User talk:The PIPE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

General thoughts[edit]

Cheers and good luck, Ingoolemo talk 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bristol Scout[edit]

Awarded by Ingoolemo for the large article on the Bristol Scout, written from scratch.

Thanks for working so hard on that article. It's rare around here that a large article is written from scratch by a new contributor. To acknowledge your contribution, I have awarded you the Wikiwings, the official reward of WikiProject Aircraft. Ingoolemo talk 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wagner Reference[edit]

FYI, this is the correct reference note:

  • Wagner, Ray and Nowarra, Heinz. German Combat Planes: A Comprehensive Survey and History of the Development of German Military Aircraft from 1914 to 1945. New York: Doubleday, 1971.

FWIW Bzuk 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC).

The Me 210 wing angle debacle...[edit]

Dear Maury:

The PIPE here...thanks for your reply.

I noticed the diffreence in 210-vs-410 wing leading edge angle in the three-views in my copy of the book 'Hitler's Luftwaffe", an early-1980s era (I think) book on "the Mad Austrian's" (what my German Email buddy Jens Klank-the Webmaster of http://www.biplanes.de/ -has said what many modern Germans have nicknamed the despised Nazi leader) air force, shows the double-angle wing leading edge angle on the 3-view of the 210, and like the 410 Hornisse's 3-view now viewable on Wikipedia, your 3-view of the 410 shows but a SINGLE angle going from root-to-tip. That HAD to be a contributing influence on the better flying characteristics that the 410 had...true, it WAS only one of many changes that Messerschmitt AG had to make on the failed 210 design, but it is noticeable, and right where the 210's troublesome automatic wing leading edge slots were located!

I've also seen the unique turret aiming setup the rear gunner had in the 210 & 410...in a showing of the "Wings of the Luftwaffe" series on the Discovery Military Channel, a WW II era German training film meant to familiarize Luftwaffe personnel with the features of the "new Zerstorer" they were about to get, clearly showed the handgun grip and trigger being used to train the guns throughout their firing arcs, while the 210 or 410 was parked on the ground.

I've also got a CONSIDERABLE amount of information on World War I aircraft...it's my main area of aviation interest...Pioneer era (1903-1914) and "golden age" aircraft between the Wars also score well, and I've got some serious interest in WW II aviation.

The pioneering efforts in 1915 through 1918, of Hugo Junkers, the original innovator of metallic aircraft construction materials near the dawn of aviation (almost exactly as Burt Rutan, with his revolutionary composite materials for aerospace, is considered to be today) are something I've been interested in for a VERY long time now...and an article written from scratch, just like my Bristol Scout Wikipedia article, will be coming, on the very first all-metal fighter aircraft to be produced in quantity...the JUNKERS D.I. This article IS something I've wanted to do on Wikipedia, seeing as though I've got so much info accumulated on it, for a future Radio Control quarter scale flying model of it...the model will even have real scale corrugated aluminum covering, exactly as the full scale aircraft had so distinctively been covered with.

Thank you for your reply...

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE!

Sorry, I'm going to have to remove the content in question. As you stated, "That HAD to be a contributing influence". Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it's definitely original research either way. If you can find cooberating evidence in a referenceable 3rd party source then the material can remain, but until that time it's just not suitable. Maury 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you might want to experiment with the "minor" button on checkins. Things like spelling or minor grammar should be marked M. Maury 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Maury...IF you've checked the Me 210 article here at Wikipedia a bit MORE recently...at [File:Me 210 w trzech rzutach.jpg] , that "cranked" double angle leading edge that COULD have led to many serious handling problems on the 210's initial design is CERTAINLY there for all to see...just thought I'd inform you about it...and if you check the article on the "most produced warplane of all time", at Ilyushin Il-2#Operational history...

"In 1943, the IL-2 Type 3 or Il-2m3 came out with redesigned wings that were swept back 15 degrees on the outer panels, and nearly straight trailing edges, resulting in a wing planform somewhat like the AT-6 trainer."

And I've even heard from one Bob Underwood, a famous radio control scale aircraft enthusiast and former Academy of Model Aeronautics officer, who's flown an Il-2 RC scale model for as long as I've known him, had to change his model for scale accuracy based on that above statement. The Il-2 made a major change to its outer wing panels that gave it a double-angle leading edge, since the added rear gunner sitting in tandem behind the pilot (formerly the only crew on the initial design) had shifted the two-seat Il-2m3's center of gravity rearwards, so some wing area "had to go along for the ride" in a slightly rearwards direction to keep everything flying safely.

With the two-seat Il-2, the change TO a double-angle wing was needed...but the Me 210 had this already (with the rearwards-located outer wing panels' area), and it seemed to have helped to throw the plane "out of kilter", aerodynamically speaking, which apparently bringing the outer wing area "forwards" seemed to have some positive effect on solving.

The image of Wikipedia's Me 210 three-view actually SHOWING the double-angle leading edge on the drawing prompted me to add this commentary...and if you look here at the Commons, now you can see that I've provided the proof as well, based on other drawings I've found on the 'Net, and traced-over by yours truly in DesignCAD and placed on the same fuselage for the comparison.

When I can save it as an "xxx.svg" file, I'll be sure to do just that, but for now with the JPEG format file, it's more quickly prepared so that it can be visible.

