User talk:Bzuk

Image tagging for Image:XF8B-I (Navy).jpg

corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&action=edit Edit this page

Montreal Airports

Hi. Just to let you know that I have left Montreal not disam b/c Montreal is served by 1 international airport (Mirabel does not have any passenger service as it is only served by cargo carriers). We only disam cities that are served by more than one airports with passenger service. I have posted a discuss on WP:Airports if you are interested in responding. Cheers and happy editing! Bucs2004

{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

Have you considered simply formatting your references into the standard inline format, since your the only one that knows what source goes with what information? <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= }}</ref> I see you have been addingthe references, want me to help finish them? I formatted one to show you what it looks like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

I see we have some common interests.

I remember reading of the cancellation of the Arrow in AvLeak when it happened. I was upset then, but had I known about the U-2 photos I wouldn't have been. No use for an interceptor with nothing to intercept.

My primary interest in Earhart is in the "mystery." I have arrived at an "opinion" which satisfies me, but not without much investigation and introspection.

I am a bit concerned when I see stuff like the outright assertion that radio communications were heard for days after she failed to land at Howland.

Although I was born in the first half of the last century, I missed the "golden age" though my library didn't.

I had the good fortune to talk to a number of the old heads and understand why some folks on the Earhart discussion page cannot comprehend the nature of the time and thus have problems with context.

I have been trying to get a feel for the contributors before I spend any time editing.

Most of my work on the Wiki has been on lighter than air and atomic weapons. Mark Lincoln

Gene Tierney

Sorry about that.Time to go to bed it is late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.250.164 (talk) 05:01:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

F-86

I saw cleary where are you going, and not like it. But i would suppose that you are still in good faith. Let's repeat with last edition of F-86 performances:

---

And so i think you'll agree to read this part of Joe Baugher ency, that reports too the sources he used: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_13.html

Specification of F-86F-40-NA: Engine: One General Electric J47-GE-27, 5910 lb.st. Dimensions: wingspan 39.11 feet, length 37.54 feet, height 14.74 feet, wing area 313.37 square feet. Weights: 11,125 pounds empty, takeoff weight 15,198 pounds (clean), 18,152 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks), 20,611 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks plus 2 1000 pound bombs). Maximum speed 678 mph at sea level, 599 mph at 35,000 feet (at 15,352 pounds combat weight). Initial climb rate 8100 feet per minute. Altitude of 30,000 feet reached in 5.2 minutes (clean). 47,000 feet service ceiling. Combat radius 463 miles. Ferry range 1525 miles.

Now let's see how it matches my numbers:

• Engine: Joe's: J47-GE-27. Aerei: J47-GE-27
• Thrust: Joe's:5910 lbs= 2680 kg. Aerei: 2680kgs
• Dimensions:

Joe's: 39,11ftx37,54ftx14,74ftx313,37ft2.=11,92 m x11.44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

Aerei:11,92 x11,44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

=Matched

• Weights:

Joe's: 11,135-15,198-18,152-20,611lbs=5,050-6,893-8,233-9,351kg

Aerei datas: 5,046--6,894-8,234-9,349 kg

=Almost 100% matched

• Performances:

Joe's 678/599 miles at 35,000ft= 1,091/964 kmh at 10,600 m

Aerei: 1091/964 kmh at 10600 m

=Matched

• Climb; Joe's 9,150 m in 5,2 min Aerei: 9,150 m in 5,2 m
• Ceiling: Joe 47000ft=14335 m .Aerei= 14325 m

=Matched over 99%

• Range:

Joe's 465 m and 1525 m ferry= 747 km-2452km

Aerei=745-1795 (internal)-2454km (ferry)

=Matched almost 100%

Weapons: Joe 2x747 l + 2x454kg bombs. 907+1100-1200kg fuel+200/300kg tanks=well over 2 t.

Aerei: max. 2455 kg total, of which 1100 kg weapons (possible that included M2 cartridges, 1,600 crts x 0,1 kg each are 160kg+907=1077)ù

SOLUTION: Take max weight and clean weight and the result will be, 20.611-15,198 lbs=2455 kg! Exactly the same weight indicated in Aerei. 100% matched.

