User talk:Trevor MacInnis/Archive 07
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
){kind=link}
Barnstar
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| For amazing work in building Template:WPAVIATION creator - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
Darn! Beaten to the punch! Please consider this a "hear hear" to the above! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: C-Class rating
Hi- @ User_talk:Brad101#C-class_coding you offered to make the project banner changes. WP:SHIPS will go with a C class rating only if items 3-5 are met and the B Class rating should follow the same as WP:MILHIST uses. If the checklist is not filled out the default should be Start even if someone tries to rate it B or C. Note that there was some changes made to our banner that made C default to start; this change was done a week or two ago. I also liked the idea that you did for aviation where a template, category or image would automatically assess. Our importance rating on those pages would be =NA. Would appreciate if you could make those changes. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Kralizec! (talk · contribs) made the changes from the sandbox template to the active template and its working except that we lost our A class articles and I believe there are also problems with the NA class. Hopefully you might get a look at this before Kralizec! can. --Brad (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, could you take a look at this request? While the requested change sounds like a great idea, it involves changes to the template parser beyond my level of comfort. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Be careful not to revert db-g7s.
Speedy deletion of Image:NASA Shuttle Transport.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:NASA Shuttle Transport.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:NASA Shuttle Transport.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Σαι ( Talk) 06:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Airport creator
Thanks, that makes things a lot easier. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Stuff
The "JAE" list (note the typo - should have been JEA... but anyway...) was created by leafing through Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation and manually typing out a list of every type that had an article in that book! (hence the typos here and there). I did a bit of "preprocessing" by rearranging names wherever possible to fit our naming conventions; skipping the odd entry that we would consider a variant, and splitting the occasional entry that covered a related but distinct type under the same heading. I think we're fine under US copyright law, but it would be dubious in the EU (which recognises "database rights").
Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation was only published in two editions; a five-volume set in 1980, and an omnibus edition in 1989 that omitted the lengthy "Chronology" section that took up most of Volume 1 in the original edition, but added a supplementary section to bring the encyclopedia up-to-date for its day. There have been no updates since then, and when we eventually work our way through the "missing" lists, Wikipedia will become not only the most comprehensive encyclopedia of aircraft ever published, but the most detailed as well, since very few entries in JEA are anything more than what we would call a stub (or even sub-stub!)
And yes - the PhotoFAQ was intended to be an aircraft-specific guide, but probably useful to the other Aviation projects as well. Work kinda stalled, but I've always intended to return to it. Since you've asked about it, I'll finish it up and move it into project space. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
seems we got there at the same time, i was just about to decline the speedy since it's in use. i restored it, i think the MFD should run. hope that's ok. –xeno (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
More aerospecs
Hi Trevor -
I'm not going to be able to get to this for a few days; and I'll admit that I'm somewhat hesitant about further "specification creep" and ending up with something like {{aircraft specifications}}! Anyway, more when I get back! --Rlandmann (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Il-86
Thank you for looking at the page, helping with aspects of it, and most of all for reassessing it to C-class. I am baffled by the banner calling for more in-text citations. Surely, there is a huge number?! Also, in reassessing, you noted (I infer) that the article met four-fifths of the B-class checklist. I looked this up and it has six items... Please give me a pointer as to what I can specifically do to boost the rating through future edits and what you feel needs doing, regardless of ratings. I have plenty of material but am mindful of the 32kb limit which is reached as I write this; the more I add, the more must be tipped out. Question is -- what exactly to tip out..?78.147.163.83 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well, I gave in and opened an account, so we can converse properly.Peter Skipp (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for getting rid of the morefootnotes tag. I am still at a loss as to what to do with regard to more references so as to get B rating. Do please let me know, if only in a few words. Thank you. Peter Skipp (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
P-51 variants, Supermarine Spitfire varaints
Thanks for your recent work on these articles. Cheers!Minorhistorian (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I feel my mistake was in assuming it was what it said it was, a simple G6; do you feel WP:AGF should not have applied here? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
40K?
