User talk:Bzuk/Archive 2

Concorde reversion

Hi. I thought I'd reply to:"Tweaking- Guinnog - why was the previous edit you made a reversion? When "snipping" identify the reason"

A look at the anon poster's talk page would reveal that I warned him for spamming the same external link to two articles. Hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dates, period and commas

I refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style when making style edits, which is the style guide that should (ideally) be followed for Wikipedia articles regardless of personal or regional preferences:

• Dates: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day
• Periods and commas inside quotation marks: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks

Dates are automatically formatted according to the user's preference, so it does not matter either way. I simply changed them to the more common formatting (e.g. March 21, 2006) so it reflects the correct article title for dates (e.g. February 7), and not a redirect link.

As for the periods and commas, I followed the guideline, "include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ('logical' quotations)." Since most of the instances of quotation marks used within the article are not for full direct quotations (but merely for emphasis and nicknames), the punctuation should be left outside. —Squalla 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that both date formats are presented; as I stated above, I have only changed them in order to reflect the actual article titles for these dates—it is not my personal preference. Either way, it does not matter whether the dates are formatted in the common or the academic/military style, as the link will automatically change according to the user's preference. If the date is intended to appear one way only, a piped link should be used ([[February 17|February 17]]) so that it overrides the automatic formatting function.

As for quotation marks, I understand the American convention, and I understand that this is common and formal practice in the United States. My point is, however, that Wikipedia has its own house style for quotation marks, and this style should preferably be followed regardless personal or regional preference. I'm neither American or British; in fact, I'm not even a native speaker of English, so I'm being neutral here and merely following the guideline established by Wikipedia.

The Manual of Style states, "we borrow one practice from U.S. usage and one from the rest of the world", the former being the use of double-quotes, and the latter being leaving punctuation inside of quotation marks only if the sense of punctuation is part of the quotation.

Again, I understand that the American style states otherwise, but Wikipedia does not exclusively follow American nor British conventions. There is a guideline for quotation marks, and it should preferably be followed. —Squalla 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Left another reply on my talk page… —Squalla 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind replying or should I ask for other people's input in the article's talk page? —Squalla 04:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Earhart

Hey, careful. You're going to piss people off unnecessarily by putting the same request on multiple editors' pages. Just a polite note -- you might want to go back and remove those requests before someone in a bad mood gets ugly about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would second that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind but you might want to take a quick look at Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that too, you shouldn't ask people around like that and I don't know anything about Earhart.--Janarius 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the message and I was befuddled by it. I'm pretty sure I've never looked at the article and since I'm not keen on spammers, I'm unlikely to go with any recommendations. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen the page, either, but, since this is supposed to be a collaberative effort, I'm always up for a "heads up". I would've liked a direct link to the page, tho... Trekphiler 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (OK, I'm dumb. I've looked at so many pages, I've forgotten... 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm very confused as to why you solicited me about this. I've never edited the article, it's not on my watchlist, and I honestly have no interest in it. Wikipedia is not run by votes. Such soliticitation can be construed as rude. Moreover, I'm basically an inactive editor right now. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No real harm done; I just wanted you to know that you might be annoying people. It didn't much annoy me -- you seem to be sincerely just wanting a lot of input on an article, which is a good thing. We have a requests for comments procedure that is supposed to be about getting that, and you may want to think about using that next time. (And if it doesn't work well, you may want to spearhead the effort to get something better going.)

I was really confused by your statement that I'd edited the article. I dug through the history and finally found where I did, once: [1]. Can you see what I was doing there? I was just reverting somebody's linkspam; some site that they were insistently adding against consensus (for self-promotional purposes, rather than to build a good article). I have no interest in the article at all; as I said, I didn't even remember editing it. There's no telling how many other people on your list may be in the same boat; no real interest in the article, they just touched it once to clean up a typo or something. A better approach might be to contact people who've made substantive comments on the discussion page of the article, although even then you're liable to trip into a few uninterested parties. Like I said, try the RFC process, and look around for other places to get attention from the wider community, like starting an article improvement collaboration, using the Village Pump, etc. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm an administrator with an interest in safeguarding the Amelia Earhart article, but only because I've an interest in Wikipedia generally. I had no specific interest in that particular article. I just hunt down and destroy the work of those who like to use Wikipedia as their own personal promotion engine, thus dragging down the quality everywhere.