All datas sobstantially matched one each other, with an average of over 99%. Minor differences of 1-10 km are simply ridicolous to tell as 'significatives at all.

Dimensions matchings, weights are almost exactly the same, speed and climb are equals, range and endurance are pratically equals, weapons load matching as well.

What about sources? If i presented them, they will been obviousely unreliables-rubbish-BS. Well, judice yourselves:

Sources: Joe's:

• F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
• The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.
• The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
• The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966.
• The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
• Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.
• F-86 Sabre--History of the Sabre and FJ Fury, Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1993.
• Thirty Seconds over Sargodha, John Fricker, Air Enthusiast, Vol 1, No 1, 1971.

Aerei:

• Aerei 6/79
• Aeri modellismo 5/92
• Air Enthusiast 17
• F-86 in action (Squadron signal)

---

Moreover, the not exactly silly site: http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/northam/f-86f.htm has datas widely matching mines.

Just to realize how silly these discussions are, seen how i am seen as the Antichrist of wikipedia.--Stefanomencarelli 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

superscript

added to the Flying Tigers discussion page: Someone keeps putting one instance of 1st American Volunteer Group in superscript. Could we belay that, please? Wiki gravely informs us: 'Sometimes, ordinal endings for numbers are written as superscripts (1st, 2nd, 3rd rather than 1st, 2nd, 3rd), although many style guides recommend against this use.' Indeed. The Chicago Manual (14th edition) nowhere allows it. Further, the usage isn't consistent in this article or in the main American Volunteer Group article, nor are superscripts used elsewhere e.g. 23d Fighter Group. AVGbuff (talk)

Barnstormstar

While I'm gratified to get it, it's called having good sources handy... It's not like I can do it off the top of my head. (Also, I've been collecting these books since Grade 8...) Trekphiler (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, Happy New Year. {I'm still getting used to that...})

Congratulations!

The Boeing 747 article has just been granted featured article status! The star isn't shown yet but it's listed among the promotions. Even though you're listed as only making the 9th most edits in the article, you did help a lot recently, especially with the references. Thanks! Archtransit (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Those Magnificant Men

"Aircraft" seems a little portentious for a 1910 flying machine! Given that this is after all a British subject I can't see what is drastically wrong with "aeroplane". "Aircraft" calls to mind a jumbo jet or something!! I would have reverted this if it had been most people!

"aeroplane" is correct. "airplane" is a casual perversion/Americanism of "aeroplane". An "aircraft" could also be a helicopter or a balloon, but balloons and helicopters are not aeroplanes. Hoserjoe (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bristol Boxkite was intended to impersonate a typical American 1910 aeroplane - at this stage the Americans were already slipping a little behind Europe in aviation technology - both the Wright and the Curtiss types still had fore elevators, for instance. Yet rather than build an example of a Wright or a Curtiss they chose a Bristol Boxkite, which while hardly cutting edge technology even for 1910 had a reputation of being exceptionally easy to fly (which neither of he American types did!!) plus that all important fore elevator.

While I accept that the sentence meant to convey this quite intricate idea is a little idiomatic, your replacement seems ambiguous and ungrammatical into the bargain.

Sorry if I am a bit frank here - this is why I have put these remarks here rather than in the article's "discussion" page. I am trying to be helpful rather than to score points. Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - I suppose we can live with "aircraft", which is certainly better than "plane" or "airplane". Although "Aeroplane" remains the usual "non-North American English" term - "aircraft" also includes balloons and airships so it decidedly less "specific". And this IS a British subject. Never mind, let it pass.

I have tweaked your wording a little - hope this makes some things clearer. The references in the "aircraft" section should refer to Wheeler, Allen H. Building Aeroplanes for "Those Magnificent Men.". London: G.T. Foulis, 1965. (incidentally (if you haven't already) - get hold of a copy of this if you can and read it!! it is really where most of the info in this section was originally drawn from.