Did I see 40,000 edits? Congrats, well done!! Only 35,500 to go for me! Great work. Nimbus (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have broken it with your last edit, the template is currently getting a constant "yes" underneath the quality scale. It seems visible on all pages to me at least. I don't want to revert given how many pages it is transcluded on, do you know how to fix it? Regards. Woody (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Airline codes-A
Air Whitsunday is back. I added more so it is slightly more notable. All we need is an external reference or two. As far as the other one, there appear to be two airlines, the other based in Malaysia, using the same IATA code so I'm not sure what is really going on there. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please take at look at the history section and see if the way I used the exact quote is OK. Clearly that makes the airline notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Fifth largest Air force
Hi, do you know which is the fifth largest air force in the world in terms of active combat aircrafts? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
DYK: Avro 533 Manchester
|
On 19 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Avro 533 Manchester, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
hi
hi, it's me. - 66.181.34.217 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Main page redesign
Hello, Trevor MacInnis! Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal was recently cleared of all design entries. You may want to re-enter your design(s), based on the details here. (You can see the old list of designs here). NOTE: A survey was conducted on what users wanted to see in the new main page, you can see the results here. NickPenguin(contribs) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(Repeating much of this from a comment I originally wrote for MilborneOne a few months back...)
Just a couple of thoughts since I've seen you wade in: these manufacturers are tricky! Up until the mid 1930s, they all follow generally predicable patterns (nonsense example here): AB.14 followed by AB.15. Seaplanes and flying boats (Hydroplanes in French) were usually prefixed (or sometimes suffixed) "H", so the next in our sequence might have been the HAB.16 followed by the AB.17.
In the mid 30s, they changed to using an extra digit at the end to signify a variant, so now, the next in our sequence might be the AB.180 - under the US or German systems, this would have been the AB.18A and the French AB.181 would have been the AB.18B. I'm not exactly sure what prompted this change, but all French manufacturers did this around the same time, and it co-incides chronologically with the French government busily nationalising the aircraft industry, so I feel sure these events are related.
We therefore normally shouldn't be making separate articles (or template entries or list entries) for the AB.192 and AB.195 any more than we would usually treat the "F-19C" and "F-19F" separately - they're variants of the same plane. What did they do when they reached the 11th variant and ran out of digits? Added an extra separator: eg Potez 63.11 (sometimes written 63-11). The base model was sometimes written AB.19, or sometimes AB.190 - this seems to have varied between manufacturers. Note too, that the AB.200 and AB.230 may have been substantially the same aircraft, separated for whatever reason the manufacturer chose.
As a final point of confusion, if the aircraft was purchased by the armed forces, they would refer to it by its manufacturer designation, but start suffixing this with a designation letter and mark number, quite similar to the British system. So, if the AB.192 was purchased for use as a fighter, it would be designated AB.192C.1 (for Chasseur mark 1). And of course, the sub-subtypes allocated by the air force and the manufacturer won't necessarily map on to each other in a neat one-to-one fashion. So, military suffixes like C (Chasseur) N (de Nuit) B (Bombardier) R (Reconnaissance) E/Et (Ecole/Entrainment), S (Sanitaire - "ambulance") don't form part of the main designation either. (Like the British system, these suffixes could also be stacked, so BR for a reconnaissance-bomber, or CN for a night-fighter).
The trick when working with these manufacturers is determining when the changeover occurred; but once you see three-digit numbers appearing, you know they were on to the "new" system.
And, of course, there were always exceptions.
This is all really counter-intuitive for English-speaking aviation enthusiasts used to the US and German systems, hence the big mess that our French aircraft coverage is currently in! We desperately need to rationalise all this one day... but it will be a big job. It's added to by the fact that the "base model" may be virtually unknown in English publications and often probably only existed as a single prototype anyway, therefore eclipsed by the production models.
I guess the bottom line is to treat any three-digit code with extreme suspicion - there were very few manufacturers whose base models eventually stretched this far (meaning the subtypes had four digits - Breguet is an example); and look very carefully at the gaps between two-digit codes; if there are big gaps, the two-digit codes are probably subtypes. If you don't already know it, http://www.aviafrance.com is a really useful site for sorting these out - with plenty of pictures to aid identification.
