Jump to content

User talk:RuthAS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, RuthAS! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ww2censor 17:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Aircraft articles

[edit]

Hi Ruth: No problem at all. You may want to try creating new your new aircraft articles by using the aircraft article creator at Template:WPAVIATION creator. It makes a page with all the templates and such already on it - you just have to add the text and images to it and save it. I created the Blue Yonder EZ Flyer article with that recently - it really does save some time! - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually pretty easy to use. If you have any problems with it let me know - I didn't make up the templates, but I have successfully used them. Incidentally you can try it out anytime you like - it doesn't save the page when you hit the create button, it just makes it and then you have to save it. So you can do one for practice, just don't save it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starck AS.70

[edit]

Nice to see you back and creating new French aircraft articles! Thanks for your note - I am still working on fixing the specs - should have it done soon here! - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I have them working now! That is a good template, it just isn't very "damage tolerant"! - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all - you had lots of good info there, it was a just a bit of formating needed! Glad that I could help out, Wikipedia works best in a collaborative manner! - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Global Explorer

[edit]

Thanks for your note, but it looks like Nigel Ish gets up earlier than I do and already fixed it! No problem, if another one gives you trouble please do just drop me a note again! - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Plan PF.204 Busard

[edit]

Thanks for your note! It looks like User:Rlandmann beat me to it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gazda Helicospeeder

[edit]

I know, it is like being stalked, isn't it? We call it collaboration, though! - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I thought it was a great article subject, though. I have been working on obscure two stroke aircraft engines (New Year's resolution in support of the engine project) and I have to get back to writing new aircraft type articles instead now. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky R-6 Hoverfly II

[edit]

No problem, the longer you hang around Wikipedia the more tricks you pick up! Good article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos on Commons

[edit]

Thanks for your note. No problem, it looks like most (for instance File:Cierva C.30a G-ACUU Rearsby 02.06.51 edited-5.jpg) are missing their licencing information. It looks like most of your others, like File:Burnelli CBY-3 N17N NEAM BDL 09.06.05R edited-2.jpg are under a CC 3.0 unported licence. If your intention was that they all be under that licence it is just a matter of adding the licencing to the files missing it. Even if they do get deleted you still have the originals so they can be re-uploaded if need by. That shouldn't be necessary, though, if you can indicate your licencing then I should be able to help you get it straightened out. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have responded to him on his page on Commons - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let me go through the ones indicated as unlicenced and add the licences and remove the tags. - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As explained on his talk page I have checked all the images and you had in fact attributed and licenced every one correctly. I removed the tags and asked him to explain what this was all about. I didn't watch the images, so do let me know if you have any more trouble in this regard. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. No problem - you do great work and it needs to be preserved! I am not clear if he is just misinformed or just a troll, but let me know if this reoccurs. Incidentally I happen to be English, too, I just live in Canada. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross channel collisions

[edit]

Morning RuthAS: I've replied to your note on my page.TSRL (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custer Channel Wings

[edit]

Good morning, thanks for your note. I found them both posted on the Aircraft Project "new articles list". We have had cases before where two editors have created different articles on the same aircraft type at the same time and usually we end up merging them, but in looking at the two in this case, I thought yours was a good overview of the series, while TSRL's was about one type, so I think both should be kept. I just flitched your photos for his unillustrated article! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your second note! I did read your conversation with TSRL, and I agree with you both on all counts. The only thing missing, I believe, is a nav box to tie all the related subjects together, so I will make one up here and put it on all the related articles. You should see it in a few minutes. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the nav box is installed on all the articles related to Custer now Template:Custer Channel Wing Corporation. Nav boxes are actually very easy to make. If you click on "edit" for that one you can see the formatting. If you wanted to make one you just copy the code for this one into a new location and then change the article names and list titles as required. Or, of course, if you see a need for a nav box you can always drop me a note and I'll make one up! They are a great way to tie together a series of articles, as in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the CCW-1 and 2 redlinks: that makes sense if there isn't much more info available. In that case I'll link those redlinks in the navbox to your article then. Now all we need is someone to write an article about the company itself (hint!) - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that will do fine!! You wouldn't believe what it took for me to fill all the redlinks at Template:Fisher Flying Products !!! - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat, when you get it done just post a note on the new aircraft articles list and I'll have a look at it! - Ahunt (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note on your new article Custer Channel Wing Corporation. It looks great! Good work! - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the same subject: did you see this archived website? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahunt (talk • contribs)
Who said that?!! Mr Hunt is slipping! I have added a little tweak or two to the article, what happened in the museum, looks a bit derelict? Ruth, I notice your talk page is getting quite long, would you like me to set up an archive for you? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