The Lee Richards Annular biplane, like several other of the more far-fetched types was, as I understand it, NOT actually flown at all - but used as a static display, and "flown" using special effects. If you have an actual cite to the contrary (apart from it "apparently flying" in the DVD then this will need to be included.

I am a bit scratchy on how to fix the reference properly - if you know how can you do it??? Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'Ardam' engine mentioned for the Demoiselle would have been an Ardem as in this link: [1] Great work, this film has not been on TV here for ages. I am lucky enough to live close to the Shuttleworth Collection, I have some books that may have some useful stuff for this article, will have a look. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

SAI Ambrosini or Ambrosini SAI ?

Happy new year Bill ! Here ther is a brand new request for an opinion from you. In it.wiki aviation project we checked and debated the most appropriate way to name Ambrosini company’s airplanes (see Category:Ambrosini aircraft). Our research efforts led to consider, as an example, "SAI Ambrosini 207" more correct than present day en.wikipedia "Ambrosini SAI.207", being the correct company name SAI Ambrosini and not Ambrosini SAI (see http://www.passignanosultrasimeno.org/italiano/storia.html italian site which recalles the SAI Ambrosini plant at the bottom). What we can do ? What is the best way to suggest a global renaming action ? Who should be informed, in order to verify consensus on the topic, prior to perform any action? Thank you for your support --EH101 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.bancaero.it/shop/product_info.php?cPath=1129_241&products_id=4192 for an Italian book about the SAI Ambrosini 207.Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in which it is clearly stated once again that proper name is SAI Ambrosini 207, differently from en.wiki's article Ambrosini SAI.207--EH101 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New word

Canidalism - the belief by some Canadians that the USA wants to eat their country. :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Text lines

Funny, that edit put it in the text lines for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourth generation jet fighter

Could you please take a closer look on Downtrip ? Downtrip's reference for F-15E and F-16 block 50/52 was a recursion! A clone can't used as a reference!--HDP (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

F-22

The same for the F-22. First vandalismus from a IP than suspicious changes from Downtrip. Especially Downtrips sources are very questionable.--HDP (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is Down-zilla still giving trouble? THat's why I stopped editing those pages!

Water?

I hadn't heard anything about that! But given that Cnada has a tenth the US's population, but 75% more land, much of which is covered with water, seems reasonable to me. Given that Americans pay more by the gallon for bottled water than for gasoline, you guys should make a killing! (Written in between sips of my Dasani!) :) - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-particpants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian eyes needed

Hi Bzuk - know anything more about the Curtiss-Reid Rambler? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Radar Reducing Features in Eurofighther

I really don't want to get into an edit war with him and I am hoping we can revert and if necessary lock. He is basing his entries on a reprint of a book published in 1989 which makes claims that are not in the public domain and are unsourced in the book. He further makes claims from an Austrian discussion forum which I thought wiki does not recognize as a legitimate source. Thanks.Downtrip (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill he mean the Austrian site www.airpower.at from Martin Rosenkranz and Georg Mader; Janes Korrespondent is not a reliable source. Faq Eurofighter at Airpower.at [2]RAM coatingRAM coating Bill you can compare the protocol, which contain 96 pages, what's the point? This citation [3] is 1:1 from this Austrian parliament protocol protocol page76 and 77. Thanks --HDP (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the recognition. I'm glad to help the project by cleaning up messes. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mine, too. Not exactly sure what it is :-) but I'm grateful any efforts of mine have been acknowledged...I'll try to be worthy! Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Provincial constitutions?

Bill, I asked this at Talk:Provinces and territories of Canada, and I thought i'd run it by you also. Do Canadian provinces have their own constitutions? This is not covered in the Provinces and territories of Canada article, and it seems to me it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:172.143.18.73

I noticed that you reverted an edit because this user is banned. I found an indication of a block but not a ban. Please give me a link where the ban is indicated. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DH 6

I am a little concerned about your "sweep up" on this one -

1. Having just stated that an aircraft had its origins in the First World War - it grates heavily on my stylistic sense to belabour the fact that the years that followed that war were post First World War years. If you have a strong antipathy to the phrase "post war" - perhaps we need to completely recast the sentence? Although I really thing that the original was perfectly OK.

