User talk:RuthAS/archive1

Philatelic edits
Your recent edits to Pre-adhesive mail‎ imply that only public mail systems used pre-adhesive mail‎ when this is not true as stated in the next paragraph they could be court or government mail not in the public system. Mail from ordinary women and men and often bears distinctive town-marks worldwide seems like a strange statement because I don't think anyone else except men and women sent mail. I will rephrase this if you don't as it read very oddly.

Do you have a reference for the railway mail carrying date of 1830 that you used in Postal history? Verifiability is the basis of all edits so a reference would be good. I can help you insert if if you don;t know how, just let me know and I will show you.

You may be interested to join the Philately WikiProject if you are a knowledgeable philatelist and can contribute such information. Welcome and enjoy your editing. ww2censor 17:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Gower
Thank you! I couldn't find her husband's first name anywhere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Air Transport Auxiliary
It is nice to see the participation. I have undone the one edit called duplication. A book listed in the reference paragraph and then again in the further reading paragraph, is not duplication. I left the change you made to Lettice’s Forgotten Pilots as to the publisher, but this was in the References paragraph. The book I used as a reference was published as I wrote it. I realize your copy is a later publication, but in the reference section it should reference the copy I used. Keep working on Pauline, Lettice and Diana’s pages! I have a wealth of information I would be happy to share with you. (Xcnick (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Manchester Liners Ltd
It's really great to see your interest in developing the material about Manchester Liners, something that's now almost forgotten. Have you considered joining us at WP:WikiProject Greater Manchester? It would be great to have you on board. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article's coming along really nicely now. Do you have any ideas for a picture we might be able to use for the lead? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got the Manchester Port picture you sent. Before I can upload it, we need to establish what the copyright situation is. Do you know who took the photograph? Was it published in 1935, if so where? We either need to make a claim that it's in the public domain, or that the coipyright holder has allowed its use under one of the licences acceptable to wikipedia. What information do you have about the picture that could help us make our case that it's free from copyright? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article's coming along nicely as well, and getting very close to being a credible good article candidate as a result of the work you've done. I think the one big thing still missing though is some stats on Manchester Liners as a business; value/volume of goods carried, turnover, number of employees, that kind of thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I may have stumbled across what we're looking for here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alcock edits
Could you provide a source for the information added (re his taking part in competitions at Hendon etc)? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Railway Air Services
Thanks for the reply, I original created the article from the John Stroud's book and I included all the types from it. The book was a library book so I cannot check where I got the types from! but I am happy if you change it to agree with what you said. I have British Independent airline & operators which also agrees with you! sorry about that. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

 * I am not happy about valuable contributors being templated like this, and I am relieved to see that RuthAS has not taken this protocol deviation on your part too seriously. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we work differently
We probably work differently, but I find it much easier to add citations at the time I make the edit, else I'm scratching around later trying to remember where the hell I got that stuff from. Each to their own way of doing things, but remember that every fact has to be properly sourced. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

