User talk:Bzuk/Archive Mar 2007

Bobbi Ethier - categories needed

Hey, just letting you know I re-inserted the {{catneeded}} tag into this article. Biographies generally fall into several categories, most of which I am not familiar with. Those that are good at category stuff will see that the article needs categories from that tag, and add them. Please don't remove it without investigating biography categories and adding the relevant ones. BigNate37_T·C 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:18-01.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:18-01.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Janusz Zurakowski & Hornet

Hi Bzuk.

Well I won't argue with Zurakowski himself! - thanks for putting me right - LOL! Actually I think it may have been Bill Gunston I heard (read) that from but perhaps he misunderstood originally - or perhaps my memory's going!

Incidently, Gunston saw Zurakowski at a Farnborough Air Show in about 1945/6 flying the Martin-Baker M.B.5 and said it was one of the most impressive display of a piston-engined fighter that he's ever seen. Regards, Ian Dunster 09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

RfM Rachel Marsden

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rachel Marsden, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Avrocar

Thank you for engaging in dialog. As you describe in great detail on my talk page, and in your editing comments on the Avrocar page, your information comes from personal research. Wikipedia policies are quite clear that such things are not allowed.

Besides which, the fact that Avrocar played some role in inspiring Moller may be relevant to the history of Moller, and perhaps could appear on that page, but it's of dubious relevance to Avrocar itself, and probably shouldn't be on the Avrocar page even if we could find a non-original-research source for the claim. Uucp 12:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Although you have equated the Moller reference to a dubious relevance, I believe that Dr. Moller was pursuing a similar design in his orginal experimental craft. I merely wished to provide readers with an appraisal that the buried ducted fan concept was not entirely abandoned. The fact that Moller did utilize a similar fan arrangement and saucer shape to later discard this premise is significant.

Even though I referred to original interviews, the published works refrenced in the article do collaborate on the Avrocar-Moller connection. I have further revised the Avrocar article so that readers will better understand the far-reaching R&D that John Frost was undertaking in the 1950s and 1960s.

Bzuk 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Avro Arrow

In the second of your 3 edits to the article this morning the text somehow split in 2??? Not sure where the error occured(simple formatting issue) I had to quickly rv back to your first edit to restore it. You may want to trace back and re-do your other changes. Sorry for the inconvenience. Had I more time I would do a more thorough peek and correct it myself. Cheers! Anger22 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey BZUK,

Sorry to be a pain, please research the history of the Hughes missile fire control system on the Convair F106, ten years after the Cf- 105 Arrow.

I have tried to do 'Arrow accounting". How these planes were to cost eleven million each, with an 5 milllion dollar fire control & missle system alone, is beyond me.

Anyway, my view... cheers Opuscalgary 19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hawker Hurricane

The format I used is a standard across wikipedia. Bring it up with WP:CITE, not me. ericg ✈ 01:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's not hard. I used the template that happens to be in use everywhere. Don't like it? Change it, either by putting the article back to some other format, or by petitioning for a change to the template itself. I couldn't care less either way - I'm using the template, which is a tool, not creating it. ericg ✈ 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

John Carver Meadows Frost

Hi Bzuk. Just to let you know I have put the article up as a request for peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review.

I think the problem that User:Uucp has is that some of what you have contributed appears to come under the Wikipedia realm of 'original research' - this is not allowed on Wikipedia - see: Wikipedia:No original research and he/she appears to be merely re-writng to remove the material that seems to contravene this. I assume that the material you have added is included in the references that you have included (that you wrote yourself) and perhaps Uucp hasn't noticed the names of the authors. As far as I know if the information has been published (as your books appear to have been) then I would think that it's perfectly OK to include information given in them. It may just be a misunderstanding (see: Wikipedia:Assume good faith) so it might be worth explaining this to Uucp on their talk page: User talk:Uucp.

BTW, you may find the Wikipedia help pages useful - you can find them here: Help:Contents - I've been on Wikipedia about eighteen months and I'm still finding my way around! - LOL! Regards, Ian Dunster 09:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would add that regarding those things that are a direct lift from your already published work (eg the Avrocar site Frost biography) that you should state the source specifically so that some well meaning individual doesn't come along and slaps a copyvio tag on it. GraemeLeggett 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points- I will revise any verbatim "cut-and-paste" jobs.

Bzuk 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:New_logo_neg_1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:New_logo_neg_1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Vickers

Hi. I don't think the article has ever been created, just a redirect to Vickers (UK). Regards Mark83 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

References in the J-35 Draken article

Would you knock off deleting the <references/> section? Do you not understand how inline references (the <ref> tags and <references/> at the end work? You put an inline <ref>Reference citation information here</ref>, and then at the end in the references section the <references/>. You get a ref tag number at the location of the ref tag, and then the full citation information is displayed down where you put the <references/> tag.

What you've been doing to the Draken article is overwriting the same exact reference information and ripping out the proper citation code. Please stop. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the reference style then change the reference style. Don't muck with the location tags and <references/>. These are two completely different issues. The formatting is up to you. Please use the right style and location template. Georgewilliamherbert 05:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Date formats

Would you mind not reformatting the dates, please. It is a user preference which way the dates should be presented. You change it under "my preferences" so there is no point whatsoever reformatting December 7 to 7 December as you have done in many, many places. The default setting is "no preference" meaning that it comes up in whatever way the article has is. Your change makes it look weird to someone who has not set this preference, leading to edit wars.

Reply to User:SnakDev. The date formats changes that I have applied only were used when there was a mixing of the two date formats. I am perfectly happy with either dating system and have used both versions in my books depending on the audience or the editing style preferred by the publisher. Where I have made changes was when the two dating systems conflicted or were both in use, then it is preferrable to do one or the other. As you may know, the military and academic style that is most in use is "10 April 1941" whereas the popular style of "April 10, 1941" is used for nonacademic works.

Bzuk 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Concorde

Hi. I wanted to say well done for your ongoing work on improving this article. Well done, and keep it up! --Guinnog 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes and punctuation

When I consulted the wiki manual of style quite awhile back, it was clear to me that there are two different ways to use double-quotes. They make sense, and they look right.

• "Punctuation is enclosed by a quoted sentence."
• Punctuation encloses a "title".

Wahkeenah 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The reference is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Though we use different spellings according to the topic or first version of an article, we mostly use English-style for puncutation, even for articles about purely American topics. This edit [1] was incorrect. -Will Beback 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Focke-Wulf Fw 190

Turkey bough A-3a export models, would you please leave this correct info ?!? --Denniss 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry Denniss, I honestly thought this was a typo. Thank you for correcting it. Bzuk 13:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A-3a is really the correct designation for german-built export models delivered to foreign nations, Aa-3 would mean foreign production to be reimported to germany. Examples for this were the hungarian built Me 210 Ca-1 and Bf 109 Ga-6, the opposite Bf 109 E-3a export model delivered to several nations including Switzerland. --Denniss 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks- this was the designation in two other sources, please alter the information to the correct designation. What about the numbers in service? The figures I have are different from the ones you stated.

Bzuk 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dots in British military aircraft mark numbers

You seem to very keen on replacing the "."s in the mark numbers of British military aircraft with spaces. However, the usual convention is (or at least was, until it was changed a few years ago for current in-service types) to insert a "." between the role prefix letter(s) and the mark number (eg. "B.II" or "AS.4") and also to terminate the abbrevation "Mk" with a ".". These are not "typos" (see, for instance, the articles on this website). Letdorf 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Not that this is a passion of mine, but some of the sites that I was recently editing, other editors had indicated that this is now the common convention for British designations. I am an author myself and consulted a number of style guides to find that the most recently published manuscripts now all had adopted this style. You may also notice that nearly all historical sites on significant British aircraft, e.g. [[2]] will use this system. One of the other aspects of adopting a commonality is to move away from the inevitable mixing of different numbering systems. Bzuk 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

I realise there has been a general trend since the mid-20th century to reduce the use of "." in abbreviations and designations, and that the current MoD convention for aircraft mark numbers is to omit them. However, in the context of designation systems, to adopt conventions that were not in use at the time when discussing a historical subject seems anachronistic. Letdorf 12:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Supporting my assertion, the RAF Museum Aircraft Thesaurus, which surely should be considered fairly authoritative, uses the abbreviated and punctuated form (eg. AS.4) for British military designations. Also, I really don't see the justification for revising well-documented company designations such as ASMD.1 (Double Mamba engine) or Y.B.1 (aka Blackburn B-88) to conform to the current fashion for omitting punctuation. Letdorf 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

I would tend to agree with you except for the fact there are more sources that now use the contemporary marking and designations. The site you indicated with a foreword by Dr. Michael A. Fopp, Director General has at least four grammatical errors, two spelling mistakes and even two errors in his name, not a great start! LOL :} Bzuk 13:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Canadair Sabre

The only way to move it that I know of is to have an administrator do it for us. If we can get a consensus on the Talk:Canadair F-86 Sabre page, that shouldn't be a problem. I have posted it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, and someone should be checking the talk page to see what happens. Thanks. Btw, your edits so far have looked good. - BillCJ 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Links removed

Sorry, Bzuk,

I caught 83.216.135.204 adding links to www.planesandchoppers.com. I found they don't have useful content to the reader, only pictures. Moreover, there are disguised adsense banners just below the pictures (the box looks like the actual picture boxes), which appears to be intended to confuse the viewer. Since most of them were added by the same user I decided to remove all per WP:EL. But I'll leave it up to you to decide. I really didn't want to remove any useful content. (You may answer here.)

—Red Thrush 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Red Thrush, not knowing your name or call sign, I was merely indicating that the usual method is to post a query in a talk page before proceeding with removal of content. As you know, I did not add these external links but I will carefully review them before discarding them. Thanks again for your "heads-up" on a possible advertising ploy. Bzuk 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

That's a good one and would be good to include in the article if some sources could be found. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

References for B-17

Bzuk, I have an issue with this edit. it's fine if you don't like to use Citation templates, either way produces the same result as far as I can see, but I was using the Harvard citation method on this page. The text in the red tags, (eg. <ref>Bowers, "Boeing Aircraft Since 1916"</ref>) would be placed in the article and therefore be seen as a link to the notes section, the reference section would be the only place where the full citation is required (eg. *Bowers, Peter M. ''Boeing Aircraft Since 1916''. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1989. ISBN 0-37000-016-1. You can see a full-blown example of this in the Featured article Crawford expedition. I'll leave the format you've chosen for the references, but for now I'm going to revert the inline to the previous format. Thank you.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trevor, thanks for your comments on the B-17; I certainly do know about the Harvard citation sytle and can accept the use of the style for footnotes, endnotes and citations. Is there not a "close" to the entry? If I remember my classes on referencing and cataloguing ( I was a librarian or over 30 years), all systems end with a period. Bzuk 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, ya got me there. I only know about this stuff from what I can glean from the instruction pages I mentioned. If I've missed something then by all means add it. Have I missed periods? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

YWG-YOW route

Air Canada might have flown this route a while ago, but they dont anymore. it is only operated by Air Canada Jazz. Same thing goes for YWG-YUL. 00:16 , 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Please reconsider using "rewrite still may be required" as your routine edit summary. You are effectively showing a mile-tall glowing "f* u" middle finger to all contributors. If you don't like the article, expand it to make it better, but lay off your "you all suck" attitude. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rewrite still may be required" does not summarize the changes you made to the article. What it says, especially with the word "still," is "I made edits to the article but it is so hopeless that it may [u]still[/u] require a rewrite despite my brilliant contribution." It is wholly nonconstructive criticism and it is offensive to those of us who have put hours upon hours researching and writing the material that, after a cursory look (your words, not mine), obviously needs to be completely rewritten. Please pay attention to how you phrase things. It's not all about date and reference formatting. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Avrocar

See [3]

Great Aircraft of the World template

I've created a new simple template for referencing this work, seeing as we both have and use it - the context is {{Ref Great Aircraft|Grumman Single-Seat Biplane Fighters|155-162}}, and it's found at {{Ref Great Aircraft}}. The idea is the same as {{Ref Jane's}}, keeping what could be complicated citations simple when used inline, but allowing the format to be updated rapidly across articles if/when wikipedia's citation style changes. Also, it's easier for us as editors - I hope this comes in handy for you! ericg ✈ 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Eric, I really appreciate the job you are doing on editing. I am still an old-line editor, trained on cataloguing back at University when I switched to the library but anything that helps make things go smoother is appreciated. Bzuk 07:14 28 December 2006 (UTC). The template looks good- but IMHO, I think the ISBN should be part of the citation and that pages should come at the end and close with a period. Bzuk 07:29 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Concorde reversion

Hi. I thought I'd reply to:"Tweaking- Guinnog - why was the previous edit you made a reversion? When "snipping" identify the reason"

A look at the anon poster's talk page would reveal that I warned him for spamming the same external link to two articles. Hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dates, period and commas

I refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style when making style edits, which is the style guide that should (ideally) be followed for Wikipedia articles regardless of personal or regional preferences:

• Dates: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day
• Periods and commas inside quotation marks: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks

Dates are automatically formatted according to the user's preference, so it does not matter either way. I simply changed them to the more common formatting (e.g. March 21, 2006) so it reflects the correct article title for dates (e.g. February 7), and not a redirect link.

As for the periods and commas, I followed the guideline, "include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ('logical' quotations)." Since most of the instances of quotation marks used within the article are not for full direct quotations (but merely for emphasis and nicknames), the punctuation should be left outside. —Squalla 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that both date formats are presented; as I stated above, I have only changed them in order to reflect the actual article titles for these dates—it is not my personal preference. Either way, it does not matter whether the dates are formatted in the common or the academic/military style, as the link will automatically change according to the user's preference. If the date is intended to appear one way only, a piped link should be used ([[February 17|February 17]]) so that it overrides the automatic formatting function.

As for quotation marks, I understand the American convention, and I understand that this is common and formal practice in the United States. My point is, however, that Wikipedia has its own house style for quotation marks, and this style should preferably be followed regardless personal or regional preference. I'm neither American or British; in fact, I'm not even a native speaker of English, so I'm being neutral here and merely following the guideline established by Wikipedia.

The Manual of Style states, "we borrow one practice from U.S. usage and one from the rest of the world", the former being the use of double-quotes, and the latter being leaving punctuation inside of quotation marks only if the sense of punctuation is part of the quotation.

Again, I understand that the American style states otherwise, but Wikipedia does not exclusively follow American nor British conventions. There is a guideline for quotation marks, and it should preferably be followed. —Squalla 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Left another reply on my talk page… —Squalla 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind replying or should I ask for other people's input in the article's talk page? —Squalla 04:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Earhart

Hey, careful. You're going to piss people off unnecessarily by putting the same request on multiple editors' pages. Just a polite note -- you might want to go back and remove those requests before someone in a bad mood gets ugly about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would second that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind but you might want to take a quick look at Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that too, you shouldn't ask people around like that and I don't know anything about Earhart.--Janarius 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the message and I was befuddled by it. I'm pretty sure I've never looked at the article and since I'm not keen on spammers, I'm unlikely to go with any recommendations. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen the page, either, but, since this is supposed to be a collaberative effort, I'm always up for a "heads up". I would've liked a direct link to the page, tho... Trekphiler 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (OK, I'm dumb. I've looked at so many pages, I've forgotten... 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm very confused as to why you solicited me about this. I've never edited the article, it's not on my watchlist, and I honestly have no interest in it. Wikipedia is not run by votes. Such soliticitation can be construed as rude. Moreover, I'm basically an inactive editor right now. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No real harm done; I just wanted you to know that you might be annoying people. It didn't much annoy me -- you seem to be sincerely just wanting a lot of input on an article, which is a good thing. We have a requests for comments procedure that is supposed to be about getting that, and you may want to think about using that next time. (And if it doesn't work well, you may want to spearhead the effort to get something better going.)

I was really confused by your statement that I'd edited the article. I dug through the history and finally found where I did, once: [4]. Can you see what I was doing there? I was just reverting somebody's linkspam; some site that they were insistently adding against consensus (for self-promotional purposes, rather than to build a good article). I have no interest in the article at all; as I said, I didn't even remember editing it. There's no telling how many other people on your list may be in the same boat; no real interest in the article, they just touched it once to clean up a typo or something. A better approach might be to contact people who've made substantive comments on the discussion page of the article, although even then you're liable to trip into a few uninterested parties. Like I said, try the RFC process, and look around for other places to get attention from the wider community, like starting an article improvement collaboration, using the Village Pump, etc. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm an administrator with an interest in safeguarding the Amelia Earhart article, but only because I've an interest in Wikipedia generally. I had no specific interest in that particular article. I just hunt down and destroy the work of those who like to use Wikipedia as their own personal promotion engine, thus dragging down the quality everywhere.

One final comment: it's probably best not to think of "canvassing for change in an article," but instead "requesting attention from the wider Wikipedia community." I have no idea if you've previously proposed your change on the talk page and gotten rebuffed, or what. Go into with the idea that many eyes need to look at it to make that right decision, and that your choice may not necessarily be the right decision, and you'll have the right attitude. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. To get wider input you might consider posting your question under the village pump instead, or finding an appropriate WikiProject where it can be discussed. Otherwise I have no particular opinion on the matter. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing can indeed annoy other editors, but I take no offense, and I understood that you probably got my username from some old edits. Ordinarily I would be happy to help out, but I'm afraid I'm not up to full involvement in this article at the moment. I will say this: I am not in favor of splitting off such information, because it is germane to the subject. I do, however, believe that it should be scrupulously referenced and kept to a minimum to keep from overwhelming the article. I would not support an article split that would merely encourage conspiracy theorists to add nonsense, however well-documented, to Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Zura?

A book on Janusz Zurakowski? I gotta read that. I've seen his name in the Arrowheads book on the project, & he sounds like an interesting guy. And Happy New Yr, too... Trekphiler 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbering format.

Thanks for your guidance Bzuk, I'm always happy to be pointed in the right direction. Sometimes a mixture of numerals and written numbers in a sentence can look rather messy, so it's good to have rules to apply. How about the following example; which form is considered to be correct: 2 6-wheeled trucks, two 6-wheeled trucks, or 2 six-wheeled trucks? (Or maybe none of them!) I know that it's a bit of a cheek, but I hope you don't mind educating me in English-grammar.--Red Sunset 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Two six-wheeled trucks" is actually grammatically correct and uses the standard edit style although many editors would accept "two 6-wheeled trucks." Bzuk 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) BTW, Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you too Bzuk. Thanks again, that's another dilemma resolved, but I was rather dismayed to note that none of my original examples were actually grammatically correct with one only half-right! Bottom of the class again! Oh well, New Year's resolution: must do better.--Red Sunset 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture fancruft

Please keep it out of aviation articles. Per WP:Air. It detracts from the encyclopedia. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Reply- it is a common section in many articles even one on the MiG-31 that you thought was valid. The editor EMT147 who has contributed significantly to articles had not deleted the section. Your past contributions have been controversial to say the least. I think the section has merit and is referenced and linked. Where do you see "fancruft"? Bzuk 7:19 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Tweaking?

Hello;

I'd like to humbly ask you to be a little bit more descriptive in your edit summaries. "Tweaking" is something you do to sombody's nose. I'm sure that an author such as yourself can be a little more eloquent.

On another note, I can't tell what citation system you're using, it seems to neither be WP:CITET nor WP:HARV, could you please enlighten this poor ignorant soul? Thank you! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh

Thanks for catching my error. Rklawton 13:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Reverting is quite simple. Click on page history, click on a previous version of the page, click on Edit, then click on Save. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17 Intro

From Wikipedia:Lead section : "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

I think that the intro right now is a good size. Compare with Buckingham Palace, Windows 2000, Nuclear weapon, and The Lord of the Rings, which all have long intros.

If any changes need doing, in my opinion, then they should be in better summarizing the article body. Right now the intro contains info on : design stages, campaigns involved in, icon status, culture references, and famous planes. It could do with a mention of the RAF night flying vs. the US daytime runs, an extremely notable pilot, and a more specific comparison with the B-24.