2. Most sources baldly state that de Havilland HAD two aims in designing the DH 6. This is NOT good "encyclopedia style", however. As we can not read de Havilland's mind, all we can say is that he apparently had, or seems to have had those two intents. Nor can we say he "seemed" to have had. This refers to what "seemed" in the past - which is not something we can make a statement about. Not without a direct and very specific cite to that effect anyway. The original wording is considered, carefully worded, and correct. The alternative is to recast the sentence - perhaps by leaving out any statement of apparent intent altogether. But this would seem to be expunging important information.

3. The statement about the engine fitted to the DH 6 is that the "RAF 1a aircooled engine" (cf the Dragonfly radial engine, or the Mercedes DIII inline six engline) NOT "the RAF 1, a aircooled engine". The latter is almost impossible for an native English speaker to write, even as a typo. I can't see that, without the space and the comma, there is any ambiguity either. You might recast the sentence to read something like "an aircooled V8, the RAF 1a" - but I honestly can't see that as any clearer or less ambiguous. As it is, you have changed the sense of the sentence, and introduced a technical inaccuracy. It needs to be changed in order to restore the original sense.

3. "Aeroplane" may seem like a totally unacceptable Britishism from where you stand - if so, so be it. "Aircraft" on the other hand, is a different word with a much wider meaning. In this case I really can't be bothered arguing - except to point out that a mass conversion of every mention of the word "aeroplane" by "aircraft" would produce some very strange effects. Consider "aircraft type" or even "trainer" for instance.

4. If you think an in-line reference to the fact that the DH 6 was "too safe" to make a good trainer then this is almost too easy - I have not been able to find a reference to the type anywhere that does NOT include this fact. None the less, for people with any aeronautical knowledge whatsoever, the description of its flying characteristics alone would make the fact that it was virtually useless as a trainer for pilots destined to cope with (say) the Sopwith Camel(!!) all too obvious. By all means delete this if you think it improves the article. The "flying joke" reference, on the other hand, can certainly be expunged if you don't like it. It (like several other things in the article) is not in fact directly stated in so many words in any of the sources. The article is not a slavish repetition of another source (which would probably be a breach of copyright) but a synthesis of facts gathered from a number of places. Any aircraft type that collects as many rude nicknames as the DH 6 was very obviously regarded with a good deal of mirth. If that is OR then just leave the whole sentence out!! Most readers will surely make the inference for themselves anyway. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(refer. to your reply to the above on my discussion page)

A great deal in what you say, of course - sorry if I caused any offence - such was not the intent. Of course "our own writing" can be like our own children - and we can see criticism of it as criticism of ourselves when this was not necessarily the case. Perhaps what we both need is greater detachment? Once we have written something and presented it to Wiki then it is really no longer ours, after all. I never mind constructive criticism, especially from fellow enthusiasts like you who "know their stuff". What I (foolishly, I admit) let get to me was an impression that the implied criticism of my writing was petty, and didn't add much (if anything) to the quality of the article. So much real work on Wiki (especially in my fields of music and aeronautics) needs to be done that I get hot under the collar at the level of interaction we get sometimes between apparently intelligent, well-intentioned editors who end up wasting many hours arguing over banalities.

I know anything you do on Wiki is always in good faith (refreshing, in the presence of so many silly vandals and erratic nongs) - and I try to be as accepting as I can. I have in fact edited the article in question - trying hard to cover the problems you seem to have with it. I honestly don't think the "new" form is "better" in any sense of the word - and I would rather have simply reverted everything (except, perhaps, for the "aeroplane/aircraft" question), but I accept that it is not MY article, but "ours", ("us" being the community of "good faith" editors of Wiki).

Anyway, have a look at the article in its mutilated form, and see what you think. Within reason I leave you with the last word.

