User talk:Sp33dyphil: Difference between revisions
→Competition between Airbus and Boeing: new section |
→Re Thanks: new section |
||
| Line 1,342: | Line 1,342: | ||
|text = On 21 May 2011, '''[[:Template:In the news|In the news]]''' was updated with a news item that involved the article '''''[[Competition between Airbus and Boeing]]''''', which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates|candidates page]]. |
|text = On 21 May 2011, '''[[:Template:In the news|In the news]]''' was updated with a news item that involved the article '''''[[Competition between Airbus and Boeing]]''''', which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates|candidates page]]. |
||
}}<!--Template:ITN credit--> --[[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) |
}}<!--Template:ITN credit--> --[[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) |
||
== Re Thanks == |
|||
Hi Sp33dyphil, |
|||
Most of what's in [[Airbus A330]] is pretty good and I wouldn't usually worry about much of what I've tagged if doing a normal copyedit; I'm just being a bit more picky on things given it's been requested in preparation for an FA nom, and this is the type of stuff that ''may'' get spotted or questioned by an FA reviewer. Some of the things I would have checked up and reworded myself, but most of the refs seem to be offline sources, so I can't do so. Also, not really being a plane buff, there's some uses of technical terminology that I'm sure would make perfect sense to anyone in the know, but I'm trying to simplify or briefly explain for a general Wiki readership. Additionally I believe this is the third request for copyedit, so I'm sort of assuming you're looking for things to be pretty thoroughly checked. |
|||
Where I've tagged for clarification I've tried to leave a bit of an explanation in the clarification tag - for example the "were intended to receive 180-minute approvals by 1995 ... and then to 180 minutes after 50,000 flight hours" part I tagged mainly because I don't know about the ETOPs certification program, so this didn't make sense to me. This is the type of technical terminology I'm talking about above that I'm sure is totally understandable if you're in the know, but doesn't make much sense to a general readership. I know it's linked to the ETOPs article, but often it's possible to give a brief one line summary of a process like that which makes that lengthy paragraph understandable without making a reader go and read the other article. ''If'' it is perfectly sensible and is standard writing for high-quality articles about planes, then I'm happy for you to just de-tag it. |
|||
Re the West Germans, no I'm not wondering what West Germans are, what I'm wondering is what West Germans you are talking about. The West Germans never get a mention until here - at least not that I could see, the article reads as though it's French based - then it's like these random West Germans are suddenly in on the design process. Now if I read the entire [[Airbus]] article the significance of this may become apparent, but as a reader I shouldn't have to do that. Maybe it just needs something as simple as a reword like, from: |
|||
:The decision to work on the A320, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the West Germans, created divisions within Airbus. |
|||
to |
|||
:The decision to work on the A320 by the French management, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the West German sector of Airbus, created divisions within the company. |
|||
(I don't know the details, so the terms may be out of whack, but with just a few more words someone reading this would know so much more about the company and what was going on in it at this point in time). |
|||
I'll have a look at the A-class nomination as you request when I'm done, but to be honest I personally don't put a lot of stock in article ratings. Having seen some pretty cruddy articles that are claimed to be FA, even in the recent past, I wonder whether those processes leave a lot to be desired. Having said which, it is a good recognition when people like you have put huge amounts of effort into articles like this Airbus one to make them thorough and informative. |
|||
Anyway, I'll go through and continue to pedantically tag those sorts of things, and if you think that I've missed the mark here and there, then its fine by me for you to just remove the tag. If it's not clear what I'm tagging in some points then again feel free to ask. Cheers, --[[User:Jjron|jjron]] ([[User talk:Jjron|talk]]) 04:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:26, 21 May 2011
Welcome message
Welcome!
Hello, Sp33dyphil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer
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.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.-- Ϫ 01:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just noticed the trial ends in a couple days :P heh oh well, enjoy it while it's there. If after August 15 pending changes stays then you'll still be a reviewer anyhow. -- Ϫ 01:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| I could not find an airline barnstar. But you deserve a tireless contributor barnstar for your tireless immense contributions to several airline articles. Why so serious? Talk to me 04:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
- Welcome. You really deserve it!! Why so serious? Talk to me 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure and thanks. :) Why so serious? Talk to me 08:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar, it was a very pleasant surprise and heart-warming gesture. I really appreciate and am so grateful for the generous efforts of fellow editors who are improving the aviation articles. Thanks! SynergyStar (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you again!!! Although I'm quite busy the wonderful encouragement makes me look forward to more future contributions to the project!!! Good luck on the article nomination efforts!! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message added 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
GA
Yes, that sounds like a very good possibility! I've nominated articles that I've worked on to be GAs, and the key to them is to get well-fleshed, well rounded sections of articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- For pics, have you tried looking on Flickr? Even if it says "Copyrighted," you can contact the author and see if he/she is willing to relicense it/them. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- For info on air frame materials, you could try typing in key words at Google Books and see if anything comes up. If you find that there are books that may have that info, you could arrange to check them out of your local library. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Airbus A330
First, congratulations for your excellent contribution! I think a few words of explanation is in place. The reason I was adding and changing something in your recent text is that I was doing simultaneously the same thing! When I was happy with my text, I returned to Wikipedia, and oops!, somebody else had already done it! Reading through your text it was obvious that your version was superior to mine. It was much more comprehensive. So, comparing our texts I found some details that were missing from yours and couldn't resist the temptation to add them, because I had done quite a lot of work in preparing my version. Doing so required some reworking and some deletions of your sentences to avoid repeating the same things. I completely understand your reaction of reverting my edits after all the work you have done.
