User talk:Ericg/archives/2005/Nov-Dec

I noticed that you had been removing some vandalism and you are not a member of Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit You might want to join it. Also there is a bot that finds vandalism the bot is in #wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode.net

By the way if you join you will be the 100th member --Adam1213 Talk + 08:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the Wikiwings! The article was long overdue -- I'm glad someone read and enjoyed it. :) Emt147 04:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikiwings2.png

I really like the image, is it possible for you to ceare a different image that looks somewhat like this one?

Basicaly the design would be almost identical with white/blue wings and the wikimedia logo in the core. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Cub Clean Up

Thanks for the cleanup. I'm still new to the layout language that WP uses, but is there any way to keep the smaller dimensions and centered nature of the previous box?

The main pages I'm planning on are the ones listed in this box, depending. For example, the Taylor G-2 is really a single F-2 with a different engine; I'm also not planning separate pages for J-3C vs. J-3L. However, J-5 vs. PA-12 might require spearate pages. I haven't worked that far ahead yet. The military designations are going to need a lot of work, but I'm intending to concentrate on the civil designations first.

Also, I've asked for comments on the Talk:Piper J-3 page about moving the current contents of that page to Piper Cub and developing the J-3 page into a page all about that specific model. Any and all input is welcome. McNeight 01:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'single F-2' is meant to be a reference to the number of aircraft modified to become the G-2. I think it will be important to show the entire sequence of aircraft from E-2 to J-3 to display the development that made the J-3, but you are correct in that not every aircraft requires it's own page. I'm still working on the sorting out of which versions do and why. McNeight 01:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I live

Hey Eric- I'm alive, just too busy to make much in the way of contributions. I am going to dive back into the Catalina article when time allows in January. How have things been? Drop me a line when time allows. Fernando Rizo 23:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

747-8

Thanks for your vote regarding the section split proposal. Mark83 13:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inline text specifications

Why did you pull the specifications out of the infobox in the R6V Constitution article and put it back inline with the text? Plenty of articles have the specifications in an infobox like that (F-94 Starfire, P-80 Shooting Star...), and frankly I think it looks better. "Be bold...but don't be reckless." Willy Logan 15:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see where this is coming from now. Navigating the talk pages at WP:Air is cumbersome; it would be great if someone summarized the results of these discussions as "unofficial policy", or something of that ilk. Willy Logan 05:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]