stuff that appears in various templates. I intend just to delete them from the templates and remove them from the list eventually as I am sure most unbuilt projects are not really notable but they have been added to templates to complete sequences! When you finish JAE ! I would welcome your opinion. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the JAE list is Cessna GG-2 is this a typo for Cessna CG-2 ? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The JAE list was included in the WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles and it is still in User:Rlandmann/JAE. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood I was not involved in creating the list just trying to reduce it! I think another user added the stuff from the "wrong" JAE list latter, it also looks like Aircraft encyclopedia topics has been redirected to the missing list as well just to confuse. I will check back and make sure we dont have any more typos! MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem with your approach it has worked well in the past. The problem I have is the missing list has picked up a lot of wierd entries from various lists around wikipedia so I will try and sort them out one at a time! I suspect I will delete the unbuilt projects from the navboxes and the list in time as some have just been filled to complete the sequence. Most unbuilt projects are not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood your comments on unbuilt projects we should try and find out what we can and I also agree with your comments on FA/GA process. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for info I have started an Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft list at User:MilborneOne/IEA, only one volume so far! MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, probably a good idea to expand the miscellaneous sections but I will try and get the bulk of the standard entries done first. Again I will do the designations as is at the moment but understood that some may be good as re-directs. It might take me a while to do all eighteen volumes but I will try and add to it when I can. Hope to have something in place before you finish JAE! MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yak-41
Hi there. Yak-141 is fictitious and was only used for propaganda purposes when registering the records set in '75 white' with the FAI.

I have changed the article to Yak-41, but I shall go back and add Yak-141 to the variantsa list as an explanation inb the articlePetebutt (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

French aircraft categories for decades of the 19th century
(exploring other ways to improve navigation for readers) -84user (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OpenSky M-02
I noticed your recent edit on this article, and I am kinda opposing the move. The project consist of at least 3 models, the 1/2, M01 and M02, so naming it the M02 is a bit specifying the whole thing too much. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I can understand why it was moved now. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ESM Wiki
Hi RL, is this you ? If it is I just bought one of the kits that you edited!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha!! Have not looked at the site much, happened across it searching for reviews of the Academy 1/48 Bf 109E-3, I am building the kit for reference for a much bigger RC scale version, nice kit so far, beyond my skills to build it properly though!!. Must bookmark that site, seems fairly new? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NEW SECTION
Hi RL, Thanks for your comments on the Slingsby glider photos I submitted (tried to submit). I must admit that learning how to contribute to Wikipedia is worse than learning Greek - a skill I've yet to master. I did spend several hours trying to understand the various 'help' articles - but it is like trying to knit spaghetti. It may be clear to the people who have been involved with this for many years - but speaking as a lifelong teacher, writer and professional editor - I am not sure I have the energy to get to grips with this. The 'help' notes seem designed to reduce the reader to biting the desktop and screaming: tautologies abound and I have yet to find a single article that says: "this is how you insert an image and place it on the page".

I wanted to respond to your request for a citation - in respect of a source for my assertion that there are still about 30 Skylark 4's in operational condition. The reference is here by the way:



So I looked up citations in 'help' and after 20 minutes wrestling with slippery eels, I am no nearer to being able to insert a citation than when I started. I might add that I have written several theses and am quite familiar with citations and footnotes.

If you can point me to a clear, lucid, exemplified help file that shows me how to contribute I will follow it up. Otherwise I will leave it to you Greek speakers.

Cheers

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borderglider (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Zenair CH 50
The trouble with the Zenair CH 50 (or Mini Z) is that there is very little information about it Jane's 82 has some specs and the fact that it first flew in 1979, but very little else - I'm not clear whether or not any plans were sold, or any more than the first prototype was built. I can't find anything useful anywhere else.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Miniplane photos
Glad I could help out there. I find a few pictures really spruce up the aircraft type articles. Now that I have most of mine indexed and accessible it is just a matter of searching to see if I have any when I see a new article listed at New articles (Aircraft). I found some to add to Nigel's articles on the Zenair CH 200 and 300 as well! - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rlandmann
You deleted that page in under 3 minutes: not even time to work on it. People want to reference things but they don't know best how it's done.

You have restored my faith
Thanks for your help - much appreciated.

