User talk:Rlandmann/archive7

I'm baaack :)

Image tagging for Image:Erhard_Milch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Erhard_Milch.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. 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Z aircraft catergorisation
While I'm sure it looks neat on the how to do lists, I wonder whether it is really user friendly to have the only catergorisation for the 10 or so aircraft manufactured in Zealand, being a series of clumsy bore down boxes click aircraft manufactuered in New Zealand, click Civil aircraft manufactured in New Zealand click aigricultural aircraft 1970-1979...I know that makes us kiwis look like we have a thriving aviation industry until you work out most of these boxes have only one entry - if that - but this lay out seems really more appropriate for the minority of nations who produce the majority of aircraft. If there is an irresistable urge to create these sub catergories by to comply with some Wiki policy, would it be okay to also leave all the aircraft as individual entries in a broad catergory, for more user friendly access? Winstonwolfe 08:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply on my page - completely agree with both your short and long term solutions ;-).

WikiProject Rocketry - Space WikiProjects reorganisation proposal
It has been proposed that WikiProject Launch Vehicles, of which you are a member, be moved to WikiProject Rocketry per a proposal to reorganise space-related WikiProjects. The proposal will serve to clarify and expand the scope of the project. Please post comments and support/oppose votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Thanks -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

whoa.
Welcome back! Spotted you in my watchlist and did a quadruple take. Lots has changed (aside from the cat herding). ericg ✈ 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Svencb 10:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RLM numbers
Could you be so kind and tell me when RLM gave its numbers for captured planes? I don't mean codes like Dornier Do 200, but numbers from 8-xxx range. Another request - could you be so kind and not delete sequence of Dornier planes? You may replace it by internal Dornier designations (if you know any) but don't remove valuable info at all. Piotr Mikołajski 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agree that Dornier Do 200 and similiar names should be removed, why are you adding them? Look at Dornier Do 215, you've entered Zlin 212 - plane which never got 8-212 RLM number. As for Dornier sequence - it's just RLM sequence with Dornier designs left, nothing new or revolutionary. It's made for all those who would like to look at earlier or later Dornier designs. If you can replace it with another Dornier company sequence, do it. If you are not able to replace it, leave it intact. Piotr Mikołajski 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Dornier category make no sense due to two main reasons - currently there is mix of pre-war and post-war aircraft hard to recognize for non-specialist. Second reason is more important - there are no visible and easy accessible "previous design - next design" links. I still don't know why are you going to implement failing workarounds when simple solution works excellent. Piotr Mikołajski 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your emotional approach, but you're right - further disscussion make no sens. Piotr Mikołajski 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft encyclopedia topics
Just been helping with creating redirect pages etc on the wanted aircraft encyclopedia topics, just to check it is the intention is to remove the link from the page when it goes blue ? MilborneOne 10:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiatus
Welcome back. Where'd you go? &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation
Taking license with the phrase's idiomatic possibilities, I'll go with, "Tony wants to fly", or more literally, "Anthony wants to be airborne". Best, Dr. Dan 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aérospatiale Dauphin
The Aérospatiale Dauphin article is close to being merged back into the Eurocopter Dauphin. To this point, there is no opposition, so I thought I would make sure you were aware of the merge proposal. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Aircraft
Just wondering why if the article is part of Wiki Aircraft t is not tagged in the talk page?? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 11:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged Talk:Andreasson BA-11 for you. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yak-30
Your redirect from Yak-30 trainer isn't right Yak-30 trainer is completely different plane, i'll soon write article about it. So i revert your edits Mothmolevna 07:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jahn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jahn.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong Whitworth aircraft
Well I've now done the Scimitar (and the AW.16) and probably have got enouth sources to do something for the FK10 (although I'm not sure when I will be able to get round to it). I'm afraid I can't help with the other two however. Nigel Ish 17:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving the Dragonfly article
Thanks for making the move. I searched for half an hour trying to find out who makes/made the Dragonfly without success. Rsduhamel 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Naming conventions
I thought about moving F11C Goshawk to that name also, but I made a bad decision. Perhaps I should have looked closer at the naming conventions. Some of the pages I have been editing are Builder-Designation, and some are designation-nickmname. But either way it shouldn't be all three, so... Do the links need to be fixed? That page has a lot of pages linked to it. --Colputt 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Aircrafts
Hi Rlandmann, I think you will like to take a look at these articles... Cheers, --Maurice27 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CASA C-223 Flamingo
 * Hispano Suiza HS-42
 * Hispano Aviacion HA-1109
 * Hispano Aviacion Ha 100
 * Hispano Aviacion HA 300
 * Hispano Aviacion HA 200