We are both aviation enthusiasts! Let's be friends :) I think the chapter I added is an interesting small detail of the history of A300 derivatives. It is part of the Airbus story that they were actually planned and studied before the first Airbus even flew. In your source it seems to be stated that the B9 is a derivative of the production model A300B2, which isn't exactly true. As for the TA12, you are right, it came in 1982; my bad.
Now, I haven't got your source (Norris & Wagner) in my hands so I don't know what is written there, but I'll describe my source: "Airbus, the Complete Story, second edition, 2009" is written by Bill Gunston, who was a consultant in the original launch of Airbus, which required him to visit Toulose regularly. He is the Editor-in-chief of the Aero-engine division of Jane's and assistant compiler for Jane's All The World's Aircraft. He is the author of more than 380 books on aviation. I have the feeling that he knows what he is talking about.
So, a direct citation from page 85: "Irony is not uncommon in big aerospace programmes. Long before the first Airbus A300 flew, the project engineers had identified nine possible variations on the basic A300B design, known as the A300B1 to B9. Apart from the original production models, the B2 and B4, not one of these variations were built. The irony is that the only derived aircraft to become reality is a tenth variation, studied in 1973, as the A300B10 and later called the A310."
From page 183: "In 1973 Phil Smith at Hatfield said, 'the A300B no longer seems 'too big', and I would like to see the stretched B9 get the go-ahead. A year later Beteille said, 'the B9 remains our most immediate prospectfor several potential customers" "Thus, to lay the cards on the table, right back in the early 1970s Airbus saw the B9, B10 and B11 as the A300 derivatives, which it then thought would complete its wide-body family"
From page 185: "But it should not be thought that the long delay was in any way a disaster for Airbus, because a handful of project engineers kept on refining both the '9' and '11', and by the late 1980s they were markedly superior to their original conceptions, besides being more closely related. Advanced technology keeps on happening"
Could we both agree on a chapter like this?:
Background
When Airbus designed the Airbus A300 during the 1970s, it envisioned a broad family of airliners with which to compete against the might of US manufacturers such as Boeing and the Douglas Aircraft Company. Airbus started studies into derivatives of the Airbus A300B to work on its goal. Actually long before the first Airbus A300 flew, Airbus engineers identified nine possible variations. These were known as A300B1 to B9. The tenth variation (from 1973), the first to be actually built, dubbed the A300B10, was a smaller aircraft which eventually evolved into the long-range Airbus A310. Airbus then focused its efforts on the single-aisle market, coming up with the revolutionary family of aircraft, later to be known as the Airbus A320, which was the first fly-by-wire commercial aircraft. The decision to work on the A320, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the Germans created divisions within Airbus. As the SA or "single aisle" studies (later named A320) underwent development to challenge the successful Boeing 737 and Douglas DC-9 in the single-asile, narrow-body airliner market, Airbus again turned its focus back to the wide-body aircraft market.
The A300B9, a larger derivative of the A300, had been developed by Airbus from the early 1970s on at a slow pace. This slow pace gradually increased speed until the official launch of the project in 1987. The B9 was essentially a stretched A300 with the same wing, coupled with the most powerful turbofan engine at the time. It was targetted at the growing demand for high-capacity, medium-range, trans-continental trunk routes. The B9 would offer the same range and payload as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, but use between 25% percent to 38% less fuel. The TA9 was considered the replacement for the DC-10, and Lockheed L-1011 Tristar.
If it is OK for you, I'll put it in Wikipedia. 88.114.220.99 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Singapore Airlines Flight 380 for deletion
The article Singapore Airlines Flight 380 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines Flight 380 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to 
The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by 
Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to 
Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, 
Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and 
Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Price list
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/key-documents/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=14849 seems to be a redirect to the actual file.
I am not sure how to get the "real" URL - But I will ask the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Real_URL_of_a_PDF_file WhisperToMe (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Accept this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahir-ul-Qadri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.251.71 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
See my response to request for help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Item 1 Explanation: The "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome is derived from computer nerds who soon realized that if your data is flawed, no matter how you manipulate it, it comes out flawed. It's a precept of Wikipedia that any and every one can edit so it also follows the adage of "too many cooks..." Basically, having numerous editors working on an article can actually create a negative result, much in the way of a committee product, although with judicious review, a levelling can take place in terms of style, grammar and syntax.