One final comment: it's probably best not to think of "canvassing for change in an article," but instead "requesting attention from the wider Wikipedia community." I have no idea if you've previously proposed your change on the talk page and gotten rebuffed, or what. Go into with the idea that many eyes need to look at it to make that right decision, and that your choice may not necessarily be the right decision, and you'll have the right attitude. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. To get wider input you might consider posting your question under the village pump instead, or finding an appropriate WikiProject where it can be discussed. Otherwise I have no particular opinion on the matter. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing can indeed annoy other editors, but I take no offense, and I understood that you probably got my username from some old edits. Ordinarily I would be happy to help out, but I'm afraid I'm not up to full involvement in this article at the moment. I will say this: I am not in favor of splitting off such information, because it is germane to the subject. I do, however, believe that it should be scrupulously referenced and kept to a minimum to keep from overwhelming the article. I would not support an article split that would merely encourage conspiracy theorists to add nonsense, however well-documented, to Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Zura?

A book on Janusz Zurakowski? I gotta read that. I've seen his name in the Arrowheads book on the project, & he sounds like an interesting guy. And Happy New Yr, too... Trekphiler 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbering format.

Thanks for your guidance Bzuk, I'm always happy to be pointed in the right direction. Sometimes a mixture of numerals and written numbers in a sentence can look rather messy, so it's good to have rules to apply. How about the following example; which form is considered to be correct: 2 6-wheeled trucks, two 6-wheeled trucks, or 2 six-wheeled trucks? (Or maybe none of them!) I know that it's a bit of a cheek, but I hope you don't mind educating me in English-grammar.--Red Sunset 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Two six-wheeled trucks" is actually grammatically correct and uses the standard edit style although many editors would accept "two 6-wheeled trucks." Bzuk 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) BTW, Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you too Bzuk. Thanks again, that's another dilemma resolved, but I was rather dismayed to note that none of my original examples were actually grammatically correct with one only half-right! Bottom of the class again! Oh well, New Year's resolution: must do better.--Red Sunset 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture fancruft

Please keep it out of aviation articles. Per WP:Air. It detracts from the encyclopedia. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Reply- it is a common section in many articles even one on the MiG-31 that you thought was valid. The editor EMT147 who has contributed significantly to articles had not deleted the section. Your past contributions have been controversial to say the least. I think the section has merit and is referenced and linked. Where do you see "fancruft"? Bzuk 7:19 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Tweaking?

Hello;

I'd like to humbly ask you to be a little bit more descriptive in your edit summaries. "Tweaking" is something you do to sombody's nose. I'm sure that an author such as yourself can be a little more eloquent.

On another note, I can't tell what citation system you're using, it seems to neither be WP:CITET nor WP:HARV, could you please enlighten this poor ignorant soul? Thank you! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh

Thanks for catching my error. Rklawton 13:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Reverting is quite simple. Click on page history, click on a previous version of the page, click on Edit, then click on Save. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17 Intro

From Wikipedia:Lead section : "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."

I think that the intro right now is a good size. Compare with Buckingham Palace, Windows 2000, Nuclear weapon, and The Lord of the Rings, which all have long intros.

If any changes need doing, in my opinion, then they should be in better summarizing the article body. Right now the intro contains info on : design stages, campaigns involved in, icon status, culture references, and famous planes. It could do with a mention of the RAF night flying vs. the US daytime runs, an extremely notable pilot, and a more specific comparison with the B-24.