Hope this helps! I certainly don't profess to be an expert on these, though... --Rlandmann (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the point I was trying to make is that (for a concrete example), MS-890 • MS-892 • MS-893 • MS-894 shouldn't be listed separately in {{Morane-Saulnier aircraft}} or the List of aircraft; this is equivalent to MS-89A • MS-89C • MS-89D • MS-89E under the American or German systems - they're all just subtypes of the MS-890 because the French use a digit rather than a letter to separate these.
- As for "AB-15" vs "AB.15" vs "AB 15" - there's an enormous muddle here too - not just on Wikipedia, but in aviation publishing in general - and probably no single, "correct" solution. WP:AIR probably just need to settle on one style and stick to it. IMHO, "AB 15" is to be preferred, since this is the version that was usually painted on the aircraft themselves; however, from a naming point of view, this is somewhat undesirable since it seems to be about the least-used option in the publishing world! --Rlandmann (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Fat ass article
Hi trevor!
I listed the above page for removal, as wikitionary also does not have a page regarding the subject of the article. Seems a bit useless to have a page directing to a page that also tells the user there is no further info. Just to let you know, and to give you a notice in case i missed something here. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Remove my article
I'm trying to remove my article on Yda Addis aka Yda Hillis Addis. I've blanked the page, but the article returns. How can I remove everything? Chaos4tu (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please un-protect the page "Yda Addis"
Please un-protect the page "Yda Addis." the editors have already nominated the work for deletion, and I agree! Let me take out the article for the reasons that the "editors" have stated: not referenced. I only spent 5 years of my life researching Addis and another 4 years working on her literature, Wikipedia is right! The article stinks!!! Come on, let me save face, and let me delete the article.Chaos4tu (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I feel a little odd doing this, since you are an admin, but the user who blanked it created the page, meaning it's eligible for CSD under G7 (Author Blanked). --LAAFan 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Me109 G-6 D-FMBB 1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
|
KNUQ
Thanks for assisting in cleaning up the radio station articles by deleting the deprecated KNUQ disambiguation page and moving KNUQ (FM) to its more proper name. Could you please also delete the old Talk:KNUQ as it's tagged db-g8 and holding up the move of Talk:KNUQ (FM) to that new name. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism to Brian Alters article
Hey, would you mind not reverting my edits to this article. I'm a frequent user of wikipedia and well I have never really edited in the past, an entire first-year BIO150 class at the University of Toronto is being directed to this article, as Alters is going to be a guest lecturer next week.
EDIT: NEVERMIND As you can see, I really don't know how to use Wikipedia that much. Upon further inspection it seems that a poster under IP address 69.196.150.105 is doing these reverts. I would appreciate it if you could ban this guy, or at the least lock this article. The former would probably be a better idea until next Wednesday (when the lecture is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.166.48 (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
u sound like a gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
World War I aces
Trevor, I am gratified that you have asked me to join your aviation project. However, I think you should know both pros and cons about my acceptance of the evitation. I am a published author, and I do have a background featuring both light aircraft and military intelligence. I can do well by you on the writing end. That's the up side. On the other hand, I am still learning the wiki stuff. I definitely lack the background to be an editor. So there you have it. As I judge myself, I can contribute as an author, but I'm far from being capable of being an editor because I lack tech skills.
Back on the "List of World War I aces" page, I noted on the talk page that I would probably be improved by judicious editing by someone with tech skills. I'm struggling to pick up those skills even as I write, and make piecemeal corrections as I catch on. Any day now, I'm going to ratchet up my nerve and straighten out alpha order where it's wrong.
A big for instance concerning tech skills is, the above article is now 86 kilobytes long. I suggested that at a certain level, additional tables could be set up for certain scores--for instance, there are 77 aces who scored 10 victories. I pretty much cut off the table there because 86 kilobytes gives us only 15% to 20% of the World War I aces. The other 80% to 85% scored from 5 to 9 victories. The question becomes, Do we need a complete listing of them? Or do we cover only the notable ones like Pegoud and Garros? Or do we refer them to another source for the remainder, like www.theaerodrome.com?