- Item 7 Explanation: The canard that you must have citation templates no matter how flawed they are, and all of them, to one degree or another, are malformed, was because editors were told that their meta data would be more easily manipulated by some miraculous future programed bot that would set about Wikiwonderland, standardizing everything. If you believe that, I do have some prime swampland in Florida for you to consider, or perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge may be to your liking. Not to be facetious, but there is no magic bot out there, just a whole bunch of semi-trained researchers/editors plinking about and since they have no training in cataloguing or reference systems, the best way for them to proceed is to use a "fill-in-the-blanks" template. Now, a full disclosure, I am not a Luddite, having been a reference Librarian for 30 years, and lately an author and editor at various publishing houses and film companies. I can use the templates, even in the form they presently appear, but they have to be adapted in order to accept second and third authors, publication data such as location and require a plethora of different citation templates for documents, news articles, media, books, and journals (periodicals). I have, along with many other experienced editors, simply ditched the messy template system entirely and write out the data in an clearly "scratch" cataloging/referencing system used for all citations, notes and bibliographical notations. FWiW, to allay any other concerns, I have been editing Wiki articles since 2006, and have countless articles accepted as FA and GA articles, without any of the citation templates that reviewers seem so intent on preserving. Bzuk (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC).
- The Boeing 777 is a particularly egregious example of an editor overwriting perfectly good references with the @#$%^ templates. I backed off when I saw what was happening, but this editing phenomenom is all too familiar. FWiw< I hope I'm not talking about you?! Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC).
- Hi! It seems like other users want some additional changes to be made before it is re-nominated. Is there anything you need help with in the process? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- See if you can try a Google site search of Airbus.com ( http://www.google.com/advanced_search - enter airbus.com as the domain) - I would recommend checking Google Books. Maybe Google News too. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have done a preliminary cleanup of just the references, but so many errors existed that I was loathe to spend three hours re-writing citation and bibliographic templates that are so messed up, that after the FA review, I would suggest dump the whole mess and start all over with the correct formatting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will try to explain why editing changes occur as there appears to be non-standard editing and stylistic issues that have to be addressed. Do not hesitate in asking for the reasoning for an alteration. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The citation templates are still a mess, but there have been "patches" placed over nearly all of them. I have tried for years to get the designers to rewrite the templates to no avail, so if you continue to use a template system, you will have to learn how to manipulate the template parameters and unless you have a background in cataloging or reference librarianship, it may be too daunting a task. Nevertheless, I can teach anyone how to cite in MLA or even APA, Chicago or other referencing styles that eliminates all the malformed template errors. Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have now addressed all the stylistic issues of dates, names, overlinking, use of foreign words, and other than providing a notes section, there are no significant concerns to deal with; I will take one more sweep to spot any superficial or minor problems, but otherwise, I think it is ready at least, for peer review. As you may note, I have made no revisions as to content which is relatively accurate. In terms of FA reviews, a reviewer will look for consistency in style, format, stability, detailing and indications that a comprehensive, authoritative and thorough account is present. Illustrations are also considered in the overall review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not the reviewer, merely an editor getting the article ready for review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC).
- I have now addressed all the stylistic issues of dates, names, overlinking, use of foreign words, and other than providing a notes section, there are no significant concerns to deal with; I will take one more sweep to spot any superficial or minor problems, but otherwise, I think it is ready at least, for peer review. As you may note, I have made no revisions as to content which is relatively accurate. In terms of FA reviews, a reviewer will look for consistency in style, format, stability, detailing and indications that a comprehensive, authoritative and thorough account is present. Illustrations are also considered in the overall review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The citation templates are still a mess, but there have been "patches" placed over nearly all of them. I have tried for years to get the designers to rewrite the templates to no avail, so if you continue to use a template system, you will have to learn how to manipulate the template parameters and unless you have a background in cataloging or reference librarianship, it may be too daunting a task. Nevertheless, I can teach anyone how to cite in MLA or even APA, Chicago or other referencing styles that eliminates all the malformed template errors. Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will try to explain why editing changes occur as there appears to be non-standard editing and stylistic issues that have to be addressed. Do not hesitate in asking for the reasoning for an alteration. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have done a preliminary cleanup of just the references, but so many errors existed that I was loathe to spend three hours re-writing citation and bibliographic templates that are so messed up, that after the FA review, I would suggest dump the whole mess and start all over with the correct formatting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- See if you can try a Google site search of Airbus.com ( http://www.google.com/advanced_search - enter airbus.com as the domain) - I would recommend checking Google Books. Maybe Google News too. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That will be fine to claim for, but you can't claim until it has been closed. J Milburn (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Editor review
 | This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his/her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Sp33dyphil. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Reflinks
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
How come everytime I type in "Aeroflot" on this page and press "Run reflinks", it says that I'm not logged on? Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 12:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Runs fine to me. Aeroflot's refs don't need fixing it seems. Except for one ref which has no title: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field%28DOCID+su0388%29 . Are you sure you were logged in at the time?--Obsidi♠nSoul 13:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Archiving "generated" PDFs
Remember those pesky "generated" PDFs like the ones on the Airbus website.