If you have different ideas than have at it, and we'll see how it works out- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hawker Sea Fury

Back on 15 Dec 2006 you edited the Hawker Sea Fury page changing the line in the intro to read that it was "one of the fastest production single piston engined aircraft ever built". This topic has been discussed in the talk page before and it was decided to leave the entry as "the fastest production..." If you have ecidence of a faster aeroplane I would be interested to hear about it, otherwise I think it reasonable to leave the entry as it now is. Sorry I did not pick up on this easlier but I assume I missed it in multiple updates of the page and only noticed it today because of another update. Nick Thorne 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairey Battle

Regarding the issue of numbers written as words, please read the first two points here. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And when you have finished reading them, read them again. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A-36 question

There's a question on Talk:North American A-36#"No Credits"? I'd like you to take a look at, and see if you have any idea on what it means. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image of Short SA/4 Sperrin

Thanks for pointing out that the image had disappeared. Perhaps a bot or editor deleted it because of uncertain provenance. I have asked the owner of the website for information on the copyright situation and uploaded the image again (to Commons) with permission=pending - see what happens! TraceyR 13:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ground effect

Just in case you haven't seen the question re "ground effect" which I have placed on the Short SC.1 talk page (and on ground effect and vortex ring pages too): I'm puzzled that the same term (ground effect) is used for two very different phenomena. I notice that you use it in your comprehensive article about the Avrocar in the sense in which I am familiar with it (i.e. the vertical thrust losses due to recirculation of exhaust gases). The research memorandum on the SC.1 also used it in this sense. I'm wondering whether some authors use "ground effect" because it's easier than writing "wing in ground effect". You can probably help clear this one up for me! Many thanks. Tracey ps many thanks too for your help with some of the Shorts aircraft pages. TraceyR 13:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny (sorry for jumping in here Bill), because when I think "ground effect" I always assume the increase in lift due to air being trapped under the wing (and related effects) of a conventional aircraft. But it is important to remember that "ground effect" is a generic term, something that even flight manuals are generally careful to point out. Ground effect(s) can increase, decrease, just about anythinease the lift being generated. Maury 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maury (and Bill, for his reply on my talk page). I'm now the wiser re "Ground effect" being a generic term; unfortunately the ground effect entry fails (at present!) to make this clear. I have added a reference to the links to the ground effect and vortex ring articles at Short SC.1. Thanks again.TraceyR 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Short Sturgeon

Thanks for the Sturgeon article - that's one I can delete from my list! My interest in Shorts goes back to my childhood, when my father was a test pilot there in the early 1950s. I noticed that I had some information to add to the Seamew article ... and I was caught! It's a bit like Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby! TraceyR 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Short SB/1 image

It's great that you have found a picture of the SB/1. Thanks! Were there any other details - we have no specifications. I expect that the wings were used for the Sherpa, but there is little to go on. I'd go digging for myself, but I live in Germany and so have little or no access to source material that's not on the web. TraceyR 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fairey Delta 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fairey Delta 2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Sturgeon article is in today's "Did you know" section!! TraceyR 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for editing my introduction to A6M Zero. English is not the native language for me. I struggle with construction of statements. You help me very much. Shibumi2 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Short Sturgeon, was selected for DYK!

On January 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Short Sturgeon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The SB3 Sturgeon

IMHO the SB3 beats the Seamew every time in the ugliness stakes - I almost fell off my seat when I saw the footage from the SBAC Farnborough Air Show (1950 or 1952) - it didn't look like it should really be flying! The Seamew looked OK in the air (its element) - it looked out of place on the ground. I know that it tipped over on its nose once when the brakes were applied too suddenly (but that's "original research" so can't be added to the article.

I can recommend the DVD (by Pegasus: "Farnborough - The Golden Years 1949-1959" comprising the Movietonews for each of the 7 shows during that period), which shows the Short aircraft Seamew (flown by my father), SB/5, SC1, SB3 and the Solent (the latter doing a low-level fly-past - huge!!) as well as many other classic aircraft, some of which I had not known about (e.g. the Avro Ashton - obviously a gap in my education). TraceyR 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox info

Thanks, I wasn't aware it was in the guidelines...can you point me to where specifically? Looking at WP:Air/PC I can't find it...? - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Janusz Zurakowski

Hi, Bzuk...

Needless to say, I disagree strongly with the conclusions that you posted on my talk page. And here's why:

1)Timing of NPOV tag. Notice that I placed the tag within 5 minutes of added arguments that support the tag.

2) In no way is placing a tag that you happen to disagree with vandalism, unless I were to (for example) repeatedly place speedy delete requests on say, the Italy article. Even if the tag turns out to be against consensus, it still isn't vandalism. I also don't feel that placing a POV tag on an article in anyway makes it vandalism

3) Please pay attention to WBAD before calling me a vandal. I've been editing wikipedia for more than a year, and although I've certainly made mistakes, a vandal is one thing I have not been.

4) Please also pay attention to assume good faith

5) Also, as a suggestion it is a bad idea to make wikipedia articles/heavily edit articles about relatives, friends or oneself.

Cheers V. Joe 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Earhart

I agree with your version and thought I had said so in talk. The current one is too short. I wonder if we can come up with a compromise that will please everybody. (Interesting to read your user page for the first time; I always thought of you as BZ, UK; it will be hard to start thinking of you as B. Zuk. Oh well.) --Guinnog 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a tough call. If I absolutely had to choose between the two I would go with the shorter version, on the theory that all the other info in the longer one could be placed elsewhere in the article. But I think I agree with the Guinnog comment above in that ideally a compromise ought to be possible, in which the opening para *is* lengthened somewhat but without giving the impression of overwhelming the reader with too much info too soon. Hayford Peirce 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a revision:

Amelia Mary Earhart, July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937 was a noted American aviator whose aviation career included many milestones. The first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic, after setting numerous records, Earhart disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937.

Earhart was an influential early female pilot instrumental in the formation of the Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization. Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. Intense public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance continues to this day. Word count: 97 words

Bzuk 14:06 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that sounds great. Stick it in and if someone messes around with it I'll either revert and *very* carefully study the revisions. Hayford Peirce 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This header is PoV, misleading and unencyclopedic. Please take this to the Earhart talk page, be civil and stop implying wrongdoing on the part of other good-faith editors, meaning me. Thank you. Gwen Gale 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My nomination

In a recent edit summary you wrote, "This is no riduclous- you have blocked a "good faith" edit three times- you are now nominated to be removed as an editor- See Guidelines)"

I find this abusive and troubling. I haven't blocked any edits, I've rv'd, a few times over a period of days (as you have rv'd in response) back to a long standing, encyclopedic header for the article after you changed it without prior discussion. That's not such a big thing, but please stop calling in other editors, who have no prior history with the article, to assist you in building an artificial consensus for your edits. Please stop your unsupported accusations of bad faith. Please stop editing by attrition. Please stop gaming the system. Thanks. Gwen Gale 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Earhart

Thanks Bzuk! For my part, I noticed that one of my initial posts about the header, whilst intended to be good natured and pithy, could have come off as a bit snippy. I thought you understood my non-interference in your many helpful edits in the text was total approval (or whatever, you know what I mean). When we have the time (and yeah, things have maybe settled down a bit) I hope we can further discuss my nit-picking, bitchy concerns about the header :) Gwen Gale 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seamew

August 23, 1953 was the day - at least, that's what the Arthur Pearcy July 1990 "Aviation News" article (referred to in Short Seamew) states, and he should be reliable. Of course I could ask my brother in NZ to check the log book for the definitive answer ... TraceyR 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Boulton Paul Sidestrand

Well I looked at the Sidestrand article and didn't see it mentioned, so...