West Cheshire Railway
Hi RuthAS, thanks for the article on the WCR - been meaning to do one myself! I am thinking of doing a route template - let me know if we are duplicating effort though! Best regards Witchwooder (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Runcorn bridges
Ruth. As a Runcornian I should like to thank you for your recent edits to articles relating to Runcorn and its surroundings. However I just wonder if in the article Silver Jubilee Bridge the date of 1 February 1869 is not a little too precise. As you will see from Runcorn Railway Bridge its construction was finished and its "introductory opening" was in May 1868 and it was formerly opened for traffic in October of that year. When I wrote this section of the article I thought hard about using 1 February 1969 but opted instead for the rather vaguer (and arguably more accurate) "1868". This is the year accepted by the authoritative local historians in their published works (see refs). Would you mind if I reverted the date to 1868, and added a footnote explaining what I have said above? Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ruth. Thanks for your message.  Done as suggested above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and a question
Are we sure about that shade of red you've used for ML's funnel and flag? Doesn't look dark enough to me ... also, would you mind if I put the flag logo into a flag graphic, like on the old shipmates web site? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another quick question: Initial operations 1898–1914 says that the first two ships were bought in May, but the first sailing was in April. Is that right? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Manchester Liners
Nothing improves an article faster than being put in the spotlight of a community review process. I think we've still got a little bit to do, but we can do that pretty quickly. I'd suggest that you nominate Manchester Liners at WP:GAN as soon as you yourself feel comfortable with the article. Faint heart never won fair lady, and you'll have lots of help and support from the rest of the GM team. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had some kind of edit conflict when I tried to reply earlier, but I'd say that the article's biggest weakness is the lead. If we get that right then the rest will fall into place. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope the GA nomination goes well. Looking through again I noticed we haven't given a source for the facts in the infobox (£30 million revenue and number of employees). I seem to remember that was in the takeover panel document, but you may have a better source. On reflection we probably ought to say a little about the company's financial performance if possible. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm perhaps being tougher than your GA reviewer will be, but there seems to be a discrepancy between the statement in the lead that the size of locks restricted access to vessels of approximately 9,000 gross tons and the size given for Manchester Concorde, 11,898 grt. I'm also wondering whether we need metric conversions for all of these tonnages. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kbely
Hi, great article, have you thought of putting it forward for a front page DYK? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The XF-104 was my first article, it was nominated for deletion within a day! I am a little pressed for time as I have to go to work but I will look into a DYK nomination later and let you know where it is. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked the DYK rules and nominated articles need to be at least 1500 words, I think there are about 430 in this article. Never mind but it can still be improved a little bit and we'll get it assessed as well. Got go go! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good news, it was pointed out to me that I misread the rules, it is 1500 characters, not words, my mistake. I have nominated the article for DYK here. Could you add a cite to the end of that sentence in the article as they like the 'hook' line to be directly cited although it might be accepted as it is. Fingers crossed! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The cite has been added by a friendly editor, fingers still crossed! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackpool International Airport
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. -- ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 00:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Loaded guns can be dangerous ...
Don't hand your reviewer a loaded pistol. ;-) If there's anything currently not cited that (s)he feels needs to be, then I'm sure (s)he won't be backwards in coming forwards. You're right in what you say though. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations, you've written your first GA! Now that you know what to expect, I'm sure it'll be the first of many. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I just looked at your user page. I can't believe how many articles you've created! I think I've probably only created half a dozen or so in two years. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. Reviewing GANs, I think, is possibly easier than creating GAs; and yours was effectively a GA before I starting playing around with it. Interestingly quite of a few of them seem to be from the Greater Manchester WP, so perhaps I might see another one of yours in the future.Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The GM project is insanely energetic. You were kind enough to do the GA review for the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine a few weeks ago. I'm hoping to get its successor, the Manchester Mark 1 to GAN shortly. I don't suppose you'd be interested in reviewing that one as well? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll be happy to do it. I'm currently doing a Polish GAN and I might do a power station and/or a river afterwards; but I shalln't be doing much work at all on wikipedia the middle two weeks of Feb - how about the Mk I in nominally one-month's time (or later)?Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm hoping to be able to nominate at GAN in the next week or so. It's probably not a topic likely to attract many reviewers, so if it's still languishing when you have a free slot I'd be grateful if you'd pick it up and put it out of its misery. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwings

 * Well deserved. Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

"Zura"
I had the honour of writing the biography and life story of Janusz Żurakowski. He was able to read and vet the manuscript a mere four days prior to his passing. A magnificent pilot and gracious, gentle man whose intellect and sage advice sustained the writing project to completion. I have recently sold the book rights to a Polish publisher so that the international edition of the book will be translated and available to a Polish-speaking readership. I envy you, I wish I had seen Zura fly, the best I can claim is as a passenger in a one-hour harrowing ride through backwoods near his estate with his steady and fearless hand at the steering wheel of an SUV. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

Anson
Hi RuthAS, I agree that a period photo of an Anson would be most appropriate for the infobox. I have a World War II vintage colour photo of an RAF Anson but its status is a bit questionable but I defer to your better judgement, especially if you have an usable image. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC). This is the image: FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

New aircraft articles
Hello, can I ask if you create a new aircraft article to add it here - New articles (Aircraft) it helps other editors in the aircraft project become aware of new articles so we can all check and help each other. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont worry if you do not get the layout of the articles correct first time we have lots of helpful editors that will tidy up behind you. We do have templates and guidelines at WikiProject Aircraft/page content and if you have any questions or need help the you can always ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft or on my talk page. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Farnborough in the 50s
I have noticed that, amongst your many contributions to Wikipedia over recent months, you have been adding your own photos from the 50s onwards, and wonder whether you have any of the several Shorts experimental aircraft of the time - Sperrin, Seamew, Sherpa, SC.1 etc. They would be welcome additions to the respective articles! BTW I'm impressed by the quality and quantity of your contributions here! --TraceyR (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll look forward to their arrival! I'll be having an enforced break soon (work interfering with pleasure!), also taking a breather after a somewhat obsessive time on the Lebaudy Patrie! Thanks for the prompt reply. --TraceyR (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor tip
Ruth, when adding a new topic to a talk page, you can select "new section" (next to "edit this page"). This has the advantage of including the new section header on the watchlist entry, rather than the heading of the previous topic. A minor point but quite useful. --TraceyR (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I only stumbled across it when it changed from (I think) an enigmatic "-" to "new section". As for how to set up a new article, I also have my problems. Usually I find something similar and use that as a basis - it's so long since I did it that I can't remember how it worked; experimenting in the "sandbox" helped. Thanks for all the photos - you must have started photographing aircraft at an early age! --TraceyR (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Blackpool Winter Gardens airfiled?
This is a question for you, I think, Ruth: While browsing through the Flight Global photo archive (as one does) I came across some photos taken at the Winter Gardens airfield. I don't think that is refers to Squires Gate, but where could it have been? Any ideas? Perhaps this is a worthy subject for an article! --TraceyR (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There a photo here - many others in the "historical pre-1914" section ("Every vantage point is taken up by the crowds around the venue for the Flying Meeting at Winter Gardens Flying Ground, Blackpool 1910. Filed under: 1910, Blackpool"). The Blackpool article claims "This airport which was formerly known as Blackpool Squires Gate Airport, is one of the oldest in the UK having hosted public flying meetings in 1909 and 1910", so maybe it was at Squires Gate after all. --TraceyR (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation
Feel free to add your name to this list WikiProject_Aviation/Members to formally join the WikiProject Aviation. You're there in spirit already! Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Redcoat Air Cargo
May be a bit modern for you but I have just created Redcoat Air Cargo appreciate any help. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Chilton D.W.1
Evening Ruth: Just been looking at your latest article. Redolent photos you have. You said there are two pre-war Chiltons airworthy in 2005: are these AESZ and AFGI? According to the current CAA database, the first of these has a permit to fly, the second did until 2007. 'GI has a Walter Mikron motor. There are two other pre-war Chiltons still registered, AFGH and 'SV (a 1A) but with no current C/A. 'GH has a Lycoming. There are also 4 x >1990 Chiltons registered with unspecified engines, one of which is described as a 1B.TSRL (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Morning Ruth: I've been in touch with Roy Nerou, who owns two of the prewar Chiltons and who provides plan to builders. As a result I've revised the post-war construction part. The only remaining nag is that Simpson says the Lycoming engined aircraft, almost certainly G-BWCJ, first flew in 1987.  If the i/d is right, the date cannot be: Nerou provided plans in '93 and it was both registered and recorded as built (CAA) in '95.  Wonder if Simpson meant 1997.  Anyway, I thought it safer to leave that date out.TSRL (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An alternative interpretation of Simpson is that the date is right, the aircraft the Canadian (he just says the first post-war, not first in the UK) but that the engine is wrong, perhaps confused with that of 'BWGJ. Nerou is steeped in Chiltons and I'm sure he is right.TSRL (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Westland 30
Thanks so much for adding the free image to the Westland 30 article. It's a rare bird, so free images were almost impossible to find. You've adapted well to the WP environment in the past few months, and I have enjoyed your many contributions, especially the photos of harder-to-find aircraft. Keep up the good work. - BillCJ (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, and enjoy the summer! As you probably realize by now, even though no one technically "owns" any WP articles, the ones you create are "special", and one likes to see them grow and prosper. - BillCJ (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Air Car
No worries. If I wanted to destroy your article I would've placed a prod on it ;) I was merely wondering about this tiny pre-stub without even technical data being given. It's simply confusing when new articles are being put together from bits and pieces instead of uploading it all at once. De728631 (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you all the time you need, but I'm afraid I've seen too many people here who won't. Hence my suggestion to start articles with a bit more substance to them. But of course you're free to do it your way. Keep up the good work. De728631 (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Design and development" looks good now, but as to saving content, I've experienced that before. It seems to be some sort of server lag causing your edit to disappear while it is actually saved on the server. Usually clearing your browser cache and reloading the page will help. As to the specs of this aircraft, would you mind if I added them from ? De728631 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger that, I added some metric conversions. De728631 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ruth, I've added some metric values for the Twin Bee too. Nice article. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ML-10
Afternoon Ruth. I've added Imperial units and also the metric engine power. If you specify met and only enter hp, no engine detail shows in Specs. The calc is kw=hp*0.746. I've also deliberately made Regnier a red link. It looked OK before but did not lead to to an engine maker; forcing it red may attract an engine enthusiast's attention and result in a page. Maybe one can put it on a wanted article list: I'll have a look.TSRL (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the engine model etc: Jane's 1957 has no mention of Regnier, but the 1938 ed. does. Maybe they did not restart in 1945.  Jane's '38 does include a model of the right hp (or chevaux!), the air cooled R.6.  That may well be it.TSRL (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that's the way to go. No point guessing!TSRL (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwings

 * You are welcome - I think you are doing a great job writing articles on some of the types that would otherwise be overlooked and that deserves encouragement! - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Article names
Just to let you know I changed back your move from N2T Tutor to Timm N2T Tutor please refer WikiProject Aircraft/Naming. Strange I know but it is an American thing for some reason they like the designation first on US Mil aircraft. Keep up the good work. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like all thing we have an exception, if the US mil aircraft doesnt have an official name, which means Columbia JL is correct - strange but true. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Auster designation
I have noticed that you have changed the format in some of the Auster designations from J-4 to J/4, do you have a reliable source on what Auster actually used or I would be interested why you prefer the J/4 format. Jackson uses the J-4 format and the CAA uses J4. Thanks?

The two Auster books recently added to the bibliography for some Wiki Auster articles, were written by (a) Ambrose Hitchman, sales director of Auster Aircraft from 1950 onwards and (b) N.H. Ellison, the past semi-official historian and senior employee of Auster's. The two gentlemen both authoritatively use the J/1 etc format, which has been adopted by serious aviation historians for the last sixty years. For example, the annual UK registers published since the mid-sixties by Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd, the international association of aviation historians, consistently use the manufacturer's own 'J/1' etc format. Yes, Jackson uses J-1, but on this occasion, he is not right - as he almost always is, otherwise! RuthAS (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK no problem, as a member of AB for forty years I have to agree with you! MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Talking Auster, that is a good pic of the AOP.11 that you have added to the AOP.9 page. I have a photo taken on the same day from the left hand end of the Beagle gathering, but the AOP.11 is either just out of shot or away.  From the above discussion, you have some useful Auster sources: are there any answers to the questions I have just put upon the AOP.9 discussion page, partly as a result of talking to Milbourne?  I ask in case you are not watching that page.TSRL (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * TSRL I have a copy of "Auster - a brief history of the Auster aircraft in British Military Service" by Barry Ketley (2005). Mainly on the early Austers and the AOP.6, but some narrative on the AOP.9. It seems well researched. Will add material from it to the AOP.9 article over the next few days. Nothing on the Indian machines. RuthAS (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Heston model 5 Racer
Evening RuthAs: re your edit, you might be interested in my comments on MilbourneOne's page about the divergence of quoted data from that of its supposed source.TSRL (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Piper PA-11 & Piper J-5
Hi Ruth, Sorry I missed doing this for you yesterday - I got distracted! It is done now and I even found a J-5 photo to go with the article. Hope that all helps! - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Waco 9
Hi Ruth: Thanks for your note on the Waco 9 photo. I had taken the original photo on Commons which was very under exposed and adjusted the brightness and contrast to make it more visible. I have just started over again to see if I can improve on the last try and, due to the limitations of the original, that is the best I can do with it. The alternative is to restore the original. I don't suppose you have another photo of that aurcraft?

There is great photo editing software available for free. I use GIMP which is available for Windows, Linux and Mac. It works really well - better than photoshop! The Windows download is available here - Ahunt (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WACO
Thanks for your note. I see that! I have created a new nav box for the Waco articles, hopefully that will help get things organized. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Waco 10
Evening RuthAs: Well deserved above. Do you know of any other Waco series O Taperwings apart from the ATO and CTO? I'd quite like a "numbers built" column added to the Variants table: any info?TSRL (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mr Hunt and "Mr TSRL" - most kind and encouraging of you both! Have been away for a few days looking at old de Havillands with a friend. Was fortunate enough to fly in a DH.84 Dragon. Will see what I have on the Waco O series - this is a complicated story that really starts with the Waco models 10 and GXE, from which the 'O' was a close development. RuthAS (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Afternoon Ruth: Dragon, eh; must be 'ACET. Nice one.  Back in the wacky Waco world, what was the difference between the JTO and the JYO?  I had the impression Y was used instead of T when the engine was J (R-975), but it sounds as if there was more to it.TSRL (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Twas G-ECAN, Australian-built in 1940 !! Source of Waco JTO and JYO was Aerofiles.com, which just says the latter was a version of the JTO for USN tests RuthAS (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Should have thought of her, for I have a snap above my head from Flying Legends last year, where she was in the company of a Dragon-Rapide and the only UK Dragonfly.TSRL (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Park Aerodrome
To prevent edit conflicts I'll leave you to carry on. ICAO and IATA codes need finding. This website may be of use to you in expanding the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - but I've finished for today!. I took external and internal photos of the surviving buildings yesterday and will use them in the article fairly soon. RuthAS (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Waco year numbers
Evening Ruth. I've jut added raised the issue of Waco year numbers e.g. YKS-6 and YKS-7 on the Waco Standard Cabin series page. You might have a view on this, so I thought I'd let you know in case you are not watching that page.TSRL (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

C.F.A. D.7 Cricri Major ‎
I have redirected this page to Salmson Cricri, because the articles seem to cover the same airplane. Please make any additions or improvements there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Questair Venture & Spirit
Hi Ruth: Yeah I will take it out. I saw the article you posted and uploaded the image from my collection and we actually hit an edit conflict putting the pictures in! I was amazed you had the same plane from the same angle, taken three years apart! I'll have to be quicker next time!!! - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the owner must have parked it in the exact same spot three years aprt and we both shot it from the exact same place. Almost eerie! - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally I found a home for that surplus picture and used the opportunity to link to the new Venture article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wings Over Miami
Hi Ruth! In tracking down some details for the Brown B-1 Racer article I discovered that there was no article on the museum it is sitting in: Wings Over Miami. Their website has some great info, so I created the article. Obviously you have been there and I haven't, so I thought perhaps you would like to add some more text or perhaps some photos from your collection? I am betting you snapped more than just the B-1 while you were there! - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew that you had been there from the B-1 photo! That would be great if you can find a couple more photos. Incidentally the ref I posted for the 1-26 glider is a news video on the donation of the aircraft by a WWII vet - nice little story! - Ahunt (talk)


 * Hey that is great - thanks for finding those two images! - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Trafford
Thanks for the references. It will probably be hard to find references for the name change to "Manchester United FC Halt", but they undoubtedly exist somewhere, since that's definitely the name of the station now (see Manchester United FC Halt). In response to your other point, I definitely sympathise about the image of Old Trafford, but since the image's copyright status is uncertain, it would be legally risky to add it to the article. If biographical info about the author of the photograph can be found so that it can be proved that he/she died more than 70 years ago, that would be fine. It would also be fine if we could establish for certain that the photo was never released with any author information, which would mean that the copyright would expire 70 years after the image was first published. Like I say, I do sympathise as I am "one of the fans" myself, but copyright law is a tricky area, and Wikipedia's image criteria are even more strict than that, so I wouldn't want to go messing with it! Thanks for the message. – PeeJay 22:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, it's looking like the image is going to be kept at Wikimedia Commons anyway, so feel free to re-add it to the Old Trafford article. If it ends up getting deleted, then so be it, but I won't remove it myself until that happens. – PeeJay 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do as you say, PeeJay, with fingers crossed! Have also just "facelifted" the Wiki article on "MUFC Halt", which I see you have contributed to in the past. RuthAS (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII
Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Air Lines
I'd like to extend a belated Thank You for adding the photograph of the Martin 4-0-4 in Pacific Air Lines livery to the Pacific Air Lines article. I've been slowly but steadily expanding the article since I first stumbled on it when it was a single-paragraph stub back in 2007, and the photo is very much appreciated. Itsfullofstars (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2009 (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  05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Steen Skybolt
Thanks for your note - let me see if I can get it to work! - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There, that should do it, just a couple of format items missing and a couple of commas (no commas allowed when entering numbers!!) Now let me see if I have any photos I can add! Let me know if you need any more help. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Schweizer SGS 2-25
Hey that is great that you had a photo of it! Glad you enjoyed the article - that series was interesting to do! - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)