[edit]

Hi Ruth, yes I certainly worked on some classics (although we didn't think that at the time!), quite weird to see most of them in museums now!! I have archived this page up to December 2009, the link to the archive page is at the top right. I can archive the WP welcome message as well and you could have a header like the one on my talk page if you like? I added a search box so that you can easily find keywords in the archive. Have left the post with the aviation creator at the top of this page so that you can find it easily. You might like to start a level 2 header on your user page for useful links, I have one called 'Tools'. If any of this is too much just shout and I can change it back.

I thought that museum did not look quite right! The Fleet Air Arm Museum has a hangar full of goodies that they only open twice a year, the Science Museum has even more stuff stored at Wroughton. All the best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that we have been to the Halton Moth club rally, I last went in 2008 when we were part of the 'Tiger Nine' display team, we still are part of the team but the calendar is much reduced this year (it's a big struggle to get nine Tigers in the air at once!). Ours is a Morris built Tiger with a very interesting history, I researched it back to 1944. There is even a category for it on Commons that someone created ([1]) and other parts of it appear in some aircraft component articles!! ((see Cabane strut and Flying wires). It's lurking in the background at Stagger (aviation), 'Foxtrot Mike' is far shinier!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuport IV

[edit]

Thank you for your note on this interesting aircraft! No problem I was quickly able to fix it - the last closing parameters were missing (mostly the double curly brackets). Do drop me a note if the template gives you any further worries! - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as long as you list them on the new aircraft articles page I will normally go through and clean up any unneeded parameters! Incidentally you are doing a great job on these articles - the coverage you are giving to these rare French aircraft types is indispensable! - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwings

[edit]
Wikiwings
For all the little-known and seldom-seen aircraft types you know about, and share with us all. Keep up the good work! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, RuthAS. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aircraft infobox images

[edit]

Hi Ruth, I don't know if you are aware but many of your recent edits to aircraft infoboxes are going against the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Images. We are trying to show all the aircraft in flight when an image is available. A point not mentioned in that guideline is that you are also replacing modern colour digital images with period 35 mm film images where the enlarged resolution will not be so good. Personally I like period images in articles but I would reserve them for the body of an article and in the relevant section, using the best available image in the infobox. Forgive me but as a keen amateur photographer like yourself I couldn't help but notice. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SECAT S-5

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SCAL

[edit]

Evening RuthAS, I've just tidied up a couple of external links in your new article on SCAL. Having trouble with Aviafrance, though; they don't seem to know about SCAL. However, under Bassou they have a similar looking machine called the Bassou FB.31 Rubis. What did you find? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This :FB.3 in flight is also rather splendid!
I've added the clip and two more refs. The Flight piece puts F-APDT in the UK in 9/36; the CAA doc registers G-AFCD with WL Lewis as owner in 5/38. Slightly hazy about the intervening period, as the names and dates in flight and AJJ differ. Interesting to see the Flight image shows "SCAL" on the tail, supporting your trust in AJJ. For now, I've removed the aviafrance link, since it showed (as FB.31) an aircraft with a radial engine, not the flat Menguin of the FB.30. However, the Salmson powered FB.31 did exist and was still flying in 1954 (Flight 1/10/54 p.514). The reg (F-PFOL) and type FB.31.02 suggest this was not the first aircraft re-engined, perhaps? The installation of the Salsmon seems to have been done much earlier (Flight 26/11/36 p.576). If you believe aviafrance, the FB.31 has exactly the same weights, dimensions and speed as AJJ reports for the FB.30.
So maybe there were three SCAL aircraft types; do you want to blend this in? TSRL (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
F-PFOL appears in the French DGAC reg, but I don't know what that means about its status.TSRL (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I didn't know the meaning of the P. It confirms remarks on some uncitable web sites. Managed to operate the DGAC; F-PFOL was registered in 1953 and removed in 1977 after being destroyed. The details are at F-PFOL registration. By the way, there are several useful registers, official and unofficial, at Gatwick Aviation. I agree the FB.31 seems to be a variant rather than a new type; we don't know enough to note any differences apart from the engine. Like the idea that 'OL was a rebuild; this fits with the '54 caption saying built in '36 (though there are other readings). Since its c/n was 02, could it be a rebuild of G-AFCD, the second FB.30? We know this crashed in '38 and that one of the two pre-war machines probably flew with a Salmson.TSRL (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in this discussion:[2]. By the way, did you mean deregistered in 1974? DGAC says 1977, unless my halting French is misleading me. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on "route". The discussion was for private consumption, not citable anyway.TSRL (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SIPA Antilope