If you have different ideas than have at it, and we'll see how it works out- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hawker Sea Fury

Back on 15 Dec 2006 you edited the Hawker Sea Fury page changing the line in the intro to read that it was "one of the fastest production single piston engined aircraft ever built". This topic has been discussed in the talk page before and it was decided to leave the entry as "the fastest production..." If you have ecidence of a faster aeroplane I would be interested to hear about it, otherwise I think it reasonable to leave the entry as it now is. Sorry I did not pick up on this easlier but I assume I missed it in multiple updates of the page and only noticed it today because of another update. Nick Thorne 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairey Battle

Regarding the issue of numbers written as words, please read the first two points [2]. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:XF8B-I (Navy).jpg

corrected

Montreal Airports

Hi. Just to let you know that I have left Montreal not disam b/c Montreal is served by 1 international airport (Mirabel does not have any passenger service as it is only served by cargo carriers). We only disam cities that are served by more than one airports with passenger service. I have posted a discuss on WP:Airports if you are interested in responding. Cheers and happy editing! Bucs2004

CL-215T/CL-415

Bill, have you seen this diff? THe user claims thi aircraft is a 415, and states on the image page it's because of the turboprop engines. Yet the caption original catoion says it's a 215T, which of course also HAS turprobrop engines. DO you know of a way to identify which claim is correct? - BillCJ 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I found the answer on the Spanish Air Force site. Even though it's in Spanish (which I don't comprehend), the numbers used are the same as in English ;) See my comments on Talk:Canadair CL-215‎ page. - BillCJ 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Corvette Mako Shark.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Corvette Mako Shark.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:65 ChevroletMakoSharkII.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:65 ChevroletMakoSharkII.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cites

Hey Bzuk, cites (if that's what you were referring to) don't have to be rm'd if the content goes off line, If it was published and verifiable, under WP policy it's acceptable, even if one must go to (shivers!) a library to find it. Cheers. Gwen Gale 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:James Stewart (actor) -

I see you have been dealing with BillRodgers. Judging by his pattern he appears to be once again another sockpuppet of HarveyCarter [[3]] [[4]][[5]] take a look at these confirmed cases. Plus if you look at the John Wayne article he added a bunch more to the list reported by others. He follows the same patterns time after time. Lucky for those of us reporting he tends to make it to easy. Anyway if you notice his pattern continuting make mentinon of it to an admin or fill out a report on it. To early right now but to me BillRodgers has way to many signs over 80% sure its him. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess who's back?

Look's like our "friend" is back! - BillCJ 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AE

[6]. Cheers. Gwen Gale 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Wait a moment, mr. Bzuk. You have rollbacked all my articles with how justifications? Please tell me. These are not grammatical ones, and full my posts with citation needed is not a welcome. First, i have posted my sources on the basis on i made posts on those articles, then the estetical is not a POV argument. If a lot of people called fair Macchis and not Freccias, is not guilth of mine. I tryed to explain how fairness is married with aerodynamic. Nothing else. If you are so disturbed by that you should understand that not fulfill citation needed is all you have to do to have good articles. Then i will ripristinate text you have deleted because you aren't able even to read my sources, regular posted in the low part. Let me say that your manner is not a very good one to have collaboration as well from me.--Stefanomencarelli 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey 2

Strangely enough, i had not such bad comments on my english in *several years* of forums. Do i am so awful to force you to delete 20kb of contributions? attack me over NNPOV, syntax and reference is not a hot welcome in my 2 days of wiki.en experience. Do you realize it? Perhaps you in en.wiki are so many, that you don't bother to destroy someone, but i cannot consider definitively your manners as friendly and diplomatic. And so i mean, before shoot ask and not the contrary. As educational tactic, also it could better functions, don't you find?

More, if there are texts 'debated' i know that they shouldn't be deleted BUT, dear Bzuk, posted in the discussion page where they could be debated. So in wiki.it, that replyng a lot of wiki.en policies.

