→Ass in ass: fair enough |
→Ass in ass: expanding |
||
Line 593: | Line 593: | ||
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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
: Fair enough. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20: |
: 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). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:05, 9 August 2008
This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
- Pre March 04 talk here
- March 04-June 04 talk here
- July 04-August 04 talk here
- September 04-December 04 talk here
- January 05-June 05 talk here
- My WikiHoliday June 05-March 07 talk here
- March 07-June 07 talk here
- June 07-August 07 talk here
- September 07-December 07 talk here
- January 08-March 08 talk here
Interesting changes!
RL, you might be interested in this diff. I don't get the need or sense to change "feet-inches" to "Feet/decimals". He seems to have done this on a number of articels tonight, including here. Also note that the broad categories are still being added even while the issue is under discussion. Very interesting. - BillCJ (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Double standard
I'm hoping you can fix something, seeing I can't figure it out: the specbox here wants an optional engine/hp (the info's in the page). Also, FYI, this was created recently, if you want it:
Thanks for the look. Trekphiler (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I should have known it was more complicated than that.... Thing is, my source doesn't have much more beyond the hp. :[ I was hoping for something beyond a lot of white space. Ah, well. Maybe somebody else has better sources. Thanks anyhow. And don't forget to check out WSP. (Unabashed plug.) Trekphiler (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Forget Wikipedia. I want that for me! If I ever need to confirm a spec, now I've got a place. You made my day. And considering the crap I've seen from vandals today, that took some doing. Is there an award for that? You just got it. Trekphiler (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This just keeps getting better! I'm not so fussy about verifiability, & for what I want, sometimes a name & a pic is enuf. Thanks a bundle! Trekphiler (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, took your advice: Thomas-Morse Aircraft got some help. For starters. Trekphiler (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This just keeps getting better! I'm not so fussy about verifiability, & for what I want, sometimes a name & a pic is enuf. Thanks a bundle! Trekphiler (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Forget Wikipedia. I want that for me! If I ever need to confirm a spec, now I've got a place. You made my day. And considering the crap I've seen from vandals today, that took some doing. Is there an award for that? You just got it. Trekphiler (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
In fact, I think it was more constructive to say in wich aircraft articles you don't want to see the template than speaking about the C 130 (so bad exemple).
Look F-16, you can see a United States tri-service fighter designations post-1962 template. Like the C-130 the F16 has many opérators (didn't exist template for them). It's very hard for me to understand why my Template have too be delete from french vehicles articles like Rafale when I see the number of Us army template at the end of C-130 article.
You can prefer Category than template for it but you have to delete all similar templates (like the C-130's template) before. I don't see anyone speak about this and for me it is a problem. Look Aviation navale or French Army Light Aviation (...) It appears that some users from the Wiki project aircraft are boss of (unjustified and inappropriate) Revert.
After 3 days of discussion, i'm so disapointed to see stubborn users who didn't like change. Of course my template doen't respect the (non-editing) rules of aircraft template but i found it is so easy to demand deletion with this only argument. --Toubabmaster (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can see that Eurocopter Dauphin is a French helicopter.(Not Brazillian...). And You can see that All american aircraft have their own army box.
- WikiProject Aircraft uses Templates to link together articles about aircraft by the same manufacturer, or in the same sequence of designations. You have forgot so important things. These designations are the US military designation. Maybe you have to adding UK designation (and others) on many articles.
- Look:Template:ADF Aircraft Template:British military aircraft since World War II (...) Be objective, There is no reason to delete the unfortunate template with this existing pracice.