The PIPE (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Junkers J 1[edit]

Hi there - yes, it would be great to have an article on this aircraft, but you don't need mine or anyone else's approval to create one; just click on the redlink above and get started! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Luftstreitkräfte[edit]

Hi, thank you for making edits in this article. I was under the impression that the distinction you noted only came in in the final months of the war, and would appreciate if you could supply references. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a WRITTEN LETTER to the Kurt Wintgens article, as written by the historical figure himself...[edit]

To anyone at WIkipedia:

I was VERY excited to finally see a Wikipedia page on Kurt Wintgens, the very first successful fighter pilot in the entire history of military aviation.

I've done extensive research on Kurt's pioneering combat on July 1, 1915, and from one of my research sources, I wanted to add the text of a letter that was written by Leutnant Wintgens himself to a friend only referred to as "Karl", that was describing that aerial combat in HIS OWN words, on the day after it happened.

How would I go about doing that, so it would show up in the manner of a hand-or-typewritten "letter", in a separate "frame" of sorts?

It would add quite a personal touch to the article, and I also have a photo or two of Leutnant Wintgens on my hard disk, as well as a photo of the crashed Nieuport 16 that was Wintgens' seventh aerial victory, that MIGHT be able to be included on the article as well.

Hope to get some help on this...

Thanks in advance, The PIPE...!

You mean the first North American pilot; "the very first successful fighter pilot in the entire history of military aviation" was in Mexico, 1914, the pilot was Gustavo Salinas flying "el Sonora". Look it up. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean, look up Didier Masson, who was the actual pilot of El Sonora.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


...and to find that my biological father, Don Earle, is now a Wikipedia page subject...[edit]

Yes, fellow Wikipedians, believe it or not, but someone who IS "biographed" here...the late Boston TV ice hockey announcer Don Earle...was, truthfully, my very own biological father.

Wasn't certain if anyone knew that...but it IS true.

Heinkel 177 drawings[edit]

Personally, Pipe, I would like to think that the drawings themselves are not copyright after over 60 years. I'm no lawyer, however, and I must admit I'm by no means certain. Dead people and defunct companies have a way of having successors who own their intellectual property - and publishers sometimes have strange ideas about old photographs and drawings they published for the first time. On the other hand, if after reasonable enquiry you honestly believe the image is "probably" free why not just upload it in good faith - acknowledging sources, giving all facts, and stating the grounds under which you consider the image in question to be no longer subject to copyright. Put the onus on the nay-sayers - whom I'm sure will "say nay" quick enough if they have grounds for doing so. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:He 177A and B Cockpits.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:He 177A and B Cockpits.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear WW2Censor:

The PIPE here...the main issue with the use of German aerospace-related images SEEMS to be, as one might think, how OLD they are (by date of when they were first created)...with the World War I images of Kurt Wintgens and his aircraft, since they were created by German citizens (or perhaps "subjects" at that time, because of Wilhelm II of Germany as their Kaiser (emperor) during WW I) before the January 1, 1923 date that the US copyright tags usually state (as I DID use on the photos posted up at the Kurt Wintgens page) wold be completely applicable. But, on the other hand, a WW II-era Heinkel factory drawing, due to its somewhat "more recent" creation date of between 1939 to 1945 might be a bit more problematic...and if you read "Soundofmusicals" post on my talk page, about my concern about the EADS aerospace conglomerate still possibly owning a copyright on WW II Heinkel drawings, like the scans I've got from my copy of the Griehl/Dressel book on the He 177 series of aircraft, he was just saying that I COULD try getting the images allowed for use here, and where I am especially careful to do the scans, so that ONLY the content that the creator of the drawing(s) involved, drew up during WW II was in the uploaded scan to WIkipedia.

Where there IS a German consulate-general office right in Boston, MA (my backyard, so-to-speak, where I live in Weymouth, MA) I do plan on asking them in a phone call this week about this kind of situation, whether a now-defunct WW II-era German aerospace firm's factory drawings might still be under some sort of copyright in some manner or other. I already checked the page here at Wikipedia that's as close as I think my situation can be regarding what's viewable here...to be able to go any further on how to verify the ability for that drawing (and at least two others from Heinkel's drafters of nearly 70 years ago, regarding that whole line of aircraft the 177 spawned) to be content at Wikipedia, a call to the German consulate in Boston might be the very BEST way to verify the usability of any WW II-era German aerospace firm's technical drawings in a reference site such as Wikipedia.

Or, perhaps I might be advised to do a reproduction myself (on my home computer's CAD software) of the scans I wanted to post, as an "original work of my own", as a CAD drawing from my own computer, so that the content uploaded to Wikipedia would be "of my own creation"...might that method be a better, less-contentious way of placing the very same content up at Wikipedia? "Just asking about that", that's all...

Hope you get to read this soon...I'll be letting you know what the German consulate in Boston had to say about any possible copyright status on those Heinkel factory drawings I've scanned from the Griehl/Dressel book, after I call them to ask about the subject.

Also, hope you can reply when time permits!

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiger II article.[edit]

Hi. Regarding your recent addition to Tiger II about track design, could you provide a verifiable reference for the additions please? Hohum (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


You may also want to take a look at, for example, the track design of the British A13 Cruiser for a similar track design. Nothing unique about this point you're pushing. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Morpheus:

The PIPE here again...sorry, but online photos of the British tank you mentioned do NOT seem to show enough detail to really "verify" this possible fact, at least anywhere quite as well as Rama's photo does, that I've annotated with his permission.

The King Tiger, Panther II AND the Maus ALL used this track format, which may have been copied from elsewhere...but I do not think that any of the Cruiser Tanks from the UK seem to show this feature on their tracks, which IS quite obvious from Rama's photo of the Saumur King Tiger...and almost EVERY other photo I've ever seen of the King Tiger tank, in any photo with a view that happens to show its tracks to best advantage for the camera, shows the contact link and connector shoe track design.

I'd have to see a VERY close up photo, something like the view I did with my edit & crop of Rama's photo, of a preserved (or vintage WW II era photo) of one of the Cruiser tanks that actually SHOWS this clearly...please look for one, and please let me know where I can view it!

Thanks in advance,

The PIPE (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The picture doesn't show that this design was novel to the Tiger II, or the point of the design. Photo interpretation of a partially hidden assembly is Original Research. We need a verifiable published source to say that it is novel to the Tiger II - the picture is only useful to show what it looks like. Hohum (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hohum has captured the issue precisely. This is a textbook case of Original Research. It is not for us to conclude anything from the photos you are interpreting. Since you are the one attempting to insert this content, the burden of proof is on you to document it. There is no burden on anyone else to disprove it. I hope this policy makes sense to you.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that other designs long before the Tiger II used this track design. I can also tell you it is unheard of nowadays, so it was not a particularly successful idea. I pointed you to the A13 Cruiser simply because it is a fairly well-documented vehicle. It uses a connector link and a contact link. The even earlier A10 may use the same track. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, the A10 used Valentine-type track, so cast that aside. But here is a photo of an A13 showing the two links quite clearly: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0066,_Calais,_zerst%C3%B6rter_englischer_Panzer.jpg
Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg[edit]

File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

turret vs. barbette?[edit]

Isn't there a convention here (in my distant memory) that remote-control mounts are described as barbettes, not turrets? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Andy:

The PIPE Here...remote, unmanned TURRETS are JUST that, "turrets"...if you check the ENTIRE article on the B-29 Superfortress, you will find the term "barbette" being used exactly ZERO TIMES in that article, as regards the remotely operated quartet of UNMANNED turrets on the Superfortress-the term "barbette" was never used by American sources to describe the remote turrets of any aircraft defensive armament, but British sources might have used the term over and over again by mistake.

The term "barbette" is appropriate for fighting ships, however...as the term "barbette" is used to describe traversable and elevatable shipboard heavy gun positions that are armored, and by co-incedence, also usually manned positions. The remote, unmanned turrets on a military aircraft might possibly be armored themselves, but the term "barbette" is simply NOT used for any power traversed and elevated aviation defensive armament positions that have no gunner within the turret's mechanics themselves, especially in American usage.

Thank You, The PIPE (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you about the turret / barbette + gunhouse distinction in naval parlance. Read "The Big Guns" (if you can find a copy) for more on the British slant here.
In aviation terms though, I would have to disagree. Firstly, why are you thinking that Wikipedia is a RS?!?! Secondly, "Barbette" certainly is used in this way for remote-controlled mounts. Picking up Wood & Gunston's "Hitler's Luftwaffe" (as I thought there's a fair chance you might have it yourself) they use the term for the remotes on the Arado Ar 240, the Messerschmitt Me 210 and the Heinkel He 177 - although the 177's manual turrets are just that.
Presumably the distinction is the old one from manned forts - a turret is something above the parapet, a barbette keeps the crew "under cover", so to speak. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Andy:

The PIPE Here once more...I DO have the "Hitler's Luftwaffe" book myself, and it is BRITISH authored (perhaps from the Royal Navy tradition, Battle of Jutland, and dreadnoughts of a century ago, etc), so their "predictable goof" of calling a remote turret by that NAVAL term of "barbette" can be said to have been an "expected" one, especially to a well-informed American aviation reader's eyes.

And, from your assertion that a "barbette" keeps a group of fighting men "under cover", as in "within an armored area", well, I'm not TOO certain if the sighting stations for the B-29's remote turrets (as an example) were EVER "heavily" armored (or even armored at all), but only "a distance" from the remote turrets they were tasked with operating, so the "barbette" analogy as being used (as I strongly feel, is a mistake) with remotely operated turrets just doesn't fit in with what was in the immediate vicinity of the sighting station. Also, those sighting stations seem like they weren't "heavily" armored as a barbette on a fighting SHIP usually was, and any excess weight on a military aircraft, such as well-armored sighting stations for remote turrets, just was not desirable for aviation use, as such weight would simply reduce the range, or warload, of a military aircraft.

And the chances that an enemy aircraft would actually be able to successfully attack a sighting station, or multiple sighting stations, on a sophisticatedly armed-with-remote-turrets Superfortress, in order to try knocking out its remote turreted armament, would seem to be extremely slim at best...so I seriously doubt that any "serious" amount of armor, if ANY, was ever used around those sighting stations on a B-29, or P-61 Black Widow night fighter (it had a four-Browning M2 armed remote dorsal turret)...or on a "Gruesome Griffin" (the He 177), Me 410 Hornisse, or almost ANY other aircraft of the 1939-1945 era that had remotely turreted armament, without a person IN the turret.

It's best to leave the "barbette" term to those fine examples of Royal Navy (and other navies like the USA's own) tradition, like Jackie Fisher of WW I or Chester Nimitz of WW II...it IS a term that suits fighting ships just fine, as their weight is being displaced by water, and the displacement figure usually runs into the thousands of TONS...but when it comes to powered FLIGHT, excess weight of armor where it isn't essentially needed, like around the sighting stations for remote turrets on bomber aircraft, just encumbers the aircraft's main mission, and the "remote turret" term becomes all the more appropriate.