Permission granted by author
Hi Rlandmann. I just received a permission by one of the authors. see Talk:Hispano Aviacion HA 1109. I'm not pretty sure if this is the way to inform wikipedia... Cheers, --Maurice27 12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you have my talk page on your watch list, so: see User talk:Maurice27. Cheers, --Maurice27 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PZL-105 Flaming
Here you are. But as for PZL-126, I must admit, I've never heard of it before :-) Seems, that my books are older. I might write about it in the future, but from the page I can't tell its present status and I don't like to write about planes, that were not flown :-) By the way, as for Aircraft_encyclopedia_topics/4 - isn't missing KZ KZ III - SAI KZ III? Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW2: we have LWD Żak, so I think there's no sense to create redirects from LWD Zak-1, LWD Zak-2, and Zak-3. I haven't seen Missing A/c list before :-)Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC) - I've just added a couple of redirects, to PWS mostly.

Type 4 Heavy Machine Gun
I have added a "" template to the article Type 4 Heavy Machine Gun, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Megapixie 09:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

aerospecs template
I noticed that you are using the new aerospecs template for adding specs to aircraft articles. One thing that it doesn't have that the old {aircraft specifications}} template had is a field for adding a reference - any chance of adding this? Nigel Ish 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: CASA C-101 image
Hey, likewise and nice to see you're still editing here. Unfortunately, in the case of the CASA C-101 photo I kept no record of the original image's licencing, nor do I know if or when EADS licencing policy changed. I can't imagine why I would've tagged the photo with that tag were the licence not correspondingly permissive, but I do have to admit that I was somewhat less diligent about Wikipedia's licencing rules when I first started out here (something I'm not particularly proud of). In any case, I think it's EADS' current policy that must stand, and therefore I think we're going to have to remove the image. A pity, really. &mdash; Impi 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre behaviour from a newbie editor
Hi Rlandmann, Bzuk here and the target? of some unusual comments by a new editor in the edit summaries of the Percival Mew Gull and other articles in which he/she has been contributing, as well as the editor's talk page. If you have noticed the back-and-forth edit summaries of this editor, there has been a continuing series of insinuations and taunts that is so out of proportion to the editorial changes that were actually made by myself (or others). I haven't come across anyone so knowledgable yet unwilling to accept criticism even for the smallest of errors- spelling, typos? BTW, I left two questions on the De Havilland Gipsy Six discussion page but I don't think this editor checks the talk pages, do you have any answers to these questions (as well as an answer to the rude and insulting commentary ;} )? BTW, I always find your work on aviation articles very cogent and helpful. Bzuk 12:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
 * He did it again under a new anonyn alias,  88.110.161.238. Check edit placed right into the Percival Mew Gull article as a "disruption." Now in the "talk page" comes this comment: "Go ahead. Wiki's loss, not mine. However, instead of cutting-off your nose to spite me, why don't you look at bzuck?  No one minds typos etc. sorting, but that man clearly doesn't know his subject, - but still INSISTS on buggering-up others attempts to contribute. Your efforts are going in the wrong direction entirely." Despite the many spelling and typo errors even in his submissions/comments which were the only thing that I was attempting to address since he has a good grasp on his subject, he continues to use an "attack" mentality. I do not believe this person exhibits any civility and wants an edit war. RSVP  Bzuk 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Rlandmann, thanks for your assistance in this matter. Believe me, I have tried to remain absolutely cool in the proceedings but the article is on my watch list list so it does register on my computer when changes are made. I hope you don't think that I have any obsession over this article, one of over 400 I have contributed to, mainly in the Wikipedia aircraft vein.


 * However, I did not appreciate the personal attacks and in reviewing my edits, I noted that all were done with a cool head and no malice intended. I even think I could really like this editor because he seems to have a real feel for the subject and his factual information is typically well-researched and grounded. My nit-picking that enraged him (and others probably) is due to my dogged editing style. As you may know, I am a "line-editor" (an editor who goes over each line word by word) "by trade" and I can appreciate that this kind of exacting editing can sometimes frustrate even the calmest of authors. (On the other hand, I am also an author and can be just as prickly over some other editor's work on my masterpiece!)


