User talk:The PIPE

Bristol Scout

Thanks for working so hard on that article. It's rare around here that a large article is written from scratch by a new contributor. To acknowledge your contribution, I have awarded you the Wikiwings, the official reward of WikiProject Aircraft. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Reference

FYI, this is the correct reference note:

Wagner, Ray and Nowarra, Heinz. German Combat Planes: A Comprehensive Survey and History of the Development of German Military Aircraft from 1914 to 1945. New York: Doubleday, 1971.

FWIW Bzuk 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Me 210 wing angle debacle...

Dear Maury:

The PIPE here...thanks for your reply.

I noticed the diffreence in 210-vs-410 wing leading edge angle in the three-views in my copy of the book 'Hitler's Luftwaffe", an early-1980s era (I think) book on "the Mad Austrian's" (what my German Email buddy Jens Klank-the Webmaster of http://www.biplanes.de/ -has said what many modern Germans have nicknamed the despised Nazi leader) air force, shows the double-angle wing leading edge angle on the 3-view of the 210, and like the 410 Hornisse's 3-view now viewable on Wikipedia, your 3-view of the 410 shows but a SINGLE angle going from root-to-tip. That HAD to be a contributing influence on the better flying characteristics that the 410 had...true, it WAS only one of many changes that Messerschmitt AG had to make on the failed 210 design, but it is noticeable, and right where the 210's troublesome automatic wing leading edge slots were located!

I've also seen the unique turret aiming setup the rear gunner had in the 210 & 410...in a showing of the "Wings of the Luftwaffe" series on the Discovery Military Channel, a WW II era German training film meant to familiarize Luftwaffe personnel with the features of the "new Zerstorer" they were about to get, clearly showed the handgun grip and trigger being used to train the guns throughout their firing arcs, while the 210 or 410 was parked on the ground.

I've also got a CONSIDERABLE amount of information on World War I aircraft...it's my main area of aviation interest...Pioneer era (1903-1914) and "golden age" aircraft between the Wars also score well, and I've got some serious interest in WW II aviation.

The pioneering efforts in 1915 through 1918, of Hugo Junkers, the original innovator of metallic aircraft construction materials near the dawn of aviation (almost exactly as Burt Rutan, with his revolutionary composite materials for aerospace, is considered to be today) are something I've been interested in for a VERY long time now...and an article written from scratch, just like my Bristol Scout Wikipedia article, will be coming, on the very first all-metal fighter aircraft to be produced in quantity...the JUNKERS D.I. This article IS something I've wanted to do on Wikipedia, seeing as though I've got so much info accumulated on it, for a future Radio Control quarter scale flying model of it...the model will even have real scale corrugated aluminum covering, exactly as the full scale aircraft had so distinctively been covered with.

Thank you for your reply...

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE!

Sorry, I'm going to have to remove the content in question. As you stated, "That HAD to be a contributing influence". Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it's definitely original research either way. If you can find cooberating evidence in a referenceable 3rd party source then the material can remain, but until that time it's just not suitable. Maury 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might want to experiment with the "minor" button on checkins. Things like spelling or minor grammar should be marked M. Maury 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Maury...IF you've checked the Me 210 article here at Wikipedia a bit MORE recently...at [File:Me 210 w trzech rzutach.jpg] , that "cranked" double angle leading edge that COULD have led to many serious handling problems on the 210's initial design is CERTAINLY there for all to see...just thought I'd inform you about it...and if you check the article on the "most produced warplane of all time", at Ilyushin Il-2#Operational history...

"In 1943, the IL-2 Type 3 or Il-2m3 came out with redesigned wings that were swept back 15 degrees on the outer panels, and nearly straight trailing edges, resulting in a wing planform somewhat like the AT-6 trainer."

And I've even heard from one Bob Underwood, a famous radio control scale aircraft enthusiast and former Academy of Model Aeronautics officer, who's flown an Il-2 RC scale model for as long as I've known him, had to change his model for scale accuracy based on that above statement. The Il-2 made a major change to its outer wing panels that gave it a double-angle leading edge, since the added rear gunner sitting in tandem behind the pilot (formerly the only crew on the initial design) had shifted the two-seat Il-2m3's center of gravity rearwards, so some wing area "had to go along for the ride" in a slightly rearwards direction to keep everything flying safely.

With the two-seat Il-2, the change TO a double-angle wing was needed...but the Me 210 had this already (with the rearwards-located outer wing panels' area), and it seemed to have helped to throw the plane "out of kilter", aerodynamically speaking, which apparently bringing the outer wing area "forwards" seemed to have some positive effect on solving.

The image of Wikipedia's Me 210 three-view actually SHOWING the double-angle leading edge on the drawing prompted me to add this commentary...and if you look here at the Commons, now you can see that I've provided the proof as well, based on other drawings I've found on the 'Net, and traced-over by yours truly in DesignCAD and placed on the same fuselage for the comparison.

When I can save it as an "xxx.svg" file, I'll be sure to do just that, but for now with the JPEG format file, it's more quickly prepared so that it can be visible.

The PIPE (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junkers J 1

Hi there - yes, it would be great to have an article on this aircraft, but you don't need mine or anyone else's approval to create one; just click on the redlink above and get started! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luftstreitkräfte

Hi, thank you for making edits in this article. I was under the impression that the distinction you noted only came in in the final months of the war, and would appreciate if you could supply references. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a WRITTEN LETTER to the Kurt Wintgens article, as written by the historical figure himself...

To anyone at WIkipedia:

I was VERY excited to finally see a Wikipedia page on Kurt Wintgens, the very first successful fighter pilot in the entire history of military aviation.

I've done extensive research on Kurt's pioneering combat on July 1, 1915, and from one of my research sources, I wanted to add the text of a letter that was written by Leutnant Wintgens himself to a friend only referred to as "Karl", that was describing that aerial combat in HIS OWN words, on the day after it happened.

How would I go about doing that, so it would show up in the manner of a hand-or-typewritten "letter", in a separate "frame" of sorts?

It would add quite a personal touch to the article, and I also have a photo or two of Leutnant Wintgens on my hard disk, as well as a photo of the crashed Nieuport 16 that was Wintgens' seventh aerial victory, that MIGHT be able to be included on the article as well.

Hope to get some help on this...

Thanks in advance, The PIPE...!

You mean the first North American pilot; "the very first successful fighter pilot in the entire history of military aviation" was in Mexico, 1914, the pilot was Gustavo Salinas flying "el Sonora". Look it up. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, look up Didier Masson, who was the actual pilot of El Sonora.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and to find that my biological father, Don Earle, is now a Wikipedia page subject...

Yes, fellow Wikipedians, believe it or not, but someone who IS "biographed" here...the late Boston TV ice hockey announcer Don Earle...was, truthfully, my very own biological father.

Wasn't certain if anyone knew that...but it IS true.