I've done some noodling on the size of the article and the list. Breaking off the top of the victory list at 20 and making the first list 20 victories or more would make for an article length of about 25 kb. Making the second table cover from 11 to 19 victories would result in an article of about 46 or 47 kb. Ten victories and below would then be left to be about 15 kb, with room left for expansion. (Top two tables unlikely to expand.)
Okay, so I've given you a lot to chew upon. I'm on board as a writer, for sure, unless you folks give the big heave ho. I can use and appreciate any helpful hints/tips/guidance. Now, back to my monomania with those fascinating pioneer warriors of the air.... ``George J. Dorner, 30 August 2008 @ 2212 hours PST.`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Trevor, my good fellow,
If you don't mind if I stumble, bumble, and fumble my way into knowledge, I do have a high tolerance for making a fool of myself in public.
Many thanks for the tips included in your last message. Please allow me some absorption time.
Concerning splitting the table if it gets too large--
In its present form, the descending number of victories lends a hierarchal sense that adds to the impact and meaning of the information presented. It's sobering to realize that the Red Baron wasn't a comic strip character, but instead a fighter who killed 50 plus other men in individual combat. Scanning the list and seeing all the Canadians who fought for the UK makes it very apparent just how important Canadian pilots were in the war. The very mass of the list illustrates just how extensive aerial combat became in just a few years after the airplane's invention. Etcetera.
All of this would be lost if the list is split into alpha order. Richthofen becomes just another entry under 'R'. The reader may choose a letter that has few or no Canadians listed. The mass of names now becomes just 26 files. The project loses unity and becomes a scattered spaghetti of factoids.
{Cue up the tragic violins} Don't do it that way....puh-lease.
As for notability as a key to listing pilots with fewer than 10 victories... That can remain in abeyance. It will probably take more thinking time, and perhaps a bit of research, to get a handle on that. In the meantime, there are still about 500 of the present 600 entries to go, and much amendment and correction ahead... ````George J. Dorner, 31 August 2008, 1640 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Trevor, I'm looking at "Create military aviator biography article" template. Button says "create new airline". When I click button, an amazing amount of stuff I'm clueless about pops up on screen. Is there a way I could fiddle with this in a sandbox? ````George J. Dorner, 1 September 2008, 1113 PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
My first attempt at creating an article from scratch is under the name John Inglis Gilmour. I hope you will be kind enough to look it over and give me feedback.
BTW, when I re-read my talk page, I belatedly realized that you are writing up the Canadian WWI aces. I will belay working on them. I am just as happy to dodge the Billy Bishop firestorm. I have taken a look at that article. Interestingly, he is the only ace whose detailed victory list is not listed on www.theaerodrome.com. Using their search engine, I did come up with a listing that was apparently part of the Billy Bishop Zone. It justified 61 'kills'.
However, I would ask that you look at his placement on the List of World War I Aces. There he is credited with 72 victories. I believe that both he and Stan Dallas are ranked too far up on the list. I have tried to fix rank on this list according to CONFIRMED victories. When supposition creeps in, Fonck and Mannock and Bishop creep up the list above the Red Baron. This runs counter to reality, which has shown aerial victory claims to be exaggerated when later evaluated by being matched to loss records.
I already axed Marsh Corbitt as being unverifiable as an ace. I have also moved several lower scoring aces about, but have so far refrained from meddling with the top of the list. ````George J. Dorner, 12 September 2008, 2332 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
Many thanks for neatening up John Inglis Gilmour. I don't know how much more we are going to get on him. He's a bit of a mystery man. Lack of info is something I am beginning to run into down at the bottom of the WWI victories list. If they are not known, they are not notable, right?
Peacock terms....um, gotta curb my novelist's reflexes. I did read the reference and will try to curb my enthusiasm.
````George J. Dorner, 13 September 2008, 1647 hours PST````
Trevor,
I've noted a particular bit of baffle-gab that I've been running across when adding to, rewriting, and/or editing this articles on aces. I have copied an example below:
His wartime claims totalled 54; 2 aircraft & 1 shared captured, 13 & 3 shared balloons, 15 & 4 shared aircraft destroyed, 15 & 1 shared aircraft " Out of control".
Only the first five words of this make any sense. I have been using the lists on www.theaerodrome.com to make my own tallies of different kinds of victories, and rewriting such summaries of claims.