Also the Sidestrand seems a little early for such an apparatus; perhaps the turret was intended for the Overstrand instead? - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - I'm not one of those "I own the article!" people. :-) - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian pics

Do you know anyone up there who can clear up the legality on these pics that the image-nazis keep deleting? - BillCJ 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to just butt in on someone else's talk page, but I saw a comment in the edit summary of CF-101 Voodoo. Images that fall under Crown copyright (ie, anything produced by the Government of Canada and its agencies) are not considered public domain or free use, and though the license does grant a "not for profit" use, it is generally not considered adequate for inclusion in Wikipedia. -Dawson 07:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The photos had been tagged as problem images for close on a year. Canadain crown copyright is somewhat messy with different areas going for different setups however the militry appears to have addopted a no comercial use vairiants.Geni 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia does not accept non-commercial use images since we don't regard them as free.Geni 04:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Book / chapter format

I was always under the impression that the book is italicized or underlined, and the article or chapter is wrapped in quotation marks. It might depend on the format used, but that's what I've always seen. ericg ✈ 07:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it happens. :) I have to look up citation formats any time I write a paper, and it's never more than a couple months since my last one! ericg ✈ 14:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Avro Canada and commerical airliners

As a knowledagelbe person on Avro Canada, can you help me with a line I came across at Aviation_history#1945_-_1991:_The_Cold_War: The first commercial airliner was introduced by Avro Canada in September 1949 ? My problem is partly understanding what aircraft is meant (so I can fit a wikilink) and partly what is meant by "commercial airliner"; I'm guessing something more than once removed from a heavy bomber design (so excepting Avro Yorka and Boeing 377 Stratocruisers. GraemeLeggett 15:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

de Havilland aircraft

You wrote: It's a person's name- Geoffrey de Havilland not "De Havilland." Bzuk 23:18 25 January 2007 (UTC).

That may be so, but in using the second style with the upper case D, I was following the standard used for 90% of the articles related to the subject. I can go in and move the category and relink the articles, but keep in mind the main cat uses that style, as do most of the ariplane articles. What do you suggest? We could move all the articles I suppose. Your help and advice appreciated. --Lendorien 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's a problem in identifying the de Havilland Company and its products that has led to some variance in approach. The limitations that are inherent in the Wikipedia system is one of the issues. Although it is acknowledged to be "de Havilland Aircraft Company," this is the note that pops up when anyone keys in "De Havilland": The correct title of this article is de Havilland. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions. In order to get around this problem, merely indicate all your changes as "de Havilland" and the article automatically changes to the correct spelling. By using the "De Havilland" designation, it simply compounds the problem and leads others to consider this as the correct spelling. The easiest way is to use proper names and spelling conventions. I would shudder if there are 90% of the entries using the incorrect designation but that would not surprise me. Better to use the correct name and leave it at that. :> Bzuk18:51 26 January 2007 (UTC).

BillCJ

I've noticed the user BillCJ has been making a lot of alternations lately in the World War II aircraft. Please keep a watch on this user.
--Signaleer 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AE

It was an open marriage but I guess the term should be supported with a citation. Gwen Gale 15:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

metric vs imperial

see speak in english, measure in metric. --ThurnerRupert 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

What is the incessant obsession in changing dates in the infoboxes of aircraft articles- many of which I have written or heavily edited? I keep one style of historical dating: "7 June 1943" throughout as a means of standardizing dating conventions. Bzuk 18:30 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[[1943-07-07]] is a more versatile tool than [[June 7|7 June]] [[1943]], becuase it renders according to a user's preferences. 1943-07-07 looks to me like 1943 June 7, but to you it could look different. Karl Dickman ^talk 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

CF-101 Voodoo

Bill -- Thanks for your efforts on this page. I noticed that you just added a DND Voodoo picture to the article, with a new copyright section. Do you think that the pictures that used to be in the article (also ex DND) would be 'admissable' if they were similarly set up? I really liked the classic DND pictures (especially the EF-101 picture), and would like to put them back in if practical.--Voodude 19:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The AB takeoff in particular -- it was gorgeous. Maury 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was less interested in that one. It's an absolutely outstanding picture, but it gets used so much that it's almost stereotyped as the standard picture of the CF-101. A ways back, I proposed the article (self nomination in all honesty) as a feature article, but it was shot down over the images. I liked those images enough that I didn't pursue the featured article because I wanted to keep them...--Voodude 22:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to reference

Bill, Could you explain why you changed the reference to the Putnam book by Barnes/James in the Short Sherpa article (a) replacing the book citation template with plain text and (b) by citing a different edition of the book?

My understanding is that citation templates are the preferred citation method.

And why is it necessary to replace the book originally referred to by another of the same revision date but by a different publisher? Did you check that the pages referred to in the original citation were still correct?

I'm puzzled!

Is it "good style" to have a period after the page number cited? TraceyR 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Pretty much nothing on Wikipedia is "required" per se but you are likely to run into edit wars (there are hordes of wikignomes whose contributions consist entirely of adding or removing templates, based on their personal preferences and interpretation of the MoS). I don't think it really matters but I have seen the lack of templates cited as a reason for objecting to FA or A-class status. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the MoS says, but in the discussion that made B-17 Flying Fortress a featured article one of the stylistic issues raised and addressed was converting all of the inline references to the {{cite (etc.) format. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 14:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Mynarski's rank

There has been some confusion over the rank of Andrew CHarles Mynarski on the night of 12/13 June 1944. According to the curator and records of the Andrew Mynarski Memorial Hall at 1 Canadian Air Division, Andrew Charles Mynarski was a Warrant Officer 2nd class at the time of the action on 12 June 1944. He was promoted postumously in September 1944 to the rank of Pilot Officer. I will provide some further references when I have time but Larry Milberry in his landmark works on 6 Bomber Group refers to some of the debate surrounding his Victoria Award nomination (mainly regarding the fact that the award was based on a sole witness to the action) and historian Hugh Halliday in his research even notes that there was concern over a non-comissioned rank receiving the VC. Bzuk 22:41 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bill for the interesting information; I wasn't aware of the ongoing historical debate. I am really curious about this. Even if we changed it back to your original wording on ranks (that he was W/O), the external web pages the article links to have conflicting information. Since there is this debate, I wonder if we should just not mention any ranks for anyone in the article for now. Dumore and Carter in their book Reap the Whirlwind about No. 6 Group mentions no ranks perhaps for this very reason. I should check with my uncle who was a bomb aimer with 419 squadron. He may have some first-hand information. By the way, since you have Larry Milberry's book about 6 Group, could you check my article I wrote about No. 6 Group? There may be more information to add, or even, heaven forbid, corrections needed. -- BC 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your prompt reply. There really is no controversy over the ranks, it is merely an error that has been propagated by authors quoting the Victoria Cross citation which clearly identifies Mynarski as a Pilot Officer. I am an author myself and have a book on Mynarski on the way so I know that his rank was postumously bestowed but that would constitute "original research" and that is why I did not refer to my own knowledge. If you read my edit, I have deleted the first mention of his rank and only referred to him as a Pilot Officer after his postumous promotion. It is true that all "non-coms" were elevated to officer ranks but it was not as sweeping or immediate as the original website infers. Some Sergeant Pilots were loath to give up the friendships and comraderie of the non-commissioned ranks for that of the officer class. In Douglas Harvey's (Laughter-Silvered Wings) accounts of his time in Bomber Command, he recounts that he refused the rank of Pilot Officer and felt coerced to eventually accept the promotion. Irregardless, no harm done, the correction is made and until I find a citation, I will leave at that. :} Bzuk 22:59 2 February 2007 (UTC). BTW, I will check the 6 Group when I have time.