Happy landings! Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked at your latest edits - adding references etc. - much more like it! AT least that kind of editing leaves the article better than it was. You may note I have moved your comment about the type's low stalling speed to a more appropriate place. it seems to me to belong with the other remarks about the type's "forgiving nature" rather than its low performance. Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For the Barnstar. :) I keep the Amelia Earhart page on my watchlist, and yes, I get to revert quite a bit of vandalism from it. Thanks again. Acalamari 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Those magnificent men DVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Those magnificent men DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Diefenbaker

An editor has nominated John Diefenbaker, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Diefenbaker and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

{{LondonGazette}}/Dieppe Raid

please don't change the reference from this template. The source has a habit of completely revamping its website, using a template means it's much easier to fix all links to it by changing the template, rather thn by having to manually fix all references to it (I still haven't fixed all the article following on from the website change in October). You may have a point about the style, italicising the title, and using an en dash, I look at fixing those in the template. It is useful to provide a link to the wiki article on the gazette so people full understand what it is.David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Set your user preferences and it doesn't really matter what format dates are written in, you'll always see them in a consistent style. David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

remember that yyyy-mm-dd is unambiguous, and indeed is the ISO standard for date representation - yes there's a problem with dd-mm-yyyy/mm-dd-yyyy but I don't believe anyone uses yyyy-dd-mm. There are certainly places within wikipedia where that is suggested as the bes format for retrieval dates. Personally I can see a lot of advantages to templates, they encoruage the collection of date for all the parameters, so that we have good metadata about references, they centrally control presentation, and where as in this case you are supplying parameters to a website it isolates the user from the construction of urls. Which when the Gazette search engine is playing silly beggars as it is at the moment, and refusing to give direct links to the pdfs, you can more easily construct the urls for yourself. Each to their own though. David Underdown (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The templates may not be entirely consistent yet, but they do make it easier for those of us who don't have your experience. And should standards change, at least if the data is collected in a machine readable format, it makes it much easier to change the data en masse. David Underdown (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth a bit of your time getting (for example) at least the "cite" series sorted out, and then there would be less for you to do in individual articles? Some rationalisation of templates would be good, as I agree there are a multiplicity out there (each with there own subtle variations), but at least when data is entered as a named (or ordered) set of parameters, it is a relatively trivial task for someone to programme a bot to convert from one type of template to another. If it's all freetext, far more work is needed later. Again, if the data is in templated form, it's also much easier to search for articles which have missing bibliographic data. Those are my thoughts on using templates, but then I'm coming at this as an IT type (albeit one who works in a fairly major archive, so has some experience of cataloguing problems). David Underdown (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this place except a triumph of wishful thinking (albeit somewhat gnawed around the edges by human nature reaserting itself)?

David, the use of one consistent dating pattern is preferred because the vast majority of users do not have date preferences set and in Wikipedia groups, a decision was made to provide a consistent date format, The reason that day/month/year was chosen was that it was unambiguous. If you use 01-10-2008, does it mean January 10, 2008 or October 1, 2008? For foreign users, the issue was always interpretation of dates since dd/mm/yr was often mm/dd/yr in their countries. BYW, all my comments were definitely "tongue in cheek" and you will observe, that I subtly altered rather than completely revised the templates (which I still don't like!) Have a nice day. Bzuk (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Having had a 33+ years background in Library cataloguing, I have a propensity to "scratch catalog" rather than using templates, which although useful for some editors are still "buggy" and do not have the kind of stable features that are required for consistent bibliographical records. Almost all the Wikipedia templates are "after-the-fact" add-ons that came about when a need arose. Templates are still being developed and I have seen so many alterations in their formats that I simply abandon them and use full MLA or APA formats for cataloging references. As to dates, the numerical system was discussed thoroughly in many project groups and although you may consider yyyy-mm-dd as a standard (and indeed the ISO standard), so many editors did not understand that and a uniform format was therefore adopted (at least in all the military and aviation groups in which I dabble). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

I can share your enthusiasm for a "brighter day" when all templates will read correctly and perhaps the Easter Bunny will oversee that... LOL, just being facetious; my main contention is that templates are an aid to those editors that are not professional cataloguers and few of that ilk have ventured forth into this WikyWacky world. For many non-library types, a simple, yet efficient system is possible, I just haven't run into a template that does that (maybe someday soon...) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