I do hope you will join me in this. Maybe even spread the word to others working on this same subject?
I suppose every editor has their own little semantic hobbyhorses. Obviously, this is mine.
````George J. Dorner, 15 September 2008, 1636 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
While researching Otto Konnecke, I discovered a German Wikipedia article on him. The translation into English is rather clumsy. However, I was thinking that with editing and rewriting, it might serve as the basis for the English language article on him.
Is this/can this be done?
````George J. Dorner, 16 September 2008, 1942 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
Um, have the feeling I failed to communicate in the above.
I can get an auto-translation of the German Wikipedia article on Konnecke (or whoever), by babelfish or Google. It's clumsy and semi-intelligible. What I propose to do is use this translation as a basis for an English language article on Konnecke. I would rewrite it in fluent English, and add in my own research.
I should hate to take the effort to do this just to discover I have unwittingly violated a Wikipedia standard of some sort. I mean, put in the effort for something that's going to be deleted? I mean, I know deletion is a possibility for anything I write on here, but why beg for it by breaking the rules?
And yes, I could link the English version back to the German one, though it wouldn't do me any good. Unfortunately, I'm monolingual at best.
````George J. Dorner, 18 September 2008, 0119 hours PST````
Trevor, good fellow,
Bless you for your additional guidance. I'm beginning to blaze some trails through the Wikipedia jungle, and you are often my lodestar.
By the way, mine Wiki Godfather, I am now undergoing my first recommended deletion, on Samuel Kinkead. I paused in mid-article, and found it targeted for lack of notability. If you should care to pop over to deletions and read the talk on this proposed deletion, you might find something interesting to teach me, for which I would be humbly grateful.
It will be interesting to see how this proposed deletion plays out.
````George J. Dorner, 19 September 2008, 1722 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
I probably lean on you outrageously, a habit of which I am trying to wean myself. However, when struggling to chip my way into Wikipedia, I had login difficulties. As a result, I kept creating new accounts, or simply working under my name. I would appreciate your guidance in finding someone who could unify all this in one account. In turn, I would become a good lad indeed, and never repeat this sin. And if you can tell me how to avoid the sinebot coming along after I sign with 4 tildes.... And I did try the unify accounts link I found. It told me my main account didn't exist....
````George J. Dorner, 21 September 2008, 1230 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
Thanks for clarifying the tildes. Too bad about the three accounts I can't combine, to say nothing of the stuff I did without logging in.
I just completed filling in French Legion d'Honneur awards in the notes column of the List of World War I flying aces. Three of them were Canadians: McKay, MacLaren, and Waddington. A tidbit for their bios.
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
Do you know if there are any plans to create articles about the notable air units of the First World War? I have been linking as though that were going to happen.
The same goes for airfields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
George
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor, Another note anent a Canadian ace. MacKay won Belgium's highest decoration, the Order of Leopold. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Trevor, German ace Hans Mueller (12 victories) is linked to the stub of a gay porn actor. Said stub was tagged on 4 June 2007 as needing to satisfy fair use rationale for an image; such rationale was supposed to be supplied within one week. Additionally, the stub supplies no proof that the porn star is especially notable. If I knew how to recommend this stub for deletion, I would. I have looked at the procedure for deletion, but I am clueless about it. Georgejdorner (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Trev, while I value your additions to the article, a predominance of one source makes it a bit lopsided; one solution is to incorporate a number of similar citations under one overall citation, eg. pp. 43–45. and that will cover two or three individual statements in the passage. FWiW, there are other sources other than McCaffrey who is not the definitive voice in this field. Bzuk (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC).