In wiki.it there is much more diplomacy and patience, if nothing else.

quote:

One of the first things that I noticed is that your submissions must have citations given. These usually fall into the pattern of either Modern Language Association or American Psychiatric Association style guides, neither of which you have employed. I prefer a Harvard citation myself for citations. Watch as things get edited and see how the changes are made. Thanks for coming on board. Bzuk 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

---

I cannot understand that you are sayng. What is American Psychiatric Association? I am not mad.

First lesson: your citations should have the following:

Author (last name, first name). Title (of book). Place of publication: Publisher, Date. (Page number and ISBN/ISSN is optional.) I will attempt to re-edit a citation to this style, next your turn. Bzuk 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Well, perhaps you will a bit surprised, but i DON'T have books like my references. I have aviation magazines, books are too expensive and rare to find. Do you know Storia Militare, Aerei nella Storia and so on? Well, they are, and written by the best italian researchers on this field. Magazines are not good enough for this Encyclopedia? I posted usually Author, title of article and eventually page, plus number or date of publishing. IS it enough to check these 'references', or i am dreaming and or a liar?--Stefanomencarelli 10:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Check in this page, i am talking about you. [[7]]--Stefanomencarelli 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks to have deleted my silly post. A very 'good' manner to react, and i still wait for serious answer to my question (except this one was a 'serius' answer).

---

Yeah, i know what you are sayng. But i don't have a NNPOV like you says, just the experience in a field carefully studied for years. and your statements about citation needed after deleting my sources provided is really not frienly. And i still wait for your reasons to butch 'my' poor Macchi and its combat history (unknow to 99,9997% of english readers). If you pretend some collaboration, this is not a good one example to me.--Stefanomencarelli 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected your correction on Re.2005, expecially that about the 'twice the agility' of Reggiane: NO. It's not a fact of agility. It's a fact of 'fastness', do you understand? Re.2005 was both more agile AND faster than Macchi at altitude, and the two things (and only the two things toghever) brings to a 2x quicker action, not as you have said 'becuase the agility. Let me say, it's another reason to strongly doubt about your capability to re-write my posts, making unnecessary and gratuitus herrors. Sorry but that's is.--Stefanomencarelli 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Still there?

I think I gave you the wrong phone number... it's 577, not 566. Last night would have been perfect too, I got in a 85k run up north of the city so a couple of beers was definitely on the menu... Maury 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AE

I was hoping you'd have the time and patience to figure out whatever it was that editor had done... and rv it. Gwen Gale 22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

North American monetary union

Bill, I don't know if you usually edit this kind of article, but I don't know what project this falls under. An IP user has been adding large chunks of unsourced, highly questionable text to the North American monetary union page, and refuses to discuss it at all. I'm at (maybe even over) my 3RR limit, so I can't revert it for at least 24 hours. Since it is related to US-Canadian relations, I thought you might be able to lend a hand. My view of the problem is explained on the talk page. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BillCJ 04:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

Hi, you removed my {{examplefarm}} template as "nonsensical". However, "in popular culture" should contain some actual text as opposed to just a list of pop culture references. There are also some entries that I find unnecessary: stuff like Earhart being mentioned in a song, appearing in one episode of Star Trek, or being mentioned in an episode of Friends. These types of entries are extremely trivial and should be removed.-Wafulz 12:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation comments

It is better to use one of the citation templates inline to reference a source. This places the citation at the fact you are including. Wikipedia will organize these, including ones to the same source in after the {{reflist}} tag. This comment is the result of you suggesting that another user code these to a specific format. Generally using the templates is easier. There are specific templates for other sources like press releases, web cites and news. Vegaswikian 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lightning references

A book by Winchester is listed in the References section of this article; however, no footnotes tie to this work. It seems the book would be better put in the Further Reading section.

Changes were recently made to the names given to the Lightning models, such as converting P.1A to P1A. Was this change in nomenclature made during the period the Lightning was in operations? If not, it seems to me the original naming would be more appropriate. Certainly, the few references I've seen to this airplane use the original names. Karl Kleimenhagen 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (over in my talk page).

