Open main menu



Apologies for mistakenly implying that your Concorde ref tag was spam, it was definitely not.

I was referring to two ref tags earlier in the paragraph, about the metal strip puncturing the Concorde's tires, which had ref tags (dating from August) planted in the middle of the sentences, that I removed in the same edit. It should have been pretty clear to whoever put those two tags there that the metal strip citation was in the Endres reference. The presence of the metal strip puncturing the tires is also not something I feel should be in doubt at this time, although Continental's legal team has attempted to produce controversy on it, so I deleted them. We can't humor people who want the same reference repeated for every sentence, let alone within sentences.

I realized immediately afterward that, by doing two edits in one, I had created the possibility of a misunderstanding, and was honestly not surprised that you messaged me on this! <:) So I'm happy to have the opportunity to apologize directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojei (talkcontribs) 18:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also forget to signature my own message. Typical day in the life. - Mojei (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Bill, see Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash#Title. You'll note that Mick allows himself to operate by different rules than everyone else. Unless you are his intellectual "equal", as he defines it, he feals no need to treat anyone civilly. It's quite amazing that he's lasted long enough on WP to make over 20,000 edits, but he has. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than nuking Britain, no, I don't know of anything! His latest response there is par for the course with him. He acts like that when he knows he's losing the agruments. Just know that that is how he treats everyone who disagrees with him. He'll go to far someday. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've also been keeping WP:ROPE in mind, but now I've got so much rope laying aournf the house that I trip every time I move! ;) WP:TEND also fits. Mostly, I'm just humoring him, and laughing at his hypocrisy in lecturing on civility, as he's the most uncivil user I've met on WP. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm pooring some cold water right now. I',m sure I'll be chastised for it telling the truth, in Mick's own dirty words! - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But as the Good Book asks, "If the infantry wear you out, what will you do when the cavalry come?" Cavalry he ain't! - BilCat (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And still it goes onEdit

Is there really nothing that can be done about this? General consensus of the community, as evidenced by many AfDs on aircraft crashes is that those involving substantial damage or hull losses of airliners are notable enough to justify an article in many cases. Yet MMN still insists on badgering every editor who !votes "keep" in any AfD which he has started. It's getting very tedious, and frankly, disruptive now. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is very disruptive and is now removing comments by other editors that he doesn't like. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with that one, but I've removed hi comment there. I was trying to make sure he didn't "cross-examine" my opinion, and he didn't! He still seems to think he's a lawayer in a court who has to skewer the oppostion at every turn to "win" his case. That style is genrally counter-productive in AFDs, but the sheer volume of his cross examinations, and their generally incivil tone, is disruptive. It's also a presumption that the closing admins are stupid, and thet they'l only make the "right" decision if he shows the fallacy of every argument made by the opposition. At this point that's very tedious for the rest of us. - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't give an opinion to cross examine, Bil. I don't need to do anything with a vote that says 'I agree with everything and everybody', at least on that case, I think the closer will see that for what it is. But I'm glad you saw the error of trying to restore your disruptive post with the excuse it was not a valid refactor. Anyone would think we didn't have a resident supposed admin watching the discussion for such silliness. And Mjroots, you really need to be not giving the impression right now that you are canvassing support for an opinion which, no matter how often you assert is the community consenus view, is something that you absolutely refuse to put into a Guideline so that editors outside the regular circle, who are the ones creating and editing these articles, and turning up on mass to ensure that vote counting rules all, can cluefully examine and approve it against all policies, not just ILIKEIT, NOHARM, and INTERESTING. And I really don't want to have to start stalking you, but this is the second time I've seen you casually drop a link to that Afd somewhere asking for 'something to be done', while you also continue to do the very thing that I have brought an Rfc on you for, badmouthing me behind my back when nobody has ever supported you in your attempts to 'have some thing done about me' for allegedly disrupting your right to create articles that fail EVENT miserably, and which are never defended in an Afd beyond lazy hand waves and invalid votes. If an Rfc/U can do nothing about this disgraceful and completely non-admin like behaviour you continute to display, then I'm sure arbcom will. MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course I gave an opinon: I supported the other pro-Keep opinions. As to "right to create articles that fail EVENT miserably", you absense from AFDs on genuinely non-notable article, in which most of the users you oppose were in favor of deleting, speaks volumes. You are a disruptive user, as you presense here attests. - BilCat (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do take it to ArbCom. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I will if it continues. But I suspect that you have misunderstood what 'it' actualy is. Arbcom will not be the least bit interested in sanctioning me so that you are free to make vague waves in Afd discussions completely unopposed. Neither will they be interested in doing the work of an ANI thread which you yourself seem extremely reluctant to kick off, presumably because ANI is pretty good at spotting a hatchet job when it sees one. What arbcom are very interested in is admins who display partizan views in dispute resolution, who only bother about enforcing rules or proposing sanctions in venues they are watching, when they conveniently prop up their side in a dispute, and generally involve themselves in conduct unbecoming, such as canvassing, false and unsubstantiated accusations, and the besmirching of others behind their back, instead of following DR. MickMacNee (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am well familiar with it. Sorry to hear you are backing down on taking it there. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Who said I'm backing down? If you knew anything about arbcom as you claim, you would know there is nothing here yet that would be accepted as a case. It's in Mjroots court, only he knows why he cannot abide by WP:ADMIN in this dispute, and whether he can steer clear of a case or not. But I'm sure you'll get your opportunity to piggyback onto this dispute somewhere along the line, so don't fret or get too upset. Anyway, Bz is shooing me off of his page, so if you want to continue this silliness, take it elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Please take us to Arbcom before we do. It'll save us some work, and I do so love Arbcoms in which the nom ends up getting censured/banned instead! (ask or English-illiterate friend Stephy.) - BilCat (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how you intend to be a named party in a case examining the administerial conduct of Mjroots. Unless your participation in these Afds is really so uninventive and individual, as your 'per everybody/anybody' non-vote votes suggest, that I really should start to consider you and he as a single entity for the purposes of discussion? But other than that, see the above comment about using this talk page to carry on this nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I do often give my own written opinions at AFDs if I have something new to add, but you don't know that since you limit your participation to those that fit your agenda. I don't see the need of repating verbatim what someone else says, so I just endorse their opinion. Btw, MJR have disagreed on may occcasions, which you would also know if you read more old AFDs. As to not being a named party in your Arbcom, I'll still be participating to stop you vendetta against MJR as an interested party. - BilCat (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

