User talk:Maury Markowitz

Attention: Unless otherwise requested I will answer messages here on my talk page to keep conversations together in one block, it is my hope this will make it easier for others to read them.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, I like what you have done to the place. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello, Maury Markowitz. You have new messages at ErgoSum88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Maury Markowitz. You have new messages at Jwanders's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

wickelrumph

wickelrumph is kind of hard to explain without a picture. basically, it used long strips or bands of plywood that were glued together side by side. then, another layer of strips were glued on top in a different direction.

my source says it's actually strips of plywood. see Pfalz Aircraft of World War I (Great War Aircraft in Profile, Volume 4) by Jack Herris, at pages 30 and 32. that said, after looking around some more, i think it might actually be thin veneer strips. From what i understand, Deperdussin used veneer strips of tulipwood. i guess i'll change the article.

thanks. also, i thought your article on the Mercedes D.III was excellent.

thanks for the kind words, and for writing such excellent articles on the Mercedes D.III (i added a picture) and the Siemens-Schuckert D series.

Pfalz rudder

If its all right with you, I'd like to delete the references in the Pfalz D.III article to the shape of the rudder and vertical fin. That was actually a pretty common shape in German planes. See the Roland D.XV, D.XVII, Halberstadt C.V, CL.IV, CLS.I, Pfalz D.XV, LVG CIV, C.V, C.VI, and Gotha G.I. If it was something really different, like the Hannover's biplane tail, it would certainly be worth mentioning. But the D.III, I kind of don't see it.

XPLANE

Hi Maury, I got your note about the XPLANE article. It has been deleted by an admin. Do you know where deleted articles go? I intend to propose it for deletion review but have no idea where to find it or how to reference it.

Avro Arrow revisited

Maury, the article seems to be better wrtiten but I still think there should be a proper notes and reference section rather than the "more reading and viewing" section that is presently there. What do you think? Other editors have left the section in place but the idea of POV is present. Bzuk 14:41 3 January 2007 (UTC). BTW Happy New Year.

Avrocar again

Maury, please look over the article again- I've made some changes based on a recent review. BTW thanks for your support on another issue, specifically, the de Havilland Comet research. Bzuk 17:43 17 February 2007 (UTC).

WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, PLEASE REMOVE THE 'SILLIPUTTY' FROM MY OPUSCALGARY SITE. You may want to consult with someone who understands ip addressing.

PzKpfw IV

I think I have found the reason of the claim that KwK 40 was incapable of penetrating Sherman's frontal armor at combat ranges. The former wikist was refering to M4A3 with 64mm hull front and 103mm turret. That would make a lot of sense. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Help

Our mutal Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.

Re: Toronto Meetup

Toronto Meetup Next: Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon March 23, 2019 at Art Gallery of Ontario 2018: Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon March 24, 2018 at Art Gallery of Ontario

Archibald Russell move

You Wrote

I'd like to write an article on another Archibald Russell, Sir Archibald Russell of Bristol Aerospace fame. I would argue that he is much more famous and important than the current Archibald Russell article, but not being from the UK, that argument might not carry much weight. Suggestions? Maury (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine moving the current article. Perhaps it would be best (and easiest) to simply turn Archibald Russell into a disambiguation page with links to the old one (renamed, of course) and the new one. Thanks for asking.--Eva ^bd 09:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll do that later tonight. Maury (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Hi, do you know how to archive a particular thread in reference desk? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really not sure at all. I'll bet some robot does it every so often. Maury (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag on Count Zero

