User talk:Rlandmann

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This editor is a **Senior Editor II** and is entitled to display this **Rhodium Editor Star**.

Pre March 04 talk here
March 04-June 04 talk here
July 04-August 04 talk here
September 04-December 04 talk here
January 05-June 05 talk here
My WikiHoliday June 05-March 07 talk here
March 07-June 07 talk here
June 07-August 07 talk here
September 07-December 07 talk here
January 08-March 08 talk here
April 08-June 08 talk here
July 08-September 08 talk here
My second WikiHoliday September 08-February 10 talk here

Hi

Hi, Sorry I'm not sure if this is the correct way to contact you but its regarding the entry for 'Tilly bailey Irvine'. I note you removed information on the history of them because of a potential copyright issue with my This is Hartlepool website which for some reason made the news! I just wanted to confirm that they sought my permission last week and I said it was OK to use information from my site. Feel free to add it back in if you like, I'll leave that up to you. Just to confirm I do own This is Hartlepool Ive added the following confirmation page: [1] . Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.128.144 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Is this a sign of life? hope all is well and welcome back. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that, great to see you back. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We missed you, can you tell?! - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! A little over a year ago, I took up a very exciting new job. It's a fast-paced company, and initially, I was taking a lot of work home which effectively absorbed the time I had available for Wikipedia. Since then, things have settled down somewhat, and I'm happy to be able to start contributing again. It's nice to have been missed :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia will always be here, there is no deadline apparently!! You might be interested to see how the aircraft engine task force has grown at WP:AETF, I think you created the first project page for us. We even have two featured engine articles that were promoted late last year!!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disappeared so quickly and throughly we were afraid you'd been kidnapped. Would they kidnap wiki-admins?? Yes, indeed your non-nonsense brand of wiki-sense has been in short supply. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I was afraid something terrible had happened. Good to have you back! --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good to have you back, RL. Btw, the project (well, Trevor did most of the hard work!) has developed a new specs template, Template:Aircraft specs, to try to replace the 2 older ones by combining the best features of both, along with some new functionality. It's currently in beta testing, and being used in new articles and existing ones that previously had no or little specs. Could you have a look, and see what you think? Thanks again! - BilCat (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!83.138.172.72 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC) - must check I'm logged in before signing!Petebutt (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short S.45 aka T5

I have replied to your question on my talk page, to keep it all in one place. Welcome back from me too! --TraceyR (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JAE

Just to let you know most of the missing aircraft were added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles which I have been working through. I have been trying to create redirects or articles for them all. I didnt create it and it includes a lot of unbuilt stuff that appears in various templates. I intend just to delete them from the templates and remove them from the list eventually as I am sure most unbuilt projects are not really notable but they have been added to templates to complete sequences! When you finish JAE ! I would welcome your opinion. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the JAE list is Cessna GG-2 is this a typo for Cessna CG-2 ? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JAE list was included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles and it is still in User:Rlandmann/JAE. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood I was not involved in creating the list just trying to reduce it! I think another user added the stuff from the "wrong" JAE list latter, it also looks like Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics has been redirected to the missing list as well just to confuse. I will check back and make sure we dont have any more typos! MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with your approach it has worked well in the past. The problem I have is the missing list has picked up a lot of wierd entries from various lists around wikipedia so I will try and sort them out one at a time! I suspect I will delete the unbuilt projects from the navboxes and the list in time as some have just been filled to complete the sequence. Most unbuilt projects are not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your comments on unbuilt projects we should try and find out what we can and I also agree with your comments on FA/GA process. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info I have started an Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft list at User:MilborneOne/IEA, only one volume so far! MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, probably a good idea to expand the miscellaneous sections but I will try and get the bulk of the standard entries done first. Again I will do the designations as is at the moment but understood that some may be good as re-directs. It might take me a while to do all eighteen volumes but I will try and add to it when I can. Hope to have something in place before you finish JAE! MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yak-41

Hi there. Yak-141 is fictitious and was only used for propaganda purposes when registering the records set in '75 white' with the FAI.

I have changed the article to Yak-41, but I shall go back and add Yak-141 to the variantsa list as an explanation inb the articlePetebutt (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French aircraft categories for decades of the 19th century

Hello, Rlandmann. You have new messages at 84user's talk page.
Message added 13:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

(exploring other ways to improve navigation for readers) -84user (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSky M-02

I noticed your recent edit on this article, and I am kinda opposing the move. The project consist of at least 3 models, the 1/2, M01 and M02, so naming it the M02 is a bit specifying the whole thing too much. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I can understand why it was moved now. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESM Wiki

Hi RL, is this you [2]? If it is I just bought one of the kits that you edited!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!! Have not looked at the site much, happened across it searching for reviews of the Academy 1/48 Bf 109E-3, I am building the kit for reference for a much bigger RC scale version, nice kit so far, beyond my skills to build it properly though!!. Must bookmark that site, seems fairly new? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEW SECTION

Hi RL, Thanks for your comments on the Slingsby glider photos I submitted (tried to submit). I must admit that learning how to contribute to Wikipedia is worse than learning Greek - a skill I've yet to master. I did spend several hours trying to understand the various 'help' articles - but it is like trying to knit spaghetti. It may be clear to the people who have been involved with this for many years - but speaking as a lifelong teacher, writer and professional editor - I am not sure I have the energy to get to grips with this. The 'help' notes seem designed to reduce the reader to biting the desktop and screaming: tautologies abound and I have yet to find a single article that says: "this is how you insert an image and place it on the page".

I wanted to respond to your request for a citation - in respect of a source for my assertion that there are still about 30 Skylark 4's in operational condition. The reference is here by the way:

[3]

So I looked up citations in 'help' and after 20 minutes wrestling with slippery eels, I am no nearer to being able to insert a citation than when I started. I might add that I have written several theses and am quite familiar with citations and footnotes.

If you can point me to a clear, lucid, exemplified help file that shows me how to contribute I will follow it up. Otherwise I will leave it to you Greek speakers.

Cheers

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borderglider (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenair CH 50

The trouble with the Zenair CH 50 (or Mini Z) is that there is very little information about it Jane's 82 has some specs and the fact that it first flew in 1979, but very little else - I'm not clear whether or not any plans were sold, or any more than the first prototype was built. I can't find anything useful anywhere else.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miniplane photos

Glad I could help out there. I find a few pictures really spruce up the aircraft type articles. Now that I have most of mine indexed and accessible it is just a matter of searching to see if I have any when I see a new article listed at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft). I found some to add to Nigel's articles on the Zenair CH 200 and 300 as well! - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlandmann

You deleted that page in under 3 minutes: not even time to work on it. People want to reference things but they don't know best how it's done.

You have restored my faith

Thanks for your help - much appreciated.

Royal Air Force Conversion Units

Can you look at this for me please. i can't get the table right. Some entries won't show the lines in between them. Perhaps a suggestion on how to do it better? ThanksPetebutt (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)oops got the wrong page, this is the one I meantPetebutt (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications

Thanks for the heads-up. :) I can see advantages and disadvantages to both templates; I'll keep the issues in mind when deciding what to use. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Template

Thanks for the note. Perhaps we should mark {{WikiProject Aircraft}} somehow so others won't make the same mistake.

--M e r ond e 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]