Check this diff

Bill, check this diff]. - BillCJ 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

You say in edit of Avro Vulcan‎ `The term "bibliography" is not used in Wikipedia but "References" has been adopted to refer to footnotes/endnotes/sources and references` Sorry but I think you will find it is used, for example see Edward Tufte and Jan Tschichold - (Palmiped 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

BillRodgers

Thanks for reverting his mess of stuff. Still waiting on the sockpuppet case to go through. He is going through all the motions same edits and all as his large myriad of other sockpuppets [[8]] his latest case (#4 that I have filed and plenty of others added to the list by other admins) [[9]] Thanks for your time. I am now going to go through his latest slew of changes and see which ones I can add for more evidence let alone are real changes or just more uncited pov rants. --Xiahou 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

BillRodgers and an older sock of his are both blocked the sockpuppet case closed. --Xiahou 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How did the Me 262 page become affected by the F-22 edit war???

I don’t know how you and Eyrian managed it, but your revert war somehow began overwriting the Messerschmitt Me 262, alternating between that page and the F-22 Raptor article material. Check the Me 262 history. It’s weird. Maybe an admin needs to look at that as well. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to get all worked up over ... if you'll excuse the phrase, trivia. Maybe there needs to be a bot that throws out automatic "time out" flags. I'm still trying to figure out how edits on the F-22 article impacted the Me 262 article. Any ideas? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture sections

Please see my talk page. Grant | Talk 02:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Boot problems

OK, I've hacked and slashed for ya! Btw, I've never heard of the K1-100 having problems against B-29s over Japan. IIRC, B-29s flew at low-medium altitudes (5000 ft?) during 1945 (mostly for fire-bombings). - BillCJ 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a marriageable female! And I do try to stay away from politicians as much as a I can - they are pretty good at stealing my money (what they call "taxes") long-distance, I'd hate to see what they are like up close!

Our friend is right on one thing: Italian aircraft probably do get the least coverage of any of the major WWII participants. However, you're right about his learning curve, and that there doesn't seem to be one. Askari Mark (I think) mentioned something about the guy having had problems on the Italian Wiki with bad treatment by other editors. But if this is the type of editing he did there, it's no wonder he had problems! I'm not excusing the other editors' bad behavior, but it really sounds like the problems went both ways. I would be interested in finding someone who reads Italian well to check out his edits there, and see if he writes any better in his native language! I'd also like to know if any of the other specific problems (sourcing, POV, etc.) were an issue there. - BillCJ 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep my cool on this, and if it doesn't come out quite right, I'm sorry. Please don't ask for my help, and then not back up what I do - it makes me wonder why I bothered helping! You may not agree with what I did, but by editin g his work, you're sanctioning his text dumb. Without proper sourcing, we DON'T know where he got it from, and given the writing style, I'm pretty certain he didn't do the rewriting necessary to use copyrighted material that isn't in direct quotes. I have over 12 articles in sanboxes right now waiting on rewrites so they can be put in into articles, becuase I know we can't use verbaitm text from copyrighted sources. It's up to the contributor to prove they are using material legally, as I understnad WIki policy on using copyrighted sources. I'm done fighting with him on this, and I'm going to ask for admin help. Alan has been around today, so I'll ty him first. - BillCJ 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand where you are coming from on this. But if the publisher of the work sues Wiki, at least I can say I did remove it! Regardless of his AGF claims below, we are not allowed to let text remain if we doubt its origins. THat's not a preferencce issue or the like, it Legal, and Wiki policy is clear on that. But anyway, now I have someone else who is going to watch my contributions, a la your good friend Dave, and who knows where this will lead next. - BillCJ 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia: PRESUME GOOD FAITH: someone has a clue about? Well, before that i must forced to 'proof'(what?) the truth about i write, you ATLEAST should have solid evidence that i am a COPYVIOLER. If not, start to delete the whole wikiepedia, if 'Presume bad-faith' is the rule! And not, in Wiki.it i am NEVER found guilty of copyviol.

