User talk:Rlandmann/archive12

Hindenburg class airship

I don't really agree with this move and broadening the subject. It's not a good idea. The Graf Zeppelin II was an airship that also had many important differences from the Hindenburg and though it might seem like POV I don't think it's fair the Hindenburg gets an article while the Graf II doesn't. The German articles of both Airships are very extensive and comprehensive and we should start from there.

Regards, Frankyboy5 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to work on this article. I'm trying to translate (through Babel Fish) some of the dates and details of the airship regarding construction, and the flights and will try to add them into the article as soon as possible, but it might take a while. The German article documents every flight ever made by the Graf II.

Regards, Frankyboy5 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:DFS228.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:DFS228.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:DFS228.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Centpacrr

I noticed your attempts at meaningful discussion with Centpacrr about the images he has uploaded and most of which relate to the Hindenburg. You may have seen that I also tried to get him to understand copyright on this wiki but he uses such phrases as; significant, unique, because "they were there", key milestones, or unique postal history documents. However, he seems to slowly be absorbing some of the copyright status info. I have to disagree with you on suggesting {{PD-ineligible}} as an appropriate tag for the covers as they quite clearly fall within the PD-German Empire stamps licence and should use that rather than an ineligible template. All the Hinderburg covers fall into the Third Reich period and both the stamps and postal markings are Reichspost productions and we cannot copyright an envelope or a written address, so that would be the correct template. Here is an older Hindenburg cover that uses is properly using the template and I think his should too. Stan, an admin both here and on the commons, already weighed in on some of Centpacrr's images and as our expert in this area, you might like to involve him. Both of us are active and knowledgeable members of the Philately WikiProject.

Some of his other images may be more difficult but the propaganda leaflet description he gave is correct and would be termed as an de:Amtliches Werk using this licence PD-GermanGov. There is one other issue with his images; adding the words The Cooper Collections to his images. Who is "The Cooper Collections"; probably his own collection of material. If so it is a non-notable collection and should not be there. Google hits show up wikpedia pages like these and mirror sites. One forum is questioning the status of Spirit of St Louis fabric to which he replied; I created and posted (on Wikipedia) the image of the sample of SSoL fabric in my collection ("The Cooper Colections") of Linberghiana. His licences are not CC with attribution, so there is no need for that and it should be reomved which will no doubt annoy him again. Do you agree? Thanks for your time. (To keep discussions in one place I reply where I first post, so I am watching you, for a while!) Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Ww2censor - I have amended my advice to him in this light. Would I be able to enlist you to transfer the covers to Commons and make sure they are correctly tagged?

I concur that the extra attribution he adds to captions is problematic; and that "The Cooper Collections" does appear to be his own private non-notable collection. I was going to tackle this once we had the basic copyright issues sorted out. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing at a time! I am not sure I know how to move the images to the commons but I should learn it anyway. Let me know when you would like me to do that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - there's two ways to do it. Either download the image from Wikipedia to your computer, then re-upload it to Commons here, specifying "Another Wikimedia project" as the source, or (better) just use this tool. Either way, you'll need to create an account over at Commons (if you haven't done so already) and if you want to use the tool, you'll need to follow the instructions on the tool page itself and create a TUSC password. Let me know if you run into any problems! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First let me assure you that all of the contributions that I have made to Wikipedia (both written and images) have been made in good faith and with the sole purpose of sharing both my knowledge and images of some of the historically significant items in my collections with those who visit Wikipedia. I have clearly stated both my purpose and bono fides on my user page, user:Centpacrr, so that anyone who wishes to know my background and areas of interest in order to evaluate my contributions can easily do so. (Unfortunately I was not able to find any such similar information on your user page so I really have no idea who you are, where you are located (although I am guessing either Canada or the UK), or how to evaluate your statements, advice, opinions, or contributions to Wikipedia based on your background or areas of expertness about which I know nothing.)

My problem is this: the licensing and tagging options which are offered on the image upload page are both quite limited (i.e., there are a great many circumstances and types of images that none of them seem to apply to), and are also quite confusing to me because they are not at all well explained. Trying to select an appropriate licensing tag is therefore always a problem for me, and that is why I ask for suggestions and/or advice on this from you and others. (Unfortunately this often leaves me more confused than before as many of the opinions and advices that I get this way end up being equally inconsistent, vague, or contradictory.)

You have noted that I have also tagged many of the images of unique or original items that I have posted as being from The Cooper Collections in order to provide at least some basis of sourcing and provenance for them. Over the past forty years I have built up a nice private collection of both transportation related artifacts and unique aerophilatelic and postal history items. However as it is a private collection it is not available to the public. In order to make at least part of it so in some way, I decided to post high quality images of as many items as I can in Wikipedia articles where they are appropriate and relate to the items. I could, of course, just keep these items locked away to be enjoyed by nobody but myself, but I feel an obligation to share them with as many people as I can, and Wikipedia seems to me to be by far the best place to do that. Many of these are historically significant in and of themselves and can help others in research. A perfect example of this is the image of the Spirit of St. Louis fabric which the "papermodlers" found to be extremely useful in their research. When I found that they had a question about the fabric (which i became aware of by doing a periodic Google search for "The Cooper Collections" tag), I was able to post the information they sought in their thread on the issue for which they were very grateful. This is exactly the reason that I have chosen to share images of the items in my collections as widely as possible via Wikipedia.

As i have said before, all of this is being done in good faith. I am a longtime student of history, a professional writer (four books as well as many hundreds of published articles), operate a now decade old 10,000+ webpage railroad history website on the history of the Central Pacific Railroad with another family member, and have digitally restored thousands of historic images. My intention is to allow my contributions to be viewed and appreciated by as many people as possible. The major roadblock to this has proved to be confusing and hard to decipher copyright/licensing tag procedure on Wikipedia which makes it very difficult to find and select a "correct" tag. There often seem to be as many opinions as there are editors as to what the right tag is as well, so no matter what one I pick I can expect to be constantly second guessed by others who each think the image should have some different tag about which none can agree.

I have always been one who opts in favor of inclusion of relevant information rather than exclusion. This, of course, is far more difficult in "paper" publishing because of the expense of physical publishing the work. An internet encyclopedia is a far different animal, however, which is far more conducive to inclusion. To me detail is what gives history life and meaning, and so do images. As I have stated before, I intend to restore the Hindenburg images as soon as the several articles are "settled" in their new forms and I can put them in the most appropriate locations in the revised text and formatting.

I do not object to having images that I created and uploaded of items from my collections moved to Wikipedia Commons in order to make them more widely available as long as I am informed in advance and the original sourcing and provenance information is retained. Simply specifying "Another Wikimedia project" as the source, however, would not be acceptable.

