Jump to content

User talk:Bzuk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stefanomencarelli (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 20 April 2012 (→‎DYK for Gianni Caproni Museum of Aeronautics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NOTE: Going back into my old trade as a filmmaker and writer, concentrating on aviation subjects.

This editor is a WikiGnome.
It is approximately 5:46 PM where this user lives (Central Time). [refresh]



———————————————My Talk Page ———————————————



The Signpost
4 September 2024


Happy New Year!

I have no creative pic to share, but wishing you a great holiday! --Born2flie (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCAF Comet (colour).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RCAF Comet (colour).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See edit comment at discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dassault_Rafale January 2012

Thanks for your help, for this page !AirCraft (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFN templates

Please don't change these to REFs! This is going to be the new style moving forward, and for good reason, they are *much* easier to edit and keep working after multiple edits. You should try them, I've converted over entirely. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Blériot

...the heading is encyclopedic, its a quote from Henri Fabre. Seriouly, I was wondering about your edit comment about gushing language... all I could see were corrections of the many typos I make. More substaially The Bleriot biography by Brian Elliott makes no mention of either the cooling rain shower or o the telgraph wires (mentioned in the Bleriot biography account if not here) & describes the flight in some detail, including a dissection of varying accounts of whether the reporter with the flag was there (why let facts stand in the way of a good story. The idea of Bleriot himself telegraphing an American paper seems most implausible to me. Back to the coalface.TheLongTone (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up after me, I haven't quite got the hang of how to cite web pagesTheLongTone (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P-64

The date (Oct 1940) was specific to the P-64, which is just a development of the NA-50 - the date for first flight should be that of the NA-50, not that of a minor improvement to the original design (even if the page is labelled P-64). The P-51 page for instance lists the first flight as that of the NA-73X - not the actual P-51 which didn't appear until later. I just haven't found a date yet (it should have been in 1939 or before given the delivery of the NA-50s in 1939), and figured it was better to leave it empty until it was found than add a later date. The best I have so far is that the 7 Peruvian aircraft had all been flight tested by Feb 1939 (from the Hagedorn book) NiD.29 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

Please avoid WP:OWN with regard to this article. When a new guy comes in and tweaks the language in an article a bit, the edits don't require sources, and reverting on those grounds is just biting the new guy. This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit - not just you. Rklawton (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply- your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Erich Hartmann

Mister Zuk,

I thank you pushing me to create my english WP user page. Done!

My french WP user page dates back to 2008.

I feel lucky having the opportunity to cross the road of a aviation enthusiast and multimedia author. For instance, I look forward to read your AVRO Arrow book, and educator too, among other centers of interest. Amazing, congratulations!

Former engineer in chemistry, I have been afterwards working as an IT expert. Now I also train computer users, and use my Linux/Free and Open Source Software skills for a living.

Regarding your revert to my simplification, your statement does not seem to apply.

  • First, age information is now present three times in the page:
    • Beginning of leading entry (that's what you call "lede" ?) : Erich Alfred Hartmann (19 April 1922 – 20 September 1993)
    • End of leading entry : Hartmann died in 1993; he was 71.
    • Infobox: Died 20 September 1993 (aged 71)

I do not find where this statement "that is the typical endnote of the lede" would apply. As far as I can see: simple repetition of a death date three times with no added information is not "standard", and is not mandatory.

In case we agree, may I know when you would kindly cancel your revert? Or shall I do it?

--Philippe.petrinko (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have conveniently talked to you, and presented politely my position, on this personal page. You didn't return any answer. Since then, you have made several modifications to WP, so you had time and opportunity to answer me. I roll back to my modification.
I do hope this will be all, we both have so much better to contribute than to argue on those article lines. I am not here to vandalize WP, I am no offending newbie, and been here since 2008. My modification was made to improve style and simplicity.
--Philippe.petrinko (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

P-51

The P-51 article claimes in the lead that the 4,950 enemy aircraft shot down by Mustang pilots are "second only to the Grumman F6F Hellcat." The question begs, second only in what - planes shot down by USAAF? Planes shot down by allies? It couldn't be planes shot down by any type of plane, as - while I didn't actually do the math - the Bf-109 is bound to have a higher number of enemy planes downed.

Since the statement was not sourced, I did a "best guess" qualification, limiting the statement to Allied forces (which is very likely doing the Spitfire a disfavor, but without sources I couldn't do better). You reverted that edit, claiming that the statement were clear because it said "enemy aircraft". I am somewhat dumbfounded by that comment. Do you care to elaborate why the word "enemy" makes the statement clear? -- DevSolar (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-checking the Hellcat article just now - which makes it clear that the numbers are meant to mean planes shot down by allied aircraft, making my edit valid. -- DevSolar (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
for heroically swinging into action, tracking down refs and restoring the article Black Sunday (1977 film). Like you said in your edit summary, it still needs work, but it's much better than the stub it was reduced to yesterday. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks and kudos again for swinging into action a second time, this time on The Cassandra Crossing. Again, as you said, it could still use more work, but it's much better than it was yesterday. I, along with all who care about these older film articles, really appreciate it. People like you make WP a better place. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


By the way, I don't give these things out lightly. This is only the second Barnstar I've ever posted anywhere, and the first was yesterday... - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Black Sunday (1977 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

EMB-312

Needs your spelling skills again => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_312_Tucano Dafranca (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence (tora tora tora) contradicts itself

Hi Bzuk, the following sentence from Tora! Tora! Tora! doesn't make sense:

At the time of its initial movie release, Tora! Tora! Tora! proved to be a major box office flop in North America (despite being the ninth highest-grossing film of 1970), although it was a major hit in Japan; however, over the years, video releases provided an overall profit.[11]

If it was a box office flop, then how could it have been the ninth highest grossing film of 1970? I notice you reverted out my attempt to fix this, but I don't understand why. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citations to "Tora! Tora! Tora!"

Thank you for taking the time to add the detailed citations to the Tora! Tora! Tora! article. Someone was concerned that the article contained original research [1], which is why I added the requests for citations. Thanks for sharing your expertise on naval aviation to improve the article. I really appreciate it. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tail Project

I don't know why you undid the citation formatting. I was unable to salvage your constructive edits while reverting your citation changes. Please do not convert citation templates to manual citations, but feel free to revert the rest of your edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly put the date in the date field of the template instead of the work field. (I was tempted to revert).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have a professional opinion that I am not equipped to argue with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Red Tails, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Archer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AEA Silver Dart

Hi Bzuk, We can talk about the stylistics on the article's page. My major issue is that your manual formatting is sometimes wrong for the type of citation being used. Since Wikipedia now makes it easy to use the most frequently used citation templates with a pull-down menu, I would suggest you start using this time-saving device. It also means that the citation is following the format that Wikipedia feels is the appropriate one for the content. As for date formatting, I always prefer to use the digital year-month-day format in citations as it is easier to type multiple times, and takes up significantly less space than fully spelled-out months; and that format is allowed for in citations while not conflicting with the WP rules around time/date in the main article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send the link again, from the University of Honolulu, it appears to be broken.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It seems that the formatting that you disagree with is not so much my inclusion of commas or periods within quotation marks — these aren't added by me, but automatically by the template — but with Wikipedia's templates themselves. My experience with editing Wikipedia is that templates are to be trusted, because they are what was agreed upon at some point by some consensus process. I am not saying you are wrong, because I have run into similar issues with Canadian politics: common academic and Elections Canada terminology or formats not being used. I have had to conform to WP's sometimes unique styles or rules, as I am sure you have as well, since you have written some admiral books on the Avro Arrow, that would be considered original research (a good-term in academia, but verboten by WP standards). My academic friends complain about WP for precisely these kinds of things. In the end, WP uses its own version of grammar and style, and I just follow that.


As for the dating schema, in the main article, I prefer how it is: day-month-year. However, I do have to disagree about using that style in the citations, as it is now fairly standard in WP to use full-year, two-digit month, and then two-digit day (YYYY-MM-DD). As I spend much of my time fixing citation formatting, I rely on this efficient style because it is much easier to edit. As I have said previously, it is also more compact. Many, albiet minor, mistakes keep appearing when you manually type citations: missing a bracket, missing one format control character, etc. (I make these mistakes all the time too, but significantly less so when utilizing templates). I write frequently about aerospace subjects as well, so the dating format that I use for citations is quite common, and also prevents the usual disagreements about full-date formats between North Americans and the rest of the English-speaking world in terms of what the correct order is (to a point, a user can set this in their preferences). The auto-date-conform does not always work, and at one time, WP autocorrected the date from YYYY-MM-DD to the full-date format the user wished, but apparently doesn't anymore. That's why I use the date style that I do, and why I think that should be the style used for the article's citations.--Abebenjoe (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've read your 2004 Arrow book, about six-years ago, and thought is was very good. What if any opinions do you have about Peter Zuuring's plans to rebuild a functioning Arrow, which I assume fell through, as I was at Baddeck on 22 February 2009, and it was only F-18s and an F-86 performing the fly-by?--Abebenjoe (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.S. I knew the late Brian McInnis. He was a researcher with the CBC in the late '70s and worked on the documentary There Never Was an Arrow. He mentioned to me that he managed to contact the RCMP in Montreal, by pretending to be an RCMP agent, and was told that the RCMP and the Canadian military were hiding an Arrow, which Brian guessed was RL-206. When Brian asked for the location, the officer then suspected he wasn't who he claimed to be and clammed up (I've been on and off the phone for the past hour so this may not be as coherent as it should).--Abebenjoe (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try to include ISBN's as much as possible to help with the verification aspect of the citation. Also optional of course is the the url, if one exists. I try to include an url from either to the Toronto Public Library or the University of Toronto library system for books that do not have ISBNs. If it can help make it easier for verification, I'll try to do it. Likewise, when it comes to citing webpages, I try to use Webcite to archive the page. The problem with Webcite is that it doesn't always preserve the formatting. It also doesn't always copy the page — as an example, the Globe and Mail or Aviation Week — because those sites specifically ask that they not be archived.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to reply Sunday, as I am away from a machine that can edit Wikipedia for the rest of the day.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'll back you on this article, mainly because you seem to be the main contributor. In my academic work, I mostly used APA or Chicago-style formatting in both History, Semiotics, and Cinema Studies. I only used MLA-style pre-Microsoft Word 4.2 on a MacSE30, so that's one of the main reasons I don't mind the templates too much; but like you, I too have had to manually manipulate the template output to make it correct. BTW, I never use ISO as only a six-digit format, because that does cause confusion. The eight-digit ISO is not that confusing because the year is clearly stated, but some folks might still get the month and day aspect wrong if the day is below 13. As I said before, I like its compactness, but for this article, since there is likely not to be too much more work on it, I'll follow your lead on the citation formatting.--Abebenjoe (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up ref tags on article page