Heinkel 177 drawings

Personally, Pipe, I would like to think that the drawings themselves are not copyright after over 60 years. I'm no lawyer, however, and I must admit I'm by no means certain. Dead people and defunct companies have a way of having successors who own their intellectual property - and publishers sometimes have strange ideas about old photographs and drawings they published for the first time. On the other hand, if after reasonable enquiry you honestly believe the image is "probably" free why not just upload it in good faith - acknowledging sources, giving all facts, and stating the grounds under which you consider the image in question to be no longer subject to copyright. Put the onus on the nay-sayers - whom I'm sure will "say nay" quick enough if they have grounds for doing so. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:He 177A and B Cockpits.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:He 177A and B Cockpits.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WW2Censor:

The PIPE here...the main issue with the use of German aerospace-related images SEEMS to be, as one might think, how OLD they are (by date of when they were first created)...with the World War I images of Kurt Wintgens and his aircraft, since they were created by German citizens (or perhaps "subjects" at that time, because of Wilhelm II of Germany as their Kaiser (emperor) during WW I) before the January 1, 1923 date that the US copyright tags usually state (as I DID use on the photos posted up at the Kurt Wintgens page) wold be completely applicable. But, on the other hand, a WW II-era Heinkel factory drawing, due to its somewhat "more recent" creation date of between 1939 to 1945 might be a bit more problematic...and if you read "Soundofmusicals" post on my talk page, about my concern about the EADS aerospace conglomerate still possibly owning a copyright on WW II Heinkel drawings, like the scans I've got from my copy of the Griehl/Dressel book on the He 177 series of aircraft, he was just saying that I COULD try getting the images allowed for use here, and where I am especially careful to do the scans, so that ONLY the content that the creator of the drawing(s) involved, drew up during WW II was in the uploaded scan to WIkipedia.

Where there IS a German consulate-general office right in Boston, MA (my backyard, so-to-speak, where I live in Weymouth, MA) I do plan on asking them in a phone call this week about this kind of situation, whether a now-defunct WW II-era German aerospace firm's factory drawings might still be under some sort of copyright in some manner or other. I already checked the page here at Wikipedia that's as close as I think my situation can be regarding what's viewable here...to be able to go any further on how to verify the ability for that drawing (and at least two others from Heinkel's drafters of nearly 70 years ago, regarding that whole line of aircraft the 177 spawned) to be content at Wikipedia, a call to the German consulate in Boston might be the very BEST way to verify the usability of any WW II-era German aerospace firm's technical drawings in a reference site such as Wikipedia.

Or, perhaps I might be advised to do a reproduction myself (on my home computer's CAD software) of the scans I wanted to post, as an "original work of my own", as a CAD drawing from my own computer, so that the content uploaded to Wikipedia would be "of my own creation"...might that method be a better, less-contentious way of placing the very same content up at Wikipedia? "Just asking about that", that's all...

Hope you get to read this soon...I'll be letting you know what the German consulate in Boston had to say about any possible copyright status on those Heinkel factory drawings I've scanned from the Griehl/Dressel book, after I call them to ask about the subject.

Also, hope you can reply when time permits!

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger II article.

Hi. Regarding your recent addition to Tiger II about track design, could you provide a verifiable reference for the additions please? Hohum (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to take a look at, for example, the track design of the British A13 Cruiser for a similar track design. Nothing unique about this point you're pushing. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Morpheus:

The PIPE here again...sorry, but online photos of the British tank you mentioned do NOT seem to show enough detail to really "verify" this possible fact, at least anywhere quite as well as Rama's photo does, that I've annotated with his permission.

The King Tiger, Panther II AND the Maus ALL used this track format, which may have been copied from elsewhere...but I do not think that any of the Cruiser Tanks from the UK seem to show this feature on their tracks, which IS quite obvious from Rama's photo of the Saumur King Tiger...and almost EVERY other photo I've ever seen of the King Tiger tank, in any photo with a view that happens to show its tracks to best advantage for the camera, shows the contact link and connector shoe track design.

I'd have to see a VERY close up photo, something like the view I did with my edit & crop of Rama's photo, of a preserved (or vintage WW II era photo) of one of the Cruiser tanks that actually SHOWS this clearly...please look for one, and please let me know where I can view it!

Thanks in advance,

The PIPE (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture doesn't show that this design was novel to the Tiger II, or the point of the design. Photo interpretation of a partially hidden assembly is Original Research. We need a verifiable published source to say that it is novel to the Tiger II - the picture is only useful to show what it looks like. Hohum (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum has captured the issue precisely. This is a textbook case of Original Research. It is not for us to conclude anything from the photos you are interpreting. Since you are the one attempting to insert this content, the burden of proof is on you to document it. There is no burden on anyone else to disprove it. I hope this policy makes sense to you.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that other designs long before the Tiger II used this track design. I can also tell you it is unheard of nowadays, so it was not a particularly successful idea. I pointed you to the A13 Cruiser simply because it is a fairly well-documented vehicle. It uses a connector link and a contact link. The even earlier A10 may use the same track. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the A10 used Valentine-type track, so cast that aside. But here is a photo of an A13 showing the two links quite clearly: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0066,_Calais,_zerst%C3%B6rter_englischer_Panzer.jpg

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg

File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Tiger II track shoe detail.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

turret vs. barbette?

Isn't there a convention here (in my distant memory) that remote-control mounts are described as barbettes, not turrets? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy:

The PIPE Here...remote, unmanned TURRETS are JUST that, "turrets"...if you check the ENTIRE article on the B-29 Superfortress, you will find the term "barbette" being used exactly ZERO TIMES in that article, as regards the remotely operated quartet of UNMANNED turrets on the Superfortress-the term "barbette" was never used by American sources to describe the remote turrets of any aircraft defensive armament, but British sources might have used the term over and over again by mistake.

The term "barbette" is appropriate for fighting ships, however...as the term "barbette" is used to describe traversable and elevatable shipboard heavy gun positions that are armored, and by co-incedence, also usually manned positions. The remote, unmanned turrets on a military aircraft might possibly be armored themselves, but the term "barbette" is simply NOT used for any power traversed and elevated aviation defensive armament positions that have no gunner within the turret's mechanics themselves, especially in American usage.

Thank You, The PIPE (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you about the turret / barbette + gunhouse distinction in naval parlance. Read "The Big Guns" (if you can find a copy) for more on the British slant here.

In aviation terms though, I would have to disagree. Firstly, why are you thinking that Wikipedia is a RS?!?! Secondly, "Barbette" certainly is used in this way for remote-controlled mounts. Picking up Wood & Gunston's "Hitler's Luftwaffe" (as I thought there's a fair chance you might have it yourself) they use the term for the remotes on the Arado Ar 240, the Messerschmitt Me 210 and the Heinkel He 177 - although the 177's manual turrets are just that.

Presumably the distinction is the old one from manned forts - a turret is something above the parapet, a barbette keeps the crew "under cover", so to speak. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy:

The PIPE Here once more...I DO have the "Hitler's Luftwaffe" book myself, and it is BRITISH authored (perhaps from the Royal Navy tradition, Battle of Jutland, and dreadnoughts of a century ago, etc), so their "predictable goof" of calling a remote turret by that NAVAL term of "barbette" can be said to have been an "expected" one, especially to a well-informed American aviation reader's eyes.

And, from your assertion that a "barbette" keeps a group of fighting men "under cover", as in "within an armored area", well, I'm not TOO certain if the sighting stations for the B-29's remote turrets (as an example) were EVER "heavily" armored (or even armored at all), but only "a distance" from the remote turrets they were tasked with operating, so the "barbette" analogy as being used (as I strongly feel, is a mistake) with remotely operated turrets just doesn't fit in with what was in the immediate vicinity of the sighting station. Also, those sighting stations seem like they weren't "heavily" armored as a barbette on a fighting SHIP usually was, and any excess weight on a military aircraft, such as well-armored sighting stations for remote turrets, just was not desirable for aviation use, as such weight would simply reduce the range, or warload, of a military aircraft.