One further thing. I would certainly have much appreciated that since you have decided to discuss how I use Wikipedia with other users, that you would have invited me to participate in this discussion instead of my having to find it serendipitously. I am quite keen to resolve this copyright/licensing tagging issue so that i can continue to post more of "my" images for others to enjoy without the hassle of having to repeatedly defend each one over and over again to every editor who has a different opinion as to how it should be tagged. These issues can all be resolved much more easily and quicker with a little direct open communication. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

You might want to take a look at this discussion where our friend has withdrawn his PD licence from some of his images. I don't think you can do this after you have already released them into PD. I also think that he has uploaded a different version of Image:DLZ129 spar.jpg this image with a newly added copyright watermark. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed these because it is now my understanding that the earlier tags were not the appropriate ones. Also there are no "copyright" watermarks of any kind on any of the images that I have contributed, only sourcing and provenance. If you have any other questions or comments for me, as noted above I would much appreciate if you would make them me directly. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Actually Centpacrr is correct, there is no copyright notice, but a source notice, but that was not the issue, I just wanted to inform you of the discussion as you had been dealing with him directly. I did not want to get involved. ww2censor (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, what do we ant to do about the images where Centpacrr has changed the licence as no one else has weighed in on the discussion and even though I post info about this to Centpacrr's talk page he has not come in on it either yet. I suggest we revert the images back to the original image and licence and those that are PD can be moved to the commons asap. Agree? ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines

Finally got it, last week, and it looks great. I haven't been able to do anything on here with it yet, though I hope to get working on the T38 article soon. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Austal copyvios

RL, I've filed a potential copyvio against Austal. The bulk of the page, and most of the pics, are from the company's website. If you're around, could you double check to see if I've crossed all my t's? It's your choice if you want to handle this as an editor or an admin, but I figured you might want to know, since this is an Australian-based company. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Short Type 827

Just created Short Type 827 and I also linked in the Short 830, I think the 830 is just a radial engined 827 but my refs are not clear. Appreciate any help (I have asked User:TraceyR but they dont seem to be around this week). Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Iranian Air Force aircraft

Great work with this article, there is NO COLOUR, I added a yellow colour since there was no colour!--EZ1234 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow there is a colour now, its light lilac but there is no other colour which is great. Again great work with this article--EZ1234 (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Reich leaflet

I left an analysis concerning copyright of it. Please reply. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Aerospecs

Nothing missing as far as I can remember I think the only problem I have had is with the power of turbojets and turboprops are not always kn or lbf. Its late here but I will see if I can remember any examples tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify with the reference I normally use (Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft) with turboprops the engine power is shp/kW and when you use the prop fields it might be usefull to show shp instead of hp. Jets are normally listed as lb/kg thrust and the template is looking for kn/lbf. Not a big deal just confuses me sometimes. Would be nice to have aerospecs listed as the normal template to use! MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Aircraft broken !

Appears to be a code error in the infobox to do with logo - on subject pages you get a red link 210px instead of a logo, for example on Spirit of St. Louis. I will look and see if it is anything obvious but will have to learn the markup first! Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops missed that - Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Royal Netherlands Navy ships

Category:Royal Netherlands Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships

Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Russian Navy ships

Category:Russian Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute?

Our friend Centpacrr is in an edit war with me on Airmails of the United States, where he keeps insisting on using the word franked in the introduction to describe air mail. As I have told him on his talk page, this word, for the general public, does not mean affixing stamps to mail, though he has found some specialist quotes, the article he linked to does not support the idea he want to get across. Philatelists and franking machine makers do use the term but not the general public. Now he is linking the word to an external web page, a most unusual situation indeed, just to get his point across. I get the distinct impression that anything that he has not written, or approves of himself gets reverted by him as if he owns the article, which of course you warned him about previously. I believe this needs a third party to calm the waters and try to sort it out for us, otherwise I think it needs to go to WP:RfC. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not really see this as a "content dispute" but a disagreement as to whether the term "franking" is synonymous with the terms "free franking" and/or "franking privilege" which I say is just not the case. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

It is a content dispute in my opinion, but it is over now anyway. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

page deletion re: copyright

Hi - you deleted my page Lindy Electronics because it uses text from their website. Lindy Electronics is happy to waive copyright on this text, can I arrange this formally and have the page re-instated? MurrrayMunch (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll re-write it next week.

MurrrayMunch (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

User:Russavia has added a number of images of russian airlines for example Image:Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-134 - CCCP-65976.jpg. Release has been given through the OTRS ticket system but it has been added by the originator when the image was uploaded. I am used to seeing the tickets added by an OTRS volunteer after the image has been loaded. I presume WP:AGF but is there a way of checking the permission. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I have asked one of the volunteers. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve

You alerted me to the copyright issue for the Tropical Science Center. If that is the case you should remove the above page I created (Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve) as well since I didn't write the text (the Tropical Science Center did). I've worked with them for years but I'm not a staff member.

Thanks, Brett

user name - Brettcole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettcole (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For amazingly diligent work updating all the Schweizer glider type articles from the out-of date format I left them into the current WikiProject Aircraft template format. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Science Center (TSC)

I'll encourage someone at the TSC to create entries both for themselves and for the preserve. I put that up because the bit about the preserve that exists in the basic Monteverde article was so poor. The text I put up for the preserve is excerpted from the official photo book of the preserve, which I authored, but that part, the intro to the book which offers a summary about the preserve, was written by the TSC.

No big deal, I'll have someone there take it up. So how will Wiki know if someone at the TSC decides to cut and paste from their own website, that it's ok. I don't get how you screen to see. It has to be ok for the copyright owner to cut and paste, but it seems like your system is automated. I imagine that a new article is written, and a program enters the new text in google and looks for verbatim matches, is this right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettcole (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Schweizer articles

Thanks for the kind words. I hate dumping "stubs" of articles into Wikipedia as new articles. I figure if I can't present something that is well-written and carefully referenced then it stands a good chance of getting CSDed. Essentially I was trying to make them CSD-proof by making them pretty decent from the first post!

I am a writer and researcher by trade and so projects like the Schweizer glider types give me a chance to really practice doing that.

When I started writing that series I mucked around with the up-to-date templates but couldn't get them working. Later MilbourneOne helped my get them sorted out, but by that time I had them all finished. I used the old-style templates, because I managed to make them work. I had them on my list to go back and update the formats in the near future, but you did all the hard work for me! Much appreciated!

I like the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I can start an article and someone else will hopefully make it better. I don't have to do it all myself. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of HP-18 and HP-14

I see you G12'd the articles on HP-18 and HP-14, which might have been justified, but I seem to recall that there was at least a little "non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving" to each. Is there any way to view the deleted material for reference? BoKu (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I've submitted the standard "please restore to my workspace" request with another admin. BoKu (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice!

EZ1234 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Possibly unfree Image:Voskhod2patch.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Voskhod2patch.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vinhtantran (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Press

Hi, I am a bit confused about an action. The disambiguation page Freedom Press was written because once there was two Freedom Press, one Freedom Press (UK) and other Freedom Press (U.S.). But now Freedom Press (U.S.) is merged into David Steinman. Thus the second redirect in a disambiguation page is unnecessary. As the page now contains only Freedom Press (UK), I want to merge this disambiguation page into Freedom Press (UK). But I am not sure how to proceed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Aviation

RL, I had considered bringing this up before, but thought it wasn't worth the trouble to mention. With the TFD of Template:Infobox Aviation, I think its time has come.

Bascially, "Infobox Aviation" has the same output as Template:Infobox Aircraft Begin. If we could combine the two templates' functions, it would allow us the actual option of adding on other templates in the future, and might be useful in staving off further TFDs. As far as a title, "Infobox Aviation" is the most generic one, as "Infobox Aircraft Begin" might not be that suitable for some of the broader aviation topics. I think it might work! - BillCJ (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC) - BillCJ (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. - BillCJ (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RL, Nick Dowling has brought up a similar idea at the TFD discussion, so I've commented there too. - BillCJ (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help

Thanks for guiding me along the way in my first few days creating and editing; I am a much better Wikipedian for your help. :) LGF1992UK (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

J-XX

You might find this interesting. http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical3/27/20080714/14966869.html I used Google translate to read that. It is a second page of two page news. I'm not sure how trustworthy is China.com plus specs looks more like wish list ("massive use of nanotech" etc.). But anyway... TestPilot^{talk to me!} 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it using Google News search, and was assuming it is an actual news. But you seems to be right, I mean about forum post. Anyway, I totally agree, we better don't use thous specs without clear understanding where specs came from (looks too good to be real). TestPilot^{talk to me!} 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