I give you credit for wishful thinking, if nothing else. Meanwhile, back to ramparts, trolls and vandals afoot! FWIW, thanks for the "across-the-Atlantic" conversation. Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

"What is this place except a triumph of wishful thinking (albeit somewhat gnawed around the edges by human nature reasserting itself)?" Pure poetry David, and the only reason that I still devote any time and energy to this project is in meeting people like you and being able to collaboratively work on topics of like interest. It sometimes makes me question my commitment when there are so many on the outside that "poke and jab" often malevolently but sometimes, merely in jest. They serve to strengthen the resolve and when there are the sillies about, maybe it's good to look at the Wikyworld and not be too serious about it. What is being done is remarkable and already has become a reference source that has to be at least considered alongside other sources. It may never arise to the standard of a peer-reviewed, authoritative work, but the input of so many experts must, at least, give rise to a new electronic guide to the future. FWWI Bzuk (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

your end-section edits

Hi, I'm all in favor of regularizing end-sections, but your edits[4] [5] don't conform to WP:LAYOUT and introduce a Notes section without any notes. --Jtir (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi J, thanks for writing. Let me explain my reasoning here- I fully intend to place inline citations and reference sources in the various articles that do not have full sourcing. It's also an incentive for other editors to follow up and continue the work of providing verification. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

That sounds great. May I suggest an edit summary that says so, and cites a section of the WP:MOS? I usually cite WP:LAYOUT when rearranging the end-sections. What guideline are you following?

Why did you remove the cite templates and the examples (which I put into articles to help editors use them). I use cite templates because they are flexible, and ensure consistency in the formatting of references.

--Jtir (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative reply.

As for cite templates, I agree that they are not perfect, but have encountered almost no bugs. The main problems I have had with cite templates have been fitting certain info into them -- e.g. when a book is reprinted and therefore needs to be described by more than one date, or when there are several contributors, such as editors, translators, authors of forewords, etc. I have started adding annotation and providing exlinks to bibrecs at libraries as partial solutions.

• Russell, Jeffrey Burton and Summers, Montague in Malleus Maleficarum
• Zamyatin, Yevgeny ([1962]) in We (novel) (it is at the very end; see also the Russian language editions section)

I imagine you could give more examples. Unfortunately, most editors don't have your expertise, so they are better off using cite templates, where they can "fill in the blanks".

--Jtir (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit from my talk page:"Hi, I'm all in favor of regularizing end-sections, but your edits[4] [5] don't conform to WP:LAYOUT and introduce a Notes section without any notes. --Jtir (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)." Hi J, thanks for writing. Let me explain my reasoning here- I fully intend to place inline citations and reference sources in the various articles that do not have full sourcing. It's also an incentive for other editors to follow up and continue the work of providing verification. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

At this point, templates are useful for some editors but are entirely buggy and the ones used in the articles in question were for the American Psychiatric Association style guide which while used for some reference sources is not the usual standard for social history works, that being the Modern Language Association style guide which I incorporated in a "scratch" cataloging. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Reggiane Re.2000" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing in citation/reference notes. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. Bzuk (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

questions at Talk:Propliner

Hi, could you look at a couple of aviation-related questions at Talk:Propliner? --Jtir (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking Common Words (response to your suggestion)

Hi Raymond, I have recently noticed your submissions have centred around adding wikilinks to common words such as Machine gun. This is actually not encouraged as only significant words should be wikilinked. FWIW, I realize these are "good-faith" edits but if they do not provide value to the articles, the submissions are considered nonproductive. Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

WP:OVERLINK is a guideline on this subject. --Jtir (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Winn here. Thanks for your suggestions. I have noted that you have reverted at least one of my recent edits, with the notation of 'too many wikilinks'. I need all the guidance that I can get, but I think that reverting a whole day's work, just because you feel that "machine gun" is too common to wikilink, is a bit much.