I know just how to archive them.
Go to http://www.webcitation.org - Go to "Archive" (at http://www.webcitation.org/archive ) - Enter the URL of the document and your e-mail address, and the website will archive it for you
It's useful in case the document is taken down from the original site. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to address the comments I left for you last month? Just wondering if the nomination has stalled for some reason. Cheers, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, if you don't respond in the next 24 hours I'll fail the nomination and remove it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikiwings
|
Wikiwings | |
| To Sp33dyphil, this award is in recognition of your wonderful dedication to improving aircraft and airline articles. Your diligent contributions have helped enhance the project, and are deeply appreciated! All the best, SynergyStar (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
- Note, please feel free to add this to your user page, citing diff #412837785. Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Justin Boren/GA1
Please review Talk:Justin Boren/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Did you get sidetracked. You seem to have only partially passed the article. Please complete the standard procedures outlined at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
List of heads of state of the Soviet Union
Hi Sp33dyphil. About a month ago, you indicated on the FLC of the above list that you would review it. Do you still intend to do so? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, are you still following your own FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Boeing 777 operators/archive1? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing is different from the Airbus A330 article, and I will not be interested in doing any work on this as it involves again, rewriting almost every template. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC).
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sp33dyphil, my own personal opinion is that is it unwise that you review Bjorøy Tunnel. The choice of course remains with you, but there is an obvious risk associated with it. Pyrotec (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- From what I seen so far of Talk:Bjorøy Tunnel/GA1 this seems to be a "drive by" review, but I will wait and see. It's not clear so far whether this is "score settling" or gaining points for Wikicup. Your review of Taiwan High Speed Rail at Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA2 was not bad; and I believe that you made the right decision in awarding GA to Justin Boren, but there seems little evidence from Talk:Justin Boren/GA1 that you reviewed it against the requirements of WP:WIAGA. By all means carry out GAN, but do not abuse the system to gain wikicup points or to "settle scores" with other reviewers; and produce some evidence (as in Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA2) that you have reviewed against WP:WIAGA. Guidance can be found at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Pyrotec (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Sp33dyphil, I'm happy with the latest change and you have already stated that you are willing to award this article GA-status. So, I've awarding it a GA on your behalf. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have taken care of the issues you listed at Talk:Sergei Shirokov/GA1. Thank you for the review. Please let me know if there are any other issues that need to be taken care of (you can just leave the m on the review page, it's on my watch list). Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Unreferenced articles
I see that you tagged Sam Mitchell as being unreferenced. Better tags to use for articles that have external links which virtually are references are {{No footnotes}}, {{BLP sources}} and/or {{Primary sources}}. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you have changed the referencing style again to your own preference, and again without understanding what the changes in templates do. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. 
Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to 
Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the Beluga an A-300 or an A-310 ?
The A-300 was with a three man cockpit (pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer) with analog flight and engine instruments. Then they made the 310 which had EFIS and ECAM and a two man crew.
Later, the orginal A-300 was modified into the A-300-600 by replacing its rear fuselage and tail with the same from the A-310 and by modifying its cockpit to the A-310 2-man glass cockpit standard with ECAM.
So yes, the Beluga was modified from a A-300-600, but the A-300-600 had many A-310 components, including the whole cockpit and the A-310 existed before the A-300 and the Beluga. Thats is why I claim the Beluga can be considered a derivative of the 310. There is more commonality between a A-310 and a Beluga cockpit than between a Beluga and the original A-300-B2.Hudicourt (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
First four cockpit pictures, listed in the order the aircraft were designed:
First the Airbus B-4 cockpit: http://www.airliners.net/photo/DHL-(European-Air/Airbus-A300B4-203(F)/1802877/L/
Second an A-310-200 cockpit: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran-Air/Airbus-A310-203/1450191/L/
Third an A-300-600 cockpit: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mahan-Air/Airbus-A300B4-605R/1873544/L/
Fourth a Beluga cockpit : http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-Industrie/Airbus-A300B4-608ST-Super/1591308/L/
The A-300B2 and B4s were built, then the A-310. Then all the technical advances from the 310 were integrated into the A-300, which turned it into an A-300-600, which was then turned into a Beluga.
The B2 and B4 had both inboard and outboard ailerons, separated by an outer flap. The 310 didn't and only had the inner aileron, but mostly used spoilers for roll control. The A300B4-600 also adopted the spoilers for roll control like the 310 and did away with the outer ailerons.