 * Contributing to Wikipedia has absorbed my time of late, and has been an "addictive" diversion although I still consider it a great editing exercise to keep me sharp. I have no abiding interest in any of the many articles that I "visit" and I hope that others will see my mainly minor edits as contributing to the general welfare of the forum. As to the "Holy Grail" comment regarding the Percival Mew Gull, I came across it quite by chance in a Google search and when I noted that two different sources had been attributed to the very same remark, I thought it was worthy of inclusion, but, then again, only in the introductory paragraph as a means of establishing an overall perspective on the importance of the aircraft type. I originally had placed it in a reference note I thought but in the sashaying back and forth, it got a bit more prominence then it deserved.


 * As you probably can guess by my edits, my primary interest is in uncovering the little-known and obscure aircraft type histories. I think I have a good start on some of the more esoteric Canadian topics but when it comes to British subjects, the field is wide open with thousands of unique "one-offs" and odd ball examples. I look forward to seeing more of your work on Wikipedia and I especially will look forward to the return of our friend and I will be the first one to provide him assistance if he so desires. I now will return to the task of chronicalling the numerous "weird and wonderfuls" of the sky. Feel free to email me if you would like. Bzuk 22:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

The only reason I'm contributing, and on a deliberately very narrow specialist front, is because that's just what I happen to be informed about and I stick to the facts about those limited areas as I have them to hand. Bizarre? Obviously. It only came about because some of the misinformation on the Wiki' page was leaching out into the collective consciousness via the www. (It wasn't the only source, but it kept coming-up, as testament to Wiki's effectiveness.) Irritating stuff like the 'P6' tripe. I'm not precious about anything I've written, and I'm not particularly bothered if the whole shebang isn't Pulitzer-Prize material, - just so long as it's represents reality. Had I wished to go to town, I'd have re-written the whole thing from scratch, as what was there was merely a re-hash of cut and paste from elsewhere on the web, as so many articles are. I'm a contributor, not an 'Editor'. Non of my contributions are cut and paste. If folks want to paw over a few typos etc and 'Wikify'.... great, have fun. There is however, a world of difference between that, and what went on. Civility may be my middle name, but it certainly isn't 'dick'... but I wasn't the one doing the petty swapping. I was just sticking dogedly to the facts. I note the inclusion of the words 'obsession' and 'addictive' in the above paragraphs.....'Harrumph'...!

Am I new to Wiki? ; Yes. Am I going to contribute widely? ; No. Not enough time (Or patience!), and too much of an old curmudgeon who doesn't suffer fools gladly. I am now left to ponder just why 'seventy' years had to be dumbed-down to '70' years... Is Wiki' running short of space..?..... Sheeeesh... Well, at least I can't be accused of being a sycophant. (PontiusPilot.)

Czech planes
Why not create a template for Czech planes. Isn't the aviation topic template a little too generic? For instance after reading Avia BH-5 i'd like to see a navigation box for Czech planes not a template that will connect me to missiles. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK but what about a template for this

ONe template could organize czech planes by period or type or whatver -I thought this might be useful ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What would useful would be to have a template connecting all the articles on czech aicraft orgainzed by type or period in one template -this way after reading an article you have all the contents at your fingertips rather than sifting through complex cats. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you"    Contribs 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Word of comment - IMHO such template is senseless due to large number of types made by Czechoslovakia during 1919-1939 period. Much better are templates collecting articles about particular producers like Avia, Letov etc. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I dislike both --Rlandmann 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Navigation now in place. --Rlandmann 22:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing aircraft
Thanks for info, I wanted to add 38 new entries and planned to fill gliders from Szybowcowe Zakłady Doświadczalne. Where can I store such list? I've added some to my To-Do list - should I add all missing ones? Another question - what with fixing designations like PZL.5 instead of PZL P.5? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Within few months second volume of encyclopedia of all Polish aircraft built before 1939 will be published and list of Polish prewar planes can be made. Currently I'm adding all missing plaes to my To-Do list and it became quite long. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 07:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Raphael Hernandez runway.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Raphael Hernandez runway.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Aerospecs
Hi,

I was fixing incorrect forms of 'km/h' such as 'km/hr', 'kph', kmph, and 'kmh'. Unfortunately a lot of instances of 'kmh' are in aviation articles and can be attributed to the code in Template:Aerospecs. I know that the code is not visible to the reader but it make searches harder. It may also encourage the use of the wrong format by editors. Would it be possible to amend the code to add the slash? Thanks. Editore99 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