I know that you are coming at this topic as a highly educated, native-English speaker who is intimately familiar with the aerospace field. I wonder whether we should assume that all users who access the airplane pages are similarly equipped.

The Wiki page on overlink says that we SHOULD use wikilinks for:

• word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker;
• Geographic place names;
• Technical terms, unless they are fully defined in the article and do not have their own separate article;
• Common words, if their use in context of the particular entry is restricted or specialized (it gives the example of "price" and "goods" needing to be wikified in an article about "supply and demand").

The guideline that I have used is twofold:

• "Would I have to explain what the word means if my non-aviation-oriented daughter is reading the article?"
• "Would I have to explain to my overseas friends who are struggling through the entry, using their spanish-english dictionary to assist their understanding?"

So, let's compromise: I will try to be more selective; and I suggest that you look at the possible misunderstanding that would result when a non-aviation type or a foreign barely-english-speaking female tries to picture what the "fuselage" or the "propeller" or a "machine gun" or an "ejection seat" would look like. Does that sound fair? Raymondwinn (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, thanks for your very thorough and insightful comments. I do agree that there are easily compromises to be made in the area of wikilinking and you will note that in the last article I reviewed that I used a lot of the submission you provided. Please be aware that I value your efforts and hope to work again with you on topics of like interest. Like yourself, I am located in North America, frozen half. Although there are many commonalities in language for Canjans and Amerikins, you are quite correct that there are many non-English speakers who still would like to participate in Wikipedia, will appreciate links to unfamiliar words and terminology. Keep on rockin,' it was nice talking to you, electronically. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Tuskegee Airmen

Ab, first let me congratulate you on the tremendous job in creating a very visual and informative chart for the Tuskeegee Airmen article. I had some concerns about its application and have actually revised the information into a more standard format used for popular cultural references. I would like to direct you to the talk/discussion "string" for the article that outlines some of my reasoning more fully. I would also like you to consider the use of this chart for other purposes such as comparisons between individual variants of an aircraft or piece of military equipment, for example, or in documenting a period of time, such as a battle or the rise and fall of a corporation. I invite comments and further discourse on this issue. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

I guess I'm not clear on why the chart was removed. I understand your point about popular culture references being less important, but that is the reason I moved the information from the main portions of the article and the trivia section and consolidated them at the end of the article in chart. Most of the items within the chart had Wikipedia articles or were already a part of the article, so I saw it as adding to the knowledge base for someone interesed in the Tuskegee Airmen. Making a chart of other equipment is fine if someone has the information you have requested. I don't own this article, so I'll leave it as is, but I think discussion on such a major revision would have been nice. Peace and blessings to you. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ab, and again, let me again extend my compliments for a fine effort in the development of a very useful chart layout. I think it there are a great number of applications that would benefit from such a graphic layout. The only reason that I had concerns is that the section in which it was utilized is one of those "gray" areas in an aviation (or in any Wikipedia) article and that is the "popular culture" section. There is an ongoing debate about the relevance of these references and has been the cause of numerous edit wars, even involving an admin who eventually quite the project in a huff over the use of what he considered "trivial" and inconsequential lists. There has been a very restrained and studied approach that is now emerging, with advocates such as myself who have campaigned for their retention, and that is why a "popular culture" section still exists in the WP:Aviation Group. My overriding assessment was that your chart was very colourful, allowed for a great deal of information to be shown in a clean and dramatic form and would be extremely suitable for many aspects of an article; I just wished it wasn't used in a section that is still an area of contention. If the chart had appeared in any other area of the article, it would not have been challenged; it would have been applauded. Rather than drawing attention to popular culture, many editors are striving to maintain the section as is, but I certainly understand your concern at what you may have perceived as a cavalier action. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