- --Toubabmaster (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Very good arguments to be in a POV situation. Adding the Us army designation template on British aircraft article is unreasonable (Like here). You can defend the curious strictly rules of the WAP but i'm not sure that Aircraft articles will win at the end. I will never be aggree with you and you will never be aggree with me (...) it's a sterile discussion. You can look that my others templates Example Noone tell me about the existing practice or about the others country. Reverting is a speciality of few users of the WAP. You can delete all the templates on aircraft article if you want I prefer to continue my way somewhere else...--Toubabmaster (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Help with vandalism
Have a bunch of images which are being threatened - all came from US Government sites - a lot are from WWII US aircraft, some are from USAF museums (ie gate gaurdians) / air force base museum posting - some are from USAFM files of aircraft at air shows (ie Texas Raiders, nine o nine)
Also, these images: Image:B-17_483575_nine_o_nine.jpg, Image:B-17_483735_Mary_Alice.jpg, Image:B-17G_483872_Texas_Raiders.jpg, Image:B-24_42-40557.jpg, Image:B-29_Enola_Gay.jpg, Image:Whitman_AFB.jpg, Image:45-21739.jpg, Image:Little_king.jpg, Image:44-86891.jpg, Image:44-86843.jpg, Image:430761.JPG, Image:Hubert_Field_B-25.jpg, Image:Hawg_mouth.jpg, Image:Berlin_express.jpg, Image:485643_F-BEEA.jpg, Image:AM262.jpg, Image:AM259.jpg, Image:Liberator_I_assembly_line.jpg, Image:FAC861.jpg, Image:XB-24B.jpg, Image:XB-24.jpg, Image:AM927_Civilian.JPG, Image:AM927_long_nose.JPG, Image:AM911_aft.jpg, Image:AM911_-_2.jpg, Image:AM911.jpg, Image:AM929.jpg, Image:AM920.jpg, Image:Am910.jpg, Image:Am916.jpg.
Have posted that these are US Government releases and the rest, and tried to make these vandals happy but I am losing this battle - can you block and get these idiots off my case.
really getting fed-up with these games -- thanks in advance Davegnz (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Script help
RL, I'd like to ask you to look at User:BillCJ/Scripts/Revert tools-uw, and see if you can answer a question for me. A few weeks ago, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Revert tools, and it is the only set of tools I've found that works well with IE. Unfourtunately, it was created before the "UW warning system" was in place. I have tried tewking it a bit, and I've been able to change it to use the UWs in some places. My main question at this time is concerning adding a function to include the name of the article fom which the warning is being issued and issued for. DO you know how to add a page name function to such scripts? I'm not asking you to take time out of your day to trouble-shoot the scripts for me, unless of course you could do it in 5 minutes! I really would like to be able to add a few more functions to the scripts, as it has really been a time-saver for me in issuing stock warnings for vandalism. Perhaps you know of antoehr editor who might be able to help me with this script. Thanks for whatever help you can give, in any form. - BillCJ (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my French
I notice you pulled the French a/c cat from the LUSAC-11. I'm not going to argue it, but I do wonder if there is, or should be, a cat for where/who designed it. Trekphiler (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Y'know, if I'd just bothered to think about it, I'd never have asked.... :D It is pretty obvious. Trekphiler (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Royal Canadian 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) 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Soviet 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) 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:United States 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) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Categories
Hi. Does it mean, that we must list aircraft under only one category??.. I hope not. Pibwl ←« 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see a role of categories in a different way. If I'm looking for, say, Romanian trainers of 1930-39, I just check a category and hope that I can find there all trainers of this period, without checking all aircraft in other categories. I believe there's nothing wrong, that a plane would be under three or four specific categories, because it helps us to find it, especially, when comparing categories of the same period among different countries. That's why I've always tried to place articles under all appropriate categories. I agree, that many aircraft can be used for sports flying, but the only way in my opinion is a common sense, whether being a sports plane is an important feature to describe this plane, or not. Pibwl ←« 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised I'm still getting it wrong; I've just recently figured out I should add them at all. =] In future, I think, I'm just gonna cat them & let somebody better qualified straighten it out. But thanks for the info anyhow.
