User talk:N328KF/Archive 2

Singular/plural tense regarding corporations

But since the article is about an American company it should be under American grammar rules, correct? In any case, the majority of the article referred to the airlines and companies mentioned as singular entities, so I figured it would be best to match the few cases I changed with the rest of the article. --NcSchu 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial 'mistook'

re: template talk: Groundbreaking submarines—
Quote:I am astounded that you don't consider Nautilus notable. So what if it wasn't produced in great numbers? Neither was Hunley, yet both changed the way people thought about submarines. Isn't that what makes them notable? That is why Albacore and Holland should be included, too. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... So am I, errr, ahhhh, errrrm, was I.
I apparently backed past one edit window too many and lost my commnents in that compressed 'expanding line'... each sub had had at least a few words in the edit version I (or my browser) didn't retain (Happens once in a while when link-hopping, when not having previewed text just entered. I was 'porposing' up and down and checking links. So my bad, or me browsers foibles, which means it's still 'my bad'. <g>)

Sorry for the increased blood-pressure event... kind of funny looking at it from today! Otoh, maybe this was her last non-mission, she was nicknamed the 'USS Neversail' for years.

Agree with you totally on Holland, but nobody talked 'Albacore', as she couldn't exploit it. I'd give the nod more to the type XXI, if you want Deisel+round hull as inherited tech.

Basically, this whole parsing of tech like this is highly POV—more like a newswriter than an encyclopedia— as my long answer last night explains. But I'm not opposed to the template per se, and think the better job would be done as a 'history of submarine technology' article, not have such a weighty and complicated matter jammed into one little terse template. Put your template together with that article, interlinked, and the two at least can give a clue as to why they are on the list. Heck, that's worth an article all by itself, and it can reference the main 'history of' using template:main. Call it Groundbreaking submarine technology, and you can direct the reader as a tour guide to what key developments 'float your technical boat' which is superior to any possible template in performing 'this mission'. The template 'just' links to some boats, without being able to say why.

Gotta run. Just wanted to say Hi as until I looked in for reaction a moment ago, I'd thought this was CP\M's template, so check my notes there to him. Best regards // FrankB 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 737 Orders article

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Boeing 737 orders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:List of Boeing 737 orders. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cliffb 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me understand why the page came into creation -- Realistically there should just be a link to boeing's order page. --Cliffb 05:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripling elephants

I saw your edit summary here. In case you weren't aware, an episode of The Colbert Report that aired Monday night encouraged viewers to add "the population of elephants has tripled in the last few months" to the elephant article on the idea that if enough people add it, it becomes true. So of course every article at all relating to elephants has been vandalized with some version of that line in the last few days. Basically if you see anything like that added to an article, there's a very good chance it's vandalism inspired by that show. BryanG^(talk) 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth First!

Please do not label them (or any other group) as terrorists. This is not neutral since that classification is almost always viewed negatively and is usually made by others, not the group itself. This has been discussed a lot on various pages, including the Earth First! talk page. In the future, please discuss controversial changes like that on the talk page and allow other editor to come to a consensus before making those types of edits. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 06:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that term, but most people don't and I thought you just didn't spell terrorist correctly. We used to have a page called "terrist", but as I just saw it was deleted and redirected to "terrorism". I was going to say that if you use an obscure term you should at least link to the page on that term, but I guess that's not the case here anymore. Since there is no page, that is actually more reason not to use the term terrist, since it will just confuse most people. The word is inherently POV as well IMO, (but from the opposite end). I still think that the current version is better. Do you agree or no? The Ungovernable Force 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Aig logo.png)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Aig logo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yellowstone project image

Hi

You did the Image:BCA_Pax_Capacity.png and released it in the public domain. I just traslated the Boeing Yellowstone Project to the Spanish es:Proyecto Yellowstone, and I would like to use your image. As you released in public domain I will upload it to commons. You can found it: here. Aadrover 12:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox discussions

Hey Joseph. Over at WT:Air, we've been having some discussion about putting large navboxes in aircraft footers. So far, we unanimously agree that huge navboxes are unacceptable. However, smaller ones such as {{B-29 family}} are more of a grey area. Personally, I don't mind them, but I solicited comments on their inclusion for good measure.

I thought I should let you know that depending on how discussion goes, consensus might be that {{B-29 family}} should be deprecated. Feel free to comment at the talkpage.

Uggh. My message seems like it could be interpreted in a negative light. Please don't see it that way—I'm just doing my best to be courteous and get everyone involved in the discussion.

Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 19:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Fuji

Hi there, I actually scanned the image off a postcard I received in the mail, so I don't think I'll be able to get a higher resolution image sorry :( Swollib 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonov An-225

Last November, you edited the Antonov An-225 article to add that it is the largest powered aircraft (diff). I asked about it on the talk page late last month, and I wonder whether you might be able to clarify it for me. Are there larger aircraft that aren’t powered? Thanks. --Rob Kennedy 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modular Integrated Systems Strategy

Just so you know, I tossed a proposed deletion onto Modular Integrated Systems Strategy, which you made. I may be in the wrong on this one if it's actively used in technical literature that I couldn't find, but I couldn't turn up much. SnowFire 05:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAE

Hi. In case you're wondering what happened at BAE Systems, I made a mess by not noticing you had already updated it! Nice work updating all the pages so quickly. Mark83 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MMA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MMA.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re: RAAF C-17

Thanks, I did wonder whether that was supposed to be "between the USAF and RAAF" or "with the USAF and RAF". :) FiggyBee 01:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Not Fade Away"

Actually, I merged them a while ago and nobody has complained but you. Second, merging is not a "vote." Third, WikiProjectSongs is clear on its consensus that articles are about songs, not singles, and that all versions can adequately be covered within the same article. Fourth, feel free to tell any admin you like, and I'll defend my actions in the same way I have here. You seem to be under the impression that admin action in somehow undesirable, while I have faith that admins are quite capable of amicably dealing with disagreements. In fact, I urge you to find an impartial admin to deal with this situation if you're unwilling to work it out with me and feel the need to just revert things to the way you like them. GassyGuy 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, you didn't do a great job with your handling of the Not Fade Away (song) article. You may have failed to notice, but a whole lot of information etc. was added after I merged in the Rush single version, and you wiped it out completely. That's borderline vandalism. I'd suggest you fix that pending administrative action, as if I were to do so, I would put it back to the version include Rush's, and I speak in earnest when I repeat that I hope you will summon an admin to settle this content dispute. GassyGuy 03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your recent question, so I won't answer it. However, it doesn't seem to be particularly constructive either way. Again, the two of us obviously aren't going to work this out alone. You offered to summon an admin to work out the content dispute - I will again say that I think it's a good idea. Please do so. I wish to remain civil etc., and I feel we have a better chance of avoiding any sort of incivility and whatnot if we bring somebody else in, as it doesn't seem like we're working toward any sort of compromise. GassyGuy 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Valve Company - where's the copyvio?

I notice you tagged the Sloan Valve Company article as a copyvio, but the tag was never updated with a URL pointing to the violation. I have looked at the Sloan web site and I don't see anything that was plagiarized; perhaps I missed something. Would you be so kind as to point it out, and complete the tag properly? Otherwise, absent any evidence, I am inclined to revert your edit back to the original article. Thanks. -Amatulic 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Helfer

Your addition of a copyrighted image to Tricia Helfer has been reverted. This image does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:FUC and the image page itself specifically mentions that its use on that page is not permitted. Note that WP:FUC criteria have recently changed so you may want to reread this to understand why the image was not appropriate. --Yamla 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ANA-7E7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ANA-7E7.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Submarines

Back in August, you requested that Delta II class submarine and Delta III class submarine were merged into Delta class submarine. There was no opposision to your proposal, so I have now merged these articles. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neuron

i don't call replacing two word "a lot". just compare with what I've added to the article and see what means a lot. obviously you don't know what modesty is. by the way the Jaguar is partially owned by Dassault as it was co-developped by Breguet which was bought by Dassault so next time watch your tongue and be a bit more modest thanks. Shame On You 22:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx

Why did you remove the FedEx flights from the article FedEx? --MNAdam 20:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out its at the express article... never mind. --MNAdam 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MBB-Dornier

Hi. I saw your query at Talk:DASA. As far as I can gather (only from a quick bit of research) MBB-Dornier is just an old name used after its time, like BAE Systems was still called "British Aerospace" after the BAe/MES merger. This article seems to make clear that MBB and Dornier were subsumed by DASA. However this 96/97 UK document mentions "MBB/Dornier" as a current company. Just a few quick thoughts, I will try any get some more info. Best regards, Mark83 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Lufthansa 747-8 buy

I removed the text because it stated it was a rumor. I have no problem with it being there, but the text I removed was not cited. I did not check the table, or its sources, and I assume the anon adding the "rumor" didn't either. If you have the cite, and wish to re-add it where I deleted it, I have no problem with that. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the anon's text addition, not the table. I didn't think of checking the table; my bad. But the text was still in error, as we do not post romors on Wiki, esp when we call them rumors! I'm not quite sure what the problem is here, but I can't see how I should have left the text in as it was. I was assuming the announcement would come shortly, and then the info would be added back in with a cite. - BillCJ 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes Helicopters

Some user slapped a {notability} tag on the Hughes Helicopters article. I removed it (to get his attention, as some people don't read the talk pages), and posted comments on the talk page also. I don't know what his problem with the page is, but it might be that it's unsourced. He just put the unreferenced tag up today, so it's not like noone won't know that's a problem. Can you take a look, and see what you think? Thanks. - BillCJ 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Seems that there is an annoying effort to tag corporate articles this way now. Someone tagged Hughes Helicopters in the same manner.