MDM MDM-1 Fox

Hi! Probably by mistake, you have removed some of the most interesting technical details from MDM MDM-1 Fox, compare Talk:MDM_MDM-1_Fox. Could you please revert this? I do not know how to do it utilizing the aerospecs template correctly. Regards, Vierzehn (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

continual removal of properly cited information

Apologies for having to complain but one person has been continually removing properly cited information from these articles: No reason is given or when challenged to justify his "alterations" Kurfürst gives way to personal abuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin_powered_variants)&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolls-Royce_Merlin&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire (Spitfire wing and misquotes) I realise that this has already been discussed at length in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain section, but it is clear that this person has no wish to be co-operative and will go to any lengths to push his own POV at the expense of the articles and to pursue some personal vendetta. I have no objection to properly cited material being used to alter information; after all, that is what historians do all the time; I have no objection to discussing the removal of properly cited, reliable information if it can be shown that an alternative POV has merit - case in point; I added source material to confirm Kurfürst's alterations to the "late Merlin powered variants article", even though he had simply removed cited material in the first place. As for the rest - I found the nonsense written under (Spitfire wing and misquotes) laughable, and left his information intact even if it is demonstrably wrong.Minorhistorian (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And so he continues once again to delete properly cited information. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolls-Royce_Merlin&action=history No supporting evidence has been provided by Kurfürst who has deleted yet more information Then he blithely goes on his merry way, leaving a pretence of discussion; ie: too bad if you disagree with me, I'll continue to edit out whatever I disagree with. This boid is getting away with moider; he is being disruptive, self-centered and appears to be acting out of malice. I and other editors have attempted to reason with him several times and I have more than once met him half way and let his nonsense go, but all to no avail; he uses unverified and unverifiable material to support his POV and refuses to let others express someting different when it is clearly supported by citations. He has no talk page, so there is no point in trying to reason with him that way. If this continues I'll forget about having anything further to do with Wikipedia - I can't be bothered with the time wasting exercise of chasing idiots.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll try and make this as short as possible; the first specific instance of Kurfürst removing properly cited information was 13 July, Supermarine Spitfire:

• 14:23, 13 July 2008 Kurfürst(Removed claims based on revisionist website; added comments of Supermarine test pilots on Spitfire development)
• 14:40, 13 July 2008 Kurfürst(→Elliptical wing design: Comments from revisionist site removed; results of testing by Royal Aircraft Esteblishment from September 1940 quoted instead.)

The removal of information from a website because he considers it to be a "revisionist site" is hardly convincing. The site in question http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html is a well respected one which takes a balanced editorial stance. Kurfürst's "replacement sources" may be genuine but they do not meet Wikipedia verifiability standards. No explanation given for major changes in discussion page. The next instances affected the Battle of Britain:

• 14:19, 14 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (118,544 bytes) (→Aircraft: Fighters: Some minor corrections to CSP prop introduction; added Rechlin trials of RAF aircraft)

14:20, 14 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (118,669 bytes) (→Aircraft: Fighters: Extended Rechlin trial information with level speed comparison) at which point I intervened to make some sense of the changes:

• 23:23, 14 July 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (117,572 bytes) (→Opposing forces: Adding extra information uneccesary "padding" ? (see discussion page))
• 21:22, 15 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (118,669 bytes) (Undid revision 225697290 by Minorhistorian)

after some talk amongst other editors on the discussion page "Additions to 109 vs Spitfire in section on aircraft" because Kurfürst is not getting things all his own way this happened:

• 21:34, 15 July 2008 Kurfürst(→Aircraft: Fighters: Moved lenghty comparison section the Battle of Britain Aircraft article. Only basic description of aircraft and their roles remain)

With absolutely no consultation with other editors Kurfürst takes it upon himself to cut a whole section and move it to another page Aircraft of the Battle of Britain. At first Bill Zuk reverted, then he decided to let it go. After that the "Revised" article Aircraft of the Battle of Britain became an editing nightmare:

• 21:33, 15 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (14,472 bytes) (Moved fighter section from Battle of Britain article)
• 21:37, 15 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (15,525 bytes) (Added E-Stelle Rechlin fighter comparison report quote)
• 21:47, 15 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (15,966 bytes) (Correction of some mistakes, and finishing the merge)
• 00:38, 16 July 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (27,669 bytes) (→Fighter aircraft: Describe fuel tank vulnerabilities/protections and modifications. Describe (quietly dropped!) 100 Octane fuel) This was after Kurfürst had quietly deleted properly cited information he didn't agree with
• 08:39, 16 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (34,114 bytes) (Revised section on 100 octane fuel with more reliable and referenced information; noted fact that the German Air Force also used 100 octane fuel in the Battle. Better sectioning. Added armament info.)Again, so called refernces do not meet verifiability standards.
• 09:22, 17 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (40,968 bytes) (→Fighter aircraft: Re-added 100 octane details for RAF. Section on 100 octane was referenced and verifiable. Its removal was not justifiable, and was only replaced by unsourced text.) Nonsense - this is partly what prompted the call for a discussion.
• 19:30, 18 July 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (48,486 bytes) (→100 octane aviation fuel: Removing unverifiable and contestable statements which are contradicted by other sources (see discussion page))
• 21:10, 18 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (49,152 bytes) (Undid revision 226501752: Removed wishful revisionist editing not backed up by any source)
• 21:11, 18 July 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (48,693 bytes) (Undid revision 226503714. Removed unsupported speculation.)All of this with no attempt to confer with others. Again his sources cannot be verified.

I went back to the discussion page and challenged Kurfürst on this; "References to 100 octane fuel" what I got back in reply was an extended tirade - from there things got even messier. In short the article is in limbo and desperately needs work to make it slightly more readable Moving more up to date Supermarine Spitfire again:

• 08:31, 1 August 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (66,440 bytes) (Undid revision 229156503 by Minorhistorian (talk) Please do not re-write direct quotes from references)Absolutely no indication of "direct quote" from anywhere. Reference "cited" again unverifiable.
• 11:27, 1 August 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (66,885 bytes) (Undid revision 229190729 by Kurfürst (talk) Hardly a misquote; direct from the pilot's manual;read discussion pagel)

Again, an attempt to discuss met with a tirade of abuse "36: Spitfire wing and misquotes" On to Rolls-Royce Merlin:

• 18:28, 1 August 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (31,866 bytes) (→Upgrades)He made some major changes, removing cited information with no explanation.
• 04:57, 2 August 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (31,848 bytes) (→Upgrades: Please do not make up things. Support claims with sources.) (undo)For once, he actually did say something - after I challenged the removal of information; Discussion "Removal of properly cited information"

He did not, however, provide those sources he claims he has. I did my own research and, as it happened, verified many of the changes he made. On to Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants) and the same old formula:

• 17:40, 1 August 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (65,030 bytes) (→Mk IX (type 361): H.F. Mark IX did not enter service until 1944. Minor corrections.) "Minor corrections" entailed removing cited material from "Spitfire Performance" website (it seems he doesn't like the editor). Again, MY research supported his claims, and I changed the article, citing specific information.

