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

Thank you for your greetings - best Christmas and New Year wishes for you and your family! God Bless -Alex V Mandel (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs more work...you're tellng me! Unfortunately, I really can't find much to flesh out what the man was actually up to to after 1909. There are a bewildering number of sketchily documented (& not very notable) Bleriot types up to 1914, the Bleriot name was pretty well dormant during the Great War, and did little after it. Bleriot was obviously a worker, and an engineer rather than a manager or a businessman, but where all the effort went is difficult to pin down. The only biography I've found only devotes about twenty percent to his doings post-1909, and much of that is stuff which really belongs in the company history. Stone soup.TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

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

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

Mister Zuk,

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

My french WP user page dates back to 2008.

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

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

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

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

• Second, comparing to similar pages, none contains the redundancy you feel to maintain:
  • Günther Rall
  • Otto Kittel
  • Walter Nowotny
  • Gerhard Barkhorn
  • Erich Rudorffer
  • Heinrich Bär
  • Hermann Graf

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

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

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

I have conveniently talked to you, and presented politely my position, on this personal page. You didn't return any answer. Since then, you have made several modifications to WP, so you had time and opportunity to answer me. I roll back to my modification.

I do hope this will be all, we both have so much better to contribute than to argue on those article lines. I am not here to vandalize WP, I am no offending newbie, and been here since 2008. My modification was made to improve style and simplicity.

--Philippe.petrinko (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs your spelling skills again => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_312_TucanoDafranca (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

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

Would you kindly put the date in the date field of the template instead of the work field. (I was tempted to revert).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like you have a professional opinion that I am not equipped to argue with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll have to reply Sunday, as I am away from a machine that can edit Wikipedia for the rest of the day.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• FWIW, can you help with the cleanups of messed up ref tags (no. 26 & 109) on McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle? Since this is your forte and I have no clue as to how best to solve this mess that is not of my doing. Thanks, best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks much better now after you fix'em, thanks~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}20:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

V-1 flying bomb

The mix of reference styles is something I am still contending with, as Sfn templates must have recently been re-written as they had previously left out a period (full stop) and when trying to put one manually, noted that it messed up the output and quickly reverted it. The dates appearing in the APA and MLA styles are in slightly different locations and for consistency, can be manipulated to output after the publisher. As to dates that mix ISO and WYSIWYG dating, it usually is easier for a reader to read the date in "clear." FWiWBzuk (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

As far as I know ((sfn)) has always used periods. I consider them trivial. The value of the sfn template is in the autocollating of duplicate references. I'm the editor who reworked Macdonald and other to use this system. I see the the V-1 page still has some in 'plain' and will fix those. On the dates, moving the year out of "year =" breaks the links to the citations, so please don't do that. I generally prefer the 2012-02-27 date form as it's universal, but don't much care really. Alarbus (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't there some citation style that ends up outputting into a Modern Language Association (MLA) style because the issue I see with the dates is that they are placed by the author not the publisher which is standard for determining when the publication is made. The template appears to mimic an APA guide but has no accommodation for any other style guide. Dates in different formats are inconsistent, and ISO dating is not read the same worldwide, ed. 2012-01-12, is it January 12, 2012 or December 1, 2012? FWiW Bzuk(talk) 02:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Please keep this talk here; I'm watching this page.

I'm fine with whatever layout the templates emit; they facilitate formatting for those who don't care about what gets italics and what should be a comma vs a colon. The ISO form is defined; 2012-01-12, is January 12, 2012. I've put the other citations into ((citation)) so they're consistent now and the footnote links work. Several are not used and I'd be fine with removing them or dropping them to a further reading section. (Haining, Kay, King, Ramsay, Young). I'd also be fine with lonelyplanet and lulu being cut. Alarbus (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still that ISO dating presupposes that people get it; it's far easier to simply use the same date format throughout the entire article from body to references. I'm willing to try to use the citation format but the only real advantage seems to be in linking the citation to the bibliographic link. FWiW Bzuk(talk) 03:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm not arguing for the ISO form, just explaining it. We both just edited the refs section and managed to not edit conflict. One of the ISBNs was invalid, and I fixed it and fiddled with some other things. Linking the footnote to the bibliography is helpful to readers, but it is also helpful to editors because it serves as a check that the full citation is actually defined. Many articles refer to "Smith 2012" without offering anything further. If you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors it will highlight broken links and citations that are not linked to. The other advantage of {sfn} is that the whole process of collating multiple references to the same page is done automatically, so editors can skip most uses of named refs. They are another common source of errors because editors often multiply define names with varying definitions (and MediaWIki combines them by tossing all but the first definition), and re-use named refs that are to a specific page when they really mean some other page. Alarbus (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) The ((sfn)) template hasn't been rewritten recently; the last change was in September 2011, and was trivial (it allows |loc= to coexist with either |p= or |pp=); the last unreverted non-trivial change was in December 2009 (to make the year optional instead of mandatory). It's included periods since this edit in June 2009 and they've been there ever since. ((Harvnb)), by contrast, has never included a period - every now and then, somebody asks for it to be added but the request is always overturned, because that would introduce a double period to those articles where a perid has been added manually. Besides setting up a link for ((sfn)), the((citation)) template also exports COinS metadata, which handcrafted citations rarely do. MOS:DATEUNIFY permits either of two date formats in prose, but requires consistency, and publication dates in refs should follow the same format; access dates in refs may either be the same format as the pub date, or YYYY-MM-DD. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've reverted it back to the original and left a note about WP:RETAIN and not edit warring to change established reference formats on User:Afernand74. Hopefully if anyone wants to change things further then they will discuss on the article talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO you are missing the point of the discussion. The article is using the harvard style for its citations (See Parenthetical referencing#How to cite). I kept the same style but hardcoded references using the wiki Template:Harvnb which seems to generate an inappropriate format with "&". My edits were reverted because of that; not because I changed a long established reference format. Should the template have generated "and" instead of "&" we won't be having this discussion. So let's hope this will be changed in the future. I will leave the article as it is until then and I am sorry we all wasted our time on this.

By the way, I made the changes in good faith and there is little about citation styles in WP:RETAIN.

The funny thing is that all this started because the book of Jenkins and Landis has a wrong ISBN. It should be 1580070566 instead of 580070566. Other books also have wrong ISBNs like the one from Winchester (1592234801 instead of 1-84013-309-2). I leave those corrections up to you.

Enjoy your Sunday. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

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

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

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

On 31 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Flying Fleet, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that The Flying Fleet's female lead, Anita Page, described co-star Ramón Novarro as "something to dream about"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Flying Fleet.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bzuk. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click [2] to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

On 10 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cat Creek, Montana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cat Creek was the site of the first commercially successful oil field in Montana, producing oil so pure it could be used in Model T cars straight from the ground? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cat Creek, Montana.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

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

Hi! Another user, TheLongTone, saw this request and lent me a hand. Unexpectedly, he found that there weren't many issues about the quality of the writing, so making the needed corrections was easy enough. Thanks, anyway! --M.L.Watts_{Air Mail ✈} 12:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right, it goes without saying that any further improvement by you and other editors is absolutely welcome :) --M.L.Watts_{Air Mail ✈} 13:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your thorough reading of the article. I knew I made lots of small mistakes and inaccuracies, some of them due to my poor knowledge of English and some others due to my poor knowledge of the rules of the English Wikipedia. I made more corrections similar to those you made, things like the style of the citation of book authors, the difference between "-" and "–" etc. There are just two corrections I am not sure about: the first one is related to aeropainting, an artistic movement which I am pretty sure has nothing to do with airbrushes – it rather concerns aircraft as subjects or points of view. I corrected this thing. The other one is the F-104G/S issue. I totally can't distinguish the two version by looking at a photograph, but there is a rather good source (the museum's website,here) stating it's a F-104G. I'm not sure about this, I'd like to know what you think. --M.L.Watts_{Air Mail ✈} 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to thank you again for the great work you did copyediting the article and correcting all the issues related to grammar and spelling. The article is probably going to be featured as a DYK, and I must thank you for that. See you, and, well... In case you ever need some help with early Italian aviation or Caproni-related topics, you know who you can ask! Cheers, --M.L.Watts_{Air Mail ✈} 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

On 19 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Men of the Lightship, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alberto Cavalcanti asked David MacDonald to reshoot scenes from the 1940 British propaganda film Men of the Lightship because the performance of the actors was "totally unconvincing"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Men of the Lightship.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

A fact from Bzuk/Archive 11 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 April 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Gianni Caproni Museum of Aeronautics is Italy's oldest aviation museum, in addition to being the country's first corporate museum? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/April.

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

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

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

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

Stefano, I'll keep my remarks for the talk page of the English Electric Lightning, where I have made a brief response to your concerns. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

May I ask why you undid this edit to High Speed Flight RAF? References (1) and (5) are definitely dead links. The two wayback links work well. What was the problem? Blevintron (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my response, your talk page, sorry, fell asleep while making an edit, whowouldhavethunk??Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I was looking at this FFD; it's a bit of a hard call on the WP:NFCC#8 issue. In the discussion, you stated that the author had emailed you to release permission. If the release is specific enough, it would really be best to sidestep the entire issue by getting that permission filed in WP:OTRS. To be "specific enough", the permission would have to include:

1. It would be best if the photographer is also the creator of the model (as opposed to having built the model from a kit). The linked Flickr discussion makes it seem this could be the case. Or else you'd have to be convincing that Magog the Ogre's statement at the FFD is actually the case (particularly when applied to a model of a vehicle rather than a copy of another model) and that there isn't any copyright in the original plane's design or artwork.
2. The creator must specifically state that he is making the photograph available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, or under any other terms considered free by Wikipedia. Just saying "Wikipedia can use this" is not good enough, unfortunately. The permission must specifically include permission for anyone to reuse the image, to make and distribute modified versions of the image, and to use the image for any purpose (including commercial purposes). And none of these permissions can be specific to Wikipedia.
3. Then the whole email thread needs to be forwarded to the Volunteer Response Team according to the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed.

Anomie⚔ 16:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for the award - sorry to be trying your patients re the editing - I aim to improve! regards slmvbs

So could you weigh in your thoughts on my plot edit?JTBX (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bzuk, If you have the time check out User talk:Jackehammond#This 1952 photo is ASTONISHING on my talk page. You will be astonished. It totally changes one chapter of Aviation history. I could not believe my eyes when I saw the photo. Best Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.

There are some disputes and concerns, and some rather large edits from new editors. My observation on the talk page is that people tend to respect your point of view. I know nothing of the content, so would be of no help there. If you have more time to look in and help them achieve a consensus, it would be helpful to everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ ©21:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Thank you for tweaking the Alex Henshaw page. I had some rude comments from an anonymous contributor who doesn't seem to understand the difference being being "pilot in command" of an aircraft and handling the controls. You rightly pointed out that "pilot in command" is an official status, adding a reference.

I've amended your edit slightly removing the words "although he did fly at times, with others." I see what you're getting at, but this could refer to anyone who flies as a passenger. To clarify this issue I've added a reference to his rides in a two-seater Spitfire, when he was sometimes able to handle the controls. I think this is what the edit-war contributor had in mind.

The point I was trying to make when I made my original contribution was that Alex suddenly gave up flying at the age of 37, which is remarkable considering this had filled his life for the previous 16 years. I thought that the addition of the word "officially" detracted from this point, and means nothing as you cannot be "unofficially" the pilot in command. This is why I reverted.

I might add that I have a special knowledge of this subject as producer of the TV biography on Henshaw. I am one of the few people to have seen his original log book entries.

Graemebowd (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Susan Clark as Earhart.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message onWikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.--ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So who are you, the President of the Charles Lindbergh Fan Club? As A. Scott Berg notes in his book, "Lindbergh," Charles Lindbergh, even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, expressed regret that white people had to be divided in the conflict. Simply because he fought in the armed forces does not necessarily mean that he "supported" the war. If Lindbergh did anything more than what his duty as a citizen required, then there needs to be verification of that in the article.John Paul Parks (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my response. FWiWBzuk (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Finalcountdown.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Bzuk! Thanks for what you said about me here. :) Best.Acalamari 09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Supermarine S.5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said before, nice work -- but it would be appreciated if you consulted with other editors before making major change like combining two pages into one. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was quick on the draw. I'll do my best to remember to do this in future.TheLongTone(talk) 16:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Bill, I've been a bit niggled by the article title. If it is a miniseries, then shouldn't the article be renamed Amelia Earhart (miniseries) or similar? YSSYguy (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of C. D. Howe know that the article will be appearing astoday's featured article on May 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegateDabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

C. D. Howe (1886–1960) was a powerful Canadian Cabinet minister of theLiberal Party. He is credited with transforming the Canadian economy from agriculture-based to industrial. Born in Massachusetts, Howe moved to Nova Scotia as a young adult to take up a professorship at Dalhousie University. After working for the Canadian government as an engineer, he began his own firm, and became a wealthy man. In 1935, he was recruited as a Liberal candidate for the Canadian House of Commons by then Opposition leader Mackenzie King. The Liberals won the election in a landslide, and Howe won his seat. Mackenzie King appointed him to the Cabinet. There, he took major parts in many new enterprises, including the founding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Trans-Canada Air Lines. When World War II began in 1939, Howe played a crucial role in Canada's war effort, and recruited many corporate executives to serve in wartime enterprises. Howe's impatience with the necessity for parliamentary debate of his proposals won him few friends, and he was often accused of dictatorial conduct by the Opposition. In the 1957 election, Howe's actions and policies were made an issue by Opposition leader John Diefenbaker. He lost his seat in the election, and Diefenbaker became Prime Minister, ending almost 22 years of Liberal rule. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Clark Gable and Myrna Loy.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message onWikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.--ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clark Gable and Myrna Loy.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	flying high
	Thank you for expanding our knowledge on aviation, history, the history of aviation and the people involved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 129th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ace-of-aces-movie-poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message onWikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.--ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you added a note to the Glenn Curtiss article. A note looks a bit awkward to me. Most articles don't have notes. Couldn't you include the information in the article without making a note?GroveGuy (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curtiss' holding of French Aero Club certificate certainly should be somewhere, but the award was nothing to do with the Gordon Bennett, because the first sixteen licenses (1-15, because Ferber got 5b) were issued in January 1909. I'm fairly sure that you had to have a certificate to fly at Reims, btw.TheLongTone (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bzuk. You have new messages at TheLongTone's talk page.
Message added 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Before you restore any more of those references, please seeWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#thestopbutton.com to understand what led me to remove them. As far as I've been able to tell, there's been an attempt to drive traffic to this site by spamming several articles, and this film critic is not notable by any stretch, especially in articles that mentioned him in the same breath with Roger Ebert or Rotten Tomatoes. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned at RSN, whether or not a critic is notable is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only according to The Bushranger. Also as mentioned by multiple others at RSN, whether a critic is notable is quite relevant for the purpose of quoting and citations. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

Hello! Your submission of Amelia Earhart (1976 film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

• Some concerns have been raised about the sourcing of these after I nominated them... - The Bushranger _{One ping only}19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Buzuk, I don't know what will happen. But you know all those Popular Science and Popular Mechanics references I posted in aviation articles that you followed up and cleaned up with the correct citation format? Well they might all be deleted. It seems a Wiki Fanatic with roll back authority says it is against Wiki Policy to use googlebooks to cite an old publication page(s) for a reference. And this guy makes is clear that he/she is on a mission for Gawd to make sure all Wikipedia articles comply 100% with Wikipedia policy -- no exceptions. JEEZ! If they say you can't use the FLIGHT archives internet databases, it will gut the aviation articles. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) They're wrong - it's perfectly within policy. The sources are verifiable andreliable. Anybody who claims you can't use Googlebooks is mistaken. I've dropped them a note. -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bushranger -- Thanks for resolving the situation. I have learned "the hard way" not to argue with Wiki Fanatics. I was just going to let it stand on the monorail page and move on editing, when I suddenly thought that editor might follow my contributes and revert all of them where I used PM and PS references that Buzuk aided me with (they are in the hundreds). Also, FYI, don't worry, I don't spike the football when an administrator upholds my references. I just get back to work editing like Buzuk does. And thanks Buzukfor bringing it to Bushrangers attention. Best Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from a (talk page stalker):

• An editor "with rollback authority" who uses rollback for anything other than reverting obvious vandalism or spam should not have rollback privilege. Rollback should never be used for content disputes. Report rollback abusers on WP:ANI with sufficient evidence and they will likely get that privilege revoked.
• I am curious what policy prohibits using Google books to cite old publication pages. As far as I know, there is none, but I'd like to see what that editor actually claimed.

Apologies to Bzuk for having a group discussion on this talk page. ~Amatulić(talk) 19:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The exact quote from their edit summary [3] was "Google is not a reliable source". Clearly a kneejerk reaction to mash the undo button eagerly. And I might point out that based on his user page WP:OWB#22 seems applicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. Yeah. I don't know where he gets the idea that an edit count of 8000 is some magic threshold, but to his credit, he doesn't appear to be using any automated tools to grow it. Me, I became an admin only reluctantly after several years, answering a call to duty, and in some ways I regret it. It tends to stop you from being a productive editor because there's always so much mopping up to do. Occasionally I'll take a break for a month and edit as an anonymous IP just to feel "normal" again. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, no problem in using this talk page as a forum. I have been away from my desk with a family emergency but noted just now, that a lot of things have been revolved for Jack. Thanks, Bushranger (gotta ask you sometime about that name!). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive! It started out as a pun; the first forum I used it on was one dedicated to theNASCAR Busch Series, and I'd been doing a lot of reading about Australian history, so I signed up as..."The Buschranger". ;) Since the pun would be impenetrable away from its racing origin, it lost the "c" elsewhere! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folks, I hope no one cares if I but in, but I have a suggestion to Wikipedia's problem with administrators. And I am going to be denounced as a Wiki-heretic and probably banned for the suggestion. But please bare with me till I cut my throat.

When I first came to Wikipedia I was both Wiki-terrible and Wiki-stupid. Many thought I was a supreme vandal. But eventually before I got banned, I wondered what that "talk" meant at the top of my user page and discovered I had a lynch mob after me and started to learn some need to know Wiki-rule, customs, etc with the help of three old timers on Wikipedia. Eventually I started just correcting or adding references. Then I redone some pages and then I wrote complete pages with the help of User:W. B. Wilson andUser:Dave1185. I did several new pages but didn't like writing completely new pages as that is HARD WORK- ie getting the first intro paragraph especially. Taking a stub or a page that needed to be reworked and expanded and moving it to a sandboxes was not that bad. But I really like checking articles (weapons and defence) and old publication and adding content or references where they are lacking, I liked. THAT IS FUN.

But the recent problem with maybe a mass delete of references and external links I provided, got my curiosity about rollback authority and indirectly being an administrator, got me to thinking. Why would anyone want rollback authority except an administrator. It is like being handed a stick of dynamite that can blow up in your face if you make a mistake. Not Me! Then I read the link about lack of volunteers to be an administrator and I though why would anyone want that job as it takes the fun out of Wikipedia. I don't know if any administrators has noticed, but it seems every Wikipedia editors, whether male or female, and any age always have a raging case of PMS.

Now the Wiki-heretic part. I started on cyper-space in 1986 before the internet was opened to anyone. I worked on Compuserve when it was owned by H&R Block and was a professionals forum on defence issues as either an ast-sysop or sysop. Those two position carried the privilages of free access (when it was $6 to $12 an hour); use of the toll free numbers to call in (I lived where there was no direct toll free line for users) and access to the data bases. Above section leaders, ast-sysop and sysops, were managers who managed everyone on several forums; took care of forums software issues; settled cat-fights; and had B-flag authority (blocked access to members -- ast-sysops and sysops could move messages out of public view). Now here what I warned about comes. The managers were paid by Compuserve. And as a results Compuserve worked very well. When Compuserve decided they were no longer pay managers, Compuserve when from #1 to no-number rating. All in one year! To whit, this Wiki-heretic believes the solution to the lack of "good" volunteers to be administrators, is to consider making the awful movement of paying them -- ie I still would not want to be an adm (nor would they consider me) unless the pay was in the upper five figures. Told you I was a Wiki-heretic. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding rollback. Originally, rollback was an administrator-only privilege. The community decided some years ago that it should be granted to anyone on a case-by-case basis. Any administrator can grant it. I've done so several times, based on how constructive and an editor has been in both their edits and interactions with others. You wonder why anyone would want that authority except an administrator? Well, what do you like doing? Everyone enjoys Wikipedia for different reasons. Some editors enjoy spending their time fighting spammers and vandals rather than contributing to articles. That's an important function, and it's a good thing that some editors gravitate to that role. And if you're busy reverting obvious vandals or spammers, rollback is a convenient tool, and should be available to anyone who can use it responsibly. But what one admin giveth, any other admin can taketh away with a mouse click, if a rollbacker starts abusing the privilege. It is intended as a more efficient way of reverting obvious vandalism or spam. It should never be used as a weapon in disputes.

I don't regard your comments as heretical. Being an admin here, you may have noticed, is often equated to being a janitor with a mop. And that's exactly right. While I wouldn't mind getting paid for this, the actual wage may be more on the order of a janitor than a software developer. My view is, an admin is just another editor who has been entrusted by the community with a few extra tools, namely blocking, protecting pages, deleting and restoring pages, and granting others privileges like rollback. But Wikipedia is so vast, there aren't enough admins around to get all the mopping-up work done. There are always so many backlogs, and they aren't fun to deal with.

There is a major difference between CompuServe and Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a forum(although it can seem so at times, such as right here on this talk page). CompuServe was not only a forum site, but it was a commercial forum site that charged customers for using it. Furthermore, CompuServe had no concept of crowdsourcing. It didn't exist then. Times have changed. As a free encyclopedia that anyone can view and anyone can edit, Wikipedia is a crowdsourced volunteer community. Nobody is forced to participate here. Nobody who steps up to volunteer for adminship is forced to do so, and those who survive the WP:RfA wringer aren't forced to participate as admins; they can continue just being editors if they want. If you don't want the job, or don't believe in the value of the work, don't volunteer. That's the principle behind crowdsourcing: given a big enough population, those folks who want to perform volunteer tasks will generally be the ones best at doing so if they aren't being paid. ~Amatulić(talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Amatulic, Thanks for your reply. And double thanks for not getting the firewood, and a stake out and a match out. <GRIN> Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear and The Bushranger and Amatulić Could you please checkthis discussion on my talk page. It is sort of urgent -- ie this is the first time I have reverted multi-reverts since I have been on Wikipedia since 2009 that was not vandalism or someone doing a test edit. On this I can not just move on to other pages. If you can't become involved I understand. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Johnny Kent.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. Bulwersator (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amelia Earhart (miniseries), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Susan Clark and Diane Keaton receivedEmmy nominations for playing Amelia Earhart in made-for-TV movies on NBC in 1976 and on TNT in 1994? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amelia Earhart: The Final Flight, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Susan Clark and Diane Keaton receivedEmmy nominations for playing Amelia Earhart in made-for-TV movies on NBC in 1976 and on TNT in 1994? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Day, Sir or Ma'am.