[edit]

Evening Ruth, Did you ever come across and photograph the SIPS Antilope on your travels? I'm near to starting an article on it and an image would be very welcome.TSRL (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Just launched the article SIPA Antilope.TSRL (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evening RuthAS - Good to have the image! Do you happen to know if it is being restored for flight, or for display? Quite an undertaking, either way.TSRL (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairey Gannet

[edit]

Do you have a source for Gannet T.2 and T.5s having a natural metal finish? AFAIK, British military training aircraft of that era were generally painted silver, rather than being left unpainted. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Riviera

[edit]

Evening Ruth. Could not spot the problem, though there was an = missing at eng/met. However, when I downloaded a fresh copy of aerospecs and transferred some data, that also refused to work. At that point I decided to use the more up to date specs template, partly because that is what I've been using for a while and am most familiar with: that works. I was also a bit forward and simplified your ref list by using ref name="whatsisname": easier reading, I think, both in article and edit mode. I've you don't like that it's easily reverted. It was a while before I found this way of doing things. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Ruth. I don't like mysteries, so I had another look. The answer is in this line
|met or eng?=eng <!- eng for US/UK aircraft, met for all others ->met
from your revision of 17:04 yesterday. You added "eng" on the left of the comment brackets (where I would also have put it), but an earlier editor had put "met" on the right (which I failed to spot yesterday), so the code saw "eng met" which it does not recognise. BTW, eng/met only decides which units to put first or second and met is what the guidelines say to use for all but US and older UK aircraft. However, aerospecs does not do the conversion, with the result that if you specify met but put some data only in imperial, that line does not show at all. Aircraft specs , in contrast, does the conversion for you, avoiding this puzzling response. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton H-47

[edit]

Evening Ruth, Another fine photo and some much needed airline info from you on this one! I've added it to the improved articles list, using the range of dates to include the edits of the three recent contributors. It was a stub just a few days ago. Like the Isthmian claim! Why don't you put that up for DYK consideration?TSRL (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination done, with pic. Wait and see.TSRL (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved Wikiwings!TSRL (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwings

[edit]
Wikiwings
For travelling half way around the world to Oshkosh just to get a large quantity of aircraft photos for WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind note! You are doing great work, so you get the recognition. Yup I have been to OSH (2001) and it is hard work going around taking photos in the heat and sun, but as your photos attest the results are worth it for Wikipedia!! - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trafford Park

[edit]
File:Trafford Park - E end - 1930.jpg

Don't suppose you can recall where this image came from, can you? We're pushing Trafford Park through FAC and it would be nice to sort out the licensing, and re-add it. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gazuit-Valladeau GV-1020

[edit]