There has been a pattern of disruptive behaviour, which has compromised at least one article. More often than not when Kurfürst is challenged his reply is a tirade, occasionally sliding into direct abuse. He continually fails to provide verifiable information (one case of which I discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft 24: Aircraft of the Battle of Britain) and, although he protests about other editors removing his "cited" (but unverifiable) material it does not stop him from removing cited material he happens to disagree with. To be fair he has mellowed a little, but I still believe that he will try to get away with as much as he can, given the opportunity. Sorry, I have gone on for far too long...Minorhistorian (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood; I was wondering if there was a little too much original research - in none of the many books I have read on the Spitfire and/or Bf 109 have I seen the type of information being incorporated into these articles. For example Alfred Price, who is a well respected authority on the Spitfire only mentions the use of 100 Octane fuel without going into specific details as to when or how the RAF utilised it! If he does not do so then Wikipedia certainly is not the place for bringing up such issues. Perhaps it needs to be left to neutral editors to go through these articles and weed out "padding"? Minorhistorian (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll start sifting through material and references I've used and, where possible, provide published information. Question on websites; is it okay to cite them if the reference is to a photo or illustration? eg, for the P-51 I've included links to photos of gunsights which were used by the different Mustang variants. Also, I've copied your replies to me on to the talk page of Aircraft of the Battle of Britain so people other people know that I'm doing this to follow Wikipedia guidelines.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Military Photos

i apoligize for any inconvenience on putting on photos without the proper guidelines. Homan05

Mexican Military Photos

hey i understand, i wouldnt like it if some jerk took a picture of mines and post it somewhere without my consent but no i canot prove that it has a free licensing, its just so a little frustrating finding a picture for these articles especially when u need permission to post them up. Homan05 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename finished

HI; I've finished this rename now. Due to the large number of categories involved and the fact that there were some complex templates involved, you might just want to surf around Category:Sport aircraft and its subcategories now and see if everything seemed to come through OK in the rename. If you see anything amiss you can fix it, if you can, and if you can't, just let me know and I can help. From what I can tell everything worked out well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your hard work - I know there was a lot to cover there! I'll take a look and let you know of any glitches that I can't fix myself :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A technical question

R, how does an editor ask for a checkuser request? I am fairly certain that a currently banned editor is editing again using sockpuppets. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

General Electric YJ101

RL, I created a redirect at General Electric YJ101 to the F404 page, and noticed it had been deleted in 2005. It content was in a non-English language. Could you confirm that there was no useful content about the YJ101 in any previous versions? I'd like to start a page on the engine,and if there was actully anything there, it would help. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk)

Thanks! Gunston's Aeroengine book has very little on the YJ101, so I'll have to troll some online sources and see what I find. The Great Book of Modern Warplanes (I have both the 1987 and 2000 editions) has a detailed sub-section on the F404 in the Hornet section, and IIRC, it may have some useable history/data on the YJ101. Our F404 article is crowded enough (RM12 and F412) that I think a good stub on the YJ101 would be worth having. I did a quick search on the inter-WPs, but did not find a YJ101 article; sometimes the German side has some good articles, but it's not very consistent - surprising sometimes the articles they don't have! Thanks again! - BillCJ (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lordprice Spitfire

Interested that you should PUI the spitfire image, I had a look at it the other week but uploader has over 150 images in a similar state! I brought it up Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Lordprice_collection but had no reply. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

More Schweizer

That is a very good question. I have never come across a military "S" designation mentioned in all my researching of Schweizer designs. One of them may refer to a design study, never completed, called the Schweizer 7-28, which was a mysterious seven-seater glider on which there is almost no info at all. [1] but that is just a guess on my part. Helicopters had clearly replaced gliders for air assault by 1960 so these would have to have been training gliders or something similar.

I guess since the list has no refs for that section on sailplane designations I would have to ask if there is any ref that actually names the "S" designations, or is it just a rumour? It all seems rather odd given that the military always used "G" designations for sailplanes and gliders both prior to and after 1962. qv: Template:US_glider_aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For info - "Although postwar training sailplanes are not normally given designations (for example, Schweizer SGS.1-26B 57-2628 and SGS.2-22A 57-2269/71), two Schweizer types were tentatively designated in the then vacant S class: two-seat TS-1A-SW (60-6631/6660) and single-seat S-2A-SW (60-6661/6690). These designations were dropped in 1962, when the S class was assigned to ASW aircraft." from John Andrade's U.S.Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909 (ISBN 0 904597 22 9) - if that helps. Baugher has the serials as allocated for FMS (Foreign Military Sales) [2]. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the dates there from MilbourneOne's mention of Baugher's page it is possible that the S-2 was the SGS 2-22s supplied to Indonesia as mentioned in that article. In USAF service there were called TG-2s, however. I can't think what else they might have been otherwise, especially for export. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys - I've also received an email from Andreas Parsch, author of designation-systems.net, who added this information to the list, confirming that he was using Andrade as his source. With what you gentlemen have supplied me with so far, I was also able to Google up the Feb/March 2005 issue of Free Flight/Vol Libre - the Soaring Association of Canada's journal, which identifies 30 of a specially modified SGS 1-26D built for the Indonesian Air Force. This matches the 30 serial numbers for the one-seat S-2A identified by Baugher. To me, it's clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the TS-1A was the SGS 2-22 and the S-2A was the SGS 1-26D. Unfortunately, this is still only Original Research right now. Still looking for the definitive published statement that will let me template these two designations! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it helps but I did find this image [3] of an Indonesian SGS-2-22. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd spotted this one, but have had no further luck linking it to the TS-1A designation! I've emailed Schweizer to see if they can point me to something. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. 46 Squadron RAF

User:Dougiebarr has uploaded a lot of images from the 46 squadron history book and released them into the public domain. On one image which has been challenged in the past he claims he is the copyright holder of the squadron history. Looks like a likely candidate for the proposed CSD but looking for a second opinion, should these be pui. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rlandmann

Thank you Rlandmann for help, edit and improved the article of Hatashe. His Name is Simul,I have to contact with him, I knew two years he did job in Bangladesh Navy so he must know what information and photo he can use from BN website and BN have no comments if somebody use photo from their website. Thank you.

Ahsan.AIUB (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Ahsan.American International University

Good call on the block, on closer inspection the similarities, and the fact that this is another account that sprang out of nowhere, are a little too clear. Benea (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, another couple recently appeared as well, User:Sanzida.Harvard.U, who as well as creating another Bangladeshi village article in the same style of the others, also recreates another of Hatashe's/his sock's bio stubs/redirects, Haider Ali Talukder. There as also User:Alp09, who has recreated another of the master's/puppet account's articles, Sarwar Jahan Nizam, apparently by again just copying and pasting the biography from the Bangladeshi Navy's website. Benea (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarwar Jahan Nizam

Thanks for saving that lead paragraph - I'll use it to create a new version of the article. Topic appears notable, even if the previous content was pretty poor.

I came across this article at Special:newpages as what seemed to be a badly written stub on an otherwise notable topic. The structure and grammar were so bad I didn't even consider it might be a copvio. Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As suggested. It's no work of art, has poor sourcing and lacks "character" in the writing. But it will possibly do as a start. I wouldn't have bothered as this is not a topic I know anything about, but you went to the trouble of saving the earlier text so I felt obliged to at least create something.Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ass in ass

The article topic is stupid, but I don't think it is vandalism. It looks to me potentially like a good faith effort about a distasteful neologism. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll just say that I think you've done a decent job all around. (We're too quick here to only comment when people have screwed up and not when they are just plugging along at thankless tasks). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely accidental. And I have no intention of trying to outdo that. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Article creation and help

Two things. First, how did you create User:Rlandmann/JAE and Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics? Are there further updates to Jane's that need listing? And second, did you intend for User:Rlandmann/PhotoFAQ to be aviation/aircraft specific? Are you still planning on working on it? Can I incorporate it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/FAQ? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ITV West new region boundary.png

Please can you explain why you did this to my image? This image was 100% my own work.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I second this... The purpose of a WP:PUI sometimes is to establish what the status of an image is, not a unilateral nuke.. I note it was acted on very quickly.. Subsuqent to the WP:PUI, I made touch with the user above, as I suspect that ukfree.tv sites maintainer and him are one and the same entity. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Aerospecs

Can the template be updated to allow for bi- and tri- planes with wings of differing size. Eg. Austin Greyhound's upper span is 39ft, but the lower span is 36 ft 7 in. The same with wing area.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire nonsense

Could you have a look at Talk:Supermarine Spitfire? Things appear to be getting a bit heated with personal attacks being bandied about. It may need some sort of admin attention.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Toitally agee, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Apologies to all over this one. While I understand the criteria on OR the Spitfire II and other flight manuals are available through various publishers and can surely be used as a reference source, because of this availability.

:Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source

As far as I know I have done this - if, in the opinion of other editors, I haven't I'll try and correct this.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How about another peer review for the article? The Spitfire should really be one of the 'shining stars' of the aviation project (along with the P-51 of course!!). Even though it as been split off into variant articles the level of detail is still too deep IMHO and is missing the essence of the aircraft's history. I would be happy to have a go at it. If the editor in question had a user page with a brief description of their background then I might listen but I have to agree that recent additions seem to be made up and are not written with correct grammar which is strange as they are supposed to be direct quotes from a flight manual (which we seem to have discovered differed little between the MkII and MkV). Hope it all gets straightened out anyway. Nimbus (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

I like detailed and historically accurate captions - BillCJ has destroyed 6 + hours of work (vandalized) the information I added that enhances this article (also destroyed information added to several sections of this article) asking you to stop screwing around with my changes and leave the detailed captions alone (this are detailed, not verbose and historically accurate) asking that right now, this article be locked (with my changes in place). Davegnz (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

R, can you temporarily lock the page before the major edit Dave describes which did significantly change the article, to prevent any further editing until the issue of captions is resolved. I would hate to see any editors going into 3R to make a WP:POINT. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your help here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Wording of a template

You may want to view your edit here. The template says: "While information has been provided on the source and copyright status of this image..." and then you add as your reason for adding the template: "...there is no information on the source(s) or status of the incorporated work(s)". Those two kind of contradict themselves. You may want to either change your wording, or use another template. FYI, I disagree with your reason for adding that template. The source appears to be: "This was scanned from the back of an action figure package." And the current status is: {{GFDL-self-en}}. I do think the current license is incorrect which is why I added it to WP:PUI. I suggest removing your template, and let it be decided at PUI.--Rockfang (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Rlandmann. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warning

I am answering an editor directly when he/she asks a question - there is nothing personnel about the what I have written, I was asked a specific comment and I answered (this is what is called conversation) Davegnz (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

BoB page again

R, shenanigans afoot. Step in before editors violate 3R. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Auto aircraft article creator

Noticed that the aircraft article creator now has both aerospecs and aircraft specifications preloaded with the instruction to Use one OR other of the two specification templates. Delete the one you do not use. aero-specs handles gliders and lighter-than-air craft well. I am sure this originally only used aerospecs and it is also now different from aerostart. Just thought you might be interested! MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to generate an aviator article though the article creator? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Plane talk

R, what's the best way to set up a consensus vote? I really never have been involved in such before but I do see a marginal issue that needs clarification, but maybe not, I could be addled here. FWiW, I also asked Mil for advice here. Bzuk (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Mil replied with some sage advice, that I'm probably pusing water uphill here and my reply was, "the only concern I had was not that a particular user was employing plane talk, but that the argument was drifting towards an acceptance of a colloquialsim and contraction as acceptable wherein a perfectly good word "aircraft" and an acceptable word "airplane" suffices. FWiW, the argument is now into WP:TEND so I will withdraw my challenge to go to consensus voting." Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

As I read WP:TEND cited above it has to do with tendencious editing of articles, not the discussion of matters of style, etc, made in talk pages. I made one initial posting in an already opened thread to offer my view on the matter there under discussion. All my subsequent postings related to this topic have been made in response to comments or questions posed to me by others so that I could further clarify my positions and/or explain why I either agree or disagree with the divergent views advanced by these editors which were made in response to mine. Isn't that the purpose of the discussion pages? (Centpacrr (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Just to be clear, my preference in most cases is to use "airplane" over "plane" and the only reason this ever seemed to have come up is the kerfuffle over the apparent cultural sensitivities amongst some relating to the American and Commonwealth spellings of airplane/aeroplane. However as the suggested use of "aircraft" as a universal substitute for both is clearly deficient in many instances because it has a broader meaning than "airplane," I thus attempted to mitigate this issue in my contributions by using "plane" instead as that word is not afflicted by the objected to spelling conflict. My bottom line is, therefore, I have no problem using "airplane" over "plane" in the vast majority of circumstances, but I see no way to justify the use "aircraft" over either "airplane" or "plane" in any instance when so doing would materially change the meaning of the entry and thus degrade or muddle its accuracy.

Airplane and aeroplane are certainly not the only differences in spellings between English as used in the US and Commonwealth countries, but trying to cobble together and enforce a third artificial "neutral" spelling protocol seems self defeating and will just lead to many more of these unworkable compromises. If all were to simply agree to accept Commonwealth spellings in primarily Commonwealth-centric articles and American spelling conventions in US-centric articles instead of trying to enforce a non-existent and unrealistic spelling neutrality I expect that virtually ALL of the side disputes over word usages this has engendered would go away. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Lioré et Olivier

Just been looking at some Lioré et Olivier aircraft and some aircraft use LéO XXX and some LeO XXX, not 100% sure which is correct but they all should be the same. The French wiki uses LeO and your missing/4 uses LéO. Any thoughts please. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will need to sort out some of the others. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

If you'd like to help form the proposals I'm thinking it out at User:Joopercoopers/Tabbed articles? I'd very much welcome constructive critique and arguments for as well as against. I'm trying to write a FAQ, so if you have any questions, please leave them in the section on the user page. For other comments, please use talk. many thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio question

RL, do copyvios need to be excised from the public history record? See this diff from Feb 08, and my revert here. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce engine template

Hi RL, I wonder if you could have a quick look at this for me. It's a fair upgrade/revision of the {{RRaeroengines}} template. I was going to contact the original creator, he's still about but it says that he has 'retired' on his talk page. Needs more RB numbers and the North American side could be more complete (I don't know what's missing). All the best. Nimbus (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I didn't notice the colour although I did see 'light blue' mentioned in the coding. I had been going through the RR engines recently and was getting very confused! This should make things easier. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail in Wright Whirlwind?

A while back, in this discussion, you said:

We are, most assuredly, writing for a generalist audience: "the educated layperson", and the level of detail needs to be equivalent to what that educated layperson would expect to find in a traditional encyclopedia (as opposed to, say, a pilot's manual, Jane's, or a monograph for aviation enthusiasts). The Wright Whirlwind article is now way past that point. You might like to take a read of What Wikipedia is Not - the section on "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is relevant to our discussion here. The art of writing a good article lies very much in choosing what to leave out as much as what to put in.

Since I was the person responsible for adding all that detail, I was interested by your comment.

To be honest, I was under a bit of an obsessive-compulsive fit when I was writing that, as I often am when I work on Wikipedia. And I was just learning about the Whirlwind engine at the time I started working on that article. I soon realized that the name actually covered several types of engine, and thus I had bitten off more than I could chew, but I didn't want to leave things in a half-done state. Looking back, even I feel I went overboard. The information there could be pruned and better structured.

For example, the only reason I included specifics on the types of carburetors and magnetos used in the various Whirlwind models was because their type certificates mentioned this, but that information doesn't really add any value for most people. (For all I know, it may even be misleading--perhaps substitutions were often used.)