TH-55 Osage
Would you be willing to move Hughes 300 to TH-55 Osage, or do you think we should go through the move process? The only reason I don't want to just cut-and-paste to the new name is that there is some old history at Hughes 300, and I'd like to keep it. Thanks, whatever you decide. - BillCJ 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done --Rlandmann 04:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. - BillCJ 05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Aero A.32
Do you know, if A.32 really was a ground attack plane? On the Russian page it is described as reconnaissance-bomber. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Finnish examples were definitely intended for ground attack; but Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation and the World Aircraft Information Files both give its initial role as "army co-operation", which yes, is a better fit to Reconnaissance. I'll fix it. --Rlandmann 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:DFSlogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Orbitalcraft I
Sir, this is not a hoax. Obviously, if you watched the news, you would know that this is real.

RFA
I assume you've seen Requests for adminship/Sirhan Kennedy, but just in case. - BillCJ 05:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but thanks for the heads-up. It was that, plus this edit that makes me think that this is not a new user, but someone with an axe to grind and consciously abusing WP:AGF. BTW, would you be open to a nomination yourself? --Rlandmann 06:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm flattered! Honestly, I don't think I have a cool enough head, and tend to have tunnel vision if my own interests are involved. I do try to see the other side, but I so enjoy the argumentative process that I might not be much good. Anyway, I've only been a member since late August '06, and don't you have to have been an editor for a at least a year? (Asking, as I'm sure you know that answer). I'm also very intolerant of vandalism, esp IP vandals, and I don't think alot of the more-inclusive admins would appreciate that.


 * However, if you still think I have potential, I'd be open to seeking admin-coaching to try to help me be more objective in disputes, or anything else that might need to be worked on. You're the first person to mention an RFA, and I do really appreciate it. THanks much. - BillCJ 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually surprised that you weren't already. There's no formal length of time before an RfA, and while there's no doubt that some will balk at the shortness of your time here, I think that your number of edits and your level of involvement with WP:AIR outweigh that. I'm happy to nom you, if you're willing to accept that there's a chance that the RfA will fail on something as arbitrary as that length of time issue. --Rlandmann 06:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as you don't mind doing occasional moves for me, I don't mind waiting till at least a year for a nom. I've seen a few other's in WP:AIR get knocked out over the time thing, and don't mind waiting a bit. Knowing you'll back me when I'm ready is good to know. September will be here in just over 3 months, and I'll try to work on a few thing in the meantime. I work closely with User:Akradecki, who's going through an RfA now, and User:Chrislk02 is an admin whoe works with WP:AIR also. They are both famaliar with my edits, and I'll get some input from them too. Again thanks, and don't think I am in anyway rebuffing you or your suggestion. I am humbled by it. Thanks again. - BillCJ 07:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:24.148.176.155
Would you mind looking at User talk:24.148.176.155? He's hit the Enola Gay about 6 times in the last 4 hours. THanks. - BillCJ 01:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Aviation lists changes
Per your wishes stated in the edit summary, I raised the issue of changing the code of the template to navbar generic/default=collapsed state on the Aviation WikiProject's talk page - not Aircraft's, since the issue, from my point of view, affects pages about airports. I hope this is ok with you. I remind you that my changes did not affect the content of the template, merely suffused it with the eye-pleasing collapsed state. :) --Mareklug talk 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Avro
Copyedit from my "talk page:" "My trudge through the missing aircraft will be reaching Avro in the next few days - I'd love you to jump in and give me a hand filling in some of the gaps for this manufacturer! --Rlandmann 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love to but unfortunately I am attending an aviation history conference for the next five days but will get on to this when I am back. Bzuk 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