I understand, thanks. You've cleared up a lot. BTW, I made a another change in the intro of the page which refers to him as a pilot officer. It's interesting that because of VC citation, suddenly every book or article about him gives him the rank of P/O. ... BC 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

C-17s for Canada

Would you mind taking a look at Talk:C-17 Globemaster III#Canadian Section Cleanup, especially the last post by an IP user? I'd be interested in seeing a knowledgable reply to this user, especially since you do so much and the CF-105 article. (How is the 105 relevant to the C-17? You'lll see!) Thanks. - BillCJ 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a UAV aricle

I could use help with an issue with a UAV article. There's a new article that's been created on a UAV, Dominator UAV. As I've been working on the UAV section for quite sometime, I tried moving this article to Aeronautics Dominator to conform it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but the article's author, User:Headphonos insisted on moving it back (I get the impression that he's a newbie), asking for a "vote" before moving. We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV article be an exception? When I asked the author, his response was "Don't care, the issue is the name, which is correct as per many articles under the +cat, pls don't contact me any further on the matter." Actually, when you look at the cat, most other UAV aricles conform to the standard naming convention (the exceptions being the ones we haven't upgraded yet), and I didn't see the need for a "vote" to comply with guidelines, but since that's what he wants, I'll go that route. So, rename to Aeronautics Defender, or leave alone? If you care to weigh in, pleas reply at Talk:Dominator UAV. Thanks! Akradecki 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FN

Hey Bzuk, I need to clarify a couple of things. First, although you have more or less apologized for it, ever since you gamed the system by swarming me over with your wiki-buddies who knew not the first thing about AE, I'm wary of you. Second, I have no interest in warring with you over this article and am very close to walking away from it entirely for a few months, as I have already done with AE. Third, I don't appreciate the patronizing lectures which moreover, I find lacking in accuracy. Lastly, if you have a dispute about content, please come out with it, starkly, on the article's talk page. Thanks for your time. Gwen Gale 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Bzuk/Archive Mar 2007, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BigNate37_T·C 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

New P-51 pic

Bill, thanks for finding that vintage P-51 pic (in colo(u)r!) It's great! I'm posting this here so hopefully I won't "colo(u)r" Sig's opinion before he weighs in on the issue. Thanks again. - BillCJ 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

B-17 photo

Howdy, Bzuk! I have a B-17 photo I'd like to post but I'm not sure where to look for the public release template... Kin yew he'p me?

Mark Sublette 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AE

Truth be told this is the only title that has bugged me. Adventure ok but daring... that's AE. :) Gwen Gale 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of semantics here, since I had actually used "daring" in the first line, that's why adventure seemed to fit since she did have an adventurous childhood. I will work on it some more. Bzuk 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Too bad you've "claimed ownership" of this article. I will not revert war with you though. Gwen Gale 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gloster Meteor

Thanks for finding that. We never would have heard the end of it! --Evil.Merlin 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Our fine friend just went in and edited again... --Evil.Merlin 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Google is one handy tool my friend --Evil.Merlin 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Michael Shrimpton for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and have outlined my position on his talk page. As I have stated there, I am offering the following advice: for those involved in this dispute, try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

I think that everyone involved needs to take a step back from these articles for a moment, take a deep breath, and make sure that what they are doing is correct. Do not continue to revert each others edits or further action will be required. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar article review

(from the post to JerryOrr's talk page)

I have a real problem in providing citations for this article because the most comprehensive and authorative sources are actually from my books-is it appropriate to quote from and use my own material? Bzuk 13:21 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I think you probably meant to direct this comment to MLilburne, as he did the original review of the article. My comment was on the lack of pictures. --JerryOrr 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar article

There doesn't seem to be a problem with citing your own works, as long as you do it in an appropriate way (which I'm sure you would). The relevant guideline is here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_oneself.

My only real knowledge of Avro comes from the Space Task Group members who used to work there, but it seems like a fascinating topic. Good luck with the article... I'm sorry for having to fail it. MLilburne 09:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's looking better now, but I think that any GA reviewer is still going to assess it as being short on citations. A general rule of thumb seems to be at least one citation per paragraph, with more if the material is controversial or likely to be questioned. Featured articles—which are generally held up as being a standard to which all articles should aspire—tend to have citations every few sentences.

I do agree, though, that it will look a little unbalanced if all these citations are from your own books. It's unfortunate that there aren't more sources. MLilburne 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A writer?

Me? No, just an enthusiastic (or is it addicted) Wikipedia editor. I did receive your message from work, but I've been so busy haven't had the time to return your message (or edit much here!). As for your offer, I'm not sure if I'd have anything interesting to say, at least not enough to write an entire article about, but thank you. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

JAS 39: Response to issues with cite template

The template makes it easier for someone to update the access-date and maybe replace the source at a later time in case the current source disappears in the future. This keeps things uniform since many of us do not have knowledge of the MLA protocol that you mention. --Edward Sandstig 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was that if an editor sees the template (cite_web) and sees a whole bunch of fields, he might take the time to try to fill them in, rather than just providing a link and nothing more. Seeing the name of the template, he might even be encouraged to take a look at other fields he could add to further specify the source he's using. Using the template, also makes it easier for you to change how the information stored in the template will be displayed in the future. If consensus is reached for example and you really want sources to be shown like this:

Swedish Defence Materiel Adiminstration, Gripen - Milestones. [5] Access date: 17 February 2007.

Instead of like this:

Swedish Defence Materiel Adiminstration, Gripen - Milestones. Retrieved on 2007-02-17.