Royal Air Force Conversion Units
Can you look at this for me please. i can't get the table right. Some entries won't show the lines in between them. Perhaps a suggestion on how to do it better? ThanksPetebutt (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)oops got the wrong page, this is the one I meantPetebutt (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifications
Thanks for the heads-up. :) I can see advantages and disadvantages to both templates; I'll keep the issues in mind when deciding what to use. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Template
Thanks for the note. Perhaps we should mark WikiProject Aircraft somehow so others won't make the same mistake.

-- M e  r ond e 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you've redirected it already. Great! -- M e  r ond e 20:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The The
Leave it as you found it unless it's wrong? I'm not the one adding "the" where it isn't needed.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of the uses of the name Hindenburg in the article already included (and have for a long time) the article "the" before the name (i.e., "the Hindenburg). What I did was conform the few instances where the article was missing by adding "the" in front of the name so that the usage is consistent throughout. Centpacrr (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of aviastar refs
Was this discussed somewhere first? You're hitting a lot of articles. User:LeadSongDog come howl 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the same question. You've written 'plagiarized from Jane's..'. Is there a proof, that this is from Jane's? At least for the pictures (such as He 72) and for the 3d-drawings I have extreme strong doubts that Jane's has the copyright. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi LeadSongDog -- While doing some other cleanup work I discovered just how extensively we've linked to Aviastar (around 500 links) and that as far as I can tell, they don't actually own a single thing they've put up on the site. Linking there opens us up to accusations of contributory copyright infringement at worst, and is unethical at the very least. I'll leave a note at WP:AIR. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (above moved here for continuity - User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))


 * One could say the same thing about All the World's Aircraft for that matter. Unless we have some reason to believe that they're infringing copyright it seems rather arbitrary to pick on one reference. What were the sources that you think they infringed? Were they listed in their bibliography? User:LeadSongDog <font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl 20:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up about aviastar (re: delete on my Kawasaki Ki-64 article). Cheers.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

TorrentFreak
Will you kindly share your thoughts on the value of TorrentFreak on the RS Noticeboard. It seems to me to be a rather dubious, low quality source. Wikispan (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lovetravel86
I thought, since i had the resources i felt, i could use them on Wikipedia, I'm not fussed what you delete or not delete. I thought my article on the AV-8S matador would be useful it wasn't no worries 15:28, 19 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetravel86 (talk • contribs)

Naming conventions
RL, it been a year and a half since you posted this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 22. Have you given any consideration to running it again? With the sophistication of the current WP setup, I think "manufacturer-designation-name" is feasible not just for US military aircraft (and CF aircraft too), but across the board (where applicable). I say this because we seem to have many article now that use the "manufacturer-designation-name" format, especially newer ones, and the format's usage on those pages does not seem to have caused any major problems. Just a thought, but I'd support the proposal this time. More than likely, it would have to be grandfathered in over time, with many pages to be moved, but at the least it would allow the "manufacturer-designation-name" to be used without much restiction, rather than being frowned upon as in the curren tconventions. - BilCat (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic has come up at WT:AIR, so I've made a proposal at WT:AIR. I plan to make a formal proposal at WT:AIR/NC in a few days, and I'll probbly use the introduction from your eariler proposal as background in my new one. If you are able to participate in either or both discussion, your input would be welcome. - BilCat (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Lovtravel86
I noticed in the list of air forces that there wasn't a article for both the polish army and naval forces so i used what little information i had to start them if they already exist i should have checked User:Lovetravel86 10:55, 23 May 2010

Nomination for deletion of Template:Aircraft-met
Template:Aircraft-met has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fun at Coandă-1910
You might have noticed that there's a dispute at Talk:Coandă-1910 about whether the aircraft was the first jet. The article is now locked because of edit warring. I see you have been active on the page in the past, so could you jump in again and comment?

I have a sandbox version going at Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet, perhaps you can give your opinion on that. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for coming up in the middle of your discussion, but I could not resist to comment. I don't consider at all anything funny at Coanda-1910. And I suppose I'm not the only one, but anybody who cares about Wikipedia in general. The aviation museum in Bucharest did laugh at when I told them to have a look in the English Wikipedia articles about Coanda. Their answer was that Wikipedia is not considered as source for anything as it is completely written by amateurs with their personal views. Rlandmann if you are still interested in this topic please check the discussion in the WP:RSN too.--Lsorin (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC).



Fair use rationale for File:Julius Hatry.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Julius Hatry.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Courcelles 05:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 15:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

File source problem with File:JunkersJu290.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:JunkersJu290.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC).