User talk:Trevor MacInnis/Archive 04

Your GA nomination of Tim Hortons
The article Tim Hortons you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Tim Hortons for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Prussian Blue (duo)
See User talk:151.203.15.96. That guy's a long term vandal...he's been posting the same crap to that article for months. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for warning. will keep it in my mind. r u @irc? West Brom 4ever 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

B-17 intro
Hi Trevor, I agree with the summary of how the intro is going but can it be condenced somewhat- Here's a suggestion:

The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is an American four-engine heavy bomber aircraft developed for the US Army Air Corps. Evolving through design stages: B-17A to G, the B-17 is considered to be the first truly mass-produced large aircraft.[4][5]

The B-17 was primarily involved in the epic daylight strategic bombing campaign of World War II against German industrial targets as part of the United States Eighth Air Force based in England and the Fifteenth Air Force based in Italy. With a service ceiling greater than any of its Allied contemporaries, the B-17 established itself as a superb weapons system. The B-17 dropped more bombs than any other US aircraft in World War II.[4]Of the 1.5 million tonnes of bombs dropped on Germany, 500,000 tonnes were dropped from B-17s.[6] The B-17 also participated, to a lesser extent, in the War in the Pacific.

The B-17s legacy is as a bomber that epitomized its "flying fortress" accolade: a high-flying, long-ranging potent bomber capable of defending itself. From its earliest pre-war inception, the USAAC touted the B-17 as a strategic weapon able to defend the US coastlines. During wartime, the Memphis Belle, the first B-17 to complete a full 25 missions was the subject of a Hollywood film and symbolized the war effort at home and abroad. Public and media attention focused on the bombing of Germany elevated the B-17 to iconic status.

More than any other factor, the rugged B-17 was loved by its crews for its ability to fly despite extensive battle damage.[9][10][11] Compared to contemporary bombers, the "Flying Forts" earned their reputation for "bringing the boys home."

Word count: 267 as opposed to 374 in the other text version. Bzuk 00:38  10 December 2007 (UTC).

B-17 references
Trevor, you are doing a splendid job in providing references although you do seem to be using a template that I don't particularily like, irregardless, the information as to when you retrieved information from a text source does not make any sense. The reason for including in the citation %^^#$$ template an access date is to identify when someone has retrieved information from a continually changing soource of information, namely a web page or electronic data source. The fact that you have included that date when you referenced a book or periodical does not change the copyright date of the material. BTW, the template system is intended for those people who do not know or care to use standard cataloging conventions. IMHO Bzuk 13:51 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Subst messages
Hi Trevor, thanks for substituting warning messages. I don't think you need to also say that you substed; the edit summary is enough. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-17 21:26Z 
 * Thanks, I got the idea from someone else I saw doing the same thing. I guess I was trying to keep from scaring anyone newbies - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 02:09Z 

B-17 article citations
Hi Trevor, thanks for your comments on the B-17; I certainly do know about the Harvard citation sytle and can accept the use of the style for footnotes, endnotes and citations. Is there not a "close" to the entry? If I remember my classes on referencing and cataloguing ( I was a librarian or over 30 years), all systems end with a period. Bzuk 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Date format
Trevor, as you may know, the dating format that is presently adopted for historical articles is actually set up as a day, month and year format. The reason for this is to eliminate one of the commas that is invariably placed between the month and day. The other reason is that it is considered a more formal style whereas the conventional month, day and year is considered "conversational" or "popular" suitable for letter writing but not for researched articles. There is of course a great deal of debate about this and in at least two of my books, editors have insisted on one style or another and as you could guess, my "pop" history editor utilizes the "January 14, 1947" style while my British and "serious" editors have incororated the "14 January 1947" style into their style guide. The reason for using the formal approach is that this article is one of global importance and will be read by many serious researchers and students. In Canada and the UK, the "formal" historical dating format predominates while in the U.S., it is common to see the "popular" date format. I leave it to you to decide, but as I had seen the article evolve, there were three different formats employed for dating and I had initially ratioanlized the article on the formal style which you have now reverted. I would prefer the formal, military and historical format mainly for the reasons stated above since I would want to see the article on the B-17 considered as a serious piece of research that uses the most widely adopted historical dating system (speaking from 33 years of experience as an author and librarian). BzukSunday, 2006-12-24 T 10:37 UTC