And the chances that an enemy aircraft would actually be able to successfully attack a sighting station, or multiple sighting stations, on a sophisticatedly armed-with-remote-turrets Superfortress, in order to try knocking out its remote turreted armament, would seem to be extremely slim at best...so I seriously doubt that any "serious" amount of armor, if ANY, was ever used around those sighting stations on a B-29, or P-61 Black Widow night fighter (it had a four-Browning M2 armed remote dorsal turret)...or on a "Gruesome Griffin" (the He 177), Me 410 Hornisse, or almost ANY other aircraft of the 1939-1945 era that had remotely turreted armament, without a person IN the turret.

It's best to leave the "barbette" term to those fine examples of Royal Navy (and other navies like the USA's own) tradition, like Jackie Fisher of WW I or Chester Nimitz of WW II...it IS a term that suits fighting ships just fine, as their weight is being displaced by water, and the displacement figure usually runs into the thousands of TONS...but when it comes to powered FLIGHT, excess weight of armor where it isn't essentially needed, like around the sighting stations for remote turrets on bomber aircraft, just encumbers the aircraft's main mission, and the "remote turret" term becomes all the more appropriate.

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you regard yourself here as a more authoritative source than Gunston, and that you've repeated the edit without further discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a "hood-trunk versus bonnet-boot" difference that we've encountered...

Dear Andy:

The PIPE Here once more - and I'm sincerely wondering if the "apparent British" usage of "barbette" for remote turreted defensive armament on aircraft might just be a similar situation, in American English versus British English usage of the same or siimilar words, to the differing terms used on automobiles in the USA versus those used in the UK...

...where the "hood" of a Ford Mustang, for instance, performs the same function as a "bonnet" on a Rolls-Royce ?

The naval use of the term "barbette" is not in dispute by either of us, yet, for American WW II aircraft that DID have remote turreted armament, such as the B-29 Superfortress and P-61 Black Widow, the term "remote turret" IS the accepted standard.

Perhaps a close examination of what terms were used by the German military forces of WW II themselves, in the German language itself, needs to be looked at before anything else gets changed...as an example, were the gun emplacements used by the Kriegsmarine's ships, that could concievably be called "barbettes" in both American and British English (and that we both readily accept), named with words that also show up in WW II Luftwaffe manuals for such remote turreted armament on aircraft ?

It's just that the insistence by a number of British aviation authors on using the term "barbette" on remotely operated, turreted defensive armament positions on historic aircraft COULD most likely be no more than the same situation as exists between a good number of other words that mean different things in American and British English...the lists for these differences exist at List of words having different meanings in British and American English: A–L and at List of words having different meanings in British and American English: M–Z that, together, cover those sorts of differences....and perhaps that difference might be added there, strictly based on the German word usage for naval ship barbettes vs. the words used for remote turreted armament on WW II Luftwaffe aircraft.

Perhaps that difference should be mentioned somewhere in those lists...remember, the US WW II-era aircraft that had such "remote turrets" never, NEVER used the term "barbette" for nomenclature from everything I've ever read (and that's a WHOLE LOT of books on the subject. over a 35 year-plus period of time), and the B-17, B-25, B-29 and P-61 US military aircraft designs ALL used remote turrets on them, at least at one location, SOMETIME in their existence.

And IF it turns out that the same German term for a naval "barbette" was not only used by the Kriegsmarine for their ships (Bismarck, Scharnhorst, etc), but ALSO by the WW II-era Luftwaffe for their remotely operated turreted aircraft defensive armament, then I can clearly see using "barbette" as being completely acceptable, based on the original German choice of words in their language.

That's a good subject to check out when there's time...

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although they're distinctly un-turretlike, I recall that the nacelle mounts of the YFM-1 Airacuda were also termed "barbettes", and that's US.

The He 177 was first studied by the Allies in the UK (the USA-destined example crashed on takeoff, owing to problems with ersatz rubber tyres) The initial reports by the RAF Enemy Aircraft Flight, and the catalogue of the public exhibition of captured equipment (fascinating read, BTW - huge openness in 1946 about topics like German proximity fuzes, then silence for decades), describe them as "barbettes". These may be re-printed into one of Eric Brown's flight-test books, and probably also in "War Prizes". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy:

The PIPE here again-check my reply here from December 20, 2010 that discusses the actual German language terms concerning remote gun turrets in the WW II years, as I "did the leg work" to check all that out, at long last. Also, the single He 177A-7 prototype that ended up in American hands was unceremoniously used as landfill, after being crunched flat as aluminum foil, for the acreage where the O'Hare International Airport in CHicago is located...the Ju 290 named "Alles Kaputt" after its capture was also strongly believed to have been treated in that very same, and equally inappropriate manner, exactly like the He 177A-7 as over here, as landfill for O'Hare to be built upon...what a travesty of aviation preservation!

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lozenge camouflage

Recently, when I was writing the article about lozenge camouflage, I examined this addition you made to the Lozenge article, and considered incorporating it. Instead, I deleted it from Lozenge, and didn't use it in my article either. I did this because I could not find any reliable references that supported the names "Canberra" or "Knowlton" for lozenge camo patterns. If you can support these statements, I would welcome their use in my article. Seems like an interesting path of inquiry, and could lead to a section on modern historiography of WWI aircraft camouflage. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guns guns guns

Not that I doubt it, but I'd be interested (for my own use) in knowing where you found the "1st synch-gun kill" here. Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply go to the Kurt Wintgens Wikipedia page...

Dear TREKphiler:

The PIPE Here...and I'm a huuge Trek fan myself, almost from the start !

I'm also a serious student of aviation history, and it's the references currently numbered "3" and "4" that I provided in hte improvement of the article on Leutnant Kurt Wintgens that provided that info as to Wintgens being the first-ever fighter pilot to have used a synchronized machine gun-armed single seat fighter plane to defeat an opposing aircraft !

The references I've cited are as follows...

"Grosz, Peter M., Windsock Datafile No. 91, Fokker E.I/II, Albatros Publications, Ltd. 2002. ISBN No. 1-902207-46-7" and "Sands, Jeffrey, "The Forgotten Ace, Ltn. Kurt Wintgens and his War Letters", Cross & Cockade USA, Summer 1985".

Also, the reference source that's listed as... "van Wyngarden, G. Early German Aces of World War 1. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2006. p.11 ISBN 1-84176-997-5" is another source of info on that pioneering engagement between Herr Wintgens, and Messrs. du Peuty & de Boutiny.

I've got copies of ALL the above references in my personal historic aviation "library", so I can readily refer to them when needed.

So, the accounts in ALL those referneces refer to the same people, the same day (July 1, 1915) and the same place and aircraft being involved...so I'd have to say it DID happen, for real, nearly a century ago.

Thank you and Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I didn't watchlist this... Thx for answering. Also, thanks for the add on Hot rod. Any assistance you can offer on Custom car or Hirohata Merc (pix of the Merc especially) is more than welcome. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, I'm Greekgeek999 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC), and I love Star Trek, so, hi, The PIPE. Greekgeek999 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

😜 Greekgeek999 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel He 274 and Heinkel He 177

Hi PIPE! As you have worked on these articles recently, I thought you might beinterested in recent additions. Not my area of expertise, so you may just like to take a look, as the 274 article in particluar lacks cites. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "Fern" and "Lafette" are THE common terms for remote-control gun turrets Im Deutsch...

Dear Andy Dingley:

The PIPE here again - happy holidays..!