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Kindly don't do this sort of thing: ref/cite links. It's unhelpful. That broke all the links to the citations. I saw you do this on John A. Macdonald, where you reverted it. Alarbus (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V-1 flying bomb
The mix of reference styles is something I am still contending with, as Sfn templates must have recently been re-written as they had previously left out a period (full stop) and when trying to put one manually, noted that it messed up the output and quickly reverted it. The dates appearing in the APA and MLA styles are in slightly different locations and for consistency, can be manipulated to output after the publisher. As to dates that mix ISO and WYSIWYG dating, it usually is easier for a reader to read the date in "clear." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
As far as I know {{sfn}} has always used periods. I consider them trivial. The value of the sfn template is in the autocollating of duplicate references. I'm the editor who reworked Macdonald and other to use this system. I see the the V-1 page still has some in 'plain' and will fix those. On the dates, moving the year out of "year =" breaks the links to the citations, so please don't do that. I generally prefer the 2012-02-27 date form as it's universal, but don't much care really. Alarbus (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some citation style that ends up outputting into a Modern Language Association (MLA) style because the issue I see with the dates is that they are placed by the author not the publisher which is standard for determining when the publication is made. The template appears to mimic an APA guide but has no accommodation for any other style guide. Dates in different formats are inconsistent, and ISO dating is not read the same worldwide, ed. 2012-01-12, is it January 12, 2012 or December 1, 2012? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Please keep this talk here; I'm watching this page.
I'm fine with whatever layout the templates emit; they facilitate formatting for those who don't care about what gets italics and what should be a comma vs a colon. The ISO form is defined; 2012-01-12, is January 12, 2012. I've put the other citations into {{citation}} so they're consistent now and the footnote links work. Several are not used and I'd be fine with removing them or dropping them to a further reading section. (Haining, Kay, King, Ramsay, Young). I'd also be fine with lonelyplanet and lulu being cut. Alarbus (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still that ISO dating presupposes that people get it; it's far easier to simply use the same date format throughout the entire article from body to references. I'm willing to try to use the citation format but the only real advantage seems to be in linking the citation to the bibliographic link. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not arguing for the ISO form, just explaining it. We both just edited the refs section and managed to not edit conflict. One of the ISBNs was invalid, and I fixed it and fiddled with some other things. Linking the footnote to the bibliography is helpful to readers, but it is also helpful to editors because it serves as a check that the full citation is actually defined. Many articles refer to "Smith 2012" without offering anything further. If you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors it will highlight broken links and citations that are not linked to. The other advantage of {sfn} is that the whole process of collating multiple references to the same page is done automatically, so editors can skip most uses of named refs. They are another common source of errors because editors often multiply define names with varying definitions (and MediaWIki combines them by tossing all but the first definition), and re-use named refs that are to a specific page when they really mean some other page. Alarbus (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The {{sfn}} template hasn't been rewritten recently; the last change was in September 2011, and was trivial (it allows |loc= to coexist with either |p= or |pp=); the last unreverted non-trivial change was in December 2009 (to make the year optional instead of mandatory). It's included periods since this edit in June 2009 and they've been there ever since. {{Harvnb}}, by contrast, has never included a period - every now and then, somebody asks for it to be added but the request is always overturned, because that would introduce a double period to those articles where a perid has been added manually. Besides setting up a link for {{sfn}}, the {{citation}} template also exports COinS metadata, which handcrafted citations rarely do. MOS:DATEUNIFY permits either of two date formats in prose, but requires consistency, and publication dates in refs should follow the same format; access dates in refs may either be the same format as the pub date, or YYYY-MM-DD. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#Luddite comes forward. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Dolphin

We seem to have had a cross-editting session. What I am puzzled by is reverting the references from the latest format to an older format. I used the automatic citation feature - are you familiar with it?Petebutt (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Lafayette Escadrille (film)

Bill: Props on the head start! I had a sixth sense you'd be on the job when I saw it was William Wellman day on TCM and then the blob that was the previous "article" yesterday morning. I was going to try to get in a few words last night, but UD is hosting the NCAA "First Four" again and with the POTUS attending the first game tonight we were making a lot of arrangements on the fly. I'll read it tonight.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Sukhoi Superjet 100

In this edit, I've you added the headings ";Notes" and ";Bibliography". I've removed ";Notes" because notes can be confused with explanatory notes.

I have removed ";Bibliography" because the reference style did not use a referencing style that aided the editor because there was a very long list of references, which is what the section ==Bibliography== would contain, while ==References== would include a "56. ^ Smith 1936" style.Curb Chain (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XB-70

Hi. I brought back the cite coding you reverted. Here is why. I wish one day citation styles could selected in user's preferences and wiki could serve different styles to its users, separating formatting from content. Coding references using wiki templates is a small step into that direction. The style generated is not always to my personal taste. I don't like "&" neither in wiki harvard style citation style. Changing the wiki cite format would be welcome but an individual page is not the ideal place to discuss this issue. Hope this makes my point clearer--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it back to the original and left a note about WP:RETAIN and not edit warring to change established reference formats on User:Afernand74. Hopefully if anyone wants to change things further then they will discuss on the article talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO you are missing the point of the discussion. The article is using the harvard style for its citations (See Parenthetical referencing#How to cite). I kept the same style but hardcoded references using the wiki Template:Harvnb which seems to generate an inappropriate format with "&". My edits were reverted because of that; not because I changed a long established reference format. Should the template have generated "and" instead of "&" we won't be having this discussion. So let's hope this will be changed in the future. I will leave the article as it is until then and I am sorry we all wasted our time on this.
By the way, I made the changes in good faith and there is little about citation styles in WP:RETAIN.
The funny thing is that all this started because the book of Jenkins and Landis has a wrong ISBN. It should be 1580070566 instead of 580070566. Other books also have wrong ISBNs like the one from Winchester (1592234801 instead of 1-84013-309-2). I leave those corrections up to you.
Enjoy your Sunday. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Earhart