---

I think that you have asked to all, with your spamming, except the right guy, me. Well, apart the obviousely gratuitus arguments about (NN)POV (YOUR POV) i am so disgusted by your defamatory campaign, that let you with happiness to your (lack of) knowleadge. And as articles on wiki, i have sent 3 in evidence, the 1% of the total. So you can still babbling about my work, but it's not you the right guy i should answer of my 'sins'.--Stefanomencarelli 20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did someone cry for help?

Hi Bzuk, I've been monitoring this situation for a while! I've noted your numerous attempts to help our new friend in areas of grammar, references, etc., and that he appears to be taking your guidance and corrections as a personal attack instead of the constructive critisism that is intended. He is undoubtedly passionate about his contributions in a way that only Italians know how, and I admire his prolific attempts to contribute in a foreign language, but he is still required to abide by the established wiki principles that maintain its high standards. I'm sure he must realise that his command of the English language is limited, and I would imagine that like en.wiki, on it.wiki it isn't good policy to use magazine articles as references (which as he admits is due to a lack of books!?), or to express POVs. In view of these points, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't understand that he needs to accept his work will be corrected. Having "officially" made your point, I would hope that a firm but friendly note will be posted by an admin on our friend's user page which might have a beneficial effect, but in the meantime all we can do is continue as before and try to make the articles informative, accurate, understandable, readable, and sort the wheat from the chaff!--Red Sunset 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ki-61

I took a look at the Ki-61 article and I think you did a good job improving Stefanomencarelli's English. I've gone through the article wordsmithing it further down through the tech section; frankly, I think a lot of his additions were useful expansions of the article, even if it required a fair amount of clean-up work. In fact, many of the problems I saw in the article have been there a while, so having several editors go through and add, prune and edit has done it a fair amount of good.

I think the main thing we need to encourage Stefanomencarelli to work on is to identify his sources for particular information. I haven't put fact tags on anything yet, but there are a number that need to be added. Maybe if they get tagged, he can tell us which source that came from. I don't know if any of it is copyvio; certainly if it came from an Italian-language source and he translated it, it probably isn't – and by the time we've worked it over, there shouldn't be any. (If ever there was – and please don't accuse him of copyvio without evidence. It's not helpful at all.) Askari Mark (Talk) 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I was was the one who originally mentioned the "copyvio" word, I'd liek to resopsd to your last point. This was my edit summary: Reverted non-productive additions by Stefanomencarelli; large text dump is suprisingly well-written, probably copied verbatim, which is a copyvio, even with proper sourcing, I don't consider this an accusation, merely addressing the possibility. We CANNOT put copyrighted material in Wikipedia, and if there is any question, it should be removed first. I'm sorry his English was not up to understanding the differences in my usage (anotehr reason I doubt he wrote this), but I stand by my belief that he did not write or translate the bulk of the text he put in the article. If that seems harsh, I can live with that. But without proper sourcing, we cannot allow suspect text to stand. You've now rewritten it enough that we should be past that danger, and did a good job too! (You are wlecome to move this to my talk page if you'd like.) - BillCJ 04:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Bzuk Bill’s recent assessment on my talk page is probably correct. I really commend his efforts at trying to explain how we source – which doesn’t appear easy for most of our native English-speaking editors. I think we might have got him there in time, if he hadn’t been so frequently hit by accusations of copyvio by several people, but it appears moot now. Perhaps I’m too patient, having worked with many people over the years with varying degrees of fluency with English; having tried to translate from or communicate in German or Spanish, languages in which I have at least some skill, I know how frustrating it can be.

You (BillCJ Bill) may well be right that the sheer volume of material he could add so quickly does suggests copyvio may be involved. I appreciate our sensitivity to copyvio – I speedy quite a bit of it when I putter around in WP:DEAD. The thought occurred to me right off the bat as well, but since he’d already produced so much on the Italian wiki, he’d have at hand plenty of material to translate from to the level of his English skills. Of course, his Italian originals may have been problematical, which could have been behind his leaving Wikipedia.it. I don’t know.

