User talk:Bzuk

Image tagging for Image:XF8B-I (Navy).jpg

corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&action=edit Edit this page

Montreal Airports

Hi. Just to let you know that I have left Montreal not disam b/c Montreal is served by 1 international airport (Mirabel does not have any passenger service as it is only served by cargo carriers). We only disam cities that are served by more than one airports with passenger service. I have posted a discuss on WP:Airports if you are interested in responding. Cheers and happy editing! Bucs2004

{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

Have you considered simply formatting your references into the standard inline format, since your the only one that knows what source goes with what information? <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= }}</ref> I see you have been addingthe references, want me to help finish them? I formatted one to show you what it looks like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

I see we have some common interests.

I remember reading of the cancellation of the Arrow in AvLeak when it happened. I was upset then, but had I known about the U-2 photos I wouldn't have been. No use for an interceptor with nothing to intercept.

My primary interest in Earhart is in the "mystery." I have arrived at an "opinion" which satisfies me, but not without much investigation and introspection.

I am a bit concerned when I see stuff like the outright assertion that radio communications were heard for days after she failed to land at Howland.

Although I was born in the first half of the last century, I missed the "golden age" though my library didn't.

I had the good fortune to talk to a number of the old heads and understand why some folks on the Earhart discussion page cannot comprehend the nature of the time and thus have problems with context.

I have been trying to get a feel for the contributors before I spend any time editing.

Most of my work on the Wiki has been on lighter than air and atomic weapons. Mark Lincoln

Gene Tierney

Sorry about that.Time to go to bed it is late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.250.164 (talk) 05:01:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

F-86

I saw cleary where are you going, and not like it. But i would suppose that you are still in good faith. Let's repeat with last edition of F-86 performances:

---

And so i think you'll agree to read this part of Joe Baugher ency, that reports too the sources he used: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_13.html

Specification of F-86F-40-NA: Engine: One General Electric J47-GE-27, 5910 lb.st. Dimensions: wingspan 39.11 feet, length 37.54 feet, height 14.74 feet, wing area 313.37 square feet. Weights: 11,125 pounds empty, takeoff weight 15,198 pounds (clean), 18,152 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks), 20,611 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks plus 2 1000 pound bombs). Maximum speed 678 mph at sea level, 599 mph at 35,000 feet (at 15,352 pounds combat weight). Initial climb rate 8100 feet per minute. Altitude of 30,000 feet reached in 5.2 minutes (clean). 47,000 feet service ceiling. Combat radius 463 miles. Ferry range 1525 miles.

Now let's see how it matches my numbers:

• Engine: Joe's: J47-GE-27. Aerei: J47-GE-27
• Thrust: Joe's:5910 lbs= 2680 kg. Aerei: 2680kgs
• Dimensions:

Joe's: 39,11ftx37,54ftx14,74ftx313,37ft2.=11,92 m x11.44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

Aerei:11,92 x11,44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

=Matched

• Weights:

Joe's: 11,135-15,198-18,152-20,611lbs=5,050-6,893-8,233-9,351kg

Aerei datas: 5,046--6,894-8,234-9,349 kg

=Almost 100% matched

• Performances:

Joe's 678/599 miles at 35,000ft= 1,091/964 kmh at 10,600 m

Aerei: 1091/964 kmh at 10600 m

=Matched

• Climb; Joe's 9,150 m in 5,2 min Aerei: 9,150 m in 5,2 m
• Ceiling: Joe 47000ft=14335 m .Aerei= 14325 m

=Matched over 99%

• Range:

Joe's 465 m and 1525 m ferry= 747 km-2452km

Aerei=745-1795 (internal)-2454km (ferry)

=Matched almost 100%

Weapons: Joe 2x747 l + 2x454kg bombs. 907+1100-1200kg fuel+200/300kg tanks=well over 2 t.

Aerei: max. 2455 kg total, of which 1100 kg weapons (possible that included M2 cartridges, 1,600 crts x 0,1 kg each are 160kg+907=1077)ù

SOLUTION: Take max weight and clean weight and the result will be, 20.611-15,198 lbs=2455 kg! Exactly the same weight indicated in Aerei. 100% matched.