Then you only have to gather support to change it in the template rather than having to manually edit every single instance of the {{cite_web}} template. Btw, the template uses ISO-formatted dates, otherwise, the links in the references end up red. --Edward Sandstig 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of templates is not mandated and if you check, there are many editors who can catalog on their own. BTW, there is a simple fix for the dates: |accessdaymonth =17 February | accessyear =2007. Dates are often not set in users' preferences so it does matter that there are two different date systems employed. The standard for cataloging is to identify an author, title, place of publication and publisher with variations to accommodate an electronic signature. Using a template that does not allow this is inconsistent with cataloging protocols. Bzuk 21:05 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed on use of the accessdaymonth and accessyear parameters instead, since it allows for the format of the dates to follow the user's own preferences. I was unaware that the ISO-formatted date didn't change automatically, so my apologies for that.
Anyway, getting back to the topic of templates. I understand that you come from a traditional academic and literary background and perhaps you aren't too familiar with how templates are used on the web, but like I've said before, they allow you to easily change things in just one place, thus maintaining uniformity across multiple pages. With a site the size of Wikipedia, making those changes manually simply wouldn't be practical, thus if you have complaints about the widely-used {{cite_web}} template, then you're free to discuss your improvements and apply them. Doing things that way, would allow you to effect change on ALL articles currently using the said template, rather than going in and making changes for every single article you come across. --Edward Sandstig 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Air Force aircraft

Thanks a lot for tweaking with my Sweden-related aircraft articles. English is, after all, not my native language and I do not know the aviation jargong that well. Please check out the J 22 entry. KCX 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake with the J 22 page. Mea culpa. KCX 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Orenda Iroquois comma

It was a case of an Oxford comma - legitimate but the non comma version reads just as well. Sometimes the Oxford comma works better in giving extra pause to sentences which is why i checked up on it.GraemeLeggett 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

dH Comet

Hey Bzuk, I was happy to help out with the rewrite, but I don't like how I'm being treated over there (being wikistalked, harassed) so I've lost interest and have taken the article off my watchlist but let me know if you need help with any trolls or whatever, I know the topic well enough to lend a hand if need be. Gwen Gale 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Commet

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I took a look at the comet article, and it seems that MS has calmed down, or at least has enough people countering his view to keep the article from degrading completely. Until another rule is broken, such as 3RR, I think we should just let sleeping dogs lay. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Fort

Bill: Great article - hope the photo I added was of use? You can note I also added some redirects to the Fleet Fort page, from the following: 60K Fleet 60K Fleet Model 60K Fleet Model 60K Fort Fleet Fort Model 60K & Fleet 60K Fort. I figured it would make the article easier to find! Can't wait to see your Fleet Canuck article! I have some photos I can add to that one too. Ahunt 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Noonan

Re: your comment on my talk page - I'm beginning to see what you mean. If you have a sec, can you please have a glance over the issue in question on Talk:Fred Noonan and let me know if you think I've been out of line - hard to tell sometimes when you get into things. Appreciate your feedback (btw, I'm not asking you to intervene!) Ronnotel 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Canuck

Bill: The new article looks good! It is long overdue! I like the 3-view, especially. I have added four Canuck photos (hope that doesn't over-do it, but one was on wheels, one with wheel pants, one on skis and one on floats, including the one in the museum here in Ottawa). Not sure if you will need to adjust the spacing to fix the whitespace. Now we need more text to fill in for the photos! I also created two redirects: Fleet Model 80 Canuck & Fleet 80 Canuck just to help people find it easier. Ahunt 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, that looks a bit better! I have my own personal preferences set for thumbnails=300px, so I tend to forget that others see the pages differently! I added an intro para and info on the Canuck type club as well. I found a photo of a Fleet Finch that I have and will post that. No luck on the Fawn, but I will keep an eye out for one to snap. Ahunt 13:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interspersing within comments

Interspersing your comments directly into the text of someone else's comments wholly violates standards and practices on WP talk pages. I was astonished to see it was you who had done this. Please don't do it again. Thanks. Gwen Gale 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar advice

I was reading over the article again because I found a really cool picture of the Y-2 on a Mechanix Illustrated cover. So I was adding it in at the end of the mention of the Look article, but then I started looking at the whole paragraph there and it really seems out of place. It was originally contextualized in a mention of "policy by press release", but that appears to be removed (which is fine), so now it's just kinda floating in there in the middle of the dialog about the procurement process. Do you this this information is interesting enough to keep? And if so, should be in a "notes" section instead? I'd like to think the original point was interesting enough to add, but in retrospect maybe not? --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

F-86 revert

I see the footnote thank you. Tirronan 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Arrow comments

• sigh* 50 years later and it's still a pushbutton topic. A notice has been posted. Maury 16:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk, in response to your note on my page, I took an initial look. Wow. Some serious emotions there! I've left a comment at the bottom of the talk page. That thesis that this guy keeps referring to might be a nice college paper, but really has no place being used as a ref in an encyclopedia. I personally have no problem with your own books being used (WP:COI certainly allows it), but I'm curious if you've had any other fall out from that, besides this one guy. The reason I ask really has nothing to do with the Arrow article, but more of the fact that I've been real reluctant to use my own book (Mojave Scrapbook) as a ref for articles relating to the Mojave Spaceport and the flight test programs there, and am curious if using such a reference has resulted in any other problems here. Akradecki 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill: An interesting issue. I have to agree that this has realy gone beyond the history of the Arrow and has become a bit too emotionally involved for some people. Personally I was watching the Arrow page for some time after I added the photo of RL206, but that page has more traffic than all the other 400 pages I am watching put together, so I dropped watching it. Personally I try to work on less stressful pages! Ahunt 13:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Had a quick look at the Arrow article and talk page. It appears to be one of those articles that will probably never settle down. Like all points of view the political angle needs a mention but most of it appears to be related to NORAD, and Arrow was just in the way. Perhaps the political bits can be moved to another page and just leave the article to describe the Arrow project with a a few words on who/why it was cancelled. Although I would agree with Akradecki that a single source thesis probably needs some independant supporting evidence. Although some of Opuscalgary's links to the thesis dont work anymore ! MilborneOne 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen way too many of these. How long has it been going on? You could ask for mediation at the mediation cabal. Look at WP:REF. (It does read like a nice college thesis) If his thesis doesn't meet the requirements then you could get rid of it and you could get rid of the claims. However it probably is fine. If he reverts I guess under WP:3RR he could get in a lot of trouble. If that doesn't work you can trace the IP that he uses to connect by asking a Bureaucrat at some request page that doesn't come to mind that quickly. Also discussion that doesn't really have to do with the article such as saying whether it was a good idea or not. (I'm not an admin though) The last thing I would say is your talk page, and the page of the F-86 need to be archived. RedSkunk^talk 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

There are many ways to archive mostly found at WP:ARCHIVE Werdnabot automatically does it but is indiscriminate. If you want to have an archive on a certain thing you have to do that. WP:ARCHIVE will tell you everything. If you want more advice just leave a message on my talk page. RedSkunk^talk 19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow...

On my way now. I'll see what I can do. --Evil.Merlin 05:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

F4U Corsair

Sunday: Actually, when I first noticed that the references I had added had been changed, I guessed some automated process had tried to fill in the ISBN, which I had left out. I looked at the book I own, found there was an ISBN, and I put it back in. It finally occured to me to look at the history, and I saw it was a person who had made the change. Since I added the references, I'd prefer they point to the book I was actually referencing. It's no big deal, of course, since Green likely copied it all verbatim from one version to the next, the original 1961 copyright being in his name, not that of the publishers. I will add the page number, per your suggestion. If you feel the "Famous" version is easier to find at libraries, you can change the references.

As for "their," I was trying to clue the reader that other solutions than the bent wing might have existed (the "their" referring to the solution chosen by the Corsair's designers). The Grumman team who developed the Hellcat around the same engine managed to get a rearward retracting main gear in a straight wing.