Evening Ruth, Spurred on by a copy of Jane's 1972, which features this aircraft, I began to compare stories of development, types c/ns and numbers. I've tried to summarise this on the discussion page. Thought you might be interested and maybe could add to or correct this info. There are still outstanding issues, as you'll see. I'm not intending to edit the article for now; just trying to get things clear! Cheers.TSRL (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your observation that F-WPZI (103L, c/n1) is the same aircraft as F-PPZI (1031, c/n1) provides an important secure point. So there were two different c/n1s, this and F-BSQF (1020). I've never known how to parse these numbers and had thought of them as 10-x, but if they were 102-x and 103-y, as it were, then perhaps two c/n1s, one for each series, is less surprising. If that's right, quite a lot falls into place.
What date is your Ogden? F-PSSX crashed in 2002 and maybe has stayed in store ever since. I don't know Ogden: would s/he call storage preservation? On the Jane's, I'm lucky that a library only 8 miles away has a fairly complete run from about 1960 and a few earlier ones: it's possible to work via interlibrary loans but you really need to know which volume you want. For a long while now (since 1956 at least) each annual volume has had a look-back index over the previous 10 years and this is very helpful, but you need a few volumes easily available to start the search.
On another matter, I'm about to launch a page on the CFM Shadow and Streak family of microlights/ultralights, prompted by one that came over our house a few days ago. Didn't know the type despite their large numbers, but then neither did WikiP. Usual question: do you have a photo? There was one at Southport 2009 and WikiCommons has a tight shot of it, but one with the whole aircraft in would be good!TSRL (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payen Pa 49

[edit]

Evening RuthAS: I've just started a page on this one. I've always thought it looked rather pretty, though I never saw it. Was it flying at the XIIième Salon? If you can find time to upload your pic to the Commons we ought to have it in the article: always better to have shots of aircraft at work, rather than just in museums. I'd be inclined to put in the info box, but you choose. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks well. Since Ahunt has repositioned the museum pics, I'm inclined, for now, to leave them both though I'll swap the captions to get the narrative order right.
I have a very rough draft of an article on the Nicollier Menestrel series on the go, so any images or info would be welcomed. I'd not appreciated either the longevity of the design or the numbers. Is it possible to tell from the French register (or elsewhere) how many are not just registered but flying? For example, there are 56 Menestrel IIs registered, with 4 removed (doesn't say why) but there seems to be no equivalent of the UK Permit to Fly logged. There are 10 R on the CAA list plus one D, but only 7 with the PtF, so that is fairly clear. Simpson's Airlife numbers are getting a bit old now. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Menestrel page is almost finished, though there are some things I still don't feel sure about. One of these is the difference between the 700 and the 701: Simpson says it is the engine, which may well be right, but the only 701 I've seen in pictures has a tricycle undercarriage. Is that the main difference? And what does the TM (or sometimes TN) that appears in HD 701 TM stand for or say? Anyway, if you are interested, the draft is at User:TSRL/Sandbox/Menestrel. Look forward to seeing your photo when you have time to upload it. I see there is a new HN about, the 800.TSRL (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evening RuthAS: about to upload the Menestrel page, with most of the typos removed. Thanks for reading it. I couldn't find the image on Commons, so perhaps you would do the honours? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: it looks very well!TSRL (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As does the new pic of the Menestrel II. The two together make for a useful comparison, both on seating and cowling. Sywell was evidently productive, in photo terms. I'm hoping the weather allows a trip to Old Warden this weekend; I've got a list of aircraft I'd like to photograph in the air, not least the Parnall Elf. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft article assessments

[edit]

I have editted the talk pages and assessed most of your aircraft articles, some of which got downgraded. By way of explanation, when assessing an article for B-class I don't assess for Grammar if the coverage and accuracy criterium is not met:How can you assess something that isn't finished!. The other criteria can for the most part be assessed before an article is finished. Hope you are in agreement with my assessments. Feel free to challenge them or get second opinions. I really enjoyrd reading them even though they are mostly on the short side, Thank you.Petebutt (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Kreutzer Air Coach

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Kreutzer Air Coach at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kreutzer Air Coach

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You excellent photo at the Fletcher FD-25

[edit]

Dear Ruth,

Thanks so much for that photo. When you took that photo, that first FL-25 had been restored and there was talk of starting up manufacturing at a plant in NZ. Air Classics did an article on it. But it never happened. Also, Yugoslavia basically took the concept design and manufactured a small number. Also, I added a link to a 1951 article in Popular Science when the FL-25 was being demonstrated to the US Marines who were very interested in it as a FAC aircraft. Also, you would never believe what two historical items got Fletcher interested in such an aircraft? Again, thanks. Your photos are excellent. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Scholefield