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

B-17
Trevor, before adding it, wasn't there a four-engine Soviet heavy bomber that was used in World War II and what about the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor and Heinkel He-177 as contemporaries of the B-17? BTW, what a fabulous job you are doing on the B-17 article. Bzuk Wednesday, 27 December 2006 T 02:13 (UTC)

updates to CG-4A Waco page
hello, Trevor, I've updated some material on the CG-4A page drawing directly from the AAF Manuals, particularly AAF Manual 50-17 "Pilot Training Manual for the CG-4A Glider". A larger change that I cannot make but think is appropriate is to change the category from "CG-4 Hadrian" to "CG-4A Waco" as this was an American designed and produced aircraft, and the USAAF was the primary and main user. To list it by the name used by the RAF, a relatively minor user of the CG-4A, is akin to listing the DHC-2 Beaver as the L-20 in the leading listing.

I mistakenly listed my edits as "minor". I'm new to messing with the Wiki ;^)

Angus

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Yellowknife coat of arms.gif, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

EC-135 edits
Trevor, just wanted to leave an explanation of why I reverted your edit to the EC-135 article. First, though, before I do, I want to point out that you had incorrectly listed your edit as a "minor" one. WP:MINOR defines a minor edit as "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content".

What you did was far from minor, because it changed the content. By moving the ARIA paragraph up as the lead paragraph, and eliminating the B model designation as being the ARIA aircraft, you implied that all EC-135s are or were ARIA aircraft. This simply isn't true. Granted, the first mission of the first EC-135Bs was for the ARIA program, but since this article is about all the ECs, and since not all the EC models are ARIA aircraft, the ARIA is correcly listed as one of the missions flown, with the appropriate models notated in that section.

On another note, I see from your user page that you're a MEDEVAC colleague...I'm a part of the Mercy Air 14 crew out of Mojave...so fly safe! Akradecki 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thunderchief GA review
Hi! I put the nomination on hold. The major problem was the lack of references (a reference should be put for almost every factual statement) - a serious problem that can't be solved overnight.

But I liked how the article had a good flow and readability, so I put the article on hold. GA policy says that an article can be held for no longer than 7 days. This means that you have about 5 days to fix the article.

This is just in case you forgot about the nomination. Happy New Year! (Wikimachine 16:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17H
In reference to the B-17 Flying Fortress site, if you plan to add a photograph--please do not completely replace the photograph, just move it to a location that is not in the way. Thanks. --Signaleer 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this edit. Unlike the image that replaced it, I felt that the original picture did not add to the article; it showed very little detail, and nothing that showed its difference from other variations. Not every picture is deserving of inclusion in the article, there are many B-17 related pictures at commons:B-17 Flying Fortress, but most of them are not illustrative enough to be useful. To quote AndyZ's suggestions for featured article candidates, "While images are strongly recommended for articles, do not cause an article to overflow with too many, which can be disruptive and repetitive; select the best, most relevant, most important, and most informative/educational images.". I'll of course leave the image in for now, but may take it, and others, out later if it improves the article. Thanks. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your comment left on my page, I believe the image of the topview is valid and certainly worth adding to the article. And in your comment "I'll of course leave the image in for now, but may take it, and others, out later if it improves the article." Who the heck do you think you are?
 * --Signaleer 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my comment offended you, but just remember, nobody owns articles here, Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit, and we are all working to make articles better. This sometimes involves removing as well as adding to articles. As long as we all work for the greater good (which means sometimes ignoring our personal preferences) it'll all work out. Just remember: Assume good faith.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very intrigued as to the comment you left earlier about my comment. I understand the concept of Wikipedia, the power for anyone to edit and shape an article. Having said that, what you mentioned about "sometimes ignoring our personal preferences" seems contradictory to what you commented earlier "I'll of course leave the image in for now, but may take it..." It is individuals who are shaping it and molding. This subject is moot. --Signaleer 14:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17
Wow, you did an outstanding job expanding the article so quickly! I would be happy to support it in A-class assessment. The only nitpick I have at this time is the paragraph about Luftwaffe having to develop costly tactics to combat B-17s. It is not referenced and reads like a bit of editorializing. Otherwise, nicely done! - Emt147 Burninate!  04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a time limit for resubmissions, as long as you address all the concerns. What about splitting the Notable section into notables (with a brief one-sentence summary for each) and flying/flyable survivors (only 20-25 of them left in the world). - Emt147 Burninate!  23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, the Wikiwings award you
I don't want to mess up your intricate user page, so I'll stick 'em here.



Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

de Havilland Hornet Moth
Hi Trevor,

I happened to notice that you started the Hornet Moth article. Just as an aside, my first flight experience was in Hornet Moth G-ADKC which was co-owned by my late uncle, E J Roe, and lasted for about 20 minutes. I was "given" the controls for a short while which was quite exciting for a nine year old boy, and have never forgotten it. For some reason, I don't know what (tongue in cheek), he wouldn't let me bring her into land! I was told that it was the oldest one still flying anywhere, and the last I heard she had been transported to the U.S., but that was some time ago and I would like to know where she is now.

Anyhow, best of luck with the B-17 FA nomination, you've done a massive amount of work on it to bring it up to standard (despite my meddling!) and deserve success. Red Sunset 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Site map
Hello Trevor. I am very curious how you generated Image:Main Page Usability.png. Did you use a program? ~MDD4696 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17 Featured Article.
Congratulations Trevor! A lot of hard work put in in order to achieve the FA status for the B-17 article! – Excellent! - Red Sunset 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. I'd give you another wikiwings, but you got one too recently.  WP:Air should have a good core of featured articles to brag about, and you're helping us develop that.  Karl Dickman talk 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks all! I'll keep a close eye on this article, to make sure it doesn't devolve. On to the next one! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You did excellent work on the article. Keeping an eye on FAs you've significantly contributed to is a great idea, as fluff will continue to drift in otherwise (look at B-36 which devolved from FA to crap). - Emt147 Burninate!  18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete, no assertion of notability
Hi, I noticed you had removed the speedy delete tag that I had placed on Lakeshore Collegiate Institute. I have no issue with removal of the tag if a reason related to the guidelines is given. In this case, the reason seemed to be that other articles may fail the criteria as well. If you could expand on your point it would be greatly appreciated. Alan.ca 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Trevor MacInnis
I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Trevor MacInnis Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Graduated Blue Background.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Graduated Blue Background.png. 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. 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Start class?
Seriously? Can you explain what criterion you used to select Start as opposed to some other classification? (please reply here, I'll see it) Maury 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To which article are you referring? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Opps, Boeing YC-14. Maury 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

B-rating on Avro Arrow?
Your rating note states you gave the Avro Arrow article a B because it didn't have a PR. PR's are not required for A ratings as far as I am aware. Maury 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotorcraft task force icon?
When switching the RTF "on" on the ProjectAircraft tag, is there a way it can show an actual rotorcraft icon instead of a [horrors] B-52? Also, I noticed the that RTF link is actually red.... -Alan_the_412_guy/Akradecki 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotorcraft task force
Trevor,