Monday: I'm not sure changes to the "talk" under my name are brought to your attention, so I'm copying them here. (It's the first time I've used this feature.) I see you've gone and changed the "their" to "the." I'll leave this as you like, but I think "their" adds to the content.

<

Regards, Karl Kleimenhagen 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

F4U Corsair

Bzuk, do any of your sources place Sikorsky on the design team? He would have been pretty busy with helicopter development at that time. My copy of Green only lists Beisel. The design staff at Vought probably wasn't all that large, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sikorsky threw in a few ideas. Karl Kleimenhagen 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind comments, and also for your very helpful edits to the Dolphin article. M Van Houten 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet

Bill, I don't know if you'd want to get involved in this, but I thought I'd ask anyway. User:Shimgray has removed a DND pic from the CF-18 Hornet page, stating "rm fair use image used as decoration". He also removed a DND image from the EH101 page for the same reason. THis is the [diff]. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow

Hi Bzuk, per your earlier message, I looked at that CF-105 discussion page. You already have Maury Markowitz and other smart people involved. My only two cents would be to create a separate page on the cancellation of the Arrow. It really warrants it as a historical event, and it would be a more appropriate forum for this debate. M Van Houten 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested that user User:Opuscalgary has left a message for you on my talk page. I have replied on his talk page with a reminder about Wikipedia:Civility. MilborneOne 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

“Gord of the Wings”, chapter thirteen: “…It’s the Presssscious! Myyyy Pressssuicous! Screamed the Craffordgordon as the ARROW slipped deeper into the budget of Mt. Diefenwrekker…”

Hey I know its not good, but a cave troll gotta start somewhere…, right?. (Dedicated to the chain letter !)

Hi Bzuk, first off there's no need for the formalities, just call me Red! (Lol) Anyway, I've only just returned from a break at Loch Ness and read your message. I have a few things requiring my immediate attention, then I'll take a look at the Arrow situation in due course and get back to you.--Red Sunset 19:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, here I am again, and now I've read the article and taken a look at the discussion page, my overall thoughts are most closely alligned to those of MilborneOne and his recommendations. The article really does seem to press some buttons, and as with most things political, will anyone ever know what the real truth is? Put all of the contentious political stuff onto a dedicated page where it can be deliberated fully and fairly without bogging the CF-105 page down in disruptive arguements.--Red Sunset 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk, in reference to this--particular issue, the best course of action would have it reported to an admin and have a 3rd party resolve the issue. My regards. --Signaleer 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Bill. It's good to hear from you, and thanks for the invite to help out with the Avro Arrow article. I haven't taken a look at seriously until today. I've been a bit busy with school and have settled for making less time/mind consuming contributions to Wikipedia this past week. I just recently added my name to the Aviation WikiProject list, so it was nice to get a call to help with an article so soon. Things are going well out here. I haven't been flying yet though... I should be going to one of the flying clubs out here sometime in the next month so that I can take the cadets flying. See you around. Sancho (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill,

I appreciate your comments regarding the TU-144 design. Sorry I didn't respond directly to your comments before - I'm finally getting used to the wiki system. I hope you realize that talk of the Charger being a copy of the Concorde is speculation itself. Yes, there is some documentation (some of it bunk, frankly, but some legitimate) about industrial espionage, but even a cursory look at what TsaGI and Tupolev were doing in their design and research area make any notion that Tupolev had to copy the Concorde's wing design ludicrous at best. TSAGI had plenty of experience in deltas and double-deltas (and was operating the world's biggest wind tunnel), and needed no one's help figuring out how to design the TU-144, overall. The jump from "materials stolen" to "airplane copied" is a non-sequiter if you look at the situation in any detail. Footnotes about espionage do not even begin to prove the case. That's why I took your comment about my "vandalism" to be rather silly. Of course I agree that references are important. But references that document the details of an otherwise obviously illogical argument are worthless. If I look hard enough, I can document a correlation between cancer deaths and the Yankees making the World Series. But we wouldn't want that in an encyclopedia.

---

TSAGI was actually the setting for a raging argument between "purists" who wanted a pure delta, and those who demanded a tailplane. I'm looking around for some reference material for that (Howard Moon documented it, but I also want to look up, if I can, more direct academic papers).

Other than refining the wing, Tupolev's biggest problem was that he lacked electronic engine controls (nobody in Russia knew how to build that). When a British firm, Lucas, refused to sell him any, he couldn't get the Charger's engines to be efficient enough to make the TU-144 practical for commercial service. Additionally, he didn't know how to utilize the fuel for cooling -so the Charger had a monstrous A/C system added that the Concorde didn't need.

Anyway, I extend an olive branch and look forward to working cooperatively with you on articles in the future. Wikipedia's very cool. 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Avro Arrow

Regarding the Arrow I only know the basic facts, and when it comes to the political turns leading to the cancellation of it I basically don't know anything from before, so I am reluctant to go into an discussion about it without third-party (preferably published) sources to base my opinions on.

However I believe that the article is somewhat biased, or at least would need more referencing. Take e.g. this quote: Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what they claimed was "rampant Liberal spending". Much of this was posed as an east/west divide, with eastern Canada using money from across the country to fund their "industrial welfare" projects. Here we have a few question marks: Did really eastern Canada use more than their share of the budget, or was it a general feeling that the people in the west had? The answer to that question can certainly be used as argument in the debate (if west was feeding the industries in the east this could to some extent justify the cancellation), and therefore it should be referenced. Especially the discussion about the political part of the program has many opinions that I feel might be based on feelings rather than facts.

Another thing is that expensive weapon systems, like fighters, are controversial. The defence needs of a country is hard to judge, and so is the benefit of having an own military industry. I don't think there is any simple answer to whether it was right to cancel the Arrow. We have several factors here:

1. The huge job losses for Avro and its suppliers

2. More money could be spent on other things (health care, social services and so on)

3. The following brain drain to the US

4. Was the Voodoo really a satisfactory substitute? Did it have the capabilities of the Arrow?

5. Did the RCAF need the capabilities of the Arrow, or should they settle for something less competent?

Those are a few things that one have to bear in mind when discussing whether it really was cheaper to buy the Voodoo. Of course it can also be claimed that the cancellation of the Arrow was correct, but that some other aircraft (the F-106 for example) should have been bought instead of the Voodoo, or that it was right to cancel the Arrow, but that the Iroquois-engine should have been developed.

Bottom line is that I think that there are many possible 'right answers', and that we never will know what had happened if the project would have continued. Several promising projects have suffered from serious problems in service (the F-104, F-101) and it is possible that the Arrow could have gone the same way. In my opinion the article should represent this fact, that the decision was, and still is, controversial, but that it was not a sole case in the world at that time (the XF-103, XF-108, the 'White Paper'), being instead part of a trend of investing in SAM's instead of interceptors. It was a serious setback for the Canadian aviation industry, but perhaps it was too expensive for the country to have an own military aircraft manufacturer.

I hope this was the kind of 'analysis' you wanted, good luck with the discussion!

Uhu219 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)