[edit]

I thought you may be interested in a new article on Vickers chief test pilot Edward Scholefield. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Texas-Temple Sportsman

[edit]

Morning RuthAS: I was going to suggest what MilborneOne has done! I was surprised by the tags, too, but think that "External sources" is for interesting material (eg pics, manufacture's page etc) which is not a cited source of information nor one that has fed significantly into the article. For what its worth, I've fretted for a long time about the distinction between "References" (places where particular article assertions find support) and "Bibliography" (which is often used to include both refs, as just defined, plus general reading matter in the arts mode). These days, I'm using "References" followed by Template:reflist|refs=, which makes the refs explicit, frees up "Notes" for true comments and avoids both the "Bibliography" ambiguity and the partial repetition between "Notes" and "Bibliography. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, happy

[edit]
Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarine 545

[edit]

Evening RuthAs; I was interested to see the article, as the 545 had passed me by. There's nothing in JAWA56/7 or JAWA66/7, which are the only two post war vols I have at home. Also, there is no entry under Type 545 in the index of the latter which covers the previous ten years. This last search would not locate brief mentions within the introduction to each manufacturer, but such would probably not tell you anything that's not in Andrews & Morgan. A&M is probably as good as it gets. The 545 may well have been hidden under a security blanket at the time and so not made it to Jane's, but I'll add it to the list of questions I take every few weeks to Chesterfield library and do a last look-back from, say, 1976. Not very optimistic, though.

Don't suppose you have photos of the B&F Fk14 Polaris (aka Funk Fk Polaris]], do you? I've just written it up. Do you photo gliders? If so, what about the Bölkow Phoebus (or Phönix, come to that)? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evening RuthAS; I've completed the JAWA search on the Supermarine 545, but without success. Lost between secrecy and abandonment, I'd guess. Don't suppose you have a picture of the Iannotta San Francesco, do you? Pictures of it are hard to find anywhere, and information is not much better. It's sometimes called the Voliamo San Francesco. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks ago I'd not heard of the San Francesco either. Thanks for looking. My next is the Grinvalds Orion, later known as the Darcissac-Grinvalds Goéland. That is visually quite arresting; I wonder if you have ever seen one, for if you did you would have photographed it. It's a low wing, T-tailed single pusher for four, with tricycle u/c.TSRL (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Flying Museum

[edit]

Hello Ruth: I just created the article on this Dallas, Texas museum and wondered if you had been there and might have any photos? - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and thanks for checking on the photos! I know you have a large collection, so I am always looking for a reason for you to post some more! I don't suppose that you have photos of their two most famous museum aircraft at Oshkosh or Sun 'n Fun? That would be the B-17G "Chuckie" or the B-25 "Pacific Prowler"? If you do we could use those in the article! - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I did find two photos of their B-25 Pacific Prowler on Commons and added them to the article, if you see Chuckie the B-17 at any of those shows by all means do snap a shot of it, although I have a feeling it maybe grounded for restoration work! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your additions to the article. The ref especially is helpful as I was concerned about showing notability based on just one third party source! - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Junqua Ibis

[edit]

Evening Ruth; I wonder if you have a photo of this one? It's a French canard (the first, it seems) from 20 years ago, though its test of concept version flew in 1985; tandem, pusher, wooden, quite pretty from the pics though not, of course classical ... About 10 around, 6 in France.TSRL (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I thought it might not be your kind of plane.TSRL (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sun 'n Fun 2011

[edit]

I see from your photos that you were at Sun 'n Fun this year. How did you enjoy the weather!?! - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. It looks like you good some photos of some rare types like the Comp Air 8 - that is great going! My wife, whose name is also Ruth, was sad that we missed Sun 'n Fun, not because she wanted to see the show (we have been before), but because she is a huge fan of tornadoes. From looking at the videos of it, it is probably best that you weren't there that day! - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. It was a fairly rare name in the mid-60s when she was born, but it suits her well. She is a keen meteorology watcher and, unlike me, has never seen a tornado in real life, something she envies. If you are interested we have a website with photos and such. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max (eh?) Gardan

