User talk:Bzuk/Archive Jun 2007

DYK

On 16 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percival P.74, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we both hit a WYK within a day of each other! Congrats. Maury 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

AG Bell Historical Revisionism?

Why do you keep changing the sentence referring to the controversy over the invention of the telephone by writing, "Other claimants for the honour have also come forward."?

First of all, "claimants" is usually used in a legal sense, but no one is legally challenging the patents now, as they have long since expired. The controversy is an academic one, not a legal one.

Second, the antecedent is not entirely clear. For what honor have they come forward? For the honor of claiming a patent?

In contrast, the sentence, "There is some controversy over who deserves credit for the invention." alludes to the historical controversy, which is undeniable, without taking sides on the dispute. What is possible preferable about your sentence?

Penser 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)penser[reply]

Vulcan

Thanks for your message, I hadn't realised it was a consensus. I suppose I get used to trimming these trivia/popular culture sections, as you know they can so easily get out of hand. Best wishes, --Guinnog 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:A-36A color.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:A-36A color.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Strangerer (Talk) 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These images have the same problem:

--Strangerer (Talk) 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:A-36A.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A-36A.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:P-51D Tika IV.jpg. The copy called Image:P-51D Tika IV.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 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our mutual friend

Take a peek at this. Were you aware of any of this history? Ronnotel 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A-36 A Training Unit.jpg

Here is another image with no licensing information. Image:A-36 A Training Unit.jpg --Strangerer (Talk) 11:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Avro

My trudge through the missing aircraft will be reaching Avro in the next few days - I'd love you to jump in and give me a hand filling in some of the gaps for this manufacturer! --Rlandmann 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Battle of Britain

Hi Bzuk

I contest the changes made to the end date on the BOB article. I know Churchill considers this to be the case, but he was not a military man but a politician. I would say that Saundby's and Taylor's arguement for the 31 October would carry more weight than Churchill's. The ending of major daylight raids on the 15th Sept' did not end the Battle, it was to continue through the Blitz. To suggest the Battle ended on 15th Sept is to suggest that the Blitz was not a part of it at all. The Germans had every intention of invading Britain until Directive 21. The Battle of Britain was officially, at least, was still on until this date.Dapi89 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Perhaps you have confused me for another editor, Colonel Warden who is a new contributor. I have made no changes to the date and support the contention that the Battle raged on into autumn 1940 as raids continued, albeit of a lesser magnitude. I will post your query on this editor's website discussion page. Bzuk 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bzuk. Yes that is strange. I'm perhaps innocent (or stupid) enough to think that everyone is on wikipedia to make it a better site, that's why I gave him such lengthy replies. Perhaps the user is just doing it to be awkward. I've only ever had one run-in with a user before, I hoped that would be the last. I hope this doesn't continue and that the debate is settled....but it probably isn't. I did have a look on W.Churchill's article and he/she hasn't made any contributions that I could see.Dapi89 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is another idiot loose on the BOB page. They keep deleting the 'locked' icon. Having looked at this persons user history they have done it to about ten other pages. Is there anything we can do?Dapi89 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hawker_Typhoon_in_wartime_photograph.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot ramming information in Corsair F4U discussion page

Just a quick note of thanks for this engrossing information! --Edwin Herdman 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:DH Mosquito bomber.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

James Stewart (actor)

i'm not sure i'm clear on your objections the changes i've made. 1) the edits made by 203.218.128.195 (talk · contribs) placing nominations in the infobox is wrong per template:infobox actor. 2) how is alphabetising the defaultsort cats controversial? let's not allow this to go pear-shaped here. --emerson7 | Talk 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect, one word? what wiki concept do you premise that on? --emerson7 | Talk 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect--and really mean it, i don't want this to get blown into something, but your one word doctrine is sorely flawed and completely ignores a halve dozen other wiki-concepts. ...and you really haven't defined the controversial nature of my good faith edits, other than to say 'someone might be offended.' and speaking of WP:AGF, wouldn't it have been better, and isn't it required to dialog about it before reverting? --emerson7 | Talk 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just so that i'm clear on your position....you believe that if changes are made to an article that are clearly contrary to guidelines or standards, where the guidelines or standards are explicit and pro forma, and have previously been discussed on several occasions in various forums....you believe additional dialogue is required to deal with those changes? --emerson7 | Talk 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: F-111 in Australian popular culture