I certain didn't see the removal as cavalier, and as I said, I understand your point about the popular culture sections (I've certainly seen abuse in such areas). What has been most helpful in controling such in other articles I've assisted with is to require references and/or Wikipedia articles before an item can be included in the popuar culture section. On a seperate note: I know the Aviation WikiProject is monitoring the article, but it is also under the pervue of the African-American Culture project. That's why I recommended that future major edits be discussed. What may make sense from a military or aviation standpoint may raise questions from a cultural standpoint. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolon, thank you for your erudite and thoughtful discourse. I appreciate your comments and I endeavoured in my talk page and editorial change comments to explain my reasoning as I was certainly aware that after the extensive time and effort you extended towards creating the Tuskeegee Airmen popular culture chart that I did want to personally assure you that there was no malice intended in my revision. Instead, let me reassure you that I readily acknowledge the work of a skilled and experienced editor. I can see unlimited potential in the use of this graphic although I still have concerns over its use in the section in question. In closing, as well, peace be with you... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the Aviation Barnstar

Hi again Bill.

I hadn't looked at my User Page for quite a while so I only just noticed the Barnstar - what can I say, I'm very flattered! - thanks very much! BTW, it's a bit late now I know, but Happy New Year! - LOL! Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A fellow IPMSer

Gidday As a former President of IPMS Dunedin, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ipms_dunedin/ NZ I say Hallo to IPMS Winnipeg. My thanks for your comments, by the way: I'm still learning the ropes, so to speak and I'm getting lots of practice at editing Wikipedia. I've just started a page on Group Captain Desmond J Scott, and will be gradually extending the biography. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

DH5

Hi, me again! I agree the DH5 article is poorly referenced. The snag is, whenever I try to add inline references I just get a load of red error messages (i.e. I just haven't worked out how to do it!!) - how about inserting some yourself? "pp" is a common bibliographic abreviation for "pages" - I have left your corrections stand, however, in case there is a Wiki ban on this convention. Hang in there! Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally - well done with the revision of the "Magnificent Men" aircraft! Recently relocated my old copy of Wheeler (my aviation bookcase is a dreadful mess) - on re-reading it noticed a things that were NOT as I remembered - and was going to have a look at this - but you beat me to it. Outstanding!! also by the by - I have located a reasonably priced copy of Jackson (titled De Havilland aircraft since 1909 (rather than 1915) - reckon they "extended it back" a little for a later edition. Looking forward to reading it (especially the DH6 section!!) Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling?

Have you seen [this]?68.244.31.203 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cute! FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

202.95.200.17

Thanks for that info you put on my talk page. If the editors stop humiliating me, THEN I will eventually cool down. I'm already trying to start discussions; I'm starting with the Fuel starvation edits. I'm sure that eventually things will settle.

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Sorry about any personal attacks against others.

Thanks for the wise words.

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

I just notice the barnstar... thanks! And it feels nice to be writing about aircraft again. Maury (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello, Bzuk. Usually, vandals are warned with templates. The "uw-vandalism" series is often used. See {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}, and {{uw-vandalism4im}}. Users who vandalize after a recent final warning can be reported at WP:AIV. Thanks. Happy editing! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen

Just to inform you, since 1918 there is no German title like 'Freiherr' in existence, nobility titles where transfered to being part of the surname. This was in consequence to the abolishment of German Monarchy. So Freiherr, Baron, Prinz etc. are part of the name since 1918 in Germany. Germany doesn't have any nobility since then. --Oldnag85 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric and Michael

I was already looking at them. And as long as you don't call him Eric in any article (it was Emeric), what I see looks good. It did actually draw my attention back to a few other things in the articles that needed cleaning up and I so liked that structure of putting any Notes, Bibliography & External links all under References, that I've now used it in the articles for all of their films. But what is it about Powell & Pressburger (or Eric & Michael) that attracts librarians so much? In the P&P email list there are about 500 members around the world. Of those we have at least 10 librarians. Some are in local government libraries, some are in college or university libraries, a couple are at the British library. But I always did know what useful people librarians are :) Thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Powell

I took out "First worked as an actor." because he didn't :) He first worked as a general studio hand, sweeping the floor, making coffee, fetching and carrying. He progressed to other work like stills photography, writing titles (for the silent films) and many other jobs before Rex Ingram tried him as an actor - as a "comic English tourist" in Mare Nostrum (1926) -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)