On the other hand, I was very unimpressed with the Whirlwind article in its original form. It gave specifications for a couple of the final Whirlwind versions, without any explanation of when those versions were built or how they fit into the engine's development. There were no specifications for earlier versions at all. The development sequence was very sketchy. The list of applications was a mishmash of significant aircraft and obscure aircraft, some of which used Whirlwinds only in a handful of examples. It seemed to have been built largely by people who happened to notice "oh, this plane used a Whirlwind, I'll add it there too." without any thought as to whether the usage was a notable one or not. But trying to build a complete, balanced list which covered all significant aircraft fairly proved difficult and unsatisfying; many major Whirlwind-powered aircraft don't even have their own articles.

Matters were made worse by the fact that "Whirlwind" was closer to a brand name than a clearly defined type, rather like the situation with the "Cyclone" or "Wasp". There are four major types with the name: the original smaller 9-cylinder version and the enlarged 9-cylinder, 7-cylinder, and 5-cylinder versions, as well as the abortive 14-cylinder two-row version. (Somebody else has added the Simoon to the list, but I don't see the relationship.) Perhaps the article should be split?

I do think there should be a happy medium somewhere. I agree with you that these articles should be geared toward the educated layperson. More specifically, they should be geared toward one who would be interested in the article topic--remember that the only ones who read articles about aircraft engines will be those curious about them, so it would be good to provide enough detail to answer their likely questions.

However, I'm not sure that the level of detail in conventional encyclopedias or museum placards is always a good guide. I've often found such sources unsatisfying when looking something up, because important details have been left out. (It also seems a bit inconsistent with the photo on your user page showing "my vision for WikiProject Aircraft...the information in all these books and many, many more"--has your thinking changed?) I think one needs to ask whether some additional details may provide interesting or enlightening information to the reader.

For example, one of my biggest concerns is how power is reported, which is obviously critical for an engine. I had been used to the conventional practice of just saying "an x-horsepower engine" and never questioned it until I happened across some more detailed descriptions of aircraft and their engines. That's when I learned that there are generally at least two power ratings for an aircraft engine, a normal rating for sustained output and a short-term rating for takeoff (which is sometimes much higher). Not mentioning this when talking about an engine's performance strikes me as very misleading. I also learned that for supercharged engines the highest altitude at which the engine can develop full power is important, since that determines which altitudes it is best suited for. And the RPM at which highest power is developed is also important, especially when comparing multiple engines or the development of a single engine type, because it tells you something about how the engine makers got increased power--whether by mechanical refinements which allowed faster engine speeds, or by increased displacement, greater compression, or better supercharging. Some other specifications, like displacement, compression ratio, supercharger boost or gear ratio, and required fuel octane rating, would be important for the same reason. (Such thinking led me to include carburetor venturi sizes when I listed the carburetors, but now I would remove those.)

I should also point out WikiProject Aircraft's own guidelines for engine specifications, which I was using as a guide. Some of the examples there look extremely technical: "two pushrod-actuated valves per cylinder with sodium-cooled exhaust valve, overhead camshaft-actuated, two intake and two exhaust valves per cylinder, sodium-cooled exhaust valve stems"; "twin-choke updraft carburetor with automatic mixture control"; "dry sump with one pressure pump and two scavenge pumps". If you think such levels of detail are excessive, then you should fix those guidelines.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; it was very helpful. And don't worry--I had already realized that you commented on the article only because Trekphiler had singled it out as a standard to aim for. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Template DB-I11

Hi. :) I got to use {{Db-i11}} for the first time, and I believe that a minor modification may be in order. Since DB-I11 requires that the uploader be notified, I would like to suggest that you encode the notice into the template so that taggers are aware not only that modification is mandatory, but what template to use to place the notice. I was considering adding something along the lines of what currently exists at {{copyviocore}}:

Place this notice on the talk page of the contributor of the image:<br><nowiki>{{subst:Di-no permission-notice|pg={{PAGENAME}}<nowiki>|url={{{1|{{{url}}}}}}<nowiki>}} ~~~~
</nowiki>

(I had to pun a ton of nowikis in there to keep it from filling out, so it may be all messed up. But it gets the point. :D) One of the problems with that, of course, is that DB-I11 doesn't require the URL in the initial tag, so it won't spawn that correctly. Do you have any ideas on how better to handle that? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Rlandmann. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

French aircraft designations

Is the AB.14 type designation standard enough to have a mass page move? I recently moved a few Nieuport-Delage aircraft pages from NiD.XX to NiD XX just to keep them all standard within the manufacturer. But if NiD.XX is the proper form, I have no problem moving them and the redlinks to that form. In fact, if we write something up in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) I'd have no problem sorting through the list to make sure all manufactures follow suit. If the french designation system is complicated enough, perhaps an article (Mainspace or Wikipediaspace) like RLM aircraft designation system would be useful. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

XFL Airabonita‎

RL, would you mind looking over my edits on the XFL Airabonita‎ and Talk:XFL Airabonita‎. A regular user thinks I called him names, but for the life of me I don't know what it was! Since you're a non-American-English speaker, perhaps you can see what I've missed. And yes, I know I could have handled the situation better. Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New detailed article for R-790 Whirlwind.

Since we both agreed that Wright Whirlwind needs splitting and pruning, I've been working on a new article, currently located under my user page, specific to the R-790 Whirlwind series. (I'll also need ones for the R-975, R-760, and R-540.) If you have the opportunity, could you take a look and offer feedback or criticism? (Criticism is especially welcome.) Obviously I pruned some of the excessive specs and technical details, while adding more info or links in other areas. Is there anything for which I've pruned too much or not enough? Any other style issues?

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick feedback! I've made most of the changes suggested and also added comments and questions. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Me again. I think I've fixed all your nits with the article. Feel free to add some new ones.  :-) Or should I take the plunge and move it to article space? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I got bold (or bored?) and moved it already.  :-) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had preferred to have "Whirlwind" as part of the article name, but I also feel that a number of existing articles should have the engine's name (if any) as part of the article name (e.g. "Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet" instead of "Pratt & Whitney R-1690", or "Wright R-3350 Duplex Cyclone" rather than "Wright R-3350"), with the shorter form as a redirect. Obviously we disagree there, but that's a separate (and minor) issue, and for all I know has already been discussed to death. Anyway, thanks for all your help! --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

RL, I just found out that the Consolidated PB4Y-2 was a cut/paste from PB4Y Privateer. It looks like someone tried to put it at PB4Y-2 Privateer, but Davegnz thought Consolidated PB4Y-2 was the proper name per some naming convention I haven't found yet. (and no, he didn't added project tags, or change redirects in the B-24 article!) I'd be OK with either PB4Y Privateer or PB4Y-2 Privateer. Alternately, Consolidated PB4Y could be used to cover both the PB4Y-1 and -2 variants. Either one is fine with me, just as long as the history is fixed. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulfstream Aerospace

RL, I have been having some problems with the Gulfstream Aerospace article, specifically with User:Mavin 101. The user edits Gulfstream-related articles almost exclusively, but, per Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace, does not appear to have a good grasp of English. Recently, they have been adding material to the history secrion, with the Gulfstream history page being the apparant source. This is the last addition, which I reverted as uncited, and issued a warning. The primary change they are making to the text is to change it from past to present tense, but it is still recognizable as being from the Gulfstream site. A few days ago, I went through the article, and changed all the tenses to past tense, but this was before I had discovered the source. I did make other changes to the text for readability, so it might not be a direct copyvio at this point. Now that I know the original source, I could try to rewrite and cite the existing text, and add the newer material, but I'm afraid he'll contine to near-copy-vio text if I leave out anyhting that's covered in the original. Could you double-check my work, and also see if his additions qualify as copy-vios? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