May 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Aviatik B.II, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Curran (talk)  20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi, there. I offer my most sincere apologies for my speedy deletion tag. I mistook the article for a test, and I'm very sorry. I am ashamed for having tried to delete an article relating to my favorite subject on Wikipedia, aviation. I better check the timestamp next time :-) Good luck, and happy editing, Curran (talk)  23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Maiden flight...
Must we strictly obey the rule, that an aircraft must go to the category, say 1930-1939, if it first flew in 1939, but was produced and used in the 1940s?... I've seen several articles with 1940-1949 category in such case, and I must say, I like it more. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take on Bartels, but maybe in 2 weeks, because I will be absent for some time now. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WWI Aircraft
Hi Rlandman. Thanks for your help per the comment on my Talk Page. Shows how much I know... I hadn't even thought of looking at the 'missing aircraft' section. I'll check it out and keep trundling on. Scoop100 08:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Shorts
Hi. Thanks for the tip re missing Shorts aircraft. I have had the Rangoon in my sights but need some time for a concerted effort (don't we all!). I'm puzzled by the Shorts 74 in the list, though. I haven't found it in the Putnam 'bible'; I'll have a look on the web one of these days - I wonder what it is? TraceyR 07:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Cuxhaven reference, which set me off on a fruitful search!
 * The situation w.r.t. the 'Shorts Type 74' is somewhat confusing, but I have come to the conclusion that there wasn't one! There was however an RNAS serial number 74, which was the first of 7 Shorts non-folding floatplanes with a Gnome 100 hp engine, with the serial nos. 69-75 (RNAS 74-80).
 * Barnes mentions a Shorts Type C folder floatplane with a 135 hp Salmson engine, the prototype of which (Shorts S.87, RNAS 135) was flown on the Cuxhaven raid. The first eight production aircraft (Shorts S.96-103, RNAS 811-818) had to be fitted with a Gnome 100 hp engine (because the Salmsons were unavailable) and these aircraft were referred to by the Admiralty ("somewhat misleadingly" as Barnes comments) as the Improved Type 74. Three of these were also on the Cuxhaven raid.
 * I still haven't found out how Shorts referred to the original 7 aircraft; in the early days they generally used (type or serial) numbers; the first named aircraft was either the Bomber (which is really a generic name) or the Shirl (a proper model name). If the improved 74 was a Type C, perhaps there was a Type A and and Type B too, and maybe one of them was the '74'. TraceyR 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update re Short Admiralty Type 74. More digging around needs to be done on this one. I have noticed that some sources refer to the "Short Folder" as a distintive type, whereas it there seem to have been several aircraft of which a 'folder' variant was produced - makes life difficult for us now. :-{ TraceyR 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ernst Heinkel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ernst Heinkel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Listt of missing aircarft (and other vehicle) topics.
Greetings. This particulat list comes from various sources from military periodicals to aviation history books. I have mainly used the spellings in the original sources, but I do know that, for example, capitaliztion may differ considerable. If you could help to identify the correct articles, all the better - Skysmith
 * Thank you. I'll update the page as soon as I can find more time. - Skysmith 09:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing aircraft List
Hi Rlandmann. Just so that I get this right for future reference; I'm guessing from the reverts that if there's not a specific article on the aircraft concerned, it stays on the list but the revert also stays, showing as a wikilink to the embedded reference in a generic article, until such time that there is a specific article? I was just wondering on some of the almost sub-variants, whether there will in fact ever be a justifiable article forthcoming? Wouldn't that mean they'll stay forevermore on the list? Still learning on all this and happy to listen to all advice; if I stick at this, I guess we'll find our paths crossing on the WWI aircraft thing, which is good, I think. Scoop100 09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Johannes Winkler.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Johannes Winkler.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian Autogyro Skyhook
You'll need sources. Reliable, independent ones. 91 Googles indicates this may be a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And you'll need to learn to stop speedying articles with an flag in place. --Rlandmann 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