[edit]

Evening RuthAs. I'm putting together an article on the SIPA 300 and found a Flight piece where the designer is referred to as Max Gardan. The author (CM Lambert) had been over to SIPA to try out the Minijet and they seem to have met. For a while afterwards, Flight articles refer to him as Max, even as the designer of the GY80 who most other sources call Yves Gardan. Yves and Max have to be the same chap and I wondered if you, with your knowledge of the French scene a while ago, had come across this "Max"? Nickname, maybe (I'm sure Yves Gardan is correct)? Or old-fashioned Englishman unable to believe a gent might be called Yves? Eve, eh what?

Don't suppose you have a photo of the SIPA 300, a little tandem seat low wing aircraft with a tiny Palas engine and, according to William Green & Roy Cross, the first jet aircraft designed from the start as a primary trainer? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holleville RH.1 Bambi

[edit]

Hello Ruth, another excellent article from you,thank you. I have assessed it as B-class, but I feel that the coverage could be expanded more if it is to avoid being downgraded by someone more picky. Do you have more info on its history / disposition to pad it out a bit more? Thanks again it's always a delight to read your articles even if they tend to be a bit short (necessarily). Pete, forgot the tildes againPetebutt (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strathpeffer railway station

[edit]

In the caption of the infobox image, shouldn't it be "from the west end" rather than "from the north end"? Deor (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

[edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WAAC picture

[edit]

Hello Ruth! Sorry for bothering you with this, but I learned through this project and Commons that you own lots of very classic pictures. I was wondering if you can provide the West African Airways Corporation article with any picture, as it looks really awful in its current version. I managed to expand it substantially, but a photo is still lacking. Many thanks in advance for your response.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadheath

[edit]

Ruth, we don't put narratives in routeboxes. Routeboxes are a summary of services from this station, and do not take into account trailing junctions further down the line. Just look at the routebox on any other closed station - either no status is shown, or there is one of the following:

  • Line and station closed
  • Line closed, station open
  • Line open, station closed
  • Line and station open

A line is shown as "open" if the whole of the line between this station and the other one presently carries a passenger service. Where passenger services use only a portion of the line, normally because of a junction part-way along, we show the line as "closed". If we were to try and describe the open/closed status of individual portions of lines, routeboxes would be much bigger than they are now. If you want to show that the portion between Skelton East Junction and Baguley still carries a passenger service, please do so on the article about the Altrincham-Stockport line, not on an article about a station which isn't on that line. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

[edit]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Photographer's Barnstar
For having a photo of the "Ruskin Air Services" Douglas DC-3; and uploading it and adding it to Aircraft in fiction, I hereby award you this Barnstar. YSSYguy (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Ruth, I have been going through some early jet engine articles adding more comprehensive specs and reached the Nene article. I am not 100% sure, but the image you have posted in Commons labelled as a Nene Lancastrian is more likely to be Avon-Lancastrian VM732. If you check the nacelles they have too high a fineness ratio, bulges in the sides and bullets in the intakes (all absent from the nene-Lancastrian nacelles). The serial, though blurred does not look like VH, more like VM. Though not 100% sure it is an Avon Lancastrian, I am 100% sure it is NOT a Nene Lancastrian. How we go about proving any of this I am not sure, but I will help if you wish. Still admiring all your excellent articles!!--Petebutt (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poeschel Equator

[edit]

Morning RuthAS. Thanks for adding the photo; it does make such a difference. I don't suppose you came across the Farner HF Colibri 1 SL pusher canard in your travels? Very strange machine, with a front end a bit like elephant's trunk that could twist and turn. Once seen, never forgotten I'd guess. It was Swiss, but in quite a long career got around Europe, including Belgium, and was at the Cranfield PFA meet in 1989. Regards,TSRL (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that I've corrected the description and captions for your Travel Air 6000 image.