The A-310 and the A-300-600 have the same type rating, meaning the pilots which are rated on one can fly the other. However, the A-300-B2 and A-300B4 pilots have a different type rating than the A-300-600. The A-300B4-600 and A310 pilots use the same simulator while the A-300B2 and older B4 pilots have another simulator.
Now look at an NTSB accident investigation report of an A-300-600 accident:
http://accidents-ll.faa.gov/American587/AAR0404.pdf
It say on page 9
" The A300 is designated as the A310 on pilot certificates"
On page 30:
"At the public hearing, an FAA airframe engineer stated that the FAA did not make findings of compliance for the A300-600 because it was a derivative of the A310 airplane but that the FAA made findings of compliance for several areas on the A310. For example, the FAA made findings of compliance on the design and strength of the A310 vertical stabilizer, which is structurally identical to the A300-600 vertical stabilizer. The FAA also worked closely with Airbus and European airworthiness agencies to establish certification and test programs for the A310 vertical stabilizer"
Hudicourt (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A330
Hi! I'll take a look at it this evening :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Freakum Dress
Hi, I am Jivesh. I worked on this article. Thank you for reviewing it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for passing it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to Let You Know...
I do apologize if I interrupt. Just wanted to let you know that there are some sites that I was trying to confirm, but some of them will go to the site of your country if you switch sites to another country, and some have an international version. I will see if there are multiple versions of such and will apply them. Again, sorry for the interruption. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the Conversion of bare references on this page, however it appears that there is something that is a problem with the way that you are copying Arabic. If you look at reference 160, the one for http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=289811&IssueID=2068, the title that you copied was not fully arabic. I'm not quite sure what went wrong though. I copied the title by hand and it appears to work now. See [1] for your changes and [2] for my fix. If your change looks right on your machine and mine doesn't then we may have a problem with display that we'll probably have to get help on.Naraht (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. :)Naraht (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Airbus A330
Heh, that thing hasn't really been relevant for years; I don't even think the two other founders are active on Wikipedia anymore. Alas, my activity in featuring articles is quite limited; I'm not quite up to snuff to the new featured article standards (I'm amazed that some of my former featured articles made it in the first place). However, if you require specific assistance, I can provide some, as well as advice. Specifically, ensure that you avoid citing blogs as references, unless you know for sure that the person writing it is an expert in this field. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
A present for you!
Thought you might like this: Commons:VN-A372 (aircraft). A VN Airlines Airbus A330-200 at Da Nang Airport, with the new terminal in the background. Couldn't get pictures at Tan Son Nhat (as I mentioned here) but figured this might be good for now. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- And finally—here's exactly what you wanted: File:Vietnam Airlines - Flight to Danang.jpg --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
Copy-edit of Airbus A330
I've finished my copy-edit of the article you requested. Overall, there wasn't a lot that needed changed, just a few oddly-constructed sentences. However, due to the fact that the article includes both a lot of statistics and a lot of aircraft with numeric names, I've tried to put quantities into words where possible, to reduce the amount of numerals used - otherwise it gets a little bit too much. Feel free to change this back if you prefer the numeral-only approach. In addition, outside of copy-editing, I don't personally like the amount of depth placed on the #Notable accidents and incidents section. As the article is about the aircraft model, it seems pertinent to me to include only those incidents directly related to the aircraft itself - mechanical failures, etc, rather than, say, terror attacks which happened to affect individual aircraft of this model. Aside from that, good luck with the FA nomination! GRAPPLE X 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Issues regarding General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
It is posible for you to withdraw your nomination of the F-16 article? I'm worried that a lot of preliminary work is lacking, and a discussion is now ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon into the sourcing of the article and other complications. Normally an advanced alert to the community on such a big article is preferred, as then we can respond to the drive to shift the article to a higher gear and create less problems for both the reviewer and responder when the review does take place. I hope you do not consider this as a sign of disrespect, I write to advise on the path which I see as best for creating improvement in the article over its current state today. Kyteto (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dates in publishing information
I know you don't see the problem, but the cite/book template you are using is malformed and does not allow the publishing date to appear as part of the publishing information; instead like APA style, it puts the date next to to the author(s). There is no allowance for multiple editions in this form and authors do not have any control over editions, that is entirely a publishing decision. If you choose to change all the presently correctly formed bibliographies to templates, at least try to accommodate the date into a logical location. No one expects you to know everything about referencing styles, and I realize there is a reason for the templates you are using but there are other ways of achieving the same result without changing the bibliographies arbitrarily. I could show you how to do that, but so far, there has been a lack of interest in anything other than rewriting everything into templates. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. 
Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Espionage
Would like to welcome you to WP:WikiProject Espionage. Unfortunately, the founder has been AWOL for 11 months and his Wikipedia WikiProject is getting revived. Hope you can contribute or give feedback to the WikiProject. Enjoy your stay here at WP:WikiProject Espionage! Adamdaley (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
AWB - inconsequential edit
Hi, re this edit - the only change that I can see is the replacement of "Image:" by "File:", twice. Since these are synonymous (see WP:NS#Aliases, I believe that this edit falls foul of the AWB Rules of use item 4. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 April 2011
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank You so much Phil for the kind words, the service badge and the barnstar. I'm feeling discouraged only because of the rude behaviour by an admin (User:Toddst1), who infact revoked my twinkle and rollback access. I was thinking of continuing for another 2 weeks and retiring forever. But with your words of appreciation, I'm gonna rethink on my decision. Thanks once again. 
—Abhishek Talk to me 10:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually in a conflict with an editor on Electronics City. Although I accept my mistake of edit warring, I was actually removing improperly cited material from the article. User:Toddst1 failed to see this and blocked only me. He revoked my rollback rights considering that I had used rollback on the talk page of the user with whom I had a conflict. Well that was a mistake which I hadn't realised. I had the user's page on my watchlist and had accidently clicked on rollback on the watchlist. The admin considered me to be misusing the right and revoked it.
- He revoked my twinkle access saying that I have previous problems using non-twinkle rollback. What I noticed was that this admin is a very rude user and has made irrelevant blocks many a times which caused him to be taken up at ANI. But there was still a lot of support for him on ANI despite his nasty behavior. So I have come to a conclusion that admins can err any number of times here, but if users like me err about 2-3 times, then we frowned upon. I infact posted on the admin seeking an explanation about his general rude behavior. But he didn't even bother to respond to that, but instead accused me of trolling. Anyways, I have written to an admin from Bangalore who takes care of India related projects, he is yet to respond. I will decide what to do after he responds. —Abhishek Talk to me 09:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have sorted out the differences with the above said editor. I have decided now not to leave. I once again thank you for your extremely kind words, the barnstar and the service badge. It was only because of your kind words that I decided to sort out the differences and stay back. Regarding voicing my opinion on A330 at FAR, please gimme some time, I will do that. Cheers!
—Abhishek Talk to me 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have sorted out the differences with the above said editor. I have decided now not to leave. I once again thank you for your extremely kind words, the barnstar and the service badge. It was only because of your kind words that I decided to sort out the differences and stay back. Regarding voicing my opinion on A330 at FAR, please gimme some time, I will do that. Cheers!
AWB
I suggest you download the latest snapshot from http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/AutoWikiBrowser5201_rev7660.zip . Then tell me if the bug appears again. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 April 2011
- Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?
- Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news
Good catch. I've removed the infringement and removed the tag. Don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD and remove obvious violations like that in the future when you come across them (of course avoiding edit warring).
I don't see any point in any action against an IP who hasn't edited since December. 20:55, 13 April 2011 Toddst1 (talk)
Rollbacker
Hi. I've been looking over your contributions and you certainly seem to do good work here. I've gone ahead and issued you rollback rights. Please be careful with the privilege - it can be easily lost. I recommend you carefully read up on the what you should do and should not do with rollback, then practice here before using it. I'm confident you'll use it wisely. If for some reason you don't want it, let me know and I'll undo this change.
You may wish to display {{User rollback}} on your user page. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 April 2011
- News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news
- WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
What were you thinking?
huh?????? We should be trying to improve articles, not delete obviously notable articles. The-Pope (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just saw your reply to The-Pope and it really concerned me. Please read Wikipedia's guideline on notability, Wikipedia:Notability, and also the specific guideline which relates to athletes, Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which states that Aussie rules players need only to have played one match at AFL level to be presumed notable. Stratton has played 23. How you thought that deleting the article would be uncontroversial, which is what PRODs are for, is beyond me. It appears that you didn't even look for sources before PRODing, a simple google news search shows plenty of articles, any one of which would be considered significant coverage in independent reliable sources (to pass the WP:GNG) and also verify that he has played an AFL match (enough to pass WP:NSPORTS). As to there not being much info on his childhood, I would ask how that is at all relevant to notability? And yes, the article could become more than a stub. Please see Ken Hall (footballer), an article about a bloke who payed one game and didn't even get a kick, which is easily more than a stub. The same could be done for Stratton and you would be far better off spending your time trying to improve the article, rather than trying to get it deleted. I would respectfully request that you refrain from PRODing any more articles until you fully understand the notability guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply and my apologies if I came across a bit harsh in the above statement because it's clear your heart is in the right place. Yeah, there are far too many AFL bios that are stubs, but I believe that there is enough info out there to get them all up to at least start class (especially the more recent players like Stratton). About getting them to GA, the article that I mentioned above is at GAN for the simple reason that I want to see if a short article that covers all the info available can be a GA. If it does pass, I'll have a lot more hope that a large majority of WP:AFL's articles can become GAs. Oh, and I go for the dees (who played woefully against your hawks a few weeks ago). Jenks24 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Dylan's RFA
I've moved the extensive thread of discussion over Malleus' oppose to the RFA's talk page, but edit conflicted your second change. Would you mind please restoring anything I've missed to the talk page? Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- What would you like me to do, I don't understand? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 23:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2011
- News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
A319