What might be a better approach in the future would be to raise the issue on the editor’s talk page by asking if they’re simply adding copied material and noting that, if so, it’s a copyvio. Then let them respond. That’s a whole lot better than popping the accusation in an edit comment – which is a horrible place to try to communicate. Another good idea would be to try and find a bilingual editor who could help mentor them. Bzuk was heading in the right direction asking Attilios to help out. Live and learn. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, BillZ sent me an e-mail which sheds some light on the whole it.wiki situation. You two might want to work out a way for him to send it to you. It's VERY enlightening! - BillCJ 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, Bill! I would be interested in seeing what he's learned, since it would help us better understand how to treat Stef's material. BillZ, my email is turned on. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm OK now, I've been able to calm down - it's not as easy at it used to be before I hit my 30's! Anyway, I think he is wtihdrawing for now, per this notice on his user page:

So i am accused of copyvioling. Improving my english has done this result. Excellent. So i am disgusted by the manner found here as well (mainly because the 'patience' of one of the wikipedians, that has an 'Z' in his nickname), that i leave you with happiness. If not to know is best that 'to know disturbating things, well, this ambient is good enough for your desires. I wait excusations by nickanmed involved in this 'bad' story.

I'm sure that as a professional editor, you know how to see potential in the writing of others. But given his hostility towards your constructive criticism all along, I'm not sure he was willing to learn anything Whatever his problems with the Italian Wiki were, I have a feeling we've seen some, if not most, of them. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.

PS. The top 5 toughest languages to learn: English, Chinese, English, English, and English~ :) - BillCJ 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I take it you read Italian? Email has been sent - I hope you get it! It's been my experience that problem people are problems wherever they go, whatever they do. Yes, we've all been judged unfairly before, and suffered for it. But I usually take great care to watch my behavior if I get a second chance, or a new start - most reasonable people do. I've also been online for nine yars now, and spent alot of time in chatrooms, IMs, and emailing people. My gut is pretty trained and reading people by their words, and I've learned to at least pay attention to it, if not follow it. I do over-react at times - you know that from experience! - and sometimes I guess wrong, but I'm usually quick to admit it too, or at least I try to. - BillCJ 07:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wooden vandal

Bill, in case you aren't watching the de Havilland Mosquito page, you might find this edit amusing. - BillCJ 23:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

F-35 Israeli section

Bill Z, I took your edit summary about cutting out the details in Israel section in F-35 and ran with it. That might keep 'em from adding so many details. But I won't hold my breath on that. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Self awarded service badges

You might be interested to know that on 4 August 2007 at about 2.35 pm UK time I used a wiki tool to do a quick count of your edits which totalled 9205. From your archives it seems that you have more than 1 years service now, so you could update the award on your user page to the level of Yeoman Editor (or Most Excellent Grognard). Snowman 13:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Snowman, I do not know how to apply this award. If you wish you could update my page.Thanks for noticing. FWIW [:¬∆ Bzuk 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

Updated. Click on the link in the caption of the service badge and you can see the range of service badges. Snowman 14:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: your email and a subsequent tirade

This diff. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless work creating, editing and improving Wikipedia's coverage of aircraft. Snowman 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ba.64

Ciao Bzuk, good work!! Found no mistakes, I'm just doubtful about "Ba.27", as there were Ba.XX with hugher numbers by that time. I surfed the net (I've no books here in my Gaeta vacation) but found no ref. to it. Let me know and good work!! (PS: "signori" is plural... "Signor Attilio" and "Signor Bzuk" are correct) --Attilios 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested...

...in this thread on my talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) ...and [this] AN/I thread. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

SR-71

Bill, Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified. 68.244.13.195 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See SR-71 talk page for my response. Bzuk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC).