User talk:Bzuk/Archive Jan 2008

US

The recent discussion the the "F-4 phantom operators" page which you contributed to indicates that U.S. is used instead of US, but user BillCJ has changed my edits back. I have just checked the discussion on the talk page and it has not been advanced since the U.S. consensus that I was working form. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quiet, shhh. (Sorry for that this is misplaced - intentional) One of the persons objecting but then withdrawing the oppose is very specific that it be correct. Your changes are not quite correct (italics). If it does pass, I'll let you know what the differences. Ok? For now, let sleeping dogs lie. Archtransit (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. 112 Squadron RAF

G'day Bill. Could you do me a favour and have a look at No. 112 Squadron RAF, which I have just knocked together, to see if there are any howlers? :-) Cheers, Grant | Talk 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC Eurofighter Typhoon

Since BillCJ first alerted me to the situation, I've had a brief look. Since the disputes are spread across a range of articles, the RfC should be on general user conduct. To initiate the process, go here and scroll down until you find the "Create User Conduct RFC" button. Clicking it will give you a blank template with instructions. Since I'm currently trying to talk to the user in question, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to offer any further advice on this topic just now. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my edits to the Enola Gay article

Hello M. I've had to make revisions to all of your edits to this article. One of the first things to do when you come upon a new article is to read it carefully to determine how the article is "crafted." Most of the main articles in the WP:Aviation Project group use a set style guide and it is easiest to adopt that style rather than try to work in a new set of writing/organization/spelling/reference conventions. If you would like, I can provide more details as to the MoS of the group. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please provide me with more details. I notice on your discussion page that there is a lot of talk about how to format references. My understanding was to use this format:

so if a different editing convention is being used for military references, please provide me with links on my discussion page, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hooo, Boy! What a lot of reading! I think I'll keep off of the Enola Gay page for a while! Now I have a librarian friend at Columbia University and I think that he'll get a kick out of what you just gave me! On another note, I just "weighed-in" on keeping the Natalee Holloway page. It concerns me that Wikipedia editors are adamant about deleting a page, especially when there can be good material(s) gleaned from the information contained therein! Getting back to the Enola Gay story, it was interesting to read about Tibbets recently and his passing away. I "smelled" 'revisionist history' in the air being hatched when I had heard about the controvesy of the plane itself. I'll try to read and consider the materials that you gave me in my spare time, and thanks!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shhh. quiet. The 747 article is being considered for FA. There was criticism that the references were not all of the same style. One very thorough editors who objected checked and finally gave approval. The Colson ref has been changed to a different format. Consider changing it back (preferred) or shhhhh....quiet..and no more changes to the refs. Archtransit (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular sovereignty

Although I see nothing wrong with holding a survey, I do have misgivings about holding a binding straw vote of the CFD type: what do we do to get a broad sample and avoid a Lecompton Constitution type affair ala bleeding Kansas. What is the minimum turnout, what type of majority will rule a Simple majority or a Supermajority? will everyone who has taken part in the edit history be solicited or just a handful? And will outsiders and administrators be polled to gain a impartial consensus? Why do we only have the options of Keep and Remove when many want alternatives such as keep and clean, move to a separate relevant article, or other non listed options. Sorry for taking your time with such questions. Freepsbane (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the response.Freepsbane (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

F-22 Again

I'm still digesting the issues involved, but what I like about "Graptor's" comments are a clear attempt to forget about the man and examine the message. There's no question that User:Financialmodel's editing style is problematic, but what we need to be doing is to examine the actual claim. This is probably most easily done by treating his various grievances individually, and since the F-22 cost is the one he seems most vocal about at the moment, let's have a look at that first. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. And frankly B, you're the one missing the point here. I've said repeatedly that I think Financial is a bad editor, that his methods are wrong and that he's deliberately trying to be malicious. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that when he went on the attack he actually found a real, legitimate problem and hammered on it for all it was worth. Instead of pointing it out and suggesting how to fix it, he accused people of deliberate deception and bias, and demanded a very particular fix. He didn't act in good faith, trying to gain a consensus among the editors that there was a problem and then get it fixed, thus making wikipedia better... he used it purely as a launchpad for an attack on the people involved. He was deliberately trying to provoke his perceived enemies by being offensive and making demands. That's called 'trolling'. Most places people get banned for that kind of thing, and he probably will here too if he keeps it up. Problem is, a lot of people responded pretty much in kind. Trick is, all that is completely beside the point, except as regards the actual dispute between the editors and Financial's eventual punishment for his methods. The only thing he actually did that was right was to bring sources. Everything he said is useful. Most of it only for getting him punished, but some of it can actually help improved the encyclopedia.

And fact is, except for improving the encyclopedia, all that is completely beside the point. It has no relevance at all to the actual content of the article. Fact is fact, documents are documents. You've gotten so sidetracked by this one bad user that you're more worried about his actions than the point of this project, which is making a bloody encyclopedia. And frankly if the troll manages to provide some stuff that's useful for that purpose...well take it and run with it instead of discarding it out of hand because of who brought it up.

Simple fact is, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. We're interested in fact, not opinions. He went about it wrong yes, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS a problem which WILL cause people to come away with inaccurate information. He blew it completely out of proportion but it is there. He even provided links to all sorts of documents which will really help the legitimate editors in fixing the problem. Unusually kind for a troll.

Simple fact is, I don't care two cents about Financial. He's probably going to get banned or end up in self imposed exile if he doesn't change his ways, and that's great. But what I'm worried about here is the article itself. That's what's really important, not one guy that thinks he's right about everything.

And finally, my IP is dynamic, don't count on me seeing comments on 'my' talk page.

-Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. In that case, good luck with that. Everything I've seen suggests he is exactly what you say, disruptive. By all means, get him sorted or gone.

There's an expression I once heard, 'Always hide a lie inside a truth, makes it easier to swallow.' It's very true, and it's very similar to what he did. All I've been trying to say is 'the true part of it is still useful, so don't just ignore it because it was used maliciously'. I do think the situation could've been handled better, specifically if the other people involved had defused the bomb instead of walking into by being reasonable. It's hard to take the martyr approach when nobody's 'oppressing' you. If you keep it up after that you just look like an ass, and that's probably what he would've done. In which case he might've been gone already. Without a legitimate point to stand on he's got nothing but pure vandalism to fall back on.

As for joining...well I've been around sporadically for years and years and years, but that's just it, sporadically. More of a lurker that pops up when he feels the need to interject something. Have to admit I've seen a number of things I didn't like that kinda made me not want to get too personally involved either. -Graptor 66.42.151.80 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by

Sent to your @shaw address. Hope that is the correct one.Downtrip (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So, any thoughts on the Do-17?

The more I read the history, the more I'm convinced that the "standard story" is at least in large part true. IE, it was originally ordered for Lufthansa and then later converted as a bomber. Certainly it's possible that the specifics of the story could be a cover, in that they had wanted a bomber design from late '33 as the article now reads. But even if that is the case , then it was still ordered as a civilian design. Which is what Green and practically everyone else said too.

I have the weekend off (kid's at her grandmas) so I'm planning a trip over to the Reference Library. I'll be looking for the Air Enthusiast issue, do you have any other refs I should check out while I'm there?

Maury (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those Typos

Sorry about all the typos; I've been spending so much time on computers my eyes and fingers are crossed. I hope you and your family have a great Christmas and a fantastic New Year. Regards from New Zealand. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Seasons Tidings

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Bzuk/Archive Jan 2008. Have a Happy New Year !

^{Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)}

FWIMC Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks for Aviation Barnstar award. That's a nice piece of work. Happy Holidays to you and yours! -Fnlayson (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award, and happy holidays! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too - have a great holiday season, Bill! - Ahunt (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the award and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you (I'll be flying between the Nordic countries a couple of times so I'll be in the right element here ;) --MoRsE (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation - best wishes. MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Bill, a nice surprise to wake up to. Off shopping with No2 daughter now, why do I leave it so late?!!! Cheers and a very merry Christmas. Nimbus227 (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta!

Thanks Bzuk! Season's best to you :) 08:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your private Barnstar!

That's a very kind gesture - thanks a lot! Here's wishing you a Merry Christmas and a happy and productive New Year! --TraceyR (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. You've brightened-up my day Bill – most kind! --Red Sunset 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the make, model, year made, date of photo, and serial number of that yellow plane, and where was the photo taken? Snowman (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill! Compliments of the season to you and yours! (it's already Christmas morning here in Australia and promising to be a scorching hot day!) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it as well, Bill! <Salute> --Born2flie (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for mine as well! Let's hope there's less flak-filled skies and more good flying weather in the year ahead. Merry Christmas and a richly blessed New Year to you and yours! Askari Mark (Talk) 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for mine also! I wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy "thumbs up!" New Year!--EH101 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mine too Bill, and I hope you have had a good Christmas over in the antipodes (well it is the antipodes from my point of view). I don't know where Rlandmann was, but it wasn't in Sydney. We had a "cold" Christmas Day, it couldn't have been much more than 20°C, I was at work yesterday and had to wear a jumper last night. Best regards and thanks again for the Barnstar. YSSYguy (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be in good company, thanks Bill! It is appreciated.Nick Thorne ^talk 12:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wunnerful Life-a

Okay, okay. :-D –TashTish (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bzuk: "… although listed as a deputy in the script, many other sources call him a Sheriff and the two others are listed as reporters but it is clear one is a photographer, George calls out 'reporters.'"