I have no objection to a removal of the notability tag on Count Zero once a reference showing it was a best seller is provided (per WP:NB, "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources.") I would search for one myself; but, meh. I'll leave it to those who have a deeper interest and who would be more likely to find better quality sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The correct tag in this case is lack-of-refs. The article already contains several claims that the Common Man would clearly interpret as meeting notability, and then the only question is whether or not those claims are true. Maury (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I think the way the tags and guidelines are worded, both would still apply (the lack of ref results in not meeting the requirements of notability shown at WP:NB); but you're right that they are somewhat redundant. Still, wouldn't the easiest solution be to find at least one ref? I'll go ahead and search for one now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do, it will likely take less time than restoring the tag again. Maury (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW I think the point here should be explored. The issue is not whether or not there is a verified source that claims the notability, the issue is who is making the claim. This is an important distinction: I can easily verify whether or not I think a book is important, but the tag would definitely apply in that case. However, if the claim is made that its up for a Nebula then it's not longer a case of whether or not it meets notability, the question there is whether or not it really is up for a Nebula, and that's what a V is all about.

This might sound like splitting hairs, but it's not, at all. It's very important to understand the spirt of the law. In this case, we're trying to ensure that we have some sort of notability guideline that can be applied to weed out unimportant articles in spite of verifiability. Consider, for instance, all of the garbage that ends up here because there was one article in New Scientist. NS articles are self-verifying, but that doesn't make them notable.

Frankly I think the way practically every tag's instructions are written is way too complex and lawyer-like, so these sorts of issues crop up all the time. Nature of the beast I guess. Maury (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

heh - edit conflict (twice) ... you inserted the two refs I was about to add, then a conflict here the first time I tried posting this.

Re: the distinction ... the notability guideline specifically states that it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim. Without providing a verifiable source, then WP:NB doesn't meet that specifically stated requirement. I wasn't basing my opinion on the wording of the notability tag, but on the guideline itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Archibald Russell (engineer) , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim (☎) 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Archibald Russell (engineer)

On 10 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Archibald Russell (engineer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Avro Tutor

I've puy a note on the Avro Tutor page re your comment: basically your plane is the Tudor.TSRL (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Ballard (businessman)

On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey Ballard (businessman), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Airlines Flight 96, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jordan ^Contribs 18:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK: September 20, 2008

On 20 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Airlines Flight 96, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim (☎) 00:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Columbia Aircraft

On 23 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Columbia Aircraft, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Porsche PFM 3200

On 23 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Porsche PFM 3200, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Schlesinger Doctrine

On 28 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schlesinger Doctrine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for M247 Sergeant York

On 30 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M247 Sergeant York, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Forgot about this one ... hilarious if it hadn't cost so much money Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

}}

Woolworth Building

Whether or not you're still interested I don't know (or maybe you've since found out the answer), but I've answered your question regarding the Woolworth Building construction image on the said article's talk page. Booglamay (talk) - 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Barcode

Hi - you have nominated barcode for DYK when it wasn't in fact substantially expanded. I don't think it meets the criteria short articles whose main body text has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable. The version before yours was 26.3kb and after your edits was 32.2kb. --Matilda ^talk 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That depends on the measure. The text count is, as you note, fairly similar, but if you examine the articles I think you'll agree the changes are very significant. The reason that the byte count hasn't changed as much is due to the large amount of listcruft and such. I supposed I could have spun out "History of barcode" or somesuch, but I hate following links in those cases. Maury (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

appreciate you have made great improvements - and I found it interesting :-). DYK critera used to be strictly article created. They have now been relaxed to include substantially expanded to allow for small stubs made into real articles but I don't think the criteria has been relaxed to allow for articles improved so that there are better references, more accurate, ... even though that is a legitimate editing occupation and one which we encourage. :) --Matilda ^talk 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed that nuance. It makes perfect sense really. Not to worry, I have another 1/2 dozen DYK's already in the pipeline... Maury (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Technology Barnstar
		I, BorgQueen, hereby award this barnstar to Maury for his contribution to engineering-related articles. Please keep up the good work! BorgQueen (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey there

Top of the morning Maury. I've been reading your contributions to the Leeds discussion page and was very happy to see ur example of Toronto. I was wondering if you'd like to join me on my cause to get the Leeds Wikipedia page to boast its full statistics. i.e. Conurbation population etc. If we get enough editors etc, we can do it. --Tubs uk (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)