That's exactly what the article says. I wrote that the State Department identified the landing gear in the photo as being that of an Electra. Here's what the article says: "But investigators took a new look at it in 2010 and, when their suspicions were triggered, had the photo checked by U.S. State Department experts. In a blind review, they determined the component in the picture is the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra." Am I missing something? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bzuk. You have new messages at Ginsengbomb's talk page.
Message added 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Me 209 (display model).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Me 209 (display model).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Talkback

Hello, Bzuk. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Flying Fleet

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

DYK nomination of Cat Creek, Montana

Hello! Your submission of Cat Creek, Montana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Bzuk. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Cat Creek, Montana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hogback (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

DYK for Cat Creek, Montana

Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Gianni Caproni Museum of Aeronautics

Hello Bzuk! I'm an Italian user, most active in the WikiProject Aviation of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm writing to you for you've welcomed me some time ago and for I've seen you're quite into aviation. Hope I'm not bothering you...

I haven't been editing the English Wikipedia very much so far, except for small corrections, but recently I started a collaboration with an Italian aviation museum (kinda GLAM-Wiki stuff) and, after writing the article about the museum in my native language, I tried to write the English article too. I just finished the translation, it's in my sandbox. I don't think that moving an article with good contents and referencing but written in poor English into the main namespace could be regarded as vandalism, but still I would be extremely grateful if you could give a look to my translation, and make some corrections where needed, before I "publish" it. Just if you have time to do that, and with no hurry at all. Thank you very much :) With friendly regards, --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Another user, TheLongTone, saw this request and lent me a hand. Unexpectedly, he found that there weren't many issues about the quality of the writing, so making the needed corrections was easy enough. Thanks, anyway! --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 12:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, it goes without saying that any further improvement by you and other editors is absolutely welcome :) --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 13:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your thorough reading of the article. I knew I made lots of small mistakes and inaccuracies, some of them due to my poor knowledge of English and some others due to my poor knowledge of the rules of the English Wikipedia. I made more corrections similar to those you made, things like the style of the citation of book authors, the difference between "-" and "–" etc. There are just two corrections I am not sure about: the first one is related to aeropainting, an artistic movement which I am pretty sure has nothing to do with airbrushes – it rather concerns aircraft as subjects or points of view. I corrected this thing. The other one is the F-104G/S issue. I totally can't distinguish the two version by looking at a photograph, but there is a rather good source (the museum's website, here) stating it's a F-104G. I'm not sure about this, I'd like to know what you think. --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just wanted to thank you again for the great work you did copyediting the article and correcting all the issues related to grammar and spelling. The article is probably going to be featured as a DYK, and I must thank you for that. See you, and, well... In case you ever need some help with early Italian aviation or Caproni-related topics, you know who you can ask! Cheers, --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The worm turns...

Thought you might want to check out Men of the Lightship, in which the Luftwaffe does its darndest to make the British fighting mad... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above - nice work on improving the article! I really like the screenshots you added too. Take care, Moswento (talk | contribs) 08:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Men of the Lightship

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

DYK for Gianni Caproni Museum of Aeronautics

Lightning

There are multiple problems with the submission, not the least being a rough translation from Italian.

As i wasted some hours in order to write that paragraph, i'd expect that you would waste some more lines to explain where and what are the 'multiple problems' with this submission. I know that i should quit to edit, but the (not exactly gently) wikipedian behauvoir is still surprising me. I did not wrote that GWB is gay, what was the point to make such straight counter-editing? Do you realize that this attitude (not talk about the Swiss Hunter last month) is really boring?

Maybe you and others should understand that even if Wikipedia is respectable, Wikipedians are not less respectables, instead to handle them as crap everytime.

Ps in the CF-104 article i still fail to see any mention of an RWR, as i tried to add only to be reverted by you. 5 years ago and after one year ban this information (and others) still is lacking. 'for the sake of Wikipedia' i imagine.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&oldid=488353127"