Since that wasn't me, I completely fail to see the relevance here.

This is getting old, fast.

Try Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica, as they don't seem to bother with those pesky things like fact-checking or scholarly standards. --Calton | Talk 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to slap this onto any article that is on a subject outside of their own little world.

If you can't be bothered to explain why something is important outside YOUR own little world, I'm afraid you'll have to get used to it, since it's, you know, a fundamental principle here. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TO instead of INTO

You cannot use google as a source. A search engine is NEVER a source. I am going into journalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.96.184 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Page move

Hi. Can you say why you moved the Concorde article? I can't see where you established consensus for that. Please accept my apologies in advance if I am wrong. Thanks --Guinnog 04:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. I am going to move it back as I think it should be discussed in talk first. I appreciate your desire for consistency but there are valid exceptions to almost every rule, and this may be an example. Let's see what the editors who have written it (of whom I am one) think. Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TO instead of INTO last warning

This is the last time I'm going to ask you. Please do not change to to into. Your just adding two letters on for an absolute no reason. TO is the standard term. --Golich17 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any terms, all pages in this online encyclopedia use TO instead of INTO, except the ones you have changed. And by the way, I would suggest you not threaten me... as that is always the wrong decision. I don't really care which term is used, I just believe that since Into is longer than To therefore we need to utilize the space we have. For smaller screens, those to letters use up alot of space, and I don't want the EIS to go onto a second row... therefore I believe I have made my point clear. For you to threaten me shows what kind of a person you are. All I have stated to you was that it was the last time I would ask you, therefore I am going to be the bigger person by letting this go. In fact, I might even help you change most of the pages, but please, if you believe something else shall be done, look into it before you begin to change it. I have read that website that you have cited, but another thing is that it is no longer needed and it takes up space. I believe Wikipedia should be an informative yet user-friendly site, therefore don't add things to mix somebodies edits up.--Golich17 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XWB misnomer

Even if he had cited that source, could we have kept it? It seemed POV the way it was written. And I'm saying this as someone with a pro-Boeing bias! - BillCJ 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERJ vandal

Sure, happy to help. I was reaching the end of my rope when he showed up for the second round, but fortunately an admin indef-blocked him before he could drive anyone over the edge :) --chris.lawson 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend is back. I could use your assistance if you're around.--chris.lawson 15:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Million vs billion.

Hi. I agree with your edit to Airbus - you may have noticed it was me who changed it from billions a few days ago. I'm just curious, it was my understanding that international financial reporting standard were millions. Do you know if some countries have different standards? As far as I know Renault (FR) and DaimlerChrysler (GER/US) report in millions. I think its just people changing it to suit there preferences, i.e. they think billion sounds "better". Mark83 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this page is on my watchlist but I can answer. The reason is that the word "million" means something constistent across languages and cultures, whereas the word "billion" does not. See the article on billion which explains it. In many countries, what we call a "billion" is called a "milliard", and what we call a "trillion" is called a "billion". So it makes sense to use only millions units to avoid confusion. -Amatulic 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Beechcraft Starship, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

MiG template

Thanks for the work on the MiG template! much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about naming it MiG aircraft, but I have been trying to name the templates after the manufacturers name. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's reference template

I've updated {{Ref Jane's}} to include (so far) three Jane's encyclopedias - Fighting Aircraft of WWI, Fighting Aircraft of WWII, and the 1993 Encyclopedia of Aviation. If you've got a Jane's resource that you frequently use, please throw it into the template! It's using #switch functionality and should be very straightforward. If you've got ideas for improving it, let me know. ericg ✈ 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader III stomp

Sorry about stomping on your edits. There was almost two hours between two of your edits, and I did not check the history page when I made my edits to make sure there were no new edits. Sorry. I'll try to be more careful next time. - BillCJ 05:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Comments

I removed them becouse you were being a Meta:DICK DXRAW 20:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing the noninclude, thanks for the repair!

Sorry for any trouble, thanks for the help. - Davandron | Talk 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:EMBRAER190 120304 13.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:EMBRAER190 120304 13.jpg. However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:FedEx Express.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:FedEx Express.svg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Per WP:HARV, the correct way to cite is Author Year in the citation followed by the full reference. It also reduces clutter in the text. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]