Whenever you want to move it. I was just waiting to see if there was gonna be any argument against the task force. I seem to remember that there was some disagreement with task forces in some past conversations for the project, but if there isn't any at this point, then, cool! I appreciate the work with the task force attribution in the project template, also. --Born2flie 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:B-2 Spirit original.jpg
I notice you reverted my deletion of the image after it was uploaded to Commons. Why can't Image:B-2 Spirit original.jpg be placed on Commons? Awyong J. M. Salleh 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I copied the upload history of the file here over to its Commons copy, so there's nothing to worry about. :) Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

de Havilland Comet
Mr. MacInnis, I value your opinion; would you look over the raging edit war that is occurring in the de Havilland Comet article? There appears to be an editor who has rejected others' edits and inserted a subjective, unsupported view that is very controversial. You had acted promptly in the past during the Gloster Meteor and Messerschmitt Me 262 revert war and it was very beneficial to have a "period of grace" for those two articles. The same editor to whom I am referring was also involved in issues surrounding a claim for what aircraft was "first" to be considered operational but has now moved on the Comet accident reports and a "conspiracy" theory that he has inserted into the text based on personal knowledge or assessment of the issue. Bzuk 15:24 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I took a look at the comet article, and it seems that MS has calmed down, or at least has enough people countering his view to keep the article from degrading completely. Until another rule is broken, such as 3RR, I think we should just let sleeping dogs lay. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the edit war was certainly draining but I now have had a breather to finish off some articles I started. Care to look over Gregor FDB-1, Fleet Fort, Avrocar (aircraft), Amelia Earhart, Mustang X, Henschel Hs 123, North American A-36, Janusz Żurakowski, John Carver Meadows Frost and Short Sturgeon. Bzuk 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

POTD notification
Hi Trevor,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:P-51 Mustang edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-25.  howcheng  {chat} 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

PZL TS-11 Iskra
Please add a source, see Talk:PZL_TS-11_Iskra--84.16.32.115 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never edited that article, I just added the project tag to the talk page. But I could have a look for a source for the article. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aviation Project banner help
Well, I think it's a bad idea, personally; one of the main advantages of umbrella projects is that they can provide assessment statistics for the entire topic area, which will be lost if articles are only present in the sub-tables. I see nothing wrong with having an article in many assessment hierarchies simultanteously; that's how WPMILHIST works.

But, if you really do want to do it, you'll want to create a chain of nested conditionals:

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would suggest changing it so that WP:Aviation would cover all the articles, but would leave actually dealing with certain areas in practice to the sub-projects.
 * (I should point out, incidentally, that there aren't any articles in Category:WikiProject Military history articles directly; a category with 30,000+ articles in it would be pretty useless. The article is, however, in Category:FA-Class military history articles.) Kirill Lokshin 18:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really any significant issues, in my experience; the core project is quite capable of taking care of all the articles in question. (The MILHIST structure is a bit different in that the task forces grew out of the central project rather than the other way around; it was intended from the start that they would be more specific work areas rather than full projects in their own right, so their creation was more of a question of convenience.) Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Trevor - I've got a dumb question. I tried using WPAVIATION at Talk:Spectrum S-40 Freedom, and am having some issued. Tried piping "Aircraft-project=yes", but nothing happens. IIRC, the template isn't supposed to be subst'd, but how else to get it to expand so the "yes" can be put in? Akradecki 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at that. I see that now it's giving the unassessed project category, but I guess I was expecting something to show up in the actual banner, like how with the Aircraft banner, when the Rotorcraft TF was on, it would have an addendum at the bottom of the banner indicating that. Akradecki 06:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wha Ti, Northwest Territories
Don't you just love English? "spelled" meaning "Relieve (someone) from work by taking a turn" or "Place under a spell" and "spelt" meaning "Orally recite the letters of or give the spelling of" or ""Place under a spell". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Avro Arrow
Hi Trevor, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Trevor: I am the editor that Mister Bill is warring on. Here is the link that he keeps deleting, along with 90% of my talk entries.

http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm

I realise that Mr. Zuk has built a cottage industry on Arrow prints. I have read his books.

He should have consulted The late Peter Walmsley, Professor 1959 -1990, Uof S College of Commerce, Battle of Britain Vet, FORMER AVRO EXECUTIVE (to 1958).

I studied under Peter. AVRO was his case study, twenty five plus years ago. Men like Walmsley, & Pearkes, deserve better. Your mediation is appreciated. regards Opuscalgary 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PS BIll: The Rt Hon. George Perkes, VC,MP, Arctic Mountie, War hero, Cabinet Minister & Lt. Govenor. NOT the dupe the Arrow article makes him out to be. If "Verifiability " is our only criteria, vanity press rules.

Opuscalgary 14:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with new aviation template
No longer does the template tell the article assessor to justify the assessment. Why is that? Paul Beardsell 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)  (Please reply here, thanks!)
 * The template no longer asks for a justification for a number of reasons:


 * 1) The "importance" is no longer used, the article is now assessed only according to content.
 * 2) The content can be classed by a rigid scale, here, to explain
 * 3) Anyone can rate an article stub or start, if they do so then a checklist of criteria for upgrade to B-class is shown in the template.
 * 4) if someone rates it B-class but does not include the B-class criteria checklist, then the article is placed in Category:B-Class aviation articles needing review, and people can check if the article deserves the B rating.
 * 5) If someone does the B-class checklist but the article is still rated start or stub then the article is placed in Category:Potential B-Class aviation articles
 * 6) No article should be rated GA unless it has gone through a nomination process.
 * 7) No article should be rated A class unless it has had an A-class review
 * 8) No article should be rated FA unless it is an FA
 * With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellows this is silly stuff.
Maury, Bill, Relax.

Fellows,its spring. count the disputes you are in( I'm at one) & rack up for free play. Fellow CDNS, Look, the date of jet service entry is not that important. All WW2 records are incomplete, esp. in Germany.(Citation, Reg's Dad-, fluent in German & English, Cdn army sargent, Occ. forces, 1945!) Please note that over 80% of these "We will take action, Michael" edits come from my fellow Canadians. Given our tiny worldwide overall membership, this is SCARRRY.

Lets rack it up. Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\

[edit] posted with a mediator: Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument in view of: a. Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany, summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable. The reasons: 1. Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted. German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences to render them complicit. In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documetation ,is 'produced' that he was flying the Me262 on a certain date, for example.

I refer you to Robert Jacksons' Nuremburg summaries. Not only were the Nazis masters at altering fact, some records were altered to protect the truly innocent.

Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ?

The battles at Gloster Meteor, & Avro Arrow, the canvassing for support, etc, are over concerns so minor. ---

Trevor,Do the administrators reccomend my solution - I abstain for four months,then if an NPOV editor isn't found,I will "truth" the false sections of the article?

The 'Black Friday' legend comes from a bitter ,discredited source. After all, we don't quote the National enquirer's" Canadian spy Plane found onthe Moon', even though it is verifiable, published- & came with a photo of the Arrow in the Tyco crater.

Also, Mr Shrimpton's logic has rigor, yet the Gloster debate has become a February pissing match. Please Bring peace to the Empire, Northern mediator! Regards Reg

Opuscalgary 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Then there is the 

Now They be bears in a blood-red mackinaw with hungry dogs at bay, And springtime thunder in their sudden roars, With one wrong word they burns, and the table's overturned, When they finish there's a dead man on the floor.!

With apologies to Stan Rogers

Opuscalgary 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of Top priority
Hi, in your conversion of the Aircraft project to the Aviation project, you (probably inadvertently) removed importance ratings for other projects, like WikiProject Russia (see this diff). I don't know what went wrong, but I would appreciate it if you investigated any further erroneous removals. Er rab ee 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I'll take a look through to see if there are more. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Template replacement
Hello, thank you for your offer. AircraftProject and AirportProject need replacing. I don't know if it is possible, but the pages tagged AircraftProject could also have the parameter |Aircraft-project=yes added, and the ones tagged with AirportProject could use |Airports-project=yes. Thanks, Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just to be sure, though, this change has been discussed and accepted, right? — M ETS 501 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)