PAC Fletcher
I know I know, I've been meaning to get one...actually emailled PAC asking for permission to use one off their web site but got no reply. It's not as if they are in short supply, but the only pics I've got are, for one reason or another, pretty poor quality. Next time I bump into one and am carrying a camera... Winstonwolfe 05:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have added one of my bad photos of this plane...any time you find a better one, please just replace mine :-) Winstonwolfe 04:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvette
Please have a look here - Adrian Pingstone 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't other rotaries have a throttle?
I saw the new Sh.III article, but I am curious about the statement in the intro. I was under the impression that only the Gnomes (and their clones) that used the crankcase-mixing lacked a throttle, and that many others did have a throttle. Is this not the case? Yes, I realize the Gnomes and Le Rhone's numerically far outstripped everyone else put together, but I'm counting designs here. Maury 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Breguet 14.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Breguet 14.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 07:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Barkley-Grow T8P-1
Copyedit from my page: Added this today as I plod through "B" - with three extant in Canadian museums, I wonder if you have a pic amongst your collection? Cheers --Rlandmann 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It just so happens that I have a number of photos of this aircraft type, now where did I put them?! LOL Bzuk 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Hi
I'm back and will slowly get to work. I've dropped in the Polish Aviation Museum for a half an hour before closing and took several photos of missing objects, including PZL-105 Flaming :-) Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 48/Bell 61
Just created two articles for these two Bells under the military designations (Bell R-12 and Bell HSL), not sure if you want re-directs from the company Model numbers so I have left them on the wanted list for now. MilborneOne 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Schweizer 333
In case you hadn't noticed, the Schweizer 333 page is now live. I chose 333 instead of 330, as the 333 is still in production, and 330/333 is a bit non-standard for some editors. Btw, you seem to have a knack for finding hard-to-find pics, so do you think you could try to find some pics of the 330 and 333? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bede BD-4
I made a few changes to this article. I hope you don't mind. Bzuk 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Of course not! That's what Wikipedia is for...! --Rlandmann 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas-Morse
Hi Rlandmann, I fully intended to do a whole slew of Thomas-Morse articles. I want to do the PT-3 page first to compliment the O-17 page I just uploaded. Bellancas I don't have on my radar. My To-Do list is on my User page. It is nice to be recognised and sought after by a fellow editor. Thanks.--Colputt 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the Berliner-Joyce P-16/PB-1 to my To-Do list.--Colputt 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Culver
Just trying to do some more Topics 2 aircraft and I am just looking at Culver. On the topics list is the Culver FCA is it possible to check with the source please. I suspect it might be the Culver Cadet LCA as I cant find any reference to the FCA. MilborneOne 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Human-powered flight (redirect)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Human-powered flight (redirect), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Human-powered flight (redirect) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: completely useless redirect To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Human-powered flight (redirect), please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Human-powered flight (redirect) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Airlines versus Aviation projects
Thanks for letting me know there was even another project to consider. I put my note in Aviation because the article I noticed purported to be a part of the Aviation project but made no mention of Airlines. I'll note this and see if that's the consensus. Erechtheus 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

More Canadian image requests
Hi again - the only surviving Bellanca CH-300 Pacemaker and Bellanca 31-55 Senior Skyrocket are both in Canadian museums. While I don't expect you to have photos of every aircraft preserved in Canada, I figure it always makes sense to ask locally first before looking further afield! :) (The copyright "rationale" attached to the image currently on the CH-300 page is dubious to say the least...) Thanks! --Rlandmann 00:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I'm just wondering though - where did you find that Ruud Leeuw's Senior Skyrocket photo was in the Public Domain? --Rlandmann 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi RLandmann. I read his home page and found he made this broad declaration, "One is free to use the information contained in this website" and he further indicated that credit should be given to him. I hope this is suitable as a disclaimer. Bzuk 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I will look through my files again, I was sure I had a photograph of the aircraft at the Reynolds collection but when I couldn't find one, then I went on the web to see if anyone else had a photograph. Thanks for the "heads up." Bzuk 11:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I wrote to Mr. Leeuw to ask for permission to use the photograph. Hopefully, that will change the status of the image. Bzuk 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Mr. Leeuw responded yesterday and very kindly gave me complete rights to the photograph in question and has indicated that he would be pleased to give his support and permission for its use in a Wikipedia article. Nice guys are everywhere... Bzuk 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
 * In his letter, he simply gave me permission to use the photograph. He did not make any other stipulation although the "unaltered" declaration is stated on his website. What kind of a statement would be needed in order to "clear" the use of this photograph? Bzuk 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I specifically asked him to release the image into the public domain and he agreed. I said:" Would you be able to provide this image for use in Wikipedia as a 'public domain' image?" He said: "Hello Bill, I quite endorse Wikipedia and frequently make use of the information provided so I have no hesitation to grant permission herewith. If there such a thing like a credit, plse use Credit: Ruud Leeuw. Best regards: Ruud Leeuw, Netherlands." Sound pretty unequivocal, no strictures, or other requirements excepting a credit line (and only if was possible). Cheers Bzuk 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your help, I have posted the entire reply email message on Successful requests for permission. It is a good image after all and now it works well as an illustration of a little-known aircraft. More weird stuff to come- just plinked around with the Berliner-Joyce P-16/ YP-16/PB-1 article. Bzuk 03:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