Your point is well taken re current B18 operators. However, if you would click on the active links of the civilian operators (at least for the Canadian ones that keep getting edited out), you'll see that there still are current operators of the B18. (Including myself - ref: timetravelair.com)

My concern is that there isn't a definitive list (as of yet) saying who operated what and when. And, my understanding is that this is a page referring to the current and historical operation of the B18.

That's why I'm trying to post the list of B18 operators.

Timetravelair (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and thought it might be right up your alley: China Sky (film). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be my guest Bzuk! I always think Wikipedia is like Stone Soup where everyone contributes things for the benefit of all! Thanks for your courtesy in letting me know. After a long absence of seeing the made during WWII films I was brought up on, quite a few seem to be coming back. I've been trying to find China's Little Devils and stuff about Ducky Louie.Foofbun (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Yesterday I was expecting to have time to go through all the citations and expand them using the citation templates, and I ran out of time. I went back today and finished the job. Please don't revert it again. Thanks! --Mblumber (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no requirement to have citation templates when an established style of citation and bibliographic notations are already in place. Please do not make any further changes without referring to the talk page, or in speaking to me on my talk page. AFAIK, you are making no improvements, have made no additions to the article and are merely inserting a format of your choice. FWiW, see Wp:Retain, Bzuk (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry about the tone that I took above. I don't mean you any offense. I was my understanding that the citation templates are not only there for the convenience of wp editors but also so that there's uniformity across the entire project. They also have added functionality where the reader can click on an ISSN/DOI and it'll direct them to the source material. Even though I spent a significant amount of time doing this conversion, it's not a big deal enough to me personally to fight you on it. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Have a great day and happy editing. --Mblumber (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would just like to add that you should have pointed me to Wikipedia:CITEVAR rather thanwp:retain. Having read that statement, you are within your rights to put it back the way it was. Thanks for educating me and assuming good faith. --Mblumber (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2012

Oh, how I wish there was a standard format or even the prospect of citation templates that are properly designed and formatted, but there isn't and many editors have become proficient in creating a round-about by manually forming the citation and bibliographic notation. My background as a reference librarian for over 30 years before I turned to the "dark" side of becoming a writer and editor in the "real" and "reel" world, is to assure you that I am no Luddite as I have championed and used MARC record templates for cataloguing for over 20 years; but those templates were "bullet-proof" and not the "buggy" home-made #$%^&* citation templates that the Wiki gods on high have proffered on us. To begin with they are formatted to output in the simplified APA style guide which is supremely unsuitable for academic work in the social sciences or in use for non-print materials which have led to a profusion of templates for news releases, video, magazines/journals, encyclopedias, ad infinitum. After years of trying to get the template designers to reconfigure their designs, and it can be done but it takes a rewrite of the template that is waaaaaaay more work to do than entering the bibliographic fields by hand, I have a diffident opinion about referencing. Sorry for the effusive reply, but the Amelia Earhart article is an older one that has been reviewed and analyzed to death and survives as an example of a different but acceptable example of use of the amalgam of MLA/Harvard citation style guides. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Flight oct1934.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article China Sky (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Randolph Scott, the star of China Sky, referred to the film as "disappointing"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/China Sky (film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be slightly outside your usual area, but I got the bug to work up an article for a made-for-TV movie that was intended to, but did not, launch a 13 (at least)-episode TV series: Steel Chariots from 1997, starring (to my surprise) one of my favourite actors, Ben Browder. Work starting here, any help appreciated! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please revert the IP editor at Saab JAS 39 Gripen again. I've used up my 3RR quota already. I've already requested semi-protection - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Saab JAS 39 Gripen .28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Thanks Roger (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please revert the IP editor at Saab JAS 39 Gripen again. I've used up my 3RR quota already. I've already requested semi-protection - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Saab JAS 39 Gripen .28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Thanks Roger (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like somebody did a rewrite of a lot of it...? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still to add refs but I based the number on the contract which was originally for 30 S.1 aircraft later changed to ten S.1 and 18 target tugs then changed to all 28 as target tugs later reduced to 23. It may well have been the intention to order 100 but only one contract had been placed. Might need a tweak to include both figures. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Hi Bzuk, I had intentionally stated that Amelia was the first to cross the Atlantic in an 'airplane' as the British dirigible R34 made the first Atlantic passenger flight by air in 1919. However I searched for a passenger list indicating any women aboard R34 during the dirigible's Atlantic flight(Westbound or Eastbound) and I can't find a passenger list. So for now we can take it for granted Amelia was the first woman to cross in an 'aircraft'. If anyone discovers an R34 passenger list with a female aboard then the Amelia miniseries article can be amended as such. Thanks again, happy editing.Koplimek (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have made an addition to the page Alexander Bell, which has beer reverted as considered vandalism. My addition is factual and is not vandalism. Why is this happening? Why am I not able to add facts that are relevant to the subject?