Well, from the glossary of German terms for aircraft defensive armament emplacements that are listed in the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel book on the entire He 177 series (so far. it's pretty much my "bible" on that troubled warplane!) gives the following terms "im Deutsch", in alphabetic order on pages 243 through 245, for ALL forms of defensive armament emplacements (based on their physical design) on German WW II aircraft, with the Deutsch in italics, and the English translation in regular text:

BL, or Bugstandlafette - Nose position gun mount
DL, or Drehlafette - Any swivelling or rotating gun mount
FDL, or Fernbedienbare Drehlafette - Remote-controlled rotating gun mount
FHL, or Fernbedienbare Hecklafette - Remote-controlled rear (tail) gun mount
FL, or Ferngesteuert Lafette - Remote-controlled gun mount
HDL, or Hydraulische Drehlafette - Hydraulically-operated swivelling gun mount
HL, or Hecklafette - Tail gun mount
WL, or Walzenlafette - Roller gun mount

So, from these definitions, it sure LOOKS like the terms fern, meaning "from a distance" in one interpretation, and lafette, the general German term for a gun mount of any kind (check at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafette for it im Deutsch itself) appear to be the common terms used in the German language itself, for just about all remotely-controlled defensive gun turrets used, or proposed for use, on WW II German aircraft during the era of the Third Reich's Luftwaffe.

There IS a entry im Deutsch for "barbette", at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschützbank , where it's still called a "Geschützbank" there for modern usage in the title - that entry does include the primary naval definition for "barbette", and the seemingly British English-origin convention for that word's use for a remotely-controlled aircraft gun turret.

However, the German language terms in use during the World War II years for defensive remote-controlled gun turret emplacements for aircraft conspicuously do NOT use the German term "barbett", the cognate for the naval armament term, but "fern" and "lafette" with their meanings as described previously instead. So, based on the German words used for military aviation nomenclature in World War II, regarding their defensively-armed aircraft gun mount technology, sticking to calling them "remote turrets" would seem to be a much closer translation in the English language in general, to the original German terms of seven decades previous. The term "barbette" for such remote-controlled airborne armament, though, isn't as close as "remote turret", and can be considered most likely (and quite understandably!) to be a British English convention that emerged very early in the 20th century, derived from the strong traditions of the Royal Navy as one possible source, that got applied to all remote gun turrets on aircraft in general, from a British historian's persepctive.

Hope you're having a decent holiday season...I'm heaading back to college for another two-year degree, this time in business administration, to help me end my 27 months of unemployment over here in the USA.

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gondolas

Any chance you could help with refs etc for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gondola (airplane)? Thanks! 92.40.125.110 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:user page

Hi, THEPIPE, you might consider adding something (anything) to that page. Best regards and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Timeline for clarification of all "time vs. facts" issues related to the Heinkel He 277's "oft-told story" in aviation history books

With the updated facts presented in the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel volume (Griehl, Manfred and Dressel, Joachim. Heinkel He 177 - 277 - 274. Shrewsbury, UK: Airlife Publishing. ISBN 1-85310-364-0) on the entire Heinkel He 177 series of aircraft, I thought it might be best to have some sort of "graphic timeline" shown on the He 277 page - and perhaps, even on the He 177 page in a more "limited sense" for that page, as regards the real-world presence of the He 177B prototype "quartet" of aircraft that were ordered by the RLM during mid-1943 - to clear up any confusion that the earlier, "oft-told storyline" regarding the never-completed He 277's origins had caused, from aviation books that were published before the Griehl/Dressel volume emerged.

The timeline for the He 277 page would show on one timeline "stream", the events of the "oft-told story's" events as depicted in at least one previous, "authoritative" WW II aviation history volume; another stream would show the events of the Amerika Bomber aviation contract competition (involving the 277 itself, and all of the known He 277 competitors) for which the He 277 was ultimately selected and engineered to compete for by the Heinkel firm, while another "stream" in the timeline's graphic would show the entire He 177A timeline from its early June 1936 beginnings, and another "stream" would cover the He 177B's own timeline.

I'm also working on a CAD drawing of one of the nosewheel-equipped versions of the He 277, directly from an original Heinkel factory proposal drawing for the design used in the Amerika Bomber competition, that will have very accurately drawn - especially between ALL of the orthogonal views (planview, portside view, and noseview) - "general arrangement" drawings for reference purposes. It is NOT an "exact duplicate" of the original Heinkel work, as that's still under copyright (in German copyright law) to the original draftsperson that worked at Heinkel or their family members/descendants, but is solely based directly on its dimensions and appearance, with a differing level of detail (a bit less than the original) to make sure all three views of the airframe are "true" and dimensionally matching to each other, and only showing the sorts of exterior details that are known from the original drawing, existing on page 159 of the book. The drawing was clearly mis-captioned as "The He 177B-5 (Stage I) long-range bomber", but the seven meter bomb bay length on that drawing and its sideview bomb bay configuration in the drawing - an EXACT match to what is already referenced on page 184 for the He 277's shorter seven meter bomb bay length, on a Heinkel factory drawing FOR the He 277's viarious bom bay design proposals - as well as being a nearly exact match to another portside view, clearly labeled as an "He 277" tailwheel variant at the top of pg. 195 of the Griehl/Dressel volume - "lock in" the mis-captioned pg. 159 depiction as an He 277 proposal drawing, and nothing else.

I'd be executing the timeline's form and graphics over the coming summer as time permits, and the three-view line CAD drawing, now nearing completion, will finally give the He 277 design's article in Wikipedia, as the intended-to-be-built Amerika Bomber design competitor, a truthful depiction on Wikipedia's pages.

The PIPE (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethylene glycol poisoning

Hello there. I didn't see why the source you cited there should be considered reliable, so I tagged it as such.[1] Please explain at Talk:Ethylene glycol poisoning or feel free to ask me any questions at my talk page. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Hey PIPE! I don't know much about that CAD package, but what 2D output formats does it have? Actually, you might get great results by posting here on the SVG talk page, or using the History to find major contributors and posting on their talk pages. It might not be straightforward... the 2D image is usually an "export", so there seems to be less attention to providing useful versions.

If you do figure it out though, I can imagine you'd be in some demand for practically every article here :-)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 2, 2013, I FINALLY got a JPEG raster version of my completed DesignCAD drawing for the Me 410 article posted to Commons...until I can manage a way to brew up an SVG format version, I'll hope it will be sufficient for the present!

The PIPE (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-propelled artillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samokhodnaya ustanovka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fokker Scourge article

I spent a lot of (off-line) time and effort getting this rewritten - I really do think it is a better article now than the one that a certain person reverted it to. BUT - as someone who is NOT a particular crony of mine - could you have a look at my latest version and his (lord only knows which will be "up" when you look) and let us know what you think. I'm NOT trying to corral support, just to get a few third opinions, as I scent an on-coming edit war over this one.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for you help and apposite edits to this one. I reverted the one about the F.E.8 - the eindeckers were pretty well all gone by the time they eventually got to the front, they notoriously had to cope with Albatroses almost from the word go! And I made a couple of fussy style edits. Otherwise - first rate, and definitely overall a big improvement. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to WWI Aviation article.

I'm afraid I had to prune these a bit. Please, always read the whole section you want to edit - or at the very least the whole sentence. Attacking a short phrase by adding explanatory information can make things very repetitive and cumbersome, and doesn't always add information. Encyclopedic writing should always be informative, and succinct. I really hadn't the heart just to revert everything you had done, because you had obviously put so much well meant work into it all - so I worked through the whole thing line by line, leaving everything I could see as an improvement, or the correction of existing errors, typos etc.

