User talk:Bzuk/Archive Aug 2007

F-104

You replaced the following text which I had removed from the article: "A commonplace joke in Germany was that the cheapest way of obtaining a Starfighter was to buy a small patch of land and simply wait." Do you honestly think this is a worthwhile thing to have in the article? Even if it can be referenced? --John 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am very well aware of the {{fact}} tag and would certainly have used it if I had thought the material I removed had any encyclopedic value. As it was, I didn't. However, as you do, it can sit there for a month or two looking poor and then either be referenced and form the nucleus of one of these dreadful "In popular culture" sections or else be deleted. I was just trying to fast-track the process. --John 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Vickers Valetta.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Vickers valetta.jpg. The copy called Image:Vickers valetta.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Elsie MacGill

Hi Bzuk, thanks for your helpful additions and improvement of the article. I have responded on the talk page, but essentially, I think the article satisfies the GA criteria, and I will pass it, unless you have some reservations about doing so. I like the plane images and comic you added, but I think that they might be a bit overkill at their current locations in the article. I suggested moving the airplane images down into a gallery, let me know if this is reasonable? I think that the comic could probably stay in the main body though, since it is directly about MacGill. Thanks again, best--DO11.10 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Avro_Arrow_rollout.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avro_Arrow_rollout.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [[1]] [[2]][[3]] 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)

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).

AE

[4]. 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. [[5]]--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)

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 [[6]] his latest case (#4 that I have filed and plenty of others added to the list by other admins) [[7]] 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).

Viceroy article

The image needs to be used in an article, so I'm going to put it in the Viceroy article. --Born2flie 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I put the image in the article and also added the fair-use rationale to the image. I just added the image to the Specifications section since it had a lot of white space. It might need to be sized to 250px on the width to make it fit the article more. --Born2flie 20:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re.2001 etc

Hi Bzuk - while I'm very sympathetic to your frustration, I just thought I'd question this major edit under circumstances when you knew that it would probably meet with "some" resistance. When removing so much text, it might have been more helpful to take it out a piece at a time, in each case explaining the specific problem. If it was the poor English, then maybe you could have moved it to the talk page pending re-writing and re-inserting? I'll admit that I still don't know why such a major cut was necessary, let alone the original contributor (who as we know was already feeling aggrieved). I'm quite certain that you were acting in good faith, but I think that basically, so was he. In such situations, I think we really need to go the extra mile to point to specific issues in the edit summary, even if this means making six small cuts instead of one big one. If I get time in the next few days, I might fix up some of the material and re-instate it, unless you were already planning to do so? --Rlandmann 19:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I think we're talking about two different things? I meant the first edit that you made that removed the (long, maybe overlong) technical description and the (misplaced, maybe over-detailed) description of variants, along with the citation that he had provided? (compare the versions in the link to the diff I posted above).

I'm well aware that it wasn't you that reverted Stefano's revert, but Akradecki, but I don't know what you mean about his "very telling comment" - he just said "Reverted edits by Stefanomencarelli to last version by Bzuk".

Basically, I'm just trying to work out what specifically you felt was wrong with the material (apart from the terrible English); and gently suggesting that whatever the problem was, it could have been pointed out with a little more transparency both to Stefanomencarelli and to the community as a whole (since, like I say, I'm still puzzled by it!) :)

If you feel it's more pertinent, please transplant this discussion to the Re.2001 talk page, and we can pick it up there --Rlandmann 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem - but it would be really nice if you could make that apology on his talk page as well. :) --Rlandmann 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Curtiss Falcon

Why did you think the reference style needed to be changed in Curtiss Falcon? By changing them around they now seem harder to follow, and you introduced a couple of errors into them. I'm just curious, I'm still trying to determine the best way to present the information. --Colputt 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The pp.1152 & pp.596 are the number of pages in the tomes, not the page the data was on. So which style was I using? I picked the style by what seems to be most prevalent in the other articles in the Aviation Project. I haven't studied footnoting as a subject. This style seems to add extra lines in the references section that IMO don't add to the utility of the section. I do like it when people copyedit the stuff I write, it helps me see my mistakes and hopefully helps me make less mistakes later. So thanks. --Colputt 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

References question

Do references listed manually in a References section mean anything if there is no footnote mentioning them? They don't serve as a general reference, right? I've seen a few short wiki pages list web page or something as a general reference for the article. Reply here when you get a chance. Thanks... -Fnlayson 01:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, what I have found is a number of articles where the references list wasn't used to generate end/footnotes yet it was obvious that the individual references were used in order to create the article. That is in contrast with the section "Further reading" which mainly lists examples of materials that would enhance the information presented. FWIW Bzuk 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks. But I was really asking about the way it is supposed to be done. General references don't work too well here. Somebody can come along and add text from another source without citing it and mess things up. -Fnlayson 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the differences between how things are supposed to work and what actually goes on in Wikipedia is immense. Generally speaking, if I write an article, I utilize reference sources (normally first-person accounts would predominate, but not in Wikipedia where original research is not accepted), working from the most substantive or authoritative works. If I relate or work from these sources without having to correlate dates, events or people, then, the passages may or may not reflect the data I am using. However, it is normally an accepted dictum in writing to establish the "framework" of a non-fiction piece in a carefully directed manner, using quotes, footnotes/endnotes and supporting documentation. At the very least, a detailed bibliographical record should be provided to corroborate the context, tone or direction of the writing. FWIW Bzuk 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

C.202 Technical features

You're quite right Bill, it doesn't appear to add up. The first para states that "the project was simple, robust and small, utilizing a conventional structure design." The following para mentions that "the wing and fuselage structures were of a conventional metal design", and then in the 4th para we get the first indication that the C.202 originally had a wooden structure which was replaced by one of metal, and is now described as being complex!