No criticism of your good work but just to note that changing [[Airbus A319]] to [[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A319]] will create a lot of work when the type is eventually split out from the family article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, still thinking of creating A319 at some point when I get time if nobody else does. MilborneOne (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I used to change "A319", "A320" etc. WLs from the type redirect to "A320 family|" wherever I came across it, but I have stopped now on the understanding that we at some stage will be splitting all the family members off into separate articles. However I notice from my watchlist that you are going to "A320 family"; am I wrong in my belief that there was consensus not to do this anymore? YSSYguy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, actually. Where was this matter discussed? If this is the case, I will stop fixing A319 redirects, although I will fix those linking to Airbus A320. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I used to change "A319", "A320" etc. WLs from the type redirect to "A320 family|" wherever I came across it, but I have stopped now on the understanding that we at some stage will be splitting all the family members off into separate articles. However I notice from my watchlist that you are going to "A320 family"; am I wrong in my belief that there was consensus not to do this anymore? YSSYguy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and 
Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to 
Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Airbus A330
Sorry, I forgot to mention I left one request for clarification in the "Design section" regarding this sentence. The designations were originally reversed because the airlines believed it illogical for a two-engine jet airliner to have a "4" in its name, while a quad would not. Maybe delete the last five words? ► Philg88 ◄ 
talk 07:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The A340 was originally called the "Airbus A330", the the A330 vice versa. I think it's still worth mentioning the Airbus A340 and how it was originally called otherwise. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I see, no problem. BTW, sorry for the screw ups with the ndashes - there is something wrong with that script which has now been flagged to the developer. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief
Removing backlinks to 777
Can you explain why you have removed the above wiki-links ? Mtking (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because they're redirects. Am I making a mistake? I can revert them back if I'm at fault, but I don't think I am. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you can put them back, I think that the wiki-links are useful, and if in the future the redirect becomes a full article then there is no need to hunt all the ref's down. Mtking (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think 777-200ER will be an article? In any case, the full name should be Boeing 777-200ER, or what ever the last 5 numbers and digits are. Also, these article are saturated with links to Boeing 777, and unlinking the redirects won't create a problem. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- And if Boeing 777-200ER becomes and article (for example after a spit) then 777-200ER will become a redireect to that page and everything works as it should but removing the wiki-link 777-200ER does potential harm, stopping a reader being able to jump directly to the relevant part of the Boeing 777 page. Mtking (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think 777-200ER will be an article? In any case, the full name should be Boeing 777-200ER, or what ever the last 5 numbers and digits are. Also, these article are saturated with links to Boeing 777, and unlinking the redirects won't create a problem. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you can put them back, I think that the wiki-links are useful, and if in the future the redirect becomes a full article then there is no need to hunt all the ref's down. Mtking (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Sydney Johnson/GA1
I have addressed your concerns at Talk:Sydney Johnson/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong
Can you clean up Neil Armstrong's talk page archives. I think I have been involved in the article in the past and its archives seem to be wiped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I still think the archive is missing stuff. Look at how extensive the history is. However, I managed to find Talk:Neil Armstrong/GA1, which says I delisted it from GA. I think another person is suppose to review it for GA if I delist it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure what your point is, but aside from speedies, it is quite uncommon for a reviewer to do more than one GA level review for a single article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
GAR tips / suggestions
Following our chat on IRC, suggestions: make sure your Bibliography is in alphabetical order. You have (at least) one dead link - try and get another one for it. I have gone through and fixed all the non-breaking spaces which I spotted on a first run-through, for you; no doubt there will be ones I have missed. Best of luck! First impression (from a novice) - I reckon it probably won't take much to go GA, but then that's just my opinion. There will be tweaks, obviously, to do. :o) There always are ..... Pesky (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Q Clash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Neoloogism, No references to show widespread useage
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Porturology (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I found some references and removed the template Porturology (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article already existed at QClash so I redirected it there. The-Pope (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Areas of interest
Hi,
You've done lots of really impressive work on some aviation articles, but I can't help noticing that your User:Sp33dyphil/Master plan is all about aircraft. Would you consider looking at other subjects such as organisations (not necessarily just airlines & manufacturers), regulations, events/incidents, operating principles &c? A lot of the non-aircraft articles seem to be a bit neglected in comparison. Feel free to ignore this comment if you're already overworked or if you have your own particular interests bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing Virgin Blue to Virgin Australia
G'day, I have been spending a bit of time this morning reversing your changes of Virgin Blue to Virgin Australia in a number of articles. It seems you haven't been checking the AWB properly (as you are meant to do under the Rules of Use), and have often made the change where it is simply not appropriate. Until last week Virgin Australia did not exist, so anything dealing with the past, such as the Ansett Australia article or text about Air NZ's purchasing a shareholding in DJ, should read "Virgin Blue" not "Virgin Australia"; the parent company is also still called 'Virgin Blue Holdings" at the moment. Also, in the Melbourne Airport article, there were a couple of instances where your edit resulted in the text reading "Virgin Australia (Virgin Australia)", as someone else had already made edits reflecting the change of name. I don't have any more time to look at your edits now, so please review them and revert as necessary. YSSYguy (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please check the edits made with the AWB properly, as you are supposed to do. Your AWB-assisted edit to the Air New Zealand article earlier this evening was inappropriate and resulted in phrasing similar to the case I highlighted above, that occurred in the Melbourne Airport article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Will do Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 May 2011
- In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news
- WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games
- Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back
- Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
Your signature
Hi there. Would you mind changing your signature to something less eye-catching and noticeable? Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color, neither tags like <big> nor striking colors that distract editors from the surrounding text should be used in signatures so that other editors are not inconvenienced by it and the text flow is not disrupted. Also, readers with visual disabilities may have problems reading white text on pink. Regards SoWhy 15:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. 05:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong GA review
Hi. The GA-review of Neil Armstrong has been started, by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs) - and I'll be trying to help out a bit.