SAI Ambrosini

Hi Rlandmann, I am back hoping to join again the community for a while with useful contributions. Maybe you remember we left several months ago after an intriguing debate on SAI Ambrosini: this one. Apart from the very specific issue, one of your last posts, asked me info on early history from those companies. I was not able to properly address you request that time, but I started my quest. Now I finally have this book: a dual language Italian-English source, in fact a real encyclopedia on the matter. How can I help ? Let me know. Moreover, I collected more historical sources on historical Italian airplanes ready to be used and full of copyright free pictures. Here I am. As a start, I found a weird Italian flag among B-24 operators. I checked my sources and I wrote a note in the appropriate discussione page Talk:List of B-24 Liberator operators. Bye. --EH101 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chance-Vought F4U survivors

SIGH! Non-standard article title(Chance-Vought F4U survivors), thump sizings, multi-lever terse captions, main article still has survivors info, etc. Some people never learn. - BillCJ (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people never learn. I moved Chance-Vought F4U survivors to F4U Corsair survivors, but in his utter brilliance, Dave cut-and-pasted it back to his preferred name. I added a histmerge tag to one of the pages, but now Dave keeps removing it. He well knows (or at least has been told enough that he should know by know) that cut-and-paste moves aren't the way to move pages, yet he keeps doing it. SIGH SIGH SIGH! - BillCJ (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it the BillCJ insists on screwing around with my articles - have been doing the survivors seriers for 18 months now - have been usinig the same format with naming the series all along and all of a sudden BillCJ insists on vandalizing my articles- yet he keeps doing it. SIGH SIGH SIGH! I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BILLCJS NONSENSE - HAVE ASKED YOU ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO PUT A STOPS TO HIS CRAP AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING...

I DEMAND that BillCJ be perminently blocked from Wikipedia for his child like nonsense in playing a game on one-ups manship - everytime I work on an article he issists on playing these games. If you do not block him for his nonsense then I want my request (to have him perminently) blocked forwarded to an administrator who will see BILLCJ playing wikipedia editing games with other editors.Davegnz (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ bitches that main page still has survivors infor - no kidding - seems evertime I try and delete this redundent information (see B-17 & others) its get replace and I have given-up on these changesDavegnz (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BREAKAWAY

• I no longer believe that the Aircraft Survivor series that I created is compatible with WikiProject Aviation. Just like other Wikipedia sections (i.e. WikiProject Science Fiction and WikiProject Star Trek) I feel it is time the aircraft survivor’s series became a stand-alone Wikipedia Category: ‘’’ WikiProject Aircraft History ’’’.

• It is clear of the past 18 months that the aircraft survivor series article structure is incompatible with WikiProject Aviation:

1. Under WikiProject Aviation, aircraft survivors is a small paragraph, in WikiAircraftHistory it is the entire article.

1. WikiProject Aviation is written in a broad narrative form, WikiProject Aircraft History is written in short, intensive sentences (i.e. a list).

1. WikiProject Aviation is written in very sweeping, easy to read often using non-aviation terms, WikiProject Aircraft History asks the reader to have a more detailed understanding of the technology of aviation (just like WikiProject Science Fiction is written in broad terms, WikiProject Star Trek needs the reader to understand the world of Star-Trek).

1. WikiProject Aviation is written to embrace an aircraft developmental story, WikiProject Aircraft History is meant to detail the individual aircraft history.

• • The aircraft survivors series has evolved its own set of rules for article naming convention, layout, style of writing, photo details, etc (some of which are still being established)– these set of rules are no longer compatible with the inflexible, rigid rules already established for WikiProject Aviation.

• • • I think what I am asking is how do I establish this new breakaway wiki with the rules and formatting that have become standard for this series

Re: Unknown things

Thanks for the message Rlandmann, I haven't been writing since the 23rd cos I was on holiday in the US :). However, I'm back! :D The book hints at this, however it doesn't explicitly say that nothing is known. Mind you, Stalin's purges resulted that not much is known about anything related to aircraft seized from the Tsarists after the revolution. I'll amend it. LGF1992UK (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, it was the one that was in service with the RFC, not Soviets. I'll remove it still. LGF1992UK (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Airframes

Looked at the wiki Airframes like you suggested - could hold a lot of promish - opened and account but lots and lots of questions

• Do you have any problems with my posting the survivors series (as created ) at this site?
• How compatable is it with wikipedia (ie links and such) what do I have to do to make the article compatable?
• Is the editing the same or differentDavegnz (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

re:Another warning

Actually, I no longer care - as I stated, I am sick and tire of BillCJ nonsense and his nitpicking for bulls**T reasons - as far as I am concerned, BillCJ is a wikitroll (or wikinazi) who likes to stir-up trouble and watch as editors get extremely mad and make mistakes wich forces these editors to get blocked and thrown off wiki. As far as I know, this is against wikipedia policy but, guess what, I am just an ignorant editor who does not have any influence to get wrong policy's correct.

One of wikipedia's policies is if you have a disagreement then is best settled by discusion - take a look at the discussion about photo edits - BillCJ stirred-up trouble, then sat back and did not participate in this discussion - then basicly ignored everything that was talked about and reverted all the captions on the F-16 page.

No longer do I care what happens to these articles - I have made copies to my sandbox page and it is there I will make corrections and these updates and corrections will never see the light of the main wikipedia pages - if you can find someone as stupid as me and willing to take the abuse that I have then this person can do whatever they like with the survivors series as posted.

I have a lot more to post on the survivors series (like the P-39, F7F etc) but these will never, ever see the light of wikipedia. Davegnz (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Names

Was trying to get my point across - If I title the articles like BillCJ wants, it get pretty stupid and useless (you note I only did two article and not the entire series) I knew that these can easily get reverted and I moved everything correctly so that none of the information could be lost. Davegnz (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another new Whirlwind article for your perusal: Wright R-540

Just finished it and moved it into place. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Go229.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Go229.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft specifications

RL, there seems to be an anomoly in the Template:Aircraft specifications: it is producing a blank line in the output, so that there are two blank lines if one puts one blank line between the specs template and the next header. Could you look at this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire operational history

A particular user is deleting, tampering and distoring my citations. He is now starting to add dubious tags to material by Donald Caldwell, one of the most reputable historians on the Luftwaffe. Is there anything I can do to put a stop to it? Dapi89 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, with good grounds I think. Please see my response. Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cooldown failed

Unfortunately the 24 hour cooldown did not help. Dapi89 is continuing the personal attacks and the elated tone. Calling the other person a liar and using straw men arguments is not a good basis for constructive discussion. Kurfürst (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Me 163

RL, I've been mulling a redo of the Messerschmitt Me 163 for the past few weeks, and am about to jump into doing it. There are many problems, such as no variants section per se, and the lengthy section of the Japanese variants, which have their own article. However, there are two problems I want to run by you first.

First, the "Surviving aircraft" section, which was added in its present form in August 2006 (pre-Dave) by an IP user. Most of the entries are quite lengthy, and all are unsourced. The histories of the individual are quite interesting, and are the types of entires that would be more suitable in a "Survivors aircraft", assuming they can be verified. Alternately, we just trim the entires back to one or two sentences, with sources.

Second, there is a lengthy entry in the Me 163 B section on flying characteristics that appears to be a direct copy of portions of this website, which clearly lists the article as being from Flight Journal, while the site seems to be privately hosted. The main changes to the text appear to have been from second- to first-person pronouns, such as "you" to "one". I haven't found the original insertion diff yet, so I don't now if the original user changed the pronouns, or if it was done afterwards. The info somewhat appears to be out of proportion to the rest of the article, even if it was rewritten correctly, it probably still needs to be cut back. It would also be better suited to a separate "Design" section, which I hope to add.

Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated. - BillCJ (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

IF everyone is so hot to have the aircraft naming conventions per a certain standard then the changes I made to Boeing 727 and Douglas DC-8 need to be reverted - the B-727 was named Whisperjet and the DC-8 was named Jetliner. Davegnz (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevant article histories: Boeing 727 history & Douglas DC-8 history

These articles are named according the US civil aircraft line in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). B-727 is just a shorthand by some for Boeing Model 727 or Boeing 727. Those names are not mentioned in the articles now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New template - what to do?

Hi Rlandmann, As a 'mentor' of sorts to me (you took me under your wing, no pun intended :p), I was wondering how I could introduce this template somehow into WPAVIATION. I noticed there was no template showing which RAF squadrons had been done and which ones had not, so I created Template:List of RAF squadrons. What do you think? What should I do now? LGF1992UK (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think there is an RAF Wings template, the Commands one I'm not so sure about. However, I'll start implementing it onto squadron articles as soon as the navbox reform is put in; as it stands I borrowed the format from the RAAF's infobox. I should really tell someone at MILHIST as well. LGF1992UK (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Alright, I reformed the template into navbox, however there seems to be some kind of formatting error. Could you have a look at this? And does it look good? Template:RAF Squadrons LGF1992UK (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Just noticed in this diff:[4] that DG clearly spells the word 'my' with capital letters for emphasis in the first paragraph. Will chime in when I'm not so tired but I totally support what you are doing. Nimbus (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He's not affected me directly but I have been watching all along. We have to have standards. Nimbus (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read it and endorsed it. It's sad, but it's true. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me on placement. This is actually the first RfC I've participated in. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You've covered more bases than I even knew about. If I can think of anything to add or correct, I'll do so, but nothing comes to mind after reading through all the examples. The main challenge, though, is with clearly showing how he handles a single issue; the extensive listings capture this weakly. The most coherent example I know of is the captions debate, but if anything, it actually catches him at his best behavior. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire pages

As far as possible I have removed material from Spitfire Performance as references - there may still be some around for which I am trying to find secondary published material. I am hoping that others will be cooperative in this. I dislike the way that these articles have become a battleground - I certainly no longer look forward to editing with the same enthusiasm/enjoyment, and I regret to see that Dapi86 has lost enthusiasm completely. As it is I am cutting way down as life in the real world takes greater priority.Minorhistorian (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Accidentally added vandalism back

I appreciate your quick action, but I was removing vandalism, not adding it, so your edit put it back. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kress Drachenflieger , 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.

--Jordan ^Contribs 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Old aircraft photos

I see you are on a mad roll adding a lot of old rare aircraft to WP:Air. For the vast majority of these, you can add a single photo from Google Images or elsewhere under the Fair Use clause. The image tagging I've been using (with no complaints so far from the Enforcers) is as follows:

{{Non-free fair use in|ARTICLE NAME}}
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = ARTICLE NAME (no square brackets)
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = To illustrate the subject in question
| Replaceability    = (something to the tune of none exist anymore)
| other_information = 
}}

Thanks for your contributions! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and thank you for being so honest and upfront about the matter. My conscience is fairly clear in case of rare 1920s-1930s aircraft. The vast majority of surviving period photos are manufacturer or government PR (hence you see the same photo over and over again in every book), although it's usually impossible to irrefutably prove that's the case and hence tagging as PR photos is not quite legit. I don't do this for mass-produced aircraft with preserved examples but in my mind not illustrating a one-off creation from the Golden Era is a missed opportunity.

On an unrelated note, would you mind throwing in some in-line citations as you are writing the articles for an instant small-but-significant bump in quality (I on my part pledge to do Talk page project tags as I go). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The only potential issue with the lack of inline citations is that it is usually one of the criteria for high article quality ratings. Whether this fashion will stay or perish, I tend to throw in at least one inline citation at the end of each paragraph.

As far as I-5, there was never a Tupolev I-5 (see my addition to the Polikarpov I-5 page yesterday). In concession, I've made Tupolev I-5 a redirect to the Polikarpov page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Shavrov, confirmed by the Green/Swanborough's Fighters book, is that Polikarpov was initially assigned an I-6 designation while I-5 was reserved for the Tupolev project (hence ANT-12). However, Tupolev was making slow progress because of commitment to larger aircraft and Polikarpov/Grigorovich took over and completed the project (the VT bit is left out of Shavrov, not surprisingly, given how old that book is). Are your sources suggesting something different? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are much too kind, thank you. :] I was going off of the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment. Specifically, the difference between a Start-class and a C-class article is that the former is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. For most of the esoteric aircraft, nothing above C-class is probably feasible simply due to lack of information out there.

As far as the I-5, all Soviet aircraft can be very muddled because there was so little standardization before they entered production, there was no strict system of designating new variants to reflect changes, and the information on the internal OKB projects is often conflicting and incomplete. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to assist with a problem user?

I noticed your name as an administrator who takes an interest in aviation topics. There is a user (user:Rhp 26) who continues to revert an edit to the List of Airbus A350 orders. He refuses to discuss it on talk pages, and makes sarcastic, bordering on racist, remarks in his edit summaries. I'm not really certain what can be done about it, hence I'm wondering if you are able to suggest a course of action for this. Thanks very much for any help you can provide. --Nick Moss (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Wikipedia ed returning

It's been a few years since I've edited Wikipedia pages mostly in music so I'm a little rusty/hazy on some things. I might have put my foot in it because I got pretty angry with some "discussion" going on in some of the Spitfire pages - it just struck me that some of the people have no idea of who might be reading their comments. I know that my great uncle who was 87, and a veteran flying Spitfires would have turned the air blue if he had read it. Pierre Clostermann was not one of his favorite people, but I won't get into the middle of all that. Fact is that it looks as if I've crossed into personal abuse because I stuck some comments on the Supermarine Spitfire operational history talk page, and on those of Dapi 86, Kurfurst and Minorhistorian. Minorhistorian seems to be okay with things and has been helpful - I've been given your name as someone who can help out, and I also see you replied to my query about the reason for the symbols I was getting on the Ki-61. Thanks for that it was a big help. What can I do about the messages I've left?Circlingsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

Kingfisher A350 Orders

Well Hi there ,since you are sincerely telling me to be Civil i think so i should be. I promise i won't do all this stuff again. :-) --Rhp 26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of Levasseur PL.4

A tag has been placed on Levasseur PL.4 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. RockManQ (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Levasseur PL.4

I noticed you were still working on it and removed the csd tag. I'm sorry for the disruption I caused, but hey your article hasn't been delete. No harm, no fowl. RockManQ (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. I picked your name at random from the WP:LAYOUT talk page; I assumed (hopefully) that you are someone who understands layout & formatting in a vastly greater detail than I do.

My question is: I created a sort of navbox thing for my user pages (oh, vanity), but it seems to be breaking formatting that comes after it; on my talk page, for example, it has munged the formatting of the TOC and Archive boxes. I was wondering if you could tell me what I've done wrong? Thank you in advance! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded at my talk. (I meant to post this earlier, sorry) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebed 12

A tag has been placed on Lebed 12, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

fixed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrow Active

I've been working at this page and have a query. You say it was hoped that the military might show an interest. With respect, that sounds a bit surprising for a low powered single seater, but of course may well be right. Do you have a reliable supporting reference? If it's the Jane's book, a page number? Leave a note on my talk page if you want to discuss.TSRL (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the fast reply. The Flight article is totally convincing and I wonder whether to cite it: I imagine that many readers would be as surprised as I was by the suggested intermediate trainer role, though having seen it, it makes sense. Is it best to cite an original (and therefore convincing reference), or a secondary one? Flight talk about a list; I wonder what other aircraft were on it? BestTSRL (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)