- One thing I do wonder is, if the cat comes back red when I use it (cat:general aviation, say), will it come up on the general "cats" page & let anybody who looks know they can fill into it? Or am I hoping for too much? Or should I try to be more specific? (As is, I'm lifting cats from other articles.) Trekphiler (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...So, do you mind, that I still be adding all appropriate categories to articles? In a case, when we have many specific categories regarding aircraft role (in my opinion, too many), multicategorization helps people to find aircraft they want (and that's the reason of categories at all, in my opinion). Wikipedia:Overcategorization is not exactly a problem we have, because these categories already exist, and they are not to be deleted (I'm not talking about categories like "propeller aircraft", of course). And since they exist, they should be used, IMHO. Pibwl ←« 10:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Could this guideline be changed? I think, that it's too strict and it's worth to be discussed, for a sake of usefulness (and it should be main goal). In my opinion there's nothing wrong, if for example DH Mosquito would be listed under bomber, fighter and reconnaissance categories. It helps people find articles, and gives a good view at first glance, what were all British-built fighters in a given period. Possibly we might limit number of categories to three-five most important? Pibwl ←« 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- No worries on the slow reply, I've been a bit busy at planespotting. Congrats on the good work. As for "lifts", I'm thinking just the obvious ones: biplane, single engine, propeller, & not get too tricky; the mission-specific ones are a headache to use & even more trouble to find, without knowing them, & I'm not so connected I know where they are, nor need to know, usually. I figure somebody will notice the new page(s) & add what needs adding, or take out what's misdirected, eventually; so long as the content's pretty safe for the average reader, I figure the rest is for superusers & admins. Trekphiler (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Could this guideline be changed? I think, that it's too strict and it's worth to be discussed, for a sake of usefulness (and it should be main goal). In my opinion there's nothing wrong, if for example DH Mosquito would be listed under bomber, fighter and reconnaissance categories. It helps people find articles, and gives a good view at first glance, what were all British-built fighters in a given period. Possibly we might limit number of categories to three-five most important? Pibwl ←« 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- As you wish... I must admit, that I'm less enthusiastic about aircraft articles in the English Wiki now. In my opinion, that's the reason categories are for - to help people. Too specific categories make no sense, if we must limit ourselves to only one (and isn't a choice arbitrary?... Why primary design purpose, and not most common purpose? Which of several primary design purposes in case of multirole aircraft?). Multicategorization is the only solution, that makes sense in my opionion, especially in case of little-known aircraft and minor countries. I don't think, thare's a real danger of abusing categories - it's quite obvious, that throwing grenades from a trainer does not make it a "bomber". But even if, I think it's worse to omit an important category, than to add unimportant one. I won't start formal voting or discussion - I have no time enough (and additionally, a heated voting in the Polish Wiki discouraged me from votings at all and from writing on naval ships there, despite it was my main activity..). Pibwl ←« 11:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Halberstadt D types
The article on the Halberstadt D.II mentions the D.I, D.III, D.IV, and D.V. In fact it would be hard to imagine the article without those mentions of these other types. The subject of the article is currently the D.II, however - the only Halberstadt single seat fighter to be manufactured in series. If you want to change this then it is the main title at the head - not the upper caption to the picture, that needs changing. Perhaps move the article to "Halberstadt D types"?? I think not - but this would at least make sense. But the caption over the infobox - even in this case, would refer to the exact aircraft type illustrated. At least that is what happens everywhere else. Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
New Articles
If I see a new article being created that is completely inappropriate, how do I report this to the proper Admins or can I recommend it for speedy deletion myself? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
MilborneOne RfA
Thanks for the nomination and support during my recent RfA with a succesful 73/2/2 result. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for responding!!
Rlandmann, I am very familiar with the guidelines I know that not just any business can be posted, I've posted lots of notable businesses (as well as artists, writers etc before). NawlinWiki deleted my entry when it had two sentences in it and had a "underconstruction" tag. NawlinWiki claimed it had a hangon tag which it did not. How could you tell if an entry was notable or not on two sentences. You couldn't. And then this second user managed to delete the entry so fast that I think they must be working together or the same person. Please see my contribution history, I don't include anything that is spammy or advertising.
Thank you so much for answering!! Drewhamilton (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right it's late at night and I am over-reacting. Thanks so much! Drewhamilton (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What the..
I hope you know Googlism does exist. Not constructive? Come on, have some sense. Just deleting my work like that? Not cool dude.--Fallstoofast (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, respond !--Fallstoofast (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Howard DGA-8
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia
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. – ThatWikiGuy (talk|I feel like I'm being watched) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, it had no context and looked like a test page when I added the {{db-test}} tag. – ThatWikiGuy (talk|I feel like I'm being watched) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- RL, perhaps an {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} tag can pe added to the template you use to load the new pages. That might help avoid such situations as this in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Subcats question
I have just corrected an edit at de Havilland Hornet and noticed the lack of cats at the bottom, they have all been moved to a subcat. Not seen this before I am not sure a single entry cat adds any value and lengthens the route to the main article. Is their any reason the Hornet is an exception, apart from the need to display some images. (side point - photography Charles E Brown worked for DH so are the images free use?) MilborneOne (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiCookie
Administrators are human after all
This is a backhanded compliment, a tongue-in-cheek comment, prompted by you forgetting to sign a talk page message. As a regular, if somewhat gnomish, editor I have had very, very few occasions to find fault with administrators. Considering how minor your oversight, it goes to show the high standard upheld by Wikipedia. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Use of references
Recently, an editor has been removing reference notes in the bibliography section of Polikarpov I-180, with the edit notes that the additions were made by a non-contributing editor. The main contention was that the reference source had not appeared in the "notes" section and therefore was automatically suspect. Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make this distinction although I do know that a number of editors firmly believe that if a reference source was not used in a citation then it should be eliminated, or failing that, put in a "for further reading" section. Bibliographies are intended to be a listing of all reference sources that were used in formulating an article, and therefore, an editor who "fact checked" by finding a corollary source or who read material from that source in order to better understand the topic, can list that source as useful. The particular deletions of reference sources added by a very experienced editor, and a reputable researcher and contributor to the aviation project group, is also problematic. What do you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC).
American Coed Pageants
This article was deleted for G12: Blatant copyright infringement: http://www.floridapageants.com/history.shtml
FloridaPageants.com is owned and affiliated with American Coed Pageants. There is no copyright infringement. All American Coed Logos and material are either trademarked and/or copyrighted. They are all used with consent from American Coed Pageants, inc.
Lostjedimedia (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a difference between my article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_America , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_usa except that they are larger pageants. I can add winners lists and queens, but I'd like to get past all of this deletion stuff. As far as information being the same on another American Coed website, that would make sense sense the history pageant doesn't change from state to state. It's the history of the pageant and I believe that that is pretty straight forward.
- regards Lostjedimedia (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Convair GD
RL, I noticed we don't have a manf. template for General Dynamics as yet. Given that they produced very few aircraft under that name (mainly F-111 and F-16), could we expand Template:Convair aircraft to cover GD, perhaps renaming it to Template:Convair/GD aircraft? - BillCJ (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I was just following the pattern of Grumman having NG on its template too, but I hadn't noticed the model number connection. I don't think NG has produced any new aircraft designs since the merger, other than UAVs, so I don't know whose numbering system they've followed. - BillCJ (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
JF-17 Thunder
Thanks for informing me. Check it out yourself i have done those edits just twice on two different days.Which means that I am not even close to 3RR . The matter which I have edited, I have given reference for the same. It was just a minor edit and was constructive enough. So before you send those FALSE warnings make sure your have verified the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil555 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
yup i know that. All that was doing was trying to improve the article.I changed those specifications after making sure that my reference was authentic. But you are correct, I should have told that user about it. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Some1 seems to have deleted my reference I'll get back to you shortly with the reference. Daredevil555 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made the necessary changes with the reference, check it out. Daredevil555 (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
de Havilland Hornet images
Seeking your guidance on these; I have spent some time adding what I hope is the information required;
Description |
de Havilland Hornet prototype |
---|---|
Source | |
Date |
2007-12-19 (original upload date) |
Author |
Aeroplane magazine 1945. Photographer Charles E. Brown. |
Permission (Reusing this file) |
- for works made in the UK more than 50 years ago
|
Summary
This is a photo of the de Havilland Hornet prototype. It is believed to have been taken by Charles E Brown and has been attributed accordingly, as such it is used on Wikipedia under fair-use guidelines. The use of this image is believed to be Fair Use in the article de Havilland Hornet as it is a photo depicting an important and unique aircraft, in this case the first prototype, and is being used for its educational value. The image has been used in other articles outside of Wikipedia.
Licensing
Fair-use
Description |
Photo of de Havilland Hornet |
---|---|
Source | |
Article | |
Portion used |
edited picture |
Low resolution? |
no |
Purpose of use |
The image is of a specific aircraft type and is being used to illustrate:
The image is being used for non-profit educational purposes in an article describing the development and use of this aircraft. |
Replaceable? |
There are few known photographs of this particular aircraft in existence and it cannot be replaced by a free alternative. |
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of de Havilland Hornet//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlandmanntrue |
How does that look? Minorhistorian (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
JF-17
You are correct defencetalk is not reliable source. But Aviation Week & Space Technology by itself does not mention anything about the weight of JF-17. Not even about the specifications of JF. I have checked out 2 sites which may not be reliable as per wikipedia terms but faily reliable in general. May be we should check out more sites for reliable info. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA
Thanks for your note. I am very flattered that you would ask me to apply to become as admin. I have to say "no thank you", as I would rather spend my time writing on Wikipedia! Thanks again for asking though. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Image:Cerberus.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Cerberus.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
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:Cerberus.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. BlueAzure (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kamov Ka-90
The Kamov Ka-90 article has only one source - a message board. While I admire prolific enthusism, this is getting a bit ridiculous! I know you've tried guiding him in the past, but I don't think he's getting RS at all. - BillCJ (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
An admin baiting/edit warring
RL, would you mind taking a look at this? Anyerverybody/Anynobody is a good editor, yet User:Crum375 seems to have baited him into an edit war on Arrow Air Flight 1285. Imagine my surprise to find out Crum was an admin! He should clearly have known better than to contuinue to revert Any-body after his first revert, even "admonishing" him to discuss it his moves ont he talk page, when ANy had aleady discussed them. Were my health better, I'd follow up on this myself, but I've had a rough week, and don't need any more stress. However, I didn't just want the issue to be dropped eitehr. Thanks for whatever you can do, even if it's just forwarding this on to another andmin or a 'crat. - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Your note
I would be happy to take this to any forum. I think the most logical place would be WT:NOR and WT:NPOV, because this is a generic point that impacts both policies. The way I see it, for a Wikipedian to create an image out of his imagination, in an accident article where what exactly happened is in dispute, and often in litigation, is taking a specific position in a dispute and manufacturing evidence, which violates both NOR and NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article has been stable for months. An editor comes in and forces in his own self-made artwork, violating NPOV and NOR and 3RR in the process. I don't see why a "truce" has to freeze these violations in place. I do agree to sort these issues out in a wider forum, such as WT:NOR and WT:NPOV, but not while the violations are in place. Crum375 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- That those are self-made images by him, that he's trying to push into the article is not in question. That the article has been stable for months, based on reliably published material only, without his self-made images, is also clear. I suggest we take this issue up on the relevant policy discussion pages I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying :)
It's nice to know that others are looking out for disputes, even though the page ended up being protected I just wanted to say thank you for trying to broker a solution. Anynobody 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and redid the image as a generic view of the airplane only hopefully that will be a sufficient compromise. Anynobody 06:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Question on template
I noticed that you created most of the templates in Category:United States Navy aircraft designations navigational boxes, including Template:USN fighters. Looking at the title, I though that it should say "USN/USMC fighter designations pre-1962" like a few of the other templates do (it currently is titled "USN fighter designations pre-1962"), especially considering that some of those fighters were indeed used by the Marine Corps. I was wondering if you did that intentionally, or if that was just an oversight. Please let me know!
- Great, I will look into that. I also wanted to know if you had any objections to me converting them from Template:navbox to Template:military navigation.
- Well, it's actually colored somewhat different than the standard navbox, which is the point: consistancy with WP:WPMILHIST infoboxes and the like. But you make a good point, that it would look inconsistant with non-MILHIST navboxes, which I why I refrained from doing it in the beginning. I suppose I will leave well enough alone. bahamut0013♠♣ 23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I wanted to say that you are hell of a lot more pleasant and cooperative than some other editors have been about my project to convert military-related navboxes to template:military navigation. It's nice to reach a consensus without hard feelings.
Images
Look great! Yes, it was an amazing place, and almost completely unadvertised. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Allison T38/T40
RL, Do you know of any good reliable sources on aeroengines? I need to axpand and andd sources to the Allison T38 page, and I've not been able to find anything worht using. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to find both a comprehensive encyclopedia-type source covering almost all aeroengines, and a more detailed one one the major engines. - BillCJ (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I found a 2006 release of Gunston's book on Amazon, and I'll check around on other sites for the best price/condition on that one. Also, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines seems very interesting, even tho the T38/T40/T56 are well out of the "small" range, and not likely to be covered n the book. - BillCJ (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Category:Aircraft
Greetings,
Thanks for providing an edit summary explaining your rationale for hiding Category:Aircraft. I note that Wikipedia:Categorization specifies the __HIDDENCAT__ magic words for maintenance categories, that is to say, categories regarding an article, rather than regarding its subject. I'm happy to discuss the matter, but I strongly believe that the category should remain visible, based on the community consensus expressed at Wikipedia:Categorization. Thanks again, SSBohio 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Admin help
RL, would you mind looking at ACAC ARJ21? It seems to be in the midst of an edit war, and my attempts to mediate have been ignored and reverted. User:TestPilot, the main reverter here, seems to be defendinga legitimate link, but it is over 6 years old, and the info may be inaccurate now. Thanks. BillCJ (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I'm moving on. You should be able to figure out why from his comments below and on Freepsbane's talk page. Thanks for doing what you feel is right, as you always do. - BillCJ (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
User BillCJ
Could you please somehow look at User:BillCJ behavior? As you might know by now, there was an issue with one source link in ACAC ARJ21 article. The link was actually broken. After I fixed link and issue was over, that user, BillCJ, came to to the article and placed "disputed" tag, obviously trying to resurrect an issue(or start new one, idk). I was trying to explain that to him, but he was ignorant. I decided to take an extra step, and provided additional source, but the next step that user, BillCJ, did - was placing nasty warning on my talk page. Something about 3RR in ACAC ARJ21. And I did not used even 2 reverts, not talking about 3 of them!!! I did tried to contact this user, but he decided not to comment on his 3RR obligations. I do have strong feeling that it is sort of personal attack, for whatever reason. And could that warring be somehow removed from my talk page??? The whole situation is sad and ugly. TestPilottalk to me! 06:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I also contacted User:Freepsbane about this issue. Thank you. TestPilottalk to me! 07:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! TestPilottalk to me! 12:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation in Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the FN.333 Riviera
Sorry but I didn't see your comment on my talk page until I had already recreated the article. If you check the discussion page on the SIAI Marchetti FN.333 Riviera article, I've listed the reasons why this article should be kept separate from the Nardi article. If you wish to merge them into one more comprehensive article that would be fine, but it should include all the information from both articles, and not simply delete the contents of SIAI Marchetti article, which is longer and more comprehensive. In addition, a single article should be named "SIAI Marchetti FN.333 Riviera" as this is the name the aircraft was constructed and marketed under. For comparison, the Seabee article is named "Republic RC-3 Seabee" even though the plane was originally designed and built in small numbers as the "Spencer Aircar". It's just that the plane is far better known as the Republic Seabee than the Spencer Aircar, so too was the Riviera marketed exclusively as a SIAI Marchetti FN.333 Riviera (I know this because we looked at them several times in downriver Detroit while owning a Seabee). I am going to take a look at the list of aircraft you mentioned, though I'm attempting to take a whack at the planes our family owned, flew, or looked into, before moving on to unknown territory - Ken keisel (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ken keisel has dumped the text onto the original article without any regard for formating. I reverted the change with a request on the talk page that new material is not just added but included in the appropriate location of the original. He has now replaced all the original Nardi text with a copy of the original SIAI-Marchetti version. The "new" text is not the best written or encyclopedic in areas (a unique, though not unpleasant design) - should really revert again but can you have a look at whats going on please as you have been in discussion with him before. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've merged all the unique information from the Nardi FN.333 article with the more complete text of the SIAI-Marchetti article. The older Nardi article was little more than a stub, and focused mostly on the three pre-production aircraft built by Nardi, not on the actual production aircraft built by SIAI-Marchetti. As a result, the Nardi article comprises only a small portion of the new article, which is much larger and more comprehensive. It still needs a lot more information to be complete, and a photograph would be nice, but the new article is a significant improvement over what little information was contained in the old Nardi article. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to work on List of Iranian Air Force aircraft and the Aircraft Inventory section of the Iranian Air force together?
- Wow, you've done a great job so far.I'll place flag icons in the origin section. Would it be possible to seperate the retired aircraft with the active aircraft. I think we should create it so it looks like List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force and replace the aircraft inventory section in Iranian Air Force with infomation about each type of aircraft like the Indian Air Force#IAF Aircraft--EZ1234 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Stingray here. I was just wondering why no edits have been made by you or other admins in the Ka-118 page. Have I finally created a page without needing administrative assistance? Have I finally created a page with all the apropriate templates and categories? If there is something wrong with it, just let me know and I'll fix it. ;) --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
PUI
RL, I don't think I've made my case right, so could you check out Image:OCPA-2005-08-11-080331.jpg? I contend that the "Courtesy Image" on the source page means it is not a US aArmy inamge. The fact that it is unclear means we should not be using it, correct? THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for adding to the Gyroglider page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Talking Mac (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Gyrogliders
Thank you for putting the B-6 and B-7 pages in the correct format and expanding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Talking Mac (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I took your advice and moved the Gyroglider article to Rotor Kite. I also replaced uses of the word Cyrocopter with Autogyro, unless they were specifically addressing Bensen's work. Quick question though. Why did you revert my Midjet edits. It was a legit article. The Talking Mac (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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!
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)
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... TestPilottalk 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). TestPilottalk 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)
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)
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)