Really? The script I have says "Sheriff," as does IMDb. –TashTish (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bell

Thanks for the comment. "his role in developing the technology and scientific concepts underlying the communication device is not in dispute". It clear is in dispute though:

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/T/TECHBIT_BELL_BOOK

Cheers Macgruder (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Either have an intelligent discussion or please don't bother.

You state that Meucci's invention was a tin can on a string: do you have a citation for that? Reads POV.

You also state "The wholly spurious legislation introduced by a decidely biased representative did not come close to establishing this claim." Do you have a citation for that? To me it's your POV.

The actual legislation is what counts http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107gm7Jv1::

Quote from http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,738675,00.html ( <--- Citation )

"Forced to make new prototype telephones after Ester sold his machines for $6 to a secondhand shop, his models became more sophisticated. An inductor formed around an iron core in the shape of a cylinder was a technique so sophisticated that it was used decades later for long-distance connections.

Meucci could not afford the $250 needed for a definitive patent for his "talking telegraph" so in 1871 filed a one-year renewable notice of an impending patent. Three years later he could not even afford the $10 to renew it.

He sent a model and technical details to the Western Union telegraph company but failed to win a meeting with executives. When he asked for his materials to be returned, in 1874, he was told they had been lost. Two years later Bell, who shared a laboratory with Meucci, filed a patent for a telephone, became a celebrity and made a lucrative deal with Western Union.

Meucci sued and was nearing victory - the supreme court agreed to hear the case and fraud charges were initiated against Bell - when the Florentine died in 1889. The legal action died with him."

Wikipedia depends on NPOV, citations and sources, and reading through the comments and based on your approach to this discussion (don't agree = spurious, conspiracy theory, etc.), I am afraid that I see precious little of that so far.

Cheers, Macgruder (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Take the time and read the edit history of the Bell article and note all the use of reference sources. I do not wish to revisit the Meucci claims. It is clear in the reference note: Bruce 1990, p. 271-272. Note: Meucci had a "tin-can on a string" telephone that could never have been patented as it was not an original invention. Bell's lawyer, William Sorrow later wrote: "Meucci is the silliest and weakest imposter who has ever turned up against the patent." "

You do know the Wikipedia rule No original research right.

... [no] synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

What you have given me is the viewpoints of two authors, and Bell's lawyer (WTF!) . You also have as further reading "Coe, Lewis. The Telephone and Its Several Inventors: A History. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland Publishing, 1995". In other words, your own footnotes state that different authors have differing views. As a Wikipedian you report these viewpoints, you do not determine which one is correct or 'synthesize' to promote a viewpoint. (given that the page already has these I'm assuming that these are respected authors). The only thing that I do know is that it is a fact that the invention is disputed. Who is correct I have no idea. I don't care. Report the dispute. Leave it at that. Macgruder (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A.G. Bell summary

It seems that you are a big contributer to the Bell article. Thats great, thanks for all the hard work.

I noticed that you removed the note about the contention around invention claims. Why? The contention is relevant when stating Bell as the inventor (info box). Also, it would be nice if in your edit note had mentioned this change, or perhaps split into separate edits.

I also feel that "stilled their ringing for a silent minute in tribute to the man whose yearning to communicate made them possible" is too emotive to be appropriate. Can you tell me what this direct quote adds other than emotion? I think we should try to be clinical.

Thanks, Andy (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

F-104G image

Thanks Bill, that image is from the USAF museum archive, I have added the source but strangely don't remember being asked for it when I uploaded it. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the same editor has failed the F-104 GA nomination and effectively branded it a load of rubbish, I am not impressed, comments are invited at WP:AIR. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He even remarked about it not having the ELs at the bottom, even tho his attempt to have his vstyle forced on us by MOS is falling flat. It may be time to consider an RFC or something against him. He has asprirations of becoming an admin, but is already behaving as if he is one! I will comment on this at WT:AIR when the topic is started. - BillCJ (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Bzuk barnstar! It's a different shape/size but ok. After all, planes come in all sizes, why not barnstars? Speaking of sizes, people sometimes call the 737 small. They don't know what small is! Archtransit (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Bill, Thank you very much for the Christmas Barnstar. Actually, the best present I got this Christmas!! Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Generation "Vandalism"

I thought whenever an anonymous IP removes material that has been around for a while without any discussion it's called vandalism here. I have seen countless incidents where that is what it is called.Downtrip (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the Barnstar

And a Happy New Year for '08, Live Long and Prosper. Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)