On the "fact" front - we tend to think of the F.E.8 as a contemporary of the DH.2 - but there were only one or two at the front during the "Fokker Scourge" period - I don't think they deserve a mention in that context. I am presently in the process of doing a really comprehensive rewrite of the "Interrupter gear" article as the current one is a bit of a dog's dinner. I have been doing a lot of research, including actually purchasing some really good sources. It is currently in my sandbox - when I have got a little further on with it I will give you a link so you can have a look - your comments (even edits) will be very welcome. We may want to redo the section in the general article in the light of the extra info I am finding!

Anyway, best wishes --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the by - I've added the Sanke postcard company as the "author" to that file you uploaded so that stupid bot won't delete the file!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronisation and all that!!

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here - about the most definitive series of periodical articles I could EVER recommend that I've seen so far, regarding just about every aspect concerning machine gun synchronization, would be the late Hank Volker's trio of articles in the pages of WORLD WAR I AERO (index of the publication since the 1970s), specifically the issues numbered #137 (August 1992), #138 (November 1992), and #142 (November 1993) in which his articles appeared.

Mr. Volker touched on just about every aspect of the history of machine gun synchronization, with now-correctable facts surrounding the earliest Fokker Eindecker info, per my own copy of the late Peter M. Grosz's-authored Windsock Datafile # 91 on the Fokker E.I and E.II, which is in my personal historic aviation library.

It's still possible to get reprints of the Hank Volker article for further reference directly from WW I AERO's Internet presence, and concerning the current editing staff of the twin periodicals WW I AERO and SKYWAYS (the Golden Age of Aviation twin title to the WW I aviation title), it's Tom Polapink, Sean Tavares and Jim Bruton in that linked list that I've met personally in my own past, from my long-time series of visits to Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome.

Hope you'll consider getting copies of those articles as reprints for your reference needs... I KNOW I've got those exact specified back issues of WW I AERO with Mr.Volker's MG sunchronization articles still in my own personal historic aviation library, but after nearly FIVE years of unemployment (last worked full time in September 2008) I've lost track of "exactly" WHERE those specific issues are here at home.

Thanks and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I seem to remember your mentioning the Hans Volker articles before - or perhaps someone else did? It would have been great if you could have scanned them for me, but I know (none better) what laying one's hands on specific things (especially journal articles) can be like. Anyway - I have sent the following email to the people at WWI Aero:

I am working on a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article "Interrupter Gear". A colleague in this work has recommended Hank Volker's trio of articles in the pages of your journal, specifically the issues numbered #137 (August 1992), #138 (November 1992), and #142 (November 1993).

I would be very grateful if you could advise me as to the availability of reprints of the articles concerned, or perhaps copies of the issues themselves.

Best wishes, and thank you very much

Paul

Hopefully this will do the trick - thank very much for putting me onto this. Sorry to hear you're out of work by the way - I had to retire rather earlier than I would have liked a couple of years after my youngest son had a bad accident that left him with brain damage. MANY years ago now. I don't really know if my study is a bigger mess now than it was thirty five years ago, but I have real doubts that it is any tidier.

Regards --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "two internal combustion engines" being "synchronized" situation

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here again - sorry to have heard about your youngest son having that mishap that left him so badly hurt - I'm just worried that the "austerity wonks" in my own nation, primarily comprising the Tea Party movement, and the single most destructive legislator in the U.S. Congress to ANY type of economic recovery from the Great Recession in the United States — Kentucky's cadaverously-faced Republican senior US senator Mitch McConnell, who generally resembles an UNbandaged mummy in his facial appearance, and who is a strong adherent of rampant, uncontrolled austerity and the backwards priorities of the Tea Party — will prevent me from EVER having a job of any type, ever again. On top of all that, there are upwards of 22 MILLION formerly full-time-working unemployed Americans, AND currently "under-employed" part-time American workers in 2013 that are still seeking a 40 hours/week "full-time" job these days.

When I made that text addition to the "interrupter gear" article in stating that a gun synchronizer's role in 1915 was to essentially synchronize the operation of "two internal combustion engines", I believe that it was in Mr. Volker's article that the basic nature of the machine gun was described as a "single-stroke internal combustion engine", which it IS as the propelling charge of smokeless powder expended when a machine gun fires a bullet IS detonated and used within the barrel of the machine gun (in its breech, the rearmost part of the barrel), making it quite reasonable to consider any firearm to be a "single-stroke internal combustion engine".

And it WAS the task of the machine gun synchronizer, starting with the Lübbe/Fokker Stangensteuerung arrangement in 1915, to literally synchronize TWO internal combustion engines - the four-stroke one (be it rotary or in-line) spinning the propeller for propulsion, and the "single-stroke one" shooting the bullets — to avoid the single-stroke one from literally "getting in the way" of the propulsive work of the four-stroke one!

The Volker articles from the WORLD WAR I AERO periodicals get into MINUTE detail of how these synchronizers worked, both of Central Powers and Allied design, and also their development through the "Golden Age" and into WW II.

Just hope you can get them as paper reprints...these MAY also be available as scanned CD files on disk if you ask for them that way, and I'm also fairly certain that full CD copies of all three mentioned issues of WORLD WAR I AERO might just be available as well, so be certain to ask about those options by Email when your time permits.

Just hoping that you can GET those articles...for my writings at Wikipedia on the Nazis' most enigmatic warplane, the Heinkel He 177 and its descendants, that Griehl-Dressel volume I purchased at half its original, published list price back in 2004 has been SO incredibly informative over the years — not only for the Heinkel firm's products, but for a goodly number of other WW II German aircraft designs as well.

Thanks again and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the person most likely to be elected as the next prime minister of Australia is also a loony right wing nutcase and I fear we are about to swing into line with your lot (alas). Never mind, remember what my old dad used to say, "it may never happen!". Happily for me I am well past the age of "normal" retirement now so it is not a direct personal concern (unless they decide to scrap the old age pension!).

I get the analogy between a machine gun and an internal combustion engine, by the way - but of course it remains an analogy. An internal combustion engine is not a kind of gun, nor is an (automatic) gun "really" a kind of internal combustion engine, although the way they both work (by a series of explosions) is sufficient to maintain the analogy. It remains an eccentric analogy however, although a vivid one, and since (as I suspected) it is not yours we can't really use it. (Intellectual property and all that.) Perhaps even more to the point - an encyclopedia is meant to succinctly convey the basic facts - it is a work of reference. Artistic things like analogy need to be used very sparingly.

I have already tracked down, and purchased, several very good texts bearing on this case, and I certainly want to get hold of the Volker articles, which sound as if they will round out some my information bank - especially the post 1919 stuff. Sure you can't find your originals? That would be marvelous (although as I hinted I understand if you HAVE misplaced them irretrievably - I've lost a few good things myself over the years). Anyway - hopefully I'll get a prompt and favourable reply to my email from the publishers. Thanks again for being so helpful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep you up to speed on the "Volker article" situation - the three issues concerned are (alas) NOT among the ones available for download at http://ww1aeroinc.org/blog1/store-ww1-aero/ - although the publishers have advised me kindly that they will put them onto the list of issues to be scanned (since I have requested them) and will let me know when they ARE available. Really WOULD love copies from you if you can find them at all!!. Best wishes, and hope you are working again soon, in spite of all the <naughty word expunged> right wing politicians in this wicked world of ours. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pipey - have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox (my sandbox) where I am working on the famous article. References still to go in (as is about half the article) but it may well give you an idea of how I plan it to look in the end, anyway! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here...that's VERY nice work you've been bringing together on what I sincerely HOPE you'll be entitling the Gun synchronizer article. That's the very term that I THINK one Mr. Hank Volker was using in the trio of well-aforemetioned WW I AERO articles he authored on the subject before he left us.