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you regard yourself here as a more authoritative source than Gunston, and that you've repeated the edit without further discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a "hood-trunk versus bonnet-boot" difference that we've encountered...[edit]

Dear Andy:

The PIPE Here once more - and I'm sincerely wondering if the "apparent British" usage of "barbette" for remote turreted defensive armament on aircraft might just be a similar situation, in American English versus British English usage of the same or siimilar words, to the differing terms used on automobiles in the USA versus those used in the UK...

...where the "hood" of a Ford Mustang, for instance, performs the same function as a "bonnet" on a Rolls-Royce ?

The naval use of the term "barbette" is not in dispute by either of us, yet, for American WW II aircraft that DID have remote turreted armament, such as the B-29 Superfortress and P-61 Black Widow, the term "remote turret" IS the accepted standard.

Perhaps a close examination of what terms were used by the German military forces of WW II themselves, in the German language itself, needs to be looked at before anything else gets changed...as an example, were the gun emplacements used by the Kriegsmarine's ships, that could concievably be called "barbettes" in both American and British English (and that we both readily accept), named with words that also show up in WW II Luftwaffe manuals for such remote turreted armament on aircraft ?

It's just that the insistence by a number of British aviation authors on using the term "barbette" on remotely operated, turreted defensive armament positions on historic aircraft COULD most likely be no more than the same situation as exists between a good number of other words that mean different things in American and British English...the lists for these differences exist at List of words having different meanings in British and American English: A–L and at List of words having different meanings in British and American English: M–Z that, together, cover those sorts of differences....and perhaps that difference might be added there, strictly based on the German word usage for naval ship barbettes vs. the words used for remote turreted armament on WW II Luftwaffe aircraft.

Perhaps that difference should be mentioned somewhere in those lists...remember, the US WW II-era aircraft that had such "remote turrets" never, NEVER used the term "barbette" for nomenclature from everything I've ever read (and that's a WHOLE LOT of books on the subject. over a 35 year-plus period of time), and the B-17, B-25, B-29 and P-61 US military aircraft designs ALL used remote turrets on them, at least at one location, SOMETIME in their existence.

And IF it turns out that the same German term for a naval "barbette" was not only used by the Kriegsmarine for their ships (Bismarck, Scharnhorst, etc), but ALSO by the WW II-era Luftwaffe for their remotely operated turreted aircraft defensive armament, then I can clearly see using "barbette" as being completely acceptable, based on the original German choice of words in their language.

That's a good subject to check out when there's time...

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Although they're distinctly un-turretlike, I recall that the nacelle mounts of the YFM-1 Airacuda were also termed "barbettes", and that's US.
The He 177 was first studied by the Allies in the UK (the USA-destined example crashed on takeoff, owing to problems with ersatz rubber tyres) The initial reports by the RAF Enemy Aircraft Flight, and the catalogue of the public exhibition of captured equipment (fascinating read, BTW - huge openness in 1946 about topics like German proximity fuzes, then silence for decades), describe them as "barbettes". These may be re-printed into one of Eric Brown's flight-test books, and probably also in "War Prizes". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Andy:

The PIPE here again-check my reply here from December 20, 2010 that discusses the actual German language terms concerning remote gun turrets in the WW II years, as I "did the leg work" to check all that out, at long last. Also, the single He 177A-7 prototype that ended up in American hands was unceremoniously used as landfill, after being crunched flat as aluminum foil, for the acreage where the O'Hare International Airport in CHicago is located...the Ju 290 named "Alles Kaputt" after its capture was also strongly believed to have been treated in that very same, and equally inappropriate manner, exactly like the He 177A-7 as over here, as landfill for O'Hare to be built upon...what a travesty of aviation preservation!

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lozenge camouflage[edit]

Recently, when I was writing the article about lozenge camouflage, I examined this addition you made to the Lozenge article, and considered incorporating it. Instead, I deleted it from Lozenge, and didn't use it in my article either. I did this because I could not find any reliable references that supported the names "Canberra" or "Knowlton" for lozenge camo patterns. If you can support these statements, I would welcome their use in my article. Seems like an interesting path of inquiry, and could lead to a section on modern historiography of WWI aircraft camouflage. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Guns guns guns[edit]

Not that I doubt it, but I'd be interested (for my own use) in knowing where you found the "1st synch-gun kill" here. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply go to the Kurt Wintgens Wikipedia page...

Dear TREKphiler:

The PIPE Here...and I'm a huuge Trek fan myself, almost from the start !

I'm also a serious student of aviation history, and it's the references currently numbered "3" and "4" that I provided in hte improvement of the article on Leutnant Kurt Wintgens that provided that info as to Wintgens being the first-ever fighter pilot to have used a synchronized machine gun-armed single seat fighter plane to defeat an opposing aircraft !

The references I've cited are as follows...

"Grosz, Peter M., Windsock Datafile No. 91, Fokker E.I/II, Albatros Publications, Ltd. 2002. ISBN No. 1-902207-46-7" and "Sands, Jeffrey, "The Forgotten Ace, Ltn. Kurt Wintgens and his War Letters", Cross & Cockade USA, Summer 1985".