[edit]

Just letting you know that I've corrected the description of your Travel Air 6000 image and captions associated with it. You identified the aircraft as being in the contemporary markings of National Air Transport. This isn't true; National Air Transport's markings looked completely different (a big "NAT" in a box with an arrow through it). Actually this aircraft bears the logo of the 2003 National Air Tour, which it took part in (see this page).

(From the citation you had in the National Air Transport article, it looks like Bob Ogden's 2007 book Aviation Museums and Collections of North America may be responsible for this misidentification.)

Apologies for the correction. I always appreciate the large number of historical aircraft images and other information which you've taken the trouble to contribute to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Schweizer SGM 2-37 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • aircraft of the [[United States Coast Guard|US Coast Guard]] at Opa Locka, Miami, in 1989]]]]
  • alt units with ) and start a new, fully formatted line with * -->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Olympic Airlines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Gradidge, Jennifer, ''The Douglas DC-1, DC-2, DC-3 - The First Seventy Years, 2006, Air-Britain (Historians Ltd, ISBN 0-85130-332-3.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice DC-10 image

[edit]

What a nice image you added to the TK article, Ruth! Y love that angle. Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

[edit]

Dear RuthAS,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Thanks and sorry for the catstigation.

Petebutt (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dittmar HD 153 Motor-Möwe

[edit]

Hi Ruth, glad to see you back. Minor problem with the title of your article: Generally we don't translate aircraft names unless they are not in english script, (arabic or cyrillic for example). Apart from that Move does not translate to the intended title from german anyway. The original glider was the Möwe, which means Seagull in English. Good article, even though you allowed yourself to be diverted by the American dumbing down syndrome. Looking forward to more. Thanks--Petebutt (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]
File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moynet Jupiter

[edit]

Evening Ruth, Thanks for the new photo. I'd be inclined to swap it with the other in the infobox; it gives a clearer view of the Jupiter's layout but that's your call. Best, Tim TSRL (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, RuthAS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

[edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Happy New Year, RuthAS!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

RuthAS,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, whatever it brings, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. TSRL (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Pics of Argentine aircraft

[edit]

Hi, wish you're doing well. Thanks for all the pics about Argentine aircraft ftom the 1970s that you've uploaded to Commons, they're historically invaluable. As there are still some gaps, can you please upload some more? Both of aircraft then in service or displayed; eg: Ju 52, Cierva C.30, Austral C-46; some of these you have at "airliners.net". A low-resolution copy would be ok here. Thanks and kind regards, DPdH (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to upload a photo of yours

[edit]

Hello there Ruth! It's been a long time since we are not in touch. I just wanted to ask you something: can you please upload this image for placement at Nigeria Airways? Many thanks in advance.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jetstreamer. Congratulations on getting the Nigeria Airways article up to "Good Article" status. I've added the Boeing 737-200 image at Ikeja as requested and placed it near the appropriate reference in the article. You may wish to move the Boeing 727-200 shot to a place of your choosing!. Best wishes. RuthAS (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, RuthAS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

[edit]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, RuthAS. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xmas

[edit]
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Bassou FB.41

[edit]

Afternoon Ruth,

I've just been putting together an article on the Bassou F.B40/41 trainer and have included your 1957 photo. How did you decide it was a FB.41 i.e originally had a Minié engine? The numbering of these types is a bit vague but there are hints in the contemporary literature that it was a FB.40, with a Régnier. Gaillard says it had this engine without giving a type number. Certainly the Régnier version was the first to fly (in about Oct 1938) , followed by the Minié in April 1939 so the FB.40 then FB.41 order makes sense. Post war the only one I could find offered for sale was a FB.40, and it seemed likely that this became the contest participant F-PEPL (rather than ...M) that was busy on the 1950s.

Best wishes; ignore this if you've closed the log on WikiP. If you do reply,would you do it on my talk page?

TimTSRL (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Photographer's Barnstar
The number of photos you take and are willing to share it with Wikipedia is simply exceptional and outstanding. Username006 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

[edit]
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 142
FL 15
A 56
GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,880 Ω = 4.92
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RuthAS&oldid=1063163739"