Different stuff
Hi. I think I won't write on Bartel BM-1 Maryla, because it was only a sketch. Have you any references on Pallavicino PS-1? I wrote a short article by the Polish book, but I can't find any trace of such plane in the web, while I have a vague feeling, that it might be properly called Caproni PS-1... (By the way, I'm thinking about uploading photos of such planes, with unknown copyright status, to my home page, and making external links). I've also made a highly unprofessional article on Hollsmidt 222 - I liked the photo, but it's based upon some poorly translated page only. By the way2, is there any strict rule, that thumbnails must not have fixed width? Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 22:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rough translation (non-GFDL text here): "In 1925, Aviation Department of War Ministry announced first contest for military aircraft. Awarded was, among others, a fighter design created by Ryszard Bartel during his stay in France - it took the 3rd place and 1000 zł award. It was to some extent modelled after the French Nieuport Delage, but it was not a sesquiplan (or whatever it's spelled). "Maryla" was a single-seat high-wing with a monocoque fuselage and a strut joining wing with an undercarriage. Despite award, the design was not realized as a prototype, just like all other winning designs BTW. "M" and "Maryla" was for Bartel's wife name". Bartel on the other hand, built one more plane - BM-6, but I don't know if to write about it, for it's not on your wishlist ;-) As for external links to photos - well, since there's not much hope for free photos for many historical aircraft, links with photos are very desirable in my opinion, for even best description won't substitute for a photo... Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification
Hi again - just a helpful hint with aircraft categories - the years in the classification are the decade of the aircraft's first flight, so for the T-35 first flown in 1948, the category is Category:U.S. military trainer aircraft 1940-1949. HTH! --Rlandmann 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as I explained to BillCJ, I operate on the principle that I simply blunder around and wait till someone tells me what I have done wrong. Now you've uncovered the truth; I had no idea what the accepted conventions are for categories. Thanks again, in the words of Tennessee Williams, "I've always depended on the kindness of strangers..." and on to my next blunder... {:0} Bzuk 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Blackburns
I think I may have a crack at some of these (i.e. the Bluebirds and possibly the B-2) as well as some of the odder Blackburns which aren't in the Jane's encyclopedia (but are mentioned in the Blackburn Wikipedia entry) such as the Blackburd and Cubaroo.Nigel Ish 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Articles
I have just created some more articles from Aircraft encyclopedia topics/2, only one Blackburn though, but I will leave the rest for Nigel Ish as above. I find that doing different types and articles in no particular order can be more interesting!. I will try and stick with topics/2 though! Following a link I have just noticed you asked somebody else to do the Berliner-Joyce P-16 - sorry I have just done that one! One question I looked at the Bird Innovator, this is a six-engined ! conversion of the PBY Catalina. There appears to have been only one do you think we should just sneak it into the PBY article? MilborneOne 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Ah!! Sorry... I saw you were editing the Ca.310, so I went up. If you want, give a look to my Breda Ba.64, Breda Ba.65, IMAM Ro.43, Breda Ba.88, Fiat CR 20, Fiat CR 25. Maybe they need clean up of English (I'm Italian motherlanguage). Ciao and good work!!!

Sorry about that
Didn't realize you'd be working on Beriev Be-2. --ZxqamF 03:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

de Havilland Tiger Moth
M. Rlandmann, a curious and curiouser note for your behalf. I spotted some supposedly innocuous edits in this article under the "minor" editing notation (but without explanation) by a "newbie" editor. The amount of changes did alter the article somewhat and would, at the very least, warrant a major revision notation, but it was the kind of changes that tweaked my interest. They seemed for the most part to be stylistic and "good faith edits" but they did subtly change the context of the passages. I did a quick check back through some of the aforementioned editor's other "work" and found the same pattern. He edit/corrects the article in question in his own interpretation and in the Douglas DC-5 and de Havilland Hornet articles, for example, I found his changes alter the subtext of the submissions, not a lot but enough to change the actual context/intention of the original posting. Not a big deal for now, but keep an eye on this. FWIW Bzuk 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Short Admiralty Type 74
Thanks for the note and the interest shown! I hope you don't regret it by the time you have read this lot!

There wasn't really one breakthrough moment, just an accumulation of information. One useful snippet came from a forum site : "PeterL18 November 2005, 11:47 PM Hello Please, explain to me system of designations of planes of firm Short. I do not understand. What is it you do not understand? The most familiar designation, Short 184, was applied by the Royal Navy, not Shorts. The serial number of the first aircraft in the "class", in this example 184, was used by the Navy as type designator. There is a certain naval logic in the practice which extended to other manufacturers and was not restricted to Short Brothers, although, being almost exclusively a Naval contractor, it is perhaps more noticable in their products. Is this where your confusion arises?". Then I came across the Smithsonian Institution Research Information System (SIRIS) entry on "Short Brothers UK" (start at, enter "Shorts" and follow the link). There I found answers to two problems which have bothered me - (1) this serial/type no. business and (2) why some aircraft are "Short xxxx" and others "Shorts yyyy": "Beginning with the 26th aircraft built at the Short Eastchurch and Rochester factories, the company issued constructor's numbers with an 'S.' prefix. In 1921 the company instituted a series of 'Design Index' numbers (using the same 'S.' prefix), as well as several separate series of design numbers with 'P.D.,' 'S.B.,' 'S.C.,' and 'S.D.' prefixes."

The SIRIS entry for the Admiralty Type 74 ("Short S.69 Type Tractor Seaplane (RNAS 74 - 80))" is IMO incorrect; while it is true that 'constructor's numbers' were assigned from S.26 onwards, and also that the first Constructor's Number was S.69, these were not used by Shorts as type designations. Of course when only one aircraft of a given type was built (e.g. S.26) no confusion can arise! But for the Type 74 seven constructor's numbers were assigned (S.69 - S.75) and these were never referred to as "S.69s".

The entry in Barnes Appendix F - "Constructor's Numbers - Eastchurch and Rochester (1910-48)" provides the link: "S.69-75 Tr. S/p, N/F, 100 hp Gnome, RNAS 74-80" which I assume to mean "Tractor seaplane, non-folding wings, ..."

This information, combined with the forum info ("The serial number of the first aircraft in the "class", in this example 184, was used by the Navy as type designator"), identifies the Type 74 as the batch of 7 aircraft referred to by Barnes.

Incidentally (and confusingly!) the Admiralty Type 184 was also known as the "Short 184", but this is because the Admiralty Nos. 184 and 185 were reserved for the two prototypes when the order was placed, so the type number assigned was 184.

There is still a little more to be said about the Type 74: Winston Churchill (who as First Lord of the Admiralty quickly grasped the importance of air supremacy to the fleet) was taken up in RNAS no. 76 in 1914; also one of the Dundee aircraft was wrecked off Dundee in 1915 by Flight Commander Hans Acworth Bush RNAS (who had also successfully "forced landed" RNAS No.79 off Dundee earlier the same year). He failed to return from a bombing raid in the Gallipoli campaign in 1916.

It would be good to be able to identify the fates of all seven Type 74s. I haven't yet discovered which 4 aircraft took part in the Cuxhaven Raid, although it might by logical to assume that it was the entire Dundee flight, simply because four Type 74s took part and Dundee had (at the time!) four aircraft. There is a book about the Cuxhaven Raid which probably gives this information. I have got the names of all seven pilots and several observers (one of which was Erskine Childers, whose local knowledge of the area was instrumental in the planning of the raid), so I'll no doubt expand on that article one day!

I hope this wasn't too long-winded! --TraceyR 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Hungarian translation
Thank you for coming to me with a question about the Hungarian language, I'm quite flattered. Unfortunately...Hungarian is only my third language, not my native language, and I don't speak it beyond a basic level yet. I tried Googling your KRG aircraft thing, but it didn't come up with anything. Sorry I can't be of more help--I will post some sort of notice on my userpage when I'm ready to take on small Hungarian-to-English translation tasks (English-to-Hungarian is an even farther way off still). In the meantime, you may be better served by posting a request on Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. Good luck, K. Lásztocska 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

KRG
I guess KRG sates for Központi Repülőgépgyár, but you should verify this, I am not completely sure. --Koppany 01:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Központi Repülőgépgyár means Central Aircraft Factory. Központi=Central Repülőgép= Airplane Gyár=Factory, and also Géggyár means Machine factory. Central Repair Workshops means Központi Javítóműhely/Javítóüzem. Unfortunately I can not fidn anything in Google. Tried several possible Hungarian variations, but no hits. Sorry. --Koppany 11:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your notice. I am glad that you found the answer. Good luck! --Koppany 13:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

T-40 article
Yes, that was my work. I have long been interested (and amused) at the near disaster to Naval Aviation posed by the T40 and J40 programs.

I studied Aeronautical Engineering and minored in History.

I am very scrupulous about copyrights and attribution.

I am just learning how to edit Wikipedia, so please bear with any awkwardness. Advice welcomed. Thanks.