Also, the reference source that's listed as... "van Wyngarden, G. Early German Aces of World War 1. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2006. p.11 ISBN 1-84176-997-5" is another source of info on that pioneering engagement between Herr Wintgens, and Messrs. du Peuty & de Boutiny.

I've got copies of ALL the above references in my personal historic aviation "library", so I can readily refer to them when needed.

So, the accounts in ALL those referneces refer to the same people, the same day (July 1, 1915) and the same place and aircraft being involved...so I'd have to say it DID happen, for real, nearly a century ago.

Thank you and Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I didn't watchlist this... Thx for answering. Also, thanks for the add on Hot rod. Any assistance you can offer on Custom car or Hirohata Merc (pix of the Merc especially) is more than welcome. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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

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

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Heinkel He 274 and Heinkel He 177[edit]

Hi PIPE! As you have worked on these articles recently, I thought you might beinterested in recent additions. Not my area of expertise, so you may just like to take a look, as the 274 article in particluar lacks cites. --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like "Fern" and "Lafette" are THE common terms for remote-control gun turrets Im Deutsch...[edit]

Dear Andy Dingley:

The PIPE here again - happy holidays..!

Well, from the glossary of German terms for aircraft defensive armament emplacements that are listed in the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel book on the entire He 177 series (so far. it's pretty much my "bible" on that troubled warplane!) gives the following terms "im Deutsch", in alphabetic order on pages 243 through 245, for ALL forms of defensive armament emplacements (based on their physical design) on German WW II aircraft, with the Deutsch in italics, and the English translation in regular text:

  • BL, or Bugstandlafette - Nose position gun mount
  • DL, or Drehlafette - Any swivelling or rotating gun mount
  • FDL, or Fernbedienbare Drehlafette - Remote-controlled rotating gun mount
  • FHL, or Fernbedienbare Hecklafette - Remote-controlled rear (tail) gun mount
  • FL, or Ferngesteuert Lafette - Remote-controlled gun mount
  • HDL, or Hydraulische Drehlafette - Hydraulically-operated swivelling gun mount
  • HL, or Hecklafette - Tail gun mount
  • WL, or Walzenlafette - Roller gun mount

So, from these definitions, it sure LOOKS like the terms fern, meaning "from a distance" in one interpretation, and lafette, the general German term for a gun mount of any kind (check at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafette for it im Deutsch itself) appear to be the common terms used in the German language itself, for just about all remotely-controlled defensive gun turrets used, or proposed for use, on WW II German aircraft during the era of the Third Reich's Luftwaffe.

There IS a entry im Deutsch for "barbette", at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschützbank , where it's still called a "Geschützbank" there for modern usage in the title - that entry does include the primary naval definition for "barbette", and the seemingly British English-origin convention for that word's use for a remotely-controlled aircraft gun turret.

However, the German language terms in use during the World War II years for defensive remote-controlled gun turret emplacements for aircraft conspicuously do NOT use the German term "barbett", the cognate for the naval armament term, but "fern" and "lafette" with their meanings as described previously instead. So, based on the German words used for military aviation nomenclature in World War II, regarding their defensively-armed aircraft gun mount technology, sticking to calling them "remote turrets" would seem to be a much closer translation in the English language in general, to the original German terms of seven decades previous. The term "barbette" for such remote-controlled airborne armament, though, isn't as close as "remote turret", and can be considered most likely (and quite understandably!) to be a British English convention that emerged very early in the 20th century, derived from the strong traditions of the Royal Navy as one possible source, that got applied to all remote gun turrets on aircraft in general, from a British historian's persepctive.

Hope you're having a decent holiday season...I'm heaading back to college for another two-year degree, this time in business administration, to help me end my 27 months of unemployment over here in the USA.

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gondolas[edit]

Any chance you could help with refs etc for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gondola (airplane)? Thanks! 92.40.125.110 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Your WP:user page[edit]

Hi, THEPIPE, you might consider adding something (anything) to that page. Best regards and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 01:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Timeline for clarification of all "time vs. facts" issues related to the Heinkel He 277's "oft-told story" in aviation history books[edit]

With the updated facts presented in the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel volume (Griehl, Manfred and Dressel, Joachim. Heinkel He 177 - 277 - 274. Shrewsbury, UK: Airlife Publishing. ISBN 1-85310-364-0) on the entire Heinkel He 177 series of aircraft, I thought it might be best to have some sort of "graphic timeline" shown on the He 277 page - and perhaps, even on the He 177 page in a more "limited sense" for that page, as regards the real-world presence of the He 177B prototype "quartet" of aircraft that were ordered by the RLM during mid-1943 - to clear up any confusion that the earlier, "oft-told storyline" regarding the never-completed He 277's origins had caused, from aviation books that were published before the Griehl/Dressel volume emerged.

The timeline for the He 277 page would show on one timeline "stream", the events of the "oft-told story's" events as depicted in at least one previous, "authoritative" WW II aviation history volume; another stream would show the events of the Amerika Bomber aviation contract competition (involving the 277 itself, and all of the known He 277 competitors) for which the He 277 was ultimately selected and engineered to compete for by the Heinkel firm, while another "stream" in the timeline's graphic would show the entire He 177A timeline from its early June 1936 beginnings, and another "stream" would cover the He 177B's own timeline.