Dassault Ouragan
Trevor, sorry about stomping your edits on the Dassault Ouragan page. I had added an Inuse tag, but I guess you started working on it before I saved the tag. Just wanted to let you know the deletions weren't intentional. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Baseball template
Hey thanks for updating the template so quickly. —Borgardetalk 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Pan Am Flight 103
Thanks for putting the complete B-class checklist on Talk:Pan Am Flight 103. I've done some work on the Pan Am Flight 103 article today hoping to improve its score on the Aviation Wikiproject scale. Is it ready for a GA relisting, in your view?--PJHaseldine (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
F4U Corsair survivors
Trevor, thanks for fixing the broken history in the F4U Corsair survivors article. Unfortately, it was moved back to Chance-Vought F4U survivors shortly aferwards. We were both mistaken on the title, as that article is "owned" by a user who determines his own article names for the Survivor series (aircraft). Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer review and aviation banner
Trevor,
There used to be complete instructions on how to build the subpage for inclusion on the Peer review page, but those instructions are now missing. I remember that it mentioned what kind of heading to use, a reminder to link to the article page, etc. Now, there is just a redlink to the future subpage with no instructions how to format it. I'm not sure where it went or if you are even aware it has been changed. Just sharing what I found researching why the latest peer review request was a redlink. --Born2flie (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
F4U Survivors: code
Thanks for adding the Survivors code to the F4U article - I still need to do a quick write-up on that section but the code needs to be changed to reflect a F4U survivor (and not a B-52) - one with an interesting (and verifible history) thinking about FG-1 67070 Davegnz (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:AVIATION A-class Review
Seems like we are falling behind on passing/failing of the A-class reviews at WP:AVIATION, I would be happy to archive some older reviews and pass/fail them based on their support. If there are any you want archived just drop me a comment. -Marcusmax (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
D.H.9C
Trevor: I've just added a bit more detail to the development section which I hope you agree is useful. My main source is A J Jackson's book on d h aircraft (call it AJJ) and this poses a problem re powerplant. You say Liberty. Now AJJ has this as one choice in the military D.H. 9 and 9A, but not for any of the civil 9s. According to him the only engine in the 9B and 9C was the Siddeley Puma. I don't have your ref. Any thoughts? TSRL (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC).
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Pre 1962 USN designations
Hi Trevor - I've seen you run foul of this a couple of times, so I thought I'd just offer a quick tip. The digit preceded by a dash indicates a subtype, the equivalent of the letter suffix in the Army/Air Force system. So while the Army had P-51A followed by P-51B and P-51C, the Navy had F4U-1 followed by F4U-2 and F4U-3.
Hope this helps! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Restoration of deleted content
I would like to know why you saw fit to restore this content without reference to the deleting admin. As an OTRS volunteer, I did not take the decision to delete lightly - my first preference was to purge the history and rewrite the article in accordance with published facts, but finding there was no way I could do so which met with Wikipedia policy (which after all overrides any AfD consensus as it is itself representative of a much wider consensus), and having had certain facts brought to my attention in private, I made the call I did, which I believe to have been a justified one. Obviously, for privacy reasons, only one of the deletion reasons was cited on here - for transparency reasons, it was discussed with 2 other admins who suggested the course of action I inevitably took. We are a top 10 site and *do* have responsibilities not to cause unnecessary harm.
I bring this paragraph from WP:BLP to your attention: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Note that the above points relate to "biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page". Finally, in June, an ArbCom decision stated plainly: "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." Without going into the details, this was a clear cut case. Orderinchaos 15:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Melbourne Airport FAC
Hi Trevor. As you know, Melbourne Airport is up at WP:FAC now and I was wondering if you could help us out with a copyedit. It seems that a good solid copyedit would do wonders for the article. Thanks in advance. Mvjs (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
image deletion
Hi, could you please have a look at User_talk:Melesse#Image:Siegfried_roy_statue.jpg? Thanks. -- Banjeboi 04:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
From User:63.216.122.126
Is something wrong with you, you piece of shit? Are you even looking at the edits that you're reverting?
User talk:204.117.145.194
Hello. You may wish to adjust your block message [2] on User talk:204.117.145.194 since the IP was not actually blocked indefinitely. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I don't mind you extending the block to this IP (although I disagree with the length but that's now you choice) common courtesy and precedent would have been to consult with me as the original blocking admin first. I appreciate your tenure and contribution level here is greater than mine, but overturning another admins actions/decisions without discussion is a bit off. Pedro : Chat 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- No big deal, but if you've recently returned to this aspect you may find the cultural shift in Wikipedia quite substantial over recent times. As a comment, you note that you don't consider less than a week much of a "punishment". With an IP (educational or otherwise), or any logged in account, we are explicitly not punishing when blocking - we're stopping damage. Either way, I've had my grumble and it's no issue. Welcome back to the dark underbelly of Wikipedia and happy editing! Pedro : Chat 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider unblocking? He created the one thing that belonged on Uncyclopedia and lashed out at me in frustration. I think I had it handled for now, and if he continues to be unconstructive, we can block him then. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
67.81.195.17
Ever notice how it's always their "friend" who did the vandalizing? Unbelievable. Tvoz/talk 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Jordan International Air Cargo
According to the link you provided in your edit summary "Cargo and charter only airlines are generally not notable" so could you explain how the above cargo airline with only one plane in it's fleet meets the criteria and is infact important/significant enough for inclusion? Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Meelad Air
Again. According to the link you provide "Cargo and charter only airlines are generally not notable" so could you please point me in the direction of what show's this airline's importance/significance for inclusion? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Priviledge Jet Airlines
As aboveJasynnash2 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Airlines undeletion
I've responded on my talk page, but the notability link you posted appears to me to expressly state that these three are *not* notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- And now I notice that the exact same issue has already been started in the sections just above. As quoted by Jasynnash2, the link that you yourself have used to justify your undeletions appears to explicitly say that these three are *not* notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yellowknife flag.gif)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Yellowknife flag.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this protection:
This is more than likely me being a bit thick, but could you point me to this page move vandalism that you speak of? I'm managing to completely miss it when I look through the logs... TalkIslander 11:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- That'd be pre-emptive move protection then. My gut reaction is that pages should not be pre-emptivley move protected, but looking through the protection policy I can't see anything to advise against it, so I suppose I'll leave it to your judgement. Thanks for your reply. TalkIslander 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Referencing Lesson Needed
Trevor,
Can you please demonstrate for me how to footnote?
I've been referencing articles as a whole--that is, listing references for an article after the body of the piece--but would like to upgrade my skills.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the referencing lesson.
I do have a few (dozen) articles to return to and add referencing. My contributions page will reflect that. It may just take me a while.
I realize I must seem like a weak sister, always begging for help as I do, but one little detail I never mentioned to you when accepting this task is, I've just upgraded from using MAC OS 7.0 to MAC OS 10.5.5. Uh, yup, a little matter of catching up with a mere 15 years of computer progress. Almost like mastering the computer all over again. Makes life interesting.
BTW, if you could go to Project 404/Palace Dog and knock the words Project 404 off the title, it would be appreciated. There's already a Project 404 article...which needs a lot of help...but that's another tale.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
I have just attempted citing throughout the Harald Auffarth (Auffahrt) article. No matter what I do, I end up repeating a link to the first reference on the list. I even copied out the original citation info and changed it to refer to the Medals page of the same www.theaerodrome.com site, but it still referred to the main page on Auffarth.
Boy, I am baffled.
Georgejdorner (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
I believe I may have gotten some knack of citation. Could you please take a look at Harald Auffarth (Auffahrt) and see if it passes muster?
Georgejdorner (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Trevor,
So I no sooner finish writing my first article enclosing citations all the way (Armand Pinsard) than a warning pops up at the top chiding me for vagueness.
Feels like I have just been slapped in the chops with an icy mackerel.
Can you tell me what caused that? (The warning, I mean, not the piscine assault.)