However, I can understand how the design could utilise simple conventional engineering principles, and at the same time be complex in form and therefore difficult to mass produce. I think that because there has been a lot of editing on this topic (for one reason or another but mainly to make sense of some of the contributions...'nuff said), information has either been misinterpreted or mixed up along the way. I guess I'm as guilty as anyone by concentrating on each paragraph at a time instead of stepping back a little to see the bigger picture, and hadn't noticed the apparent contrdictions. In due course I'll check back through the edit history in an attempt to see where things have gone awry.

I haven't as yet read the second half of this section properly, but my initial reaction to a quick scan was that there seems to be a lot of related information here that doesn't necessarily improve the article. -- Red Sunset 08:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

C.205 Technical features (this time!)

Thanks Bill, I see that you've recently received a visit from Snowman too, so again congratulations are in order. (There should be a Barnstar for "patience beyond the call of duty"!)

I've created a table of the relative performance and characteristics figures of the C.205V, N1, and N2 on my talk page (some of which don't match those in the specs section; note posted on discussion page) with the idea that it may be a neater way of displaying the information with a reduction in wordage. Unfortunately the table doesn't cover the width of the page, and I haven't found a way of incorporating it so that text fills the gap at the side to keep it tidy. Any thoughts on how it's done? -- Red Sunset 12:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Me 262 kills

Bill, do you know anyone can contact for info about the correct number of kills by Me 262s? There seems to be two contradictory source streams, one of which claims over 100, and the claims 735 (plus 10 by Me 163s). I'd like to find a definitve, researched source to end this argument, but have no clue where to look. Any thoughts/ideas? - BillCJ 19:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill, take your time. If the museum doesn't have anything, maybe they'll know someone they can contact who will, perhaps in Germany. - BillCJ 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hughes H-4 Hercules

Mind explaining why you reverted my edit here? What does "non productive edit- that was an improvement?" mean? Do you revert good-faith edits by habit? Do you think that it's better to link to [flying boats] rather than [flying boat]s? Stevage 05:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Macchi C.202 & CF-105 Arrow

Hi Bill, I'd be interested to know how your references disagree with the information in several sections of the Macchi C.202 article as there's little point in doing any further work on it until this has been addressed. Can you find further reputable sources to back your findings up so that they can be incorporated into the article?

Secondly, regarding the "Arrow" article, I refer to the following text:

"Use of a rudimentary fly-by-wire system resulted in the problem of the lack of control "feel" for the pilot, and to solve this, the control stick input was "disconnected" from the hydraulic system. The pilot's input was sensed by a series of force-sensitve transducers in the stick, and their signal was sent to an electronic control servo that operated the valves on the hydraulic system to move the various flight controls. In addition, the same box fed pressure back into actuators in the stick itself, making it move. This happened quickly enough that it appeared as if the pilot were moving the stick directly."

• Disconnecting the control stick from the hydraulic system doesn't resolve the lack of control "feel", but is actually the cause of it.
• The induced "feed-back" movement of the stick would appear as though it was back-pressure from the flight control surfaces that was responsible, not the pilot moving it directly.

I don't know who made this contribution, but as you are preparing this article for GA status, I thought that you'd be the best person to point these observations out to. I've made a few tweaks mainly in addressing the points brought up by the reviewer, and hope that they are satisfactory. Good luck with the next submission! (BTW, does "jumping the shark" mean avoiding a tricky situation; one that might bite back?) -- Red Sunset 20:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at the article and do a bit of massaging. As to the C.202 diffs, it revolves around the groups sent to Libya. All my sources list the same units but the article introduces a new unit. As well, the date of the first combat is different. "Jumping the shartk"?- check your talk page. FWIW Bzuk 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

reverting

Just a heads-up: only bad-faith edits should be reverted. Cheers, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

THat does not apply to one's user page, just to editing the pages of other users or article talk pages. - BillCJ 00:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fair; sorry if I went overboard Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BillZ, my response to your query is on my page. - BillCJ 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Opus saga...

I have blocked Opus for his recent edits. Sadly, I'm not sure this will result in any lasting changes, based on the way these sorts of things have gone on in the past. We'll know next login, I guess. Maury 03:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[8] was the last straw. Perm blocked. Maury 12:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Date stuff

I saw that you changed some of the dates. Please note that wikilinked dates will automatically format to your personal preferences. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BUT, Wikified dates are adjusted to user preferences. For example (check the code if you doubt it):

[[12 August]] [[2007]] shows as 12 August 2007

[[August 12]] [[2007]] shows as August 12 2007

[[2007-08-12]] shows as 2007-08-12

So, changing them is really pointless, IMHO. Please note, this does not apply to unregistered users and they get whatever is the default. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, your call. I was just trying to save you the effort. It seems to me that it some overseas folks can't read it properly or it is confusing, then they should adjust their user preferences instead of people rewriting several hundred articles. If you want to, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you, I just think it is a waste of time (don't forget all of the references too...). — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bristol Jupiter Fighter

Bill,

You recently edited the specs for the Bristol Jupiter Fighter article, adding some additional range and ceiling values in addition to the ones that were already there - these changes do not seem to have worked as the original specs are still displayed and the new ones don't show. Also, what is the source of this revised data? None of my sources (i.e. Barnes, C.H. Bristol Aircraft Since 1910, First Edition London: Putnam, 1964 and Jackson, A.J. British Civil Aircraft since 1919 Volume 1. London: Putnam, 1974. ISBN 0-370-10006-9) seem to suggest that the range could be anywhere near this high - and also are consistent about the power of the de-rated engines. Nigel Ish 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)