I'm also working on a CAD drawing of one of the nosewheel-equipped versions of the He 277, directly from an original Heinkel factory proposal drawing for the design used in the Amerika Bomber competition, that will have very accurately drawn - especially between ALL of the orthogonal views (planview, portside view, and noseview) - "general arrangement" drawings for reference purposes. It is NOT an "exact duplicate" of the original Heinkel work, as that's still under copyright (in German copyright law) to the original draftsperson that worked at Heinkel or their family members/descendants, but is solely based directly on its dimensions and appearance, with a differing level of detail (a bit less than the original) to make sure all three views of the airframe are "true" and dimensionally matching to each other, and only showing the sorts of exterior details that are known from the original drawing, existing on page 159 of the book. The drawing was clearly mis-captioned as "The He 177B-5 (Stage I) long-range bomber", but the seven meter bomb bay length on that drawing and its sideview bomb bay configuration in the drawing - an EXACT match to what is already referenced on page 184 for the He 277's shorter seven meter bomb bay length, on a Heinkel factory drawing FOR the He 277's viarious bom bay design proposals - as well as being a nearly exact match to another portside view, clearly labeled as an "He 277" tailwheel variant at the top of pg. 195 of the Griehl/Dressel volume - "lock in" the mis-captioned pg. 159 depiction as an He 277 proposal drawing, and nothing else.

I'd be executing the timeline's form and graphics over the coming summer as time permits, and the three-view line CAD drawing, now nearing completion, will finally give the He 277 design's article in Wikipedia, as the intended-to-be-built Amerika Bomber design competitor, a truthful depiction on Wikipedia's pages.

The PIPE (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethylene glycol poisoning[edit]

Hello there. I didn't see why the source you cited there should be considered reliable, so I tagged it as such.[1] Please explain at Talk:Ethylene glycol poisoning or feel free to ask me any questions at my talk page. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


Welcome back![edit]

Hey PIPE! I don't know much about that CAD package, but what 2D output formats does it have? Actually, you might get great results by posting here on the SVG talk page, or using the History to find major contributors and posting on their talk pages. It might not be straightforward... the 2D image is usually an "export", so there seems to be less attention to providing useful versions.

If you do figure it out though, I can imagine you'd be in some demand for practically every article here :-)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As of April 2, 2013, I FINALLY got a JPEG raster version of my completed DesignCAD drawing for the Me 410 article posted to Commons...until I can manage a way to brew up an SVG format version, I'll hope it will be sufficient for the present!

The PIPE (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-propelled artillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samokhodnaya ustanovka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Fokker Scourge article[edit]

I spent a lot of (off-line) time and effort getting this rewritten - I really do think it is a better article now than the one that a certain person reverted it to. BUT - as someone who is NOT a particular crony of mine - could you have a look at my latest version and his (lord only knows which will be "up" when you look) and let us know what you think. I'm NOT trying to corral support, just to get a few third opinions, as I scent an on-coming edit war over this one.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a million for you help and apposite edits to this one. I reverted the one about the F.E.8 - the eindeckers were pretty well all gone by the time they eventually got to the front, they notoriously had to cope with Albatroses almost from the word go! And I made a couple of fussy style edits. Otherwise - first rate, and definitely overall a big improvement. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to WWI Aviation article.[edit]

I'm afraid I had to prune these a bit. Please, always read the whole section you want to edit - or at the very least the whole sentence. Attacking a short phrase by adding explanatory information can make things very repetitive and cumbersome, and doesn't always add information. Encyclopedic writing should always be informative, and succinct. I really hadn't the heart just to revert everything you had done, because you had obviously put so much well meant work into it all - so I worked through the whole thing line by line, leaving everything I could see as an improvement, or the correction of existing errors, typos etc.

On the "fact" front - we tend to think of the F.E.8 as a contemporary of the DH.2 - but there were only one or two at the front during the "Fokker Scourge" period - I don't think they deserve a mention in that context. I am presently in the process of doing a really comprehensive rewrite of the "Interrupter gear" article as the current one is a bit of a dog's dinner. I have been doing a lot of research, including actually purchasing some really good sources. It is currently in my sandbox - when I have got a little further on with it I will give you a link so you can have a look - your comments (even edits) will be very welcome. We may want to redo the section in the general article in the light of the extra info I am finding!

Anyway, best wishes --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

By the by - I've added the Sanke postcard company as the "author" to that file you uploaded so that stupid bot won't delete the file!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Synchronisation and all that!![edit]

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here - about the most definitive series of periodical articles I could EVER recommend that I've seen so far, regarding just about every aspect concerning machine gun synchronization, would be the late Hank Volker's trio of articles in the pages of WORLD WAR I AERO (index of the publication since the 1970s), specifically the issues numbered #137 (August 1992), #138 (November 1992), and #142 (November 1993) in which his articles appeared.

Mr. Volker touched on just about every aspect of the history of machine gun synchronization, with now-correctable facts surrounding the earliest Fokker Eindecker info, per my own copy of the late Peter M. Grosz's-authored Windsock Datafile # 91 on the Fokker E.I and E.II, which is in my personal historic aviation library.

It's still possible to get reprints of the Hank Volker article for further reference directly from WW I AERO's Internet presence, and concerning the current editing staff of the twin periodicals WW I AERO and SKYWAYS (the Golden Age of Aviation twin title to the WW I aviation title), it's Tom Polapink, Sean Tavares and Jim Bruton in that linked list that I've met personally in my own past, from my long-time series of visits to Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome.

Hope you'll consider getting copies of those articles as reprints for your reference needs... I KNOW I've got those exact specified back issues of WW I AERO with Mr.Volker's MG sunchronization articles still in my own personal historic aviation library, but after nearly FIVE years of unemployment (last worked full time in September 2008) I've lost track of "exactly" WHERE those specific issues are here at home.

Thanks and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I seem to remember your mentioning the Hans Volker articles before - or perhaps someone else did? It would have been great if you could have scanned them for me, but I know (none better) what laying one's hands on specific things (especially journal articles) can be like. Anyway - I have sent the following email to the people at WWI Aero:
I am working on a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article "Interrupter Gear". A colleague in this work has recommended Hank Volker's trio of articles in the pages of your journal, specifically the issues numbered #137 (August 1992), #138 (November 1992), and #142 (November 1993).
I would be very grateful if you could advise me as to the availability of reprints of the articles concerned, or perhaps copies of the issues themselves.
Best wishes, and thank you very much
Paul
Hopefully this will do the trick - thank very much for putting me onto this. Sorry to hear you're out of work by the way - I had to retire rather earlier than I would have liked a couple of years after my youngest son had a bad accident that left him with brain damage. MANY years ago now. I don't really know if my study is a bigger mess now than it was thirty five years ago, but I have real doubts that it is any tidier.
Regards --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The "two internal combustion engines" being "synchronized" situation

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here again - sorry to have heard about your youngest son having that mishap that left him so badly hurt - I'm just worried that the "austerity wonks" in my own nation, primarily comprising the Tea Party movement, and the single most destructive legislator in the U.S. Congress to ANY type of economic recovery from the Great Recession in the United States — Kentucky's cadaverously-faced Republican senior US senator Mitch McConnell, who generally resembles an UNbandaged mummy in his facial appearance, and who is a strong adherent of rampant, uncontrolled austerity and the backwards priorities of the Tea Party — will prevent me from EVER having a job of any type, ever again. On top of all that, there are upwards of 22 MILLION formerly full-time-working unemployed Americans, AND currently "under-employed" part-time American workers in 2013 that are still seeking a 40 hours/week "full-time" job these days.

When I made that text addition to the "interrupter gear" article in stating that a gun synchronizer's role in 1915 was to essentially synchronize the operation of "two internal combustion engines", I believe that it was in Mr. Volker's article that the basic nature of the machine gun was described as a "single-stroke internal combustion engine", which it IS as the propelling charge of smokeless powder expended when a machine gun fires a bullet IS detonated and used within the barrel of the machine gun (in its breech, the rearmost part of the barrel), making it quite reasonable to consider any firearm to be a "single-stroke internal combustion engine".

And it WAS the task of the machine gun synchronizer, starting with the Lübbe/Fokker Stangensteuerung arrangement in 1915, to literally synchronize TWO internal combustion engines - the four-stroke one (be it rotary or in-line) spinning the propeller for propulsion, and the "single-stroke one" shooting the bullets — to avoid the single-stroke one from literally "getting in the way" of the propulsive work of the four-stroke one!

The Volker articles from the WORLD WAR I AERO periodicals get into MINUTE detail of how these synchronizers worked, both of Central Powers and Allied design, and also their development through the "Golden Age" and into WW II.

Just hope you can get them as paper reprints...these MAY also be available as scanned CD files on disk if you ask for them that way, and I'm also fairly certain that full CD copies of all three mentioned issues of WORLD WAR I AERO might just be available as well, so be certain to ask about those options by Email when your time permits.

Just hoping that you can GET those articles...for my writings at Wikipedia on the Nazis' most enigmatic warplane, the Heinkel He 177 and its descendants, that Griehl-Dressel volume I purchased at half its original, published list price back in 2004 has been SO incredibly informative over the years — not only for the Heinkel firm's products, but for a goodly number of other WW II German aircraft designs as well.

Thanks again and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the person most likely to be elected as the next prime minister of Australia is also a loony right wing nutcase and I fear we are about to swing into line with your lot (alas). Never mind, remember what my old dad used to say, "it may never happen!". Happily for me I am well past the age of "normal" retirement now so it is not a direct personal concern (unless they decide to scrap the old age pension!).
I get the analogy between a machine gun and an internal combustion engine, by the way - but of course it remains an analogy. An internal combustion engine is not a kind of gun, nor is an (automatic) gun "really" a kind of internal combustion engine, although the way they both work (by a series of explosions) is sufficient to maintain the analogy. It remains an eccentric analogy however, although a vivid one, and since (as I suspected) it is not yours we can't really use it. (Intellectual property and all that.) Perhaps even more to the point - an encyclopedia is meant to succinctly convey the basic facts - it is a work of reference. Artistic things like analogy need to be used very sparingly.
I have already tracked down, and purchased, several very good texts bearing on this case, and I certainly want to get hold of the Volker articles, which sound as if they will round out some my information bank - especially the post 1919 stuff. Sure you can't find your originals? That would be marvelous (although as I hinted I understand if you HAVE misplaced them irretrievably - I've lost a few good things myself over the years). Anyway - hopefully I'll get a prompt and favourable reply to my email from the publishers. Thanks again for being so helpful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to keep you up to speed on the "Volker article" situation - the three issues concerned are (alas) NOT among the ones available for download at http://ww1aeroinc.org/blog1/store-ww1-aero/ - although the publishers have advised me kindly that they will put them onto the list of issues to be scanned (since I have requested them) and will let me know when they ARE available. Really WOULD love copies from you if you can find them at all!!. Best wishes, and hope you are working again soon, in spite of all the <naughty word expunged> right wing politicians in this wicked world of ours. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pipey - have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox (my sandbox) where I am working on the famous article. References still to go in (as is about half the article) but it may well give you an idea of how I plan it to look in the end, anyway! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here...that's VERY nice work you've been bringing together on what I sincerely HOPE you'll be entitling the Gun synchronizer article. That's the very term that I THINK one Mr. Hank Volker was using in the trio of well-aforemetioned WW I AERO articles he authored on the subject before he left us.

Where I KNOW I've got some serious cleanup coming along soon here at home (with the weather thankfully cooling off soon...summertime heat and HUMIDITY with heat indices over 30ºC can make me VERY ill indeed!) might help me find that elusive third article in one of my WW I AERO back issues. Once that gets found, and when time permits, if I can get permission from WW I AERO's current publishing team, perhaps that 3-part article could be made available as a complete PDF file here at Wikipedia, courtesy of my scanner, and copies of MS Word 2003 and FinePrint Software's pdfFactory software.

Thanks again and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of still images at the Commons, from "captured-by the US Government" WW II German films[edit]

Dear Fellow Wikipedians:

The PIPE Here again - recently I found two GREAT WW II films both produced by elements of what is today the United States Department of Defense, firstly on the Americans' own AZON guided munition — and not very long after that, a CAPTURED Nazi German-origin film on the Fritz X guided munition, with the captured Nazi German film's footage within an American film released by the USAAF.

My main question is - would it likely violate any German copyrights to do screen captures from the Fritz X film with my copy of Corel CAPTURE to get the stills, and then place them on the Commons for use at Wikipedia?

I'm primarily basing this on the fact that ANY work of the US DOD, or any of its predecessors, ARE in the "public domain" within the United States — I'm just wondering if any of the German-origin still images from that captured film might be usable as "works of the United States government", and thus usable for articles like the Fritz-X, and perhaps some others as well.

"Just curious", that's all...

Thanks in advance, and Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This may sound a little cynical Pipey, but I suspect that if you just added them to Commons on those grounds that it's most unlikely that anyone would worry. But I don't think the fact that copies of media are captured in wartime makes any legal difference to their copyright. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


For your user page[edit]

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

Nice edits on some of the aviation pages!

-- Btw, don't be a red link. Face-smile.svg

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bristol Scout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing chord (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bristol Scout with Lewis guns picture[edit]

This is a great picture (well done for finding it!!)

Unfortunately, having a closer look, the guns are mounted on a version of that good old "outward firing swivel" that was mainly (at least) used for firing outward rather than forward (although one COULD have foolishly pressed the point in the stress of the moment and shot off one's prop!!) The same mount was sometimes used for "pilots' guns" on other British tractor types, like the B.E.2c. If you look, the port gun is actually angled IN a little, showing that is clearly on a "flexible" rather than a fixed mount. Hence the picture doesn't really illustrate the point of the text. It's far too good not to use though, so I have moved it to the Bristol Scout article.

I actually have a picture that clearly shows a fixed forward firing Lewis gun on a Bristol Scout (attached to the centre-section struts) - as it is taken from the front the tape binding is also very clear - unfortunately it is of poor quality, and the shape is all wrong for it to fit here.

By the way - I wanted to apply strike-through to my remarks above about the Halberstadt "Ds" and couldn't work out how. I don't like deleting even my own stuff off other's talk pages - but I was actually wrong (the apparent "droop" is deliberate washout - probably applied at squadron level, NOT "wear and tear"). Would you either strike-though that rubbish, or, better, delete it for me?

Cheers,

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (Paul)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention[edit]

Pod lípou návrhovou cs znak.svg
Hello, The PIPE.

You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done a bold merge!![edit]

The old "CC gear" article promised to be very comprehensive, although what was completed of it was very "word-for-word" from the source! The main point is that it hadn't been worked on for a good while, and was very little use in its current form - so I have merged it to the relevant section of the new synchronization gear article. Having done it, do you think I am right? I have written diplomatically (I hope) to the editor who started the article concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Samokhodnaya ustanovka
Tanks in World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Samokhodnaya ustanovka

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Causeway Street Elevated may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Boston Garden]] — adjacent to and along the southeast-facing side of the then-new [[TD Garden]]) indoor sports venue's exterior through the Green Line's [[North Station (MBTA station)|North

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"New" photograph of the Stangensteuerung gear[edit]

This is good, in fact I have used it to replace the photo of Parschau's eindecker which was less relevant here than it would be elsewhere.

On looking at it closely however it is actually quite exciting - I don't know if you noticed, but there is no cam wheel there, and instead of a cam rider working the push rod, as in the definitive version of the Stangensteuerung (illustrated in our diagram) there seems to be a direct connection to the oil pump spindle. In fact I think this is a photo of the very first Fokker gear. Just have a really close look at the picture! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holocene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proto-religion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Messerschmitt Me 262 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 262 V9, Werknummer 130 004, with ''Stammkennzeichen'' of VI+AD<ref>Radinger and Schick 1996</ref>) was prepared as the HG I teat airframe with the low-profile ''Rennkabine'' racing canopy and may

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harassing fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henderson Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

H

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luftstreitkräfte, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vaux and Avillers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Junkers Jumo 222, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jagdstaffeln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avillers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malcolm Subban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chad Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)