User talk:Bzuk/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Bzuk/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

Bobbi Ethier - categories needed

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

Image tagging for Image:18-01.gif

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

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

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

Janusz Zurakowski & Hornet

Hi Bzuk.

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

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

RfM Rachel Marsden

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rachel Marsden". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by Debresser (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avrocar

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

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

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

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

Bzuk 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Arrow

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

Hawker Hurricane

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

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

John Carver Meadows Frost

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

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

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

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

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

Bzuk 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:New_logo_neg_1.jpg

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

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

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

Canadian Vickers

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

References in the J-35 Draken article

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

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

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

Date formats

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

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

Bzuk 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concorde

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

Quotes and punctuation

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

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

Wahkeenah 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Focke-Wulf Fw 190

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

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

Bzuk 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dots in British military aircraft mark numbers

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

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

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

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

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

Canadair Sabre

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

Links removed

Sorry, Bzuk,

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

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

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

James Armstrong Richardson International Airport

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

References for B-17

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

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

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

YWG-YOW route

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

Your edit summary

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

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

Avrocar

See [3]

Great Aircraft of the World template

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