All datas sobstantially matched one each other, with an average of over 99%. Minor differences of 1-10 km are simply ridicolous to tell as 'significatives at all.

Dimensions matchings, weights are almost exactly the same, speed and climb are equals, range and endurance are pratically equals, weapons load matching as well.

What about sources? If i presented them, they will been obviousely unreliables-rubbish-BS. Well, judice yourselves:

Sources: Joe's:

• F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
• The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.
• The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
• The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966.
• The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
• Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.
• F-86 Sabre--History of the Sabre and FJ Fury, Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1993.
• Thirty Seconds over Sargodha, John Fricker, Air Enthusiast, Vol 1, No 1, 1971.

Aerei:

• Aerei 6/79
• Aeri modellismo 5/92
• Air Enthusiast 17
• F-86 in action (Squadron signal)

---

Moreover, the not exactly silly site: http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/northam/f-86f.htm has datas widely matching mines.

Just to realize how silly these discussions are, seen how i am seen as the Antichrist of wikipedia.--Stefanomencarelli 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life

I apologize. I only wish to defend myself by saying that I thought I was improving the article. I will attempt to condense it pronto; please feel free to edit it if you feel it isn't up to par.

I hope that the non–plot-related changes were okay. Sincerely, thanks for your input! –TashTish (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I pored over my additions, and I couldn't figure out what to delete. (Ironically, I found it easy to condense other parts of the article, but when it comes to plot, I tend to get a bit fanboyish.) I'll leave it to you or anybody else to cut 'n' slash. <heh>

In defense of myself, I don't think I added that much: I put in the part about the bloody lip because it's mentioned earlier in the plot summary then never mentioned again; I put in the part about Zuzu's petals because it's related to the bloody lip; and I felt the emotional impact of the finale was give short shrift, so I addended what I thought was as concise an addition as possible (about eight lines). Oh well, I'm just a pushover I guess. –TashTish (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I did read the article's talk page, and past edits, and boy, you're right: the past plot points were way too long. I'm sorry I rolled back the clock, to a degree. Again, maybe I'm not the best to pare it down; if you (or anyone) feels strongly about it, I won't object to just reverting my additions (really). Thanks again! –TashTish (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I didn't mean to sound like I was self-flagellating; I was really just trying to be plain civil. Anyway, I attempted to break the plot summary up to make it more manageable, but in trying to cut some of the fat, I think I also ended up throwing more things in. (It's a good thing I didn't rewatch the film, or it might have been worse.) The net result is not horrible, but a less jaundiced eye might actually improve it. Oh well, back to the drawing board. –TashTish (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi Bill. Just a quick question; is the way you write citations (and correct citations) founded in any regulations or just your personal style?

I'm mainly referring to this edit.

If there's some rule involved then I'd like to learn about it so I can amend my own citations, if not then I don't see why its better to keep everything inside like so: [text]. Isn't it better to keep the website name outside the box and the link name itself inside? I'm just thinking here. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Bill, thanks for the very thorough lesson in MLA citations. I appreciate it. I must admit that I haven't used the MLA system for citations much, when I've created articles or brought them up from stubs I've used the system they taught us in university a couple of years ago, can't remember what that was called again. Well, anyway, I'm sure the MLA is a fine system. When encountering a article that already has references I usually use the same system used previously on that article. Often that's MLA, and that's good. The Brits have a different system, and we Norwegians another one. All professional, I assume.

As to the website citations, isn't it a bit over the top the include all those details? Is it really neccessary? I totally understand the need for a detailed system for book citations, and I've always included the required information in my references, but for websites I don't really see the use. Its there, you click it and you're on the page, a simple "name of site, title of page/section, and language of the site (if its not in English) should do, shouldn't it? I understand the ideal, but is it really required for websites? Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, agreed. But why is "" better than ""? They include exactly the same information? Manxruler (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Bill. I think you might have missed my last question (you did get a lot of questions from several users at the time). Why is "Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)" better than "Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)"? Manxruler 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. Its appreciated. Good we're in agreement. I have the same problem, sometimes messages just get lost in the stream of info. Be well. Manxruler 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill. I have been looked at this interesting dialog since the very beginning as I am obviously interested in the specific article. Here below I post the article references transformed by using standard templates.

What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article ?

• Cappone, Max C.A. (2000). "Re 2000". An online World War II aviation history magazine. Retrieved 2007-11-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Henriksson, Lars (2005-06-29). "Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)". avrosys.nu. Retrieved 2007-11-26.
• Cattaneo, Gianni (1967). The Reggiane Re.2000 (Aircraft in Profile Number 123) (1972 ed.). Windsor Berkshire: Profile Publications Ltd.
• Mondey, David (1996). The Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft of World War II. New York: Bounty Books. ISBN 1-85152-966-7.
• Punka, George (2001). Reggiane Fighters in action. Carrolton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications. ISBN 0-89747-430-9.
• Taylor, John W. R. (1969). Reggiane Re.2000 Falco I (Falcon). New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 0-425-03633-2. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article ? In order to improve our knowledge on this topic, which parts of these results you do not agree with ?

Moreover, I have several black and white RE2000 photos in my books. Do you think I could move present Swedish variant color photo in the article body and putting an Italian variant one in the infobox ? --EH101 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed ! Really ! It is a pleasure to meet a real expert on these matters. What do you think if I create a {{MLA cite book}} and a {{MLA cite web}} template in my sandbox, just to experiment. It should not be too difficult. Then I could move them in mainspace and authors will have more possibilities for citations, choosing what they prefer. At the end, after a consensus check, existing and MLA templates could merge, maybe with a field MLA/APA initial switch. May I try ?

Relevant to the picture: the story is not so simple. Re.2000 were indeed Italians, but production figures state: 158 built of which 60 exported to Sweden, 70 to Hungary. This leaves only 28 of them in Italian service. My books say this is due to the cold welcome given to its innovative metal wing fuel filled design Regia Aeronautica felt uncomfortable with. So, amazing to say, Re.2000s could be considered Hungarian planes much more than Italian ones. Anyway, I will upload my picture, filling the textbox, moving the other in the text body. Let’s see the result.--EH101 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix (static).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix (static).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Secondary?

If the lack of "P-38" means it doesn't count, then you better do something about the 19XX entry that states the plane in question is the "Lightning," and links directly to the Wiki entry on the P-38. It doesn't say "P-38" in the entry or the game, so it must not be a P-38 then. Right?

I think considering the planes look exactly the same in all the games (except for the detail levels capable on each type of hardware), and are identified in at least one as actually being a P-38, then I can accurately put 2 and 2 together and make a factual edit.

Or you could have just removed the titles of the games in question.

Wycked (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that secondary use law mentioning Ace Combat. Bandai actually has the rights to faithfully reproduce the planes, not make look-alikes of them, as stated in the lengthy opening copyright/trademark screens at the beginning. I wonder if they consider Microsoft's Flight Simulator to fall into that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wycked (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's hard to make a case that any game is significant in reaching the general public. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)."

No doubt, unless it involves "accidental" nudity, the F-bomb, or repeated gore. Though a good number of the 9/11 terrorists were found to have trained on MS Flight Sim... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wycked (talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Aiight, I'm all done here. Wycked (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Please be careful when reverting vandalism, as sometimes it isn't vandalism you're reverting (see this recent edit of yours). Good job otherwise! Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to suspect for a second that you're a malicious vandal. And I know what you mean, sometimes the Wiki acts in strange ways. Just thought I'd give you a heads up though. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

G'day again

Don't know if you've heard/read about our recent election; some national embarrassments have fallen by the wayside, and some have proven to be very sore losers. Regards from Oz, once again a land for decent folk. YSSYguy (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Little Johnny Boy was never a buffoon, he was for a long time a very astute political operator who in the end seems to have been infused with colossal hubris. His government was one that did what it wanted, come what may. See MV Tampa and articles linked from that article. See also Karen Chijoff and linked articles for an attempt during the recent campaign that backfired. His government routinely blocked Freedom of Information requests. If a member of his government was accused of wrong-doing or misuse of office, he'd just wait it out until the fuss died down. He sat on his hands for days while East Timor became a bloodbath and IMO only sent troops in because there was so much clamour among the public. He did nothing about David Hicks for years, until that whole mess began to stink to high heaven. Hicks might be a terrorist, I don't know; and we will probably never know the truth because he never actually received a trial (as for Hicks' gutilty plea, what Stalin taught us is that sooner or later anyone will say anything to make "it" all stop).

There are commercial flights between Sydney and Canberra about every 15-20 minutes - LJB would make the trip in an RAAF BBJ (it takes about 2.5 hours to drive between the two cities). He used the BBJs even though RAAF Challengers are also available (his predecessor, also from Sydney, would charter a Cessna Conquest to make the trip at a time when the VIP fleet consisted of Falcon 900s). His trips between the two cities were far more frequent than they needed to be because he simply refused to live in the Prime Ministerial residence in Canberra, but in the PM's Sydney residence (on Sydney Harbour, with nice views of the Opera house and Harbour Bridge) instead, the only PM to do so. He justified this by saying his children were attending school in Sydney; his youngest is now 26 years old (his successor's wife flew to Canberra this week with the stated mission of finding a school for their youngest son to attend). To sum him up, IMO he is a cunning, nasty, arrogant man who got used to the trappings of office and who wanted to remain in power for its own sake, and who never twigged that there is more to life than money and selfishness. The last comment goes to his supporters too. They are howling with dismay and anger now that he is gone and I think that it is significant that one of the few Liberal-held seats in Sydney encompasses the location of the 2005 Cronulla riots. It seems likely to me that LJB's legacy will be the acceptance of hate as a political tool in this country. YSSYguy (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good riddance to Little Johnny Boy!! As an Australian as well as a New Zealander the guy was a disgrace to this part of the world.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

Hi Bill, I'm continually amazed at the amount of vandalism that crops up on that page! I know that you're trying hard to improve it, and constantly having to keep one eye on these idiots doesn't help. How about asking for page protection? --RedSunset | Talk 21:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (Thought I'd brighten up my sig.)

Red, see "View logs" at the top of the page when viewing edit history, and you will see that the page has been protected and unprotected more than once. What about using Twinkle? Snowman (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

From Noo Zeealnd

Where it's warm and sunny! Appreciate once again your help and advice over the last couple of weeks. I've spent some time editing and updating No. 485 Squadron RNZAF as well as Typhoon and Tempest related stuff. Is it possible to become addicted??? (Wikidicted?). Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXI (November 2007)
Project news The military history style guide has been integrated into Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The contest department has completed its eight month of competition. The leader for this month, with a massive 92 points, is Blnguyen; Woodym555 is in second place, with 32 points, and Cla68 and TomStar81 are tied for third place, with 15 points each. Overall, Blnguyen is now in first place, with 140 points, followed by JKBrooks85, with 120 points, and by Woodym555, with 63 points. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. The American Revolutionary War and Baltic states military history task forces have been created. Tag & Assess 2007—the project's first major article tagging and assessment drive—is continuing; all project members—and anyone else who's interested—are invited to assist with this effort. The number of articles tagged as being within our scope has now exceeded 50,000.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Red Cliffs James II of England Lawrence Sullivan Ross Pre-dreadnought battleship Thomas C. Hindman USS Kentucky (BB-66) New featured lists: List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients New featured portals: Military of Greece New A-Class articles: 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident Battle of the Gebora Battle of Vaslui Le Quang Tung Morotai Mutiny Phan Dinh Phung Truong Dinh USS Illinois (BB-65) Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang Yen Bai mutiny
Current proposals and discussions A proposal to introduce a project motto is being discussed. A discussion regarding flag icons in biographical infoboxes has begun.
Awards and honors Mike Christie was awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on Anglo-Saxon military history, including the production of numerous featured articles.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft

Bill, I was following the Kelowna Flightcraft link from the Convair CV-240, and saw it redirected to Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, which is set up (correctly) as an airliner page. THere seems to be a little info on Kelowna Flightcraft's other activities there, but not much, and nothing whatsoever on their being the Convair type certificate holder, their CV5800 conversions and similar activities. Would you be interested in setting up a dedicated page for the parent company that covers a braoder range of its activities? I figure you probably have some first-hand knowledge on the company to work from, and better access to local sources. If you can't, just say so, and I'll try to throw a stub togother in a few days. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ 19:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

MLA citation

Just showing off. I used an MLA style citation on Helicopter flight controls. --Born2flie 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this one, found through the link you pasted in our discussion on my talk page. I think it is going to become a tool for me. --Born2flie 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation Style II

Quick question: You changed this

Jim Finkle, "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios", in Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005.

to this

Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios"

Aside from the last name first and the commas vs the periods, isn't the latter MLA style redundant, whereas the former style incorporates the hyperlink into the citation without repeating the article title? It seems that's how the other citations in the article do it. –TashTish 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TashTish, this is how I would change this citation for simplicity as the entire tracings are embedded into the URl description and would read flawlessly as a title:

"Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios" by Jim Finkle, Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005 FWIW, check your talk page for more details as to how this all works. Bzuk 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

• Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, 9 March 2005. 4 December 2007 <http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA509824.html>.

Taking a stab at this one. Instructor, how did I do? (P.S. I used the link I shared above.) --Born2flie 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good, I would only make one alteration as to the dates, to be sure that the retrieval or access date is linked to the electronic file and not to the reference source (and it's usually good to have a full stop at the end of each entry:

• Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, 9 March 2005. Sunset-Gower Studios Access date: 4 December 2007. FWIW (see above for an alternative style that is perfectly acceptable in our WickyWacy world.

Big Hint: Read this "string" in edit mode to see all the intricacies of editing. 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, the MLA Style guide site has the access date after the date of the reference, without a notification, and just before the link for linking to magazine internet sources.[1] I also redid an inline reference on Autorotation (helicopter) and minus a period that I missed, I had it exactly in the MLA style the site recommended. I like that it is a standard format, or an expected standard format, regardless of the type of reference. --Born2flie 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation style III (frequency)

Hi Bill, these issues are old chestnuts for me. While I hate the Harvard system, I am obliged to use in the course of my paid work as a uni teaching assistant, I tell my students "if in doubt, cite", and that is what I stick to here as well. My boss, who is a PhD, is even more extreme, and sometimes uses citations after commas,¹ <-- like that, which sometimes means more than one in a sentence.² However, I do feel that is overzealous ;-) Grant | Talk 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisunov Li-2

Hi! Yes - all is well :) Just wondering what it is about this article that you think is fishy? --Rlandmann 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WJR

Bill, that's a coincidence! Just a few weeks ago I received a request from Neil Corbett, the author of the TartanTerror Blogspot site for information to add to his Test Pilot pages! I gave him a brief outline, promising to ask my family for more detailed information on e.g. the number of WWII tours of duty (four, I believe), the number of aircraft types flown for the RNZAF, RAF and Shorts etc. There is some material at the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre and also in the London Gazette (about decorations, promotions etc). As for a wiki article, I'm sure that there are some wiki rules (there are so many!) precluding close relatives from writing biographical (hagiographic?) articles! Are you offering to help!? I could provide references (or PDFs in the case of the London Gazette) quite easily. The blogspot article provides a stub and, as it quotes more or less verbatim from my email to Neil, there would be no copyright issue there, I'm sure. --TraceyR (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi, I see that you've started to impose a different style for references, attribution of footnotes etc (ref Glenn Curtiss [2]). This new style would appear to conflict with the style guide at Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, and contradict with the model at [3] which is recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military.

I don't want to blow this out of proportion, but almost all individuals with articles under the scope of your aviation project will also be covered by biography & other such classifications which use the "normal" style. I can't see how to square this. Regardless of the merits of one style over the other, could you point me towards any discussions inside & outside your project to review the impact of this choice, so I can understand what this means to editors? TIA, Ephebi (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• thanks for the fulsome reply - I don't have any problem at all with the content used by the cite or references that you refer to, & having worked on both sides of the Atlantic I've seen plenty of different ways of citing in use, including the styles you mention and their predecessors! FYI, to support what you advocate and to impose consistency on an article, you might consider using the templates at the crib sheet here. (The only down-side is that the in-line {cite=} text is ugly for editors, but then again, so is a full in-line citation. To see an example take a look at London congestion charge which is being proposed as an WP:FA.) Ephebi (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem just comes down to the nested reference section, which jars if you are used to the other parts of the WP project. This only refers to one sub-section, such as "==References==" or "==Notes and references==", etc. The use of multiple columns, sizing, etc, is all good stuff and doesn't throw up any inconsistencies, in fact I've been using this for a while on big articles. As far as I see, theres just a basic contradiction between the terminology & nesting for references that you advocate and the style that is recommended in WP:REF and refined further by the military biography folks. As an editor, I'd appreciate a pointer to any discussions where the usage and impact of this new style has been assessed & agreed. If you could get that up on the Aviation project page, life might be easier.
• As it is now, there are going to be plenty of biography articles (for example) which may have aviation content but will start off using the vanilla WP guide or wiki-bio guide that assume a different interpretation of your "standard". And if they were to adopt the same format as respected biography publications like the DNB (Sources/Archives/Likenesses/ etc...) or ADB ( Select Bibliography/Author/.. ) ...

Cheers, Ephebi (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Category

Does Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Flying Cross need to be changed to have a U.S. in it? Snowman (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

F-86 white space eliminated

Bill, Why did u revert my tweak of the pics to eliminate the white space?? YOU like all the white space?? I tried 4 or 5 different combos with left/center/right and different px sizes. My fix was the simpliest and most logical. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Never used or seen Mozilla Firefox, heard of it tho. I used Explorer 7, and all that white space is elimiated with the map on the left and the two pics immediately on its right. Taaa daaa. I have one more idea to fix it. Then take another look, please. If it doesn't work, please take a shot at it. Thanks, Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look now> Lance.....LanceBarber (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's either one or the other- your version works in older browsers while mine works best in the Firefox browser, no problem with me, take one last look at it in either version and change it to the one you think looks best. My changes were all predicated on making a two-column list of operators but it necessitated alterations to the other two sections and a move of four graphic images (two photographs, one map and one 3-view drawing). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

Lets use the single column format with multiple pics along the right side as many other articles are oriented. Other a/c articles like the F-100, F-104, and F-4 have one column with some text under each or most counties. I can not recall any a/c articles with a 2 column orientation. THe single column with pics along the right side is common, neat, clean, and "eye" balance, thus being viewable under various browsers. --->> Idea, how about you and I do a joint effort in researching and updating the 86 article with a touch of data or info on as many county operations and give more depth to this section. A list of operator is nice , but some details under each one would be beneficial. What do you think? ... Lance LanceBarber (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I've begun editing in some operators data. Could you please find some models, numbers, dates, and assignments for 86s delivered to Iran and Iraq. My book does not have any data. Thank you. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

US

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

Helicopter references

If you have time, I've redone most of the references into an MLA format...sort of. I was moving under a timeline, so I wasn't being uber strict on format. Also a quick read through the reworded History section and what you think of the Uses section would be appreciated. All, only if you have time. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! I shall remember all the little things as well. --Born2flie (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Bill, what is the Canadian spelling of manoeuvre/maneuver? Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

page names

Several individual named aircraft have had name changes today, including "Shoo Shoo Baby (aircraft)" and "The Pink Lady (aircraft)". A lot of the named B-17 aircraft use the name pattern "Aircraft Name (B-17)", but "Aircraft Name (aircraft)" is probably clearer for most readers. I started many of the stubs. Is there a wiki standard or wikiproject aircraft style for this? I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Bill - you've been here more than long enough now - how would you feel about an RfA? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)