Where I KNOW I've got some serious cleanup coming along soon here at home (with the weather thankfully cooling off soon...summertime heat and HUMIDITY with heat indices over 30ºC can make me VERY ill indeed!) might help me find that elusive third article in one of my WW I AERO back issues. Once that gets found, and when time permits, if I can get permission from WW I AERO's current publishing team, perhaps that 3-part article could be made available as a complete PDF file here at Wikipedia, courtesy of my scanner, and copies of MS Word 2003 and FinePrint Software's pdfFactory software.

Thanks again and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of still images at the Commons, from "captured-by the US Government" WW II German films

Dear Fellow Wikipedians:

The PIPE Here again - recently I found two GREAT WW II films both produced by elements of what is today the United States Department of Defense, firstly on the Americans' own AZON guided munition — and not very long after that, a CAPTURED Nazi German-origin film on the Fritz X guided munition, with the captured Nazi German film's footage within an American film released by the USAAF.

My main question is - would it likely violate any German copyrights to do screen captures from the Fritz X film with my copy of Corel CAPTURE to get the stills, and then place them on the Commons for use at Wikipedia?

I'm primarily basing this on the fact that ANY work of the US DOD, or any of its predecessors, ARE in the "public domain" within the United States — I'm just wondering if any of the German-origin still images from that captured film might be usable as "works of the United States government", and thus usable for articles like the Fritz-X, and perhaps some others as well.

"Just curious", that's all...

Thanks in advance, and Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound a little cynical Pipey, but I suspect that if you just added them to Commons on those grounds that it's most unlikely that anyone would worry. But I don't think the fact that copies of media are captured in wartime makes any legal difference to their copyright. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your user page

This editor is a
**Veteran Editor II**
and is entitled to display this
**Bronze Editor Star**.

Nice edits on some of the aviation pages!

-- Btw, don't be a red link.

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bristol Scout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing chord (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Scout with Lewis guns picture

This is a great picture (well done for finding it!!)

Unfortunately, having a closer look, the guns are mounted on a version of that good old "outward firing swivel" that was mainly (at least) used for firing outward rather than forward (although one COULD have foolishly pressed the point in the stress of the moment and shot off one's prop!!) The same mount was sometimes used for "pilots' guns" on other British tractor types, like the B.E.2c. If you look, the port gun is actually angled IN a little, showing that is clearly on a "flexible" rather than a fixed mount. Hence the picture doesn't really illustrate the point of the text. It's far too good not to use though, so I have moved it to the Bristol Scout article.

I actually have a picture that clearly shows a fixed forward firing Lewis gun on a Bristol Scout (attached to the centre-section struts) - as it is taken from the front the tape binding is also very clear - unfortunately it is of poor quality, and the shape is all wrong for it to fit here.

By the way - I wanted to apply strike-through to my remarks above about the Halberstadt "Ds" and couldn't work out how. I don't like deleting even my own stuff off other's talk pages - but I was actually wrong (the apparent "droop" is deliberate washout - probably applied at squadron level, NOT "wear and tear"). Would you either strike-though that rubbish, or, better, delete it for me?

Cheers,

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (Paul)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, The PIPE. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bold merge!!

The old "CC gear" article promised to be very comprehensive, although what was completed of it was very "word-for-word" from the source! The main point is that it hadn't been worked on for a good while, and was very little use in its current form - so I have merged it to the relevant section of the new synchronization gear article. Having done it, do you think I am right? I have written diplomatically (I hope) to the editor who started the article concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samokhodnaya ustanovka

Tanks in World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samokhodnaya ustanovka

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Causeway Street Elevated 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:

[[Boston Garden]] — adjacent to and along the southeast-facing side of the then-new [[TD Garden]]) indoor sports venue's exterior through the Green Line's [[North Station (MBTA station)|North

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"New" photograph of the Stangensteuerung gear

This is good, in fact I have used it to replace the photo of Parschau's eindecker which was less relevant here than it would be elsewhere.

On looking at it closely however it is actually quite exciting - I don't know if you noticed, but there is no cam wheel there, and instead of a cam rider working the push rod, as in the definitive version of the Stangensteuerung (illustrated in our diagram) there seems to be a direct connection to the oil pump spindle. In fact I think this is a photo of the very first Fokker gear. Just have a really close look at the picture! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holocene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proto-religion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Messerschmitt Me 262 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:

262 V9, Werknummer 130 004, with ''Stammkennzeichen'' of VI+AD<ref>Radinger and Schick 1996</ref>) was prepared as the HG I teat airframe with the low-profile ''Rennkabine'' racing canopy and may

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harassing fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henderson Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

H

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luftstreitkräfte, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vaux and Avillers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Junkers Jumo 222, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jagdstaffeln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avillers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 21 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Bruins–Canadiens rivalry page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malcolm Subban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chad Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinkel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Undercarriage. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me 410

This aircraft is frequently misidentified, in original docs it may have been noted as A-2/U1 [2] instead (which is an even worse ID as no A-2 was ever built). Both Werknummer and conversion from Me 210 airframe identifies it as A-1. A-3 were all-new builds. --Denniss (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear The PIPE,
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 cookie for you!

Thanks for your edits to aero-engined car concerning the Mercedes-Benz T80. I really appreciate the textual and photographic content, and it helps to round the whole article out a bit more. If you could in the future, it would be much appreciated if you could cite prose that you add to articles. I've done some digging and cited your work, modifying it as necessary, so don't worry about it in this case. Thanks again, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Theater (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RLM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of your "Cammer" input at "Overhead camshaft"

I have started a discussion about the passage you added to the Overhead camshaft article about the Ford "Cammer" engine. The discussion is at Talk:Overhead camshaft#Ford 427 "Cammer" — random insertion?. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Scout

Saw your recent addition about the lifting tailplane, & was wondering where it came from: I presume the Windsock Data File, which I don't have. There certainly seems to be no mention in J. M. Bruce's four-part series in Flight in 1958, nor in the Barnes book on Bristol aicraft, nor the 1914 article about the aircraft in 'Flight in 1914. However, googling "bristol scout lifting tail" led to this, unusually for the internet something that looks genuily very interesting that you may well wish to look at in detail: it suggests that the prototype had a non-lifting tail, but that the Scout C reverted to having a lifting tail. Love those technical drawings, but then I'm a draughtsman.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in touch with David and Sue Bremner for quite a while now, after first seeing their great Bristol Scout blog way back in 2011...the person who first got me interested in the Bristol Scout back in the 1980s, one Henry Iltzsch (who left us several years ago) was a fellow radio-control aeromodeler, whose own attempt at building a 3 inch = one foot sized (best known as "RC Giant Scale" in the USA) Bristol Scout Type D some four decades ago was something I was a personal eyewitness to, in our shared time in the RC flying hobby so long ago. It got flying well-enough that it became the subject of a two-part model construction article in the March and April 1981 issues of the Academy of Model Aeronautics' national Model Aviation magazine, and whose model construction plans are even still available through the "AMA" itself in Muncie, IN.

The PIPE (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attack helicopter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Aviation in World War I

added a link pointing to Avillers

North America

added a link pointing to Norse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker Scourge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avillers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military aircraft insignia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tricolor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nieuport 11

added a link pointing to Wing chord

Siemens-Schuckert DDr.I

added a link pointing to Firewall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of aircraft manufacturers D-G, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dornier. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Claude Julien (ice hockey) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Baron Munchausen, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flag of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

the [[French Air Force]] originated the use of [[roundel]]s on military aircraft shortly before {{World War I]]. Similar national cockades, with different ordering of colours, were later adopted as aircraft

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission statement

One of your recent edits to Fedden Mission added a mention of the X Engine (DB604). I don't doubt the accuracy of the add, but I don't recall Christopher mentioning it as such. I don't want to just take it out, because it's a bit minor, but it could be misleading. Any thoughts? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great pic. Thx. As said, tho: I don't doubt it exists; I don't doubt that's what they saw. It's just, that's not what Christopher says...& I'm uneasy about putting in a claim he doesn't make. If you can cite for the equivalence (I can't... :( ), will you add a second source on that item? (If possible, something that confirms the Brits did see it?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My age is showing. :( I still default to paper sources. That should do it. Thx a bunch. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. An edit that you recently made to Ludwig Von Drake seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the road again

Looking at this edit, I have a question for you. I don't want to rv, 'cause I don't think you're wrong, exactly, but...didn't paved roads benefit bicycles first, & also? Which is to say, isn't this phrasing over-emphasizing use by cars? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC) (BTW, go ahead & answer here; I'll watchlist until we're done. :) )[reply]

Dear Trekphiler:

The PIPE Here...I can readily understand your concern about HOW paved roads originated in the USA, but since I did make the mention in an article concerning one of the most important AUTOMOBILE designs in automotive history, the mention of the Lincoln Highway in the Ford Model T article MIGHT not have to mention "people-powered" wheeled travel... in fact, such a thing could be edited out of a historic automobile article by another Wikipedian who's even less concerned about non-automotive travel on paved roads. Paved roads for any form of wheeled travel a century ago in time, be it people-powered OR motorized in the USA certainly WERE desirable, but for the Ford Model T article, perhaps a primary focus on automotive history is not entirely inappropriate.

Thanks and Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I managed to miss this... :( So apologies for the belated reply. I take your point on the importance of paved roads--but the connection is a bit tenuous for the T article IMO. The influence of the T on paved roads, at History of roads or History of the automobile, I'd say, is perfectly on target, but not the reverse. (I also notice it got removed by somebody else...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a flyer

FYI, about your add to BMW 803, I rv'd that, too. I've seen a few edits of yours & rv'd 'em for looking off-topic, & I'm feeling a bit odd about doing it so often. Nothing personal... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section in "99ers" on 'Americans with disabilities'

FYI - have just added a new section to the "99ers" article on Americans with disabilities. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Academy of Model Aeronautics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited De Havilland Mosquito, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SHF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Qantas Flight 32 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unenrolled vs. unaffiliated

Hi PIPE, your latest addition to Nantucket puzzled me, i.e. "as stated on ballots issued in Massachusetts communities". I appreciate that candidates have a party affiliation on ballots and that "Unenrolled" is next to the names of those, who might otherwise be designated "Independent." What puzzles me, is why this might be a relevant footnote to a statistic on the political alignment of voters. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HopsonRoad:

The PIPE Here again - it's primarily because, as I've been TRYING to educate you about, that in Bay State elections, a VOTER also selects a party affiliation when they register to vote - an especially important thing to do before a PRIMARY election, the only place where it generally has any relevance here - and THE choices available are "Democrat", "Republican" OR "Unenrolled", in those exact terms. An "unenrolled" voter in the Bay State can choose either a Democratic OR Republican ballot in a primary, while a voter that's sticking with the "blue-D" or "red-R" all the time only gets that party's primary ballot here. It is ALSO usual practice in Bay State primary elections, when one is through voting and usually registers as an "Unenrolled" voter, to PROMPTLY change back to an "Unenrolled" status, which can be done eight AT the polls on Election Day. That's something I've done for decades, over and over again, and is COMPLETELY normal to do in Bay State elections, for Bay State voters!

I DID notice you're from Vermont...are you interested in your own senator's run for the Presidency in any way yet? It's just that I like him myself, for the most part!

Here's hoping that you're starting to understand the importance and relevance of that "Unenrolled" status in Bay State elections!

Thanks and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The PIPE. Your interest in this topic did educate me about the differences among Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, regarding party affiliation. It sounds quite similar to the system in NH, but here in Vermont one simply chooses the ballot for the party in whose primary one wishes to participate in, without being recorded as affiliated with that party.

The concept of unenrolled is a good topic for the Politics of Massachusetts, where I see you have already introduced the topic. Perhaps a discussion of who qualifies to vote in a primary election would also be a good topic in Primary election#Primaries in the United States.

In any event, I hope that you continue to follow your interests and take it in good humor (as you have here) when other editors adapt your ideas to the requirements of the Wikipedia Manual of Style and other principles.

As to the upcoming elections, I do have positive regard towards Bernie Sanders, but try to maintain a neutral point of view here in Wikipedia.

Here's wishing you Happy Editing and a Happy New Year! Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=

Dead link in citation in I-93 article

In July of 2012, you added some content to the Interstate 93 article about potential future expansion down the Route 24 corridor. In that edit, you cited some personal correspondence. The link to that correspondence is now dead, and the Internet Archive doesn't have a copy. Do you know where this information might still be found, so this interesting and useful content can have a viable citation?

--Dave314159 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alberto Santos-Dumont 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:

crowd of witnesses at the grounds of Paris' [[Château de Bagatelle]] in the [[Bois de Boulogne]] (at ({{Coord|48|52|5|N|2|14|24|E}}) for a distance of 60 metres (197 ft) at a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of cannon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Arras. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 1944 in aviation page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please do not add citations to open wikis, such as gargwiki.net. This is not a reliable source. Examples of reliable sources would include newspapers, magazines, and academic journals. Fan sites and wikis are not acceptable sources, especially in a Good Article, which could be delisted if enough unreliable sources are added to it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disney bomb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tallboy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Air Forces in Europe - Air Forces Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dornier. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

=

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willie O'Ree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joel Ward. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential photo resource for documenting Bellanca Cape Cod individual aircraft article

Some time ago I came across the Boston Public Library's page for the archived aviation-related photos taken by photographer Leslie Jones that are archived with the "BPL", among whose photos from the 1930-31 period, are original photos taken at what is today Logan International Airport of the Bellanca J-300 Special (US registration of NR 761 W) used by Russell Boardman and John Polando to fly to Istanbul nearly 85 years ago as I write this (at about six weeks before the actual anniversary date this year), and I'm slowly but steadily diong the work on determining their current copyright status. The photos of the Cape Cod were all taken in 1930 and 1931, with Leslie Jones himself having passed on in 1967, 49 years ago.

Hopefully, perhaps a few of those photos of NR 761 W could be released into public domain (if they're not already IN such a status) for Wikipedia's usage...perhaps with a credit to the late Mr. Jones, of course, if I was ever requested to!

The PIPE (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Charlie McAvoy page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazi Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partisans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunne D.6

Hi,

Just to inform you a bit about Dunne's turned-down wing tips. Their washout stabilises the craft in pitch, while their side area acts as a tail fin for yaw stability which is enhanced by a complex interaction with the washout. Thus, they did not act as wingtip devices but as outboard tail surfaces. His paper to the Aeronautical Society was reproduced in Flight and the first page may be found here. Any suggestion as to their influence on the future development of wingtip devices requires citation of a reliable source for that suggestion.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daimler-Benz DB 603, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NASM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The PIPE. 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]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1941 in aviation into Timeline of World War II (1941). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to German declaration of war against the United States (1941)

1. I don't believe there is evidence that Hitler was aware of Rainbow 5 at the time of his declaration of war against the US (please check at https://web.archive.org/web/20080214190026/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1987/8/1987_8_64.shtml for a page that DOES seem to support my reasons for making the change...)
2. Roosevelt did not mention Europe at all in his Pearl Harbor speech; see http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrpearlharbor.htm
3 I have ordered the book you cited as a source. If it confirms your edit, I will restore it, but until then, with what I believe are two fundamental errors of fact, I have removed the entire edit as unreliable. Please do not restore it until myself, or some other editor, can confirm that you are accurately citing the book.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beyond My Ken:

The PIPE Here....in the Consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor Wikipedia article, there IS this line, which I was not the author of, at least to my knowledge...

"Earlier in 1941, the Germans learned of the U.S. military's contingency planning to get troops in Continental Europe by 1943; this was Rainbow Five, made public by sources unsympathetic to Roosevelt's New Deal, and published by the Chicago Tribune."...

...so, as to your point on "point 1" above, you could conceivably be in error...and for additional evidence, a webpage at http://ariwatch.com/Links/RainbowFive.htm might actually reinforce my view on your "point 1's" possible error. It's only the "point 1" assertion that I'd have a likely difference of opinion with...not "point 2", as just about all of FDR's speeches are on the record.

Hope this "clears things up" a small bit...of course, I COULD use the last-linked page as a citable reference as evidence of my earlier text entry that your "point 1" rebuts.

Thank you and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, the source says the Germans learned about Rainbow Five on the 4th, Pearl Harbor was on the 7th, and Hitler's declaration was on the 11th. Now all one would have to do is show that Hitler was actually aware of it when he made his speech. The dates set up the possibility that he could have been aware of it, but not that he actually was and took it into account. Given Hitler's propensity for relying primarily on people he trusted, and ignoring any evidence that didn't come from them - especially if it conflicted with his predetermined beliefs - I think establishing a verified link would be absolutely necessary, not simply the possibility of one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the two comments just above this over to the talk page of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Chicago Stadium. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

Please See Wikiedpia's external link policy, which classifies unofficial "Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." as links to be avoided- Thanks. StarScream1007 ►Talk 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Foster mounting

Remembering (with gratitude your good help on the Gun synchronization article! (and hoping to be forgiven for reverting or changing so much of your editing of this and other pages!)

I have a rewrite of the article on the Foster mounting nearing completion in my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox which may or may not be of interest. In common with other articles I have worked on from (more or less) scratch like this I am basically writing the text first and will be adding the verifiability/links etc. later - appreciate if you could add any comments you might have, including any possible outright errors you might notice, either to my talk page or the one to my sandbox. Most welcome help of all would be usable references, anything you think I should read etc.

Thanks (and Hi!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content additions to Battle of Remagen

Hello, I've noticed you added some extra details to Battle of Remagen in some of your edits to it a day ago; is the detail you added supported by the existing inline citations? Specifically the total number of M2 Brownings being upwards of 80. Also you may want to me more careful with MOS:JARGON since the nickbame of Brownings as "Ma Deuces" and bombs being "maximum-weight, ventral-fuselage location single" bombs are not necessary for an understanding of the article by an average reader. Alcherin (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Week, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JG 1. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LZ129 Hindenburg

I noticed your edit to the helium production sentence in this article after reading the talk page. I thought it best to modif the fit for several reasons:

Helium was produced in quantity in the U.S. by cryogenic distillation plants built at certain oil fields (beginning with pilot plants prior to WWW I)
natural gas fields and reserves were not yet contemplated, transportation difficulties precluded a market
oil wells in other countries, the Soviet Union, for example, had no extraction plants and flared off natural gas, in the process venting any other gasses.

No good deed goes unpunished—I am sure you added the phrase to eliminate ambiguity, but a deeper problem existed. — Neonorange (Phil) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, The PIPE. 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]

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronization gear

You have a good point about the wing-root guns of the Focke-Wulf. On the other hand at the point where you added it the material might have tended to confuse. Essentially I have removed the (very apposite) point of your remarks to the section where we discuss the last "synchronizer-armed" fighters. Thanks, and, as always very best regards. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Political positions of Bernie Sanders

Hi The PIPE, this is to invite you to a discussion at Talk:Political positions of Bernie Sanders#Standard for describing a "position". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Convair B-36 Peacemaker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RLM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Left- and right-hand traffic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falconer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Native Americans of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sagamore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Disney animated universe characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diamond White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, The PIPE. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 25th Space Range Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page USAAS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Baskerville has left the building

After surviving AfDs, Doug Thorley and Magoo are still up, but both could use better sourcing. I'm wondering if you've got back issues of Hot Rod, Car Craft, National Dragster, & the like that would help. Ditto on Jake, Showboat, The Mantaray, Ed Donovan, Donovan hemi, Silhouette, and a few others I've created lately. (Have a look at my userpage under the "Open Vanity" 3&4.) Any help you can be would be very much appreciated. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronization gear

The rewritten version of this article would never have left my sandbox were it not for your help - especially in the location of references. If Wikipedia articles had bylines the two of us would probably share honours on this one! SO it is with very real regret that I have had to change, even revert, several of the edits you have made since - mostly, as in the last instance, because they added detail, often very interesting, but not (alas) relevant to THIS article. Particular aircraft, pilots, guns etc. are mentioned here only as they relate to the subject of gun synchronisation (they do, after all, have their own articles specifically for general details). I realise that you want to include all the information you can find - but we have to stick with what is relevant HERE. "All else confusion" (Alfred, Lord Tennyson). Sorry about that. Fond memories of our work together ab initio that I hate to spoil, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dicta Boelcke

Very informative edit, sir.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika

In the English language, the Nazi symbol is universally known as a "swastika". "Hakenkreuz" is the German name for it, but we are English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia, and here we use the WP:COMMONNAME in English, unless there is a overhwleming necessity to use the German name. Please do not replace "swatika" with "hakenkreuz" again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There would be that necessity to use it on specific WW II-era German military pages/articles as a supplement, however...so, it should be proper, for pages of that sort, and "perhaps" a few others; to "not replace", but supplement, the Sanskrit-origin term "swastika" with "Hakenkreuz" anywhere it's appropriate, with the German term in (parenthesis).

The PIPE (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

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

KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December)
PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December)
Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December)

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

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021

Good Article assessment

HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021
William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021
Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021
Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021

Deletion

Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021
Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021

Requested moves

Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.

Aviation pages by quality
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 = 251,807	Ω = 4.92

New/Ongoing Discussions

Featured Article review

D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021

A-class Article assessment

Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020
List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010

Good Article assessment

Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021

Merger proposals

List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021
Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021
Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021
ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021

Splitting proposals

Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021
2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021
List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021
Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019

Deletion

List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021

Requested moves

Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021
Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021

Did you know

Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021
Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021

On The Main Page

Did you know...

... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)

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) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]