Georgejdorner (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Template completed
Hi Trevor - just letting you know that {{USN hospital aircraft}} is now complete and can be removed from your sandbox page. If I notice other templates filling in future, is it OK if I remove them from the page myself? (I don't usually make edits in other people's userspace without explicit permission to do so). --Rlandmann (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Results of the Canadian federal election, 2008
I don't know what you are doing at Results of the Canadian federal election, 2008, and I don't think I care, but along the way you seem to have deleted the history for Talk:Results of the Canadian federal election, 2008 and all the comments there. If you are not already doing it, please restore the talk page discussion. Cheers! -Rrius (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleting redirects
Hi there. I spotted something strange recently at an article I was editing, and I think I've tracked it down to a redirect you deleted back in June in order to move a disambiguation page over the redirect. The article from where I found this change is Royal Medal. Back in January 2007, the article had a link in it to William Thomson, which at the time was a redirect (admin-only link) to William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. As far as I can tell (because I remember checking the links were working back in January 2007 when I started work on the 'Royal Medal' article) that link from Royal Medal to William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin via William Thomson has worked from July 2006 (when it was added) until June 2008 when you deleted it to make way for a disambiguation page. I'm puzzled though as to why you said here that "No article exists at "William Thomson" so searching this name should get the disambig page" - it is clear that there was something there - not an article but a redirect. So people searching on "William Thomson" would have been taken to William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, where in this version (dated 15 June 2008) you can see that there was a hatnote saying "For other persons named William Thomson, see William Thomson (disambiguation)."
I'm not saying that this was the correct set-up, but all the elements were in places for redirects to go to the right places, and for readers to get to where they were going. But when you deleted the redirect, and moved the disambiguation page to William Thomson, that left lots of redirects (such as the one at Royal Medal) pointing to a disambiguation page. What should have happened was that those links pointing at the disambiguation pages should have been disambiguated to point to the right places. I've checked "what links here" for 'William Thomson' in the article namespace (see here), and there are lots more of these links that were presumably fine before, but are not now. I don't know exactly what the state of things was when you deleted the redirect and moved the disambiguation page, but do you think you could help fix the links pointing at the disambiguation page, after maybe getting some consensus somewhere on where the disambiguation page should be? There is a possibility that consensus (the consensus of the past three years at any rate) will be that the disambiguation page should go back to William Thomson (disambiguation) and that William Thomson should go back to being a redirect to William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. But even if not, those links need to be fixed and should have been fixed when you did the original delete of the redirect and move of the page.
Sorry this was such a long post, but this sort of change is hard to pick up unless you have some option enabled to show that a link on a page has turned from a link or redirect into a disambiguation page. For four months I thought that link on the Royal Medal page was OK, but in fact it wasn't. And that worries me. I'm off to try and find a set up that let's redirects and disambiugation pages show up as different coloured links to direct links. Wouldn't be suitable for most readers (the blue/red binary set-up is enough there), but for editors there should be a visual clue to the different types of links (link maintenance is very important to ensure the links are not sending people to the wrong place). I'd be interested to see what you think of all this as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I did a general follow-up at the Village Pump technical section here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I've disambiguated the links pointing at William Thomson, so that's done now. Most were for Lord Kelvin. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, if you want a page disambiguated in the future, after moving a page over a redirect, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, and drop a request on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Part of the Learning Process
Trevor,
I am not worried by the tag on Armand Pinsard. My query to the originator of the tag was to elicit information I could use in my learning to be a Wikipedia editor. I am used to rewriting my original drafts of anything I create, numerous times if required, to hone my product. Given the fact I did the research for the article, I believe I am best qualified to fix any problems with it. However, that requires me to be aware of the problems. The best source of info on problems is the reader who spotted them.
BTW, I am going to comb back through my contributions list and add citations to articles I worked on. Given the fact that my creative frenzy propelled me through (at least) 34 new articles, this will take me a while.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thank you
thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Shirulashem (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll use this topic to thank you as well. Your reversion is appreciated :) –QuadrivialMind (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the backup on Kelly Pavlik, and getting the bastard blocked. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
My talk page link is no longer red. Cheers TaleOfSevenSpades (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Echelon Studios new article
Dear Trevor MacInnis
I would like to invite you to check the new article I wrote about Echelon Studios. As I can see you are a very experienced editor and I would like you to check my article and tell me what do you think about it and what should it need to avoid it deletion. You can found it on my user page under the name of 'Echelon Studios Draft'. Thank you very much. I will appreciate your help. - Eric-1555 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for at least answering my question and have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.207.4 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Truth
Actually that really happened. She did deny and confirm her own article. --140.203.12.240 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
WP .7
Hello Trevor. Is it too late to improve a selected article and submit the version? Because if it isn't I wouldn't mind putting in some overtime cleaning up another one or two the rest of the day. SamEV (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply. I'll have a look. SamEV (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)