The page where it'll all happen is Talk:Neil Armstrong/GA2.
There's nothing there right now, but should be, over the next few days - if you can keep checking on that page, and address/comment on the points raised during assessment, that'll be great.
In general, the article looks "OK", so I'm optimistic. One thing you might like to address, whilst waiting for more feedback, is: there are a few parts with no reference. If you skim through, you'll see the odd 'hanging sentence' with no ref, such as He holds honorary doctorates from a number of universities., As the right-hand seat pilot, Armstrong was in charge of the payload release..., Armstrong was one of two civilian pilots selected for the second group... and others.
I'm sure the referencing will be covered in more detail during the review, but thought I'd mention this now, as something to have a look at.
Best of luck, Chzz ► 11:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"What was the page that you recommended to me on IRC again?"
My place, probably - so, the 1st link below.
live.co.ukMi casa es su casa, hope to see you there. Chzz ► 15:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2011
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
Competition between Airbus and Boeing
 | On 21 May 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Competition between Airbus and Boeing, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
Re Thanks
Hi Sp33dyphil,
Most of what's in Airbus A330 is pretty good and I wouldn't usually worry about much of what I've tagged if doing a normal copyedit; I'm just being a bit more picky on things given it's been requested in preparation for an FA nom, and this is the type of stuff that may get spotted or questioned by an FA reviewer. Some of the things I would have checked up and reworded myself, but most of the refs seem to be offline sources, so I can't do so. Also, not really being a plane buff, there's some uses of technical terminology that I'm sure would make perfect sense to anyone in the know, but I'm trying to simplify or briefly explain for a general Wiki readership. Additionally I believe this is the third request for copyedit, so I'm sort of assuming you're looking for things to be pretty thoroughly checked.
Where I've tagged for clarification I've tried to leave a bit of an explanation in the clarification tag - for example the "were intended to receive 180-minute approvals by 1995 ... and then to 180 minutes after 50,000 flight hours" part I tagged mainly because I don't know about the ETOPs certification program, so this didn't make sense to me. This is the type of technical terminology I'm talking about above that I'm sure is totally understandable if you're in the know, but doesn't make much sense to a general readership. I know it's linked to the ETOPs article, but often it's possible to give a brief one line summary of a process like that which makes that lengthy paragraph understandable without making a reader go and read the other article. If it is perfectly sensible and is standard writing for high-quality articles about planes, then I'm happy for you to just de-tag it.
Re the West Germans, no I'm not wondering what West Germans are, what I'm wondering is what West Germans you are talking about. The West Germans never get a mention until here - at least not that I could see, the article reads as though it's French based - then it's like these random West Germans are suddenly in on the design process. Now if I read the entire Airbus article the significance of this may become apparent, but as a reader I shouldn't have to do that. Maybe it just needs something as simple as a reword like, from:
- The decision to work on the A320, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the West Germans, created divisions within Airbus.
to
- The decision to work on the A320 by the French management, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the West German sector of Airbus, created divisions within the company.
(I don't know the details, so the terms may be out of whack, but with just a few more words someone reading this would know so much more about the company and what was going on in it at this point in time).
I'll have a look at the A-class nomination as you request when I'm done, but to be honest I personally don't put a lot of stock in article ratings. Having seen some pretty cruddy articles that are claimed to be FA, even in the recent past, I wonder whether those processes leave a lot to be desired. Having said which, it is a good recognition when people like you have put huge amounts of effort into articles like this Airbus one to make them thorough and informative.
Anyway, I'll go through and continue to pedantically tag those sorts of things, and if you think that I've missed the mark here and there, then its fine by me for you to just remove the tag. If it's not clear what I'm tagging in some points then again feel free to ask. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)