Kind Regards, Mike Valeriani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevaleriani (talk •contribs) 18:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) It was not reverted as vandalism. It was removed because it is (a) uncited and (b) not relevant to Bell; it should be added to the article on Antonio Meucci, to whom it is relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}19:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And when/if you do add it to the relevant article, please try to avoid phrases like "Many believe..."Nczempin (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've only just noticed it because I don't have my userpage watchlisted. Thanks very much! I couldn't do it without your help. Roger (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Cqnqdq Dqy from Brugge and a French keyboard thqt has a where q is qnd q few other surprises. After Paris spent quality time in Bayeaux that is like a French Canterbury. Visited Omaha Beach, Pointe du Hoc that was kept like it was from, the invasion and filming of 'The Longest Day', ran into a mob of Ami and Royal Brit Legion bikies there and ran into them aqain at Ypres where they laid q wreqth at the nightly Last Post ceremonyFoofbun (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Imperial Gift, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the end of World War I the British Cabinet decided to give Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and India each 100 aircraft as an Imperial Gift? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imperial Gift. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC) 08:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually ... I think the U.S. Centennial Of Flight Commission is a special commission formed by the US federal government. (It seems have been supported jointly from the budgets of the FAA and NASA.) Anyhow, The material might be PD. I'm not advocating that the material be put back, because the article doesn't really need it. It already has an extensive history section. Just a point of interest. APL (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see my response. Bzuk(talk) 18:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yea, it was clearly redundant. So I'm absolutely not arguing that it should be put back.

I'm just pedantically pointing out that the material could well have been Public Domain, and therefore not a copyvio. APL (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 8 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Mountain Road, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that The Mountain Road was the only war moviethat Jimmy Stewart ever starred in? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Mountain Road. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well done Bzuk from Maastricht!Foofbun (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that the lead has been changed to the more neutral language I was proposing in January 2011Mztourist (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[4] The same applies to you, and those of us who care about accessibility are already in the process of updating those 3000 articles. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pere Ubu's album has nothing about the film in the cited reference (I checked), are you going to remove it too now? Also, use article talk pages to communicate. --Niemti (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting anIRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bell X-16.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussionto see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

specifically this one - according to the caption in the document linked it's not a NASA photo, but rather a Bell Aerospace one - I'm afraid it likely isn't PD-NASA. (Nice work on the line drawing, BTW!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you clarify? The edits on the pages I watch don't seem to make significant changes in this regard so I am confused as your meaning.NiD.29 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Passing talk page stalker here) - I think the problem is that using ; to make subheadings bold doesn't work with screen readers. Using Bold text or ===text=== does work I believe.Nigel Ish(talk) 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See comment on your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

(Moved to Talk:Charles Lindbergh/Archive 2#Negro problem)

Thank you for uploading File:Gregor FDB-1 test.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 20:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see someone who is probably you changed the source information at commons:File:Gregor FDB-1 test.jpg. If that was you, could you please be more specific than "a film project on Canadian 'what-if' projects?" Like, the name of the film, or if you don't have that, who created the film and/or its date and/or who is in possession of it. Magog the Ogre (talk•edits) 23:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Bzuk,

That is a new one on me! I actually, thought I was correcting one of my own frequent spelling errors -- I am always typing ON for "1" instead of ONE. Learn something every day. If it had not come from you, I would probably debated the point, but I have never found you wrong. Thanks for correcting it --- twice.

Jack E. Hammond

On 22 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Night Flight (1933 film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after MGM's rights toAntoine de Saint-Exupéry's Night Flight expired in 1942, the film was not shown again until 2011? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Night Flight (1933 film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bzuk, just for my edification, are you the user at IP 50.71.14.251 who commented on thedeletion request over there? Also, just for clarification sake, can you verify the copyright status of the image? Specifically, what year was it taken? 50.71's comment on the deletion request suggests this image was likely taken in the 1930s. Thanks,Resolute 14:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not logging in to Commons; I have repliedthere.Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

You re-added the statement "Of the four pioneering wide-body aircraft (Boeing 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, L-1011 and Airbus A300/A310 family), the Lockheed L-1011 had an admirable safety record.". The reference cited doesn't say that. Given the context, such a statement would have to have a comparative value, and "Admirable" doesn't actually say anything meaningful. To add such a statement, you would need to find a reference comparing the safety records, as opposed to one which shows hull-loss rates in isolation.Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from Karl Kuzmich Karl Kuzmich (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that once again we have come to the same place at the same time. Anything special prompt yours?--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came across the information in Military.com News that the historical attacks on the bridges themselves were by ADs, not jets. One thing led to another... I'm starting a cutdown of the plot summary at work late tonight, amidst keeping an eye on Isaac.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My concern (being in Ohio and out of the path) is for an acquaintance who is a Hurricane Hunter and flying the mission in progress right now. They are due to leave station at 10 o'clock EDT and due back at Ellington at Midnight.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought "Cite book" template was the best way to write a bibliography (this allow bots to make update or something else avoiding mistake(s)) that the way we use in many wikis. As I translate some articles to improve french wiki i've supposed my work could be valuable to the english one. But it is not a good idea. So I will use the "talk page" when i'll notice something that could be inproved.

For example in the page Boeing B-29 Superfortress line  :

Willis, David. "Boeing B-29 and B-50 Superfortress". International Air Power Review, Volume 22, 2007, pp. 136–169. Westport, Connecticut: AIRtime Publishing. ISSN 1473-9917. ISBN 1-880588-79-X.

should be : David Donald, International Air Power Review, vol. 22, Westport, Connecticut, AIRtime Publishing, 2007, 174 p. (ISBN 1880588935)(ISSN 1473-9917), p. 136–169. because accordining to amazon 1-880588-79-X refers to Russian Military Aviation Directory Volume 2: Strategic Bombers, Maritime Aircraft, Special Operations Aircraft, Trainers, Airborne Weapons, Organizat witch is not the right book.

makining a search with title an author I've found author's first-name is not good and isbn # is wrong I've fixed french wiki 'no action' to others.

Thank you Jarfe (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For always helping me when i bungle with citation and adding references and just helping me clean up what I put into articles thanks!Shashenka (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read theFAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Geraldine Wall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Party Girl, By the Light of the Silvery Moon and Crime of Passion

High Barbaree (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Barbara Brown and Charles Evans

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedToday We Live, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Young(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you reverted a number of my changes of the word "deactivate" with relation to USAF units to "inactivate." I have restored them and wondered why you went to the trouble to do this. Inactivate is the appropriate term when referring to an organizational action regarding USAF units. Deactivate is not an appropriate term in this context. Discussions of organizational terms for USAF units are in Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN -912799-02-1. ((cite book)): Check |isbn= value: length (help), Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6., and Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings, Lineage & Honors Histories 1947-1977 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-12-9. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think WP:JARGON may apply. While 'inactivate' may well be the official terminology, 'deactivate' is what's commonly used. Since it isn't wrong, per se, using the term more people will recognise might be preferable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HiBZuk,Greetingstoyouthisfinefallday.WhileIrecognizethatextraspacingwasanissueattheearlystartofthecomputerandITerainthe1950sand1960s,itismuchlesssotodaywhenoodlesofcomputermemoryareavailableforafarthing,oritsmoderndayequivalent.Additionally,whilewritingformachinereadersisanicetouchIalsotendtothinkitsnicetowriteforthebenefitofhumaneditorsaswell,whousuallyliketoseeclearlywhatthey'retryingtoread.Justathought. Best:HarryZilber (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The extra spaces don't even show up in formatting so they are essential l y n o t u s e f u l. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Bzuk: I quite agree the extra spacing doesn't appear in the finished article viewed by readers, but that's not why I add the spacing; its added as a courtesy to new and inexperienced editors. I can recall my first impressions as a newbie editor several years ago attempting to edit formidable citation-laced articles: the edit boxes appeared so jumbled with wikicode that I had no clue where or how to proceed with small cursory edits -I was put off editing for quite a while. Researching citation and other procedures, combined with patient trial and error obviously got me past that stage, but it became apparent to me that the same unnecessary hurdles are faced by other people who want to contribute to Wikipedia's articles but who don't possess higher level technical abilities. As a courtesy to such less experienced editors we can remove this obstacle with extra spacing in the wikitext of our articles, IMHO. This helps separate text from cites and clearly shows section structure as its principle benefit. My 2¢s. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very good day to you. This is a request for advice: I'm asking you because, inter alia, you're thes last editor to do anyting to this article & I assume it's on your watchlist. As you know, I've contibuted substantially to the arti cle as it stands &therefore take an interest in it. So I'm slightly concerned over the cite tags that have recently been added, particularly as I made a concerted effort to cite it adequately a couple of months back. It seem to me that most of the tags are on uncontentious statements: for instance there is one tag in the final fight section that could either be adressed by moving a cite from the middle of a para to the end, or by including cite to probably the next page of the same book. Which seems stupid. The only statement which to my mind really needs a cite is the statement about getting the engines to run in reverse with a simple camshaft modification. I'd put this in, but i've returned Masefield, the major source, to the library. I guess the basic question is can I simply remove tags?TheLongTone(talk) 16:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hacking through them with the aid of Flightand the Simon report.....TheLongTone(talk) 20:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]