Could I suggest expanding a little on the note in General Dynamics F-111 on the Cold Chisel song to include some words that better tie-in how it reflects "Australia's fascination with the F-111"? (Such fascination is apparently known only in Australia.) That might help make it less deletion-prone. Just a suggestion. Cheers, mate! Askari Mark (Talk) 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I concur, and was considering asking that myself. We do have editors from Australia who frequent the F-111 page, so we probably ought to post this there if you don't have good sources on this already. - BillCJ 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dam Busters (film)/Avro Lincolns

I've done a little digging on this and put the results on the Talk page. See what you think. Nick Cooper 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairey Gyrodyne

I note that you are writing an article about this aircraft. In case you are not aware of this reference, have a look at Test Flying memorial site for details of a fatal crash of the Gyrodyne in 1949. TraceyR 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Stirling

Hi, and thanks for the offer of the DVD of the Stirling video. Yes, please send a copy. I wasn't aware that such things were made during wartime - it will be fascinating. My father flew Stirling IIIs for No. 75 Squadron RAF/RNZAF, so it will have personal value too. TraceyR 07:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barkley-Grow T8P-1

Added this today as I plod through "B" - with three extant in Canadian museums, I wonder if you have a pic amongst your collection? Cheers --Rlandmann 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Canadair CL-44

Bill, could you check an editor's comments at Talk:Canadair CL-44#Rather sizeable error of fact...? Thanks. (Asking just in case you havne't seen it yet) - BillCJ 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page on Lester B. Pearson

It was to do with an edit war over what two different editors were discussing. I don't recall what they were trying to change but my watchlist had prime ministers popping up a lot. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea King

Bill, I've been working on spinning off variants of the H-3 Sea King to their own pages for better coverage. I've already done the Sikorsky S-61R page (with help from several editors), which very little content at all in the main page. I'm in the process of doing a page for the civil versions of the S-61 at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-61. I've also been ruminating over splitting off the CH-124 to its own page. THere is a large section on the CH-124 in the article thats somewhat overwhlming. I split off the CH-149 from the EH101 page several months ago for the same reasons. I just wanted to get your thoughts on this, if you believe there is enough content to make a good article on the CH-124. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dashes

Hi Bill, I apologise if my tone was a little terse. Anyway, my point is that there are different styles of dash use that are acceptable on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dashes)#Dash_guidelines_for_Wikipedia_editors. Personally I use spaced em dashes ( — ) and avoid en dashes ( – ), simply because that is the style I've been taught. Alos, en dashes are a little too close to hyphens for my liking. Regards, Grant | Talk 03:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, you are right (as you said on Grant's talk page) that the most recent edition of the Chicago Manual of Style calls for en dash to separate numbers as in Notre Dame beat Miami 31–30 and The Supreme Court voted 5–4 to uphold the decision but please be aware that almost nobody outside the University of Chicago agrees with this most recent revised change in the standard. I don't think you'll find a major U.S. newspaper that uses anything but the ordinary hyphen for those two contexts. As for actual ranges, the en dash is preferred, and you will find the great majority of Wikipedia articles about dead persons use an en dash in the very first sentence, between the dates (or years) of birth and death. Kindly provide a link on my talk page to a Wikipedia page that deprecates the use of en dashes for ranges of time and amount, or deprecates the use of em dashes to indicate an abrupt change of thought.

Respectfully, Anomalocaris 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat and Fw 190

Bill, can you check this Talk:F8F Bearcat#Fw 190 thread, and see if you can help? Thanks. - BillCJ 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bill! Great work. - BillCJ 05:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]