Because you were a major contributor of the article McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, I'd like to tell you that the article is now an FA! Thank you so much for helping me out, and I think that you should feel as proud as I am right now. Once again, thanks! Sp33dyphil"Adastra"00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Catch 22.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Operation crossbow theatrical poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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).
Not orphaned; however, the link on the image page was to the "Operation Crossbow", which I have corrected to "Operation Crossbow (film)". I have removed the image from the "Emeric Pressburger" article.Snowman (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bzuk - I haven't had much chance to email: I'm working with a new operating system and it isn't being very helpful in Wikipedia...computers - love em or hate em, we gotta work with em! ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bzuk. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for uploading File:Operation crossbow theatrical poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
I, Skittles the hog, hereby award User:Bzuk, the WikiProject Film Award for their valued contributions to WikiProject Film. for their meritorious and diligent work
Awarded for his/her/its (choose one) meritorious and diligent work
Yeah, that to-do list didn't go down well did it :). I've made a note on the talk page because I still think the accuracy section needs some work. The war films task force was promoting this article as being in need of citation, which was how I originally came across it. I can probably take it down from there though as you quickly covered that issue. Thanks again.--Skittles the hog (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bzuk/Archive 10! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
The October 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. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be pleased to edit according to any style guide that allows "Navy" to be treated as a proper noun when it stands alone. Can you find one for me? I am eager to be corrected. If not, I propose we write in standard English for the sake of clarity. Could we talk about this on the osprey talk page? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin was an American prototype fighter aircraft conceived during World War II by McDonnell Aircraft. It was intended to be carried in and deployed from the bomb bay of the giant Convair B-36 bomber as a parasite fighter. The XF-85's intended role was to defend bombers from hostile interceptors, a need demonstrated during World War II. Two prototypes were constructed before the program was terminated. The XF-85 was a response to a United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) requirement for a fighter to be carried within the Northrop XB-35 and B-36, then under development. This was to address the limited range of existing interceptor aircraft compared to the greater range of new bomber designs. The XF-85 was a diminutive jet aircraft featuring a distinctive egg-shaped fuselage and a forked-tail stabilizer design. The prototypes were built and underwent testing and evaluation in 1948. Flight tests showed promise in the design, but the aircraft's performance was inferior to the jet fighters it would have been facing in combat, and there were difficulties in docking. The XF-85 was swiftly canceled, and the prototypes were thereafter relegated to museum exhibits. (more...)
The October 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) 22:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you are listed as one of the main editors of McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin, I wanted to let you know about a new template that was added to the talk page. The stable version template is used to mark a stable version of the article, as a measure that combats edit rot, the deterioration of formerly good articles after they stop being supported, and is as well an option for people to access a version of the page that is less likely to be plagued by vandalism and other problems. Feel free to check it out on the template page. This does not change how the article itself is viewed or edited, and as the article evolves and things change, the stable version may of course be updated by simply replacing the permanent link in the template (it is stable, but not fixed). Congratulations on making the front page! Falconusptc19:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bzulk, kak delà? :) I think that the table with the kills of Litvyak should be deeply corrected if not deleted at all. I have just published today the most updated book about Soviet airwomen, with the newest and unpublished data and information about Litvyak available on the market. There is absolutely - for instance - no evidence that Litvyak on 16 july shot down a German ace. That day the Luftwaffe Experten listed in the table belly landed for an engine failure subsequently an air fight. Now, this is NOT a kill. Moreover, there is only one source - Pennington, pag. 140 - that states that Litvyak that day scored a kill, while Cottam (Women in War and Resistence) writes that Litvyak that day had just to belly land. But there is absolutely no proof that anyway the German ace was hit by Litvyak, as there is not known any claims record on Litvyak side where is noted exactly the Planquadrat Koordinaten or the exact point of any of her air victory. Still, on 1st of August 1943, the Jagdeschwaders engaged along the Mius front had not aircraft damaged and Litvyak was not the one who "taran"ned Merkle, as no one of the witness saw and says that. So I propose to delete those unaccurate credited victories.
--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Showa/Nakajima L2D, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nakajima (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 the DPL WikiProject.
Many thanks for the holiday thought B. For a second I was worried that I had consumed to much egg nog but then I cleaned the grit out of my eyes and realized it was the tree :-) Have a great 2012 onwiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk14:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. By Av. Films do you mean documentaries or more fictional treatments? There's a lot of Cold War fumbling in the skies between the super powers that has just recently come to light that makes the "Firefox" film look tame in comparison. Hcobb (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the very thoughtful Christmas image :) Merry Christmas to you also and I hope 2012 is a very good year for you !! Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was that the presence of the signatures blurs copyright as any signatory is by definiton a partial creator of the final image, and it instead appears to be a publicity shot rather than a private work as is claimed by the uploader.NiD.29 (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is an original one that was taken on the day of the July 4, 1964 flight and was subsequently signed by the crew. It was not a publicity hand-out. It is a personal souvenir. Corsair133693 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair133693 (talk • contribs)
Hi Bzuk; over in the German-language Wikipedia, a user noticed that this file is available here and on flickr with differing licenses and by apparently different uploaders, see there (in German, of course ;-) ). Here on Commons it's uploaded as your own work with a CC-zero license; on flickr, a certain james_gordon_los_angeles (a photographer from Washington DC, according to his profile) uploaded it using the restrictive CC BY-NC 2.0 license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/james_gordon_los_angeles/6473868677/ (so it seems to me that he claims to be the creator of the image, and, according to this license, would require attribution and only non-commercial use). I therefore suppose that james_gordon_los_angeles took the image from you, as your original upload in the English Wikipedia was on September 24, and james_gordon_los_angeles uploaded the image on flickr on December 7. As you licensed it under CC-0, of course everyone may use it freely and without attribution, but the flickr uploader wouldn't be entitled to tag it with a more restrictive license himself, I'd say. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Yuletides! 
"Frohe Weihnachten" from Germany! Over here, the 26th is also a holiday... Best Wishes Cobatfor (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