UPS Airlines Flight 6 AfDEdit

I've looked, and seen more of the same. As you are aware, I'm at RFC at the moment, so am wary of taking any action against MickMacNee as I don't want him to be able to turn round and yell "involved admin" back at me. I did consider posting a reciprocal RFC, but again I feel that if I did so, my motives would be questioned. If you feel that his actions warrent further action then you'll have to find another admin. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also made an administrative decision and closed the discussion at WT:AVIATION. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Il2 Suvorov controversyEdit


I removed the piece beacuse I think it goes against and

Suvorovs work is not about the actual aircraft, and neither has it been shown here to be supported by another source.

I agree my editing was clumsy, but I am not got that far in learning to edit, yet:)

BTW, I'll post this on the Talk page too.


Carl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talkcontribs) 16:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Troll @ GD F-16Edit

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)Edit

CD Howe editsEdit

Thanks for your help. Rr parker (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


I have nominated Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!Edit

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My RFCEdit

Re your comment about the "root cause of the issue" - were you referring to myself, or MickMacNee's participation in AfD discussions? Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Mjroots (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite template useEdit

A quick question on template usage—this might have been discussed at length elsewhere but bear with me—I've been wondering a few times why editors prefer manual citation like the change on Convair XFY, compared to using citation template? Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for the detailed clarification on citations; while I'm familiar with scientific citations, I do acknowledge better understanding on the finer subtleties of styles and don't have a personal preference on citation style. Within a certain field it is logical to use consistent manner on citations, no doubt about that. Perhaps I should've digged a bit more to find out, but your summary did explain quite thoroughly that question. Thanks for taking the time to answer! Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lytviak 31 July's killsEdit

Hello, I can't find any references of the supposed kills of 31 july in Pennington, Cottam, Noogle, Sakhaida etc. books. I think that in this case the source is inaccurate. I think it is better to delete them. DO you agreed? Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Image File:BAC TSR-2.jpg - incorrect licenceEdit

Hi Bzuk, I've deleted this image as it had an incorrect licence. The image was created c 1977 but the licence you used only applies to images created prior to 1957. If I have this wrong please drop me a note and I'll reverse it - Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what can be done about this. There are free images (some on Wikipedia) of at least some of the aircraft and this non-free image would fall foul of non-free criteria #1. Now if the Imperial War Museum would release the image under a free license.... - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Bill, once you've issued a wanring to a user, their removal of it is acknowlegement that they've read and understood it. Just report him for 3RR and that should be enough to garner him a short trem block. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hanger vs. hangarEdit

yes... I meant hangar but in the book is written two times "hanger"... so I thought it was something of aviation that I did not know... regards... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Ok, thanks for the correction. I am actually undertrained in the Wikipedia editings. BTW, some nice phrases like 'thanks for your contributes', would have been welcomed, even and despite my bad english. I did some adds to your editing, D.520s had only provisions for 'bomb d'eclarance', not always held them aboard. The injection system was useful (like Allison and DB.601) so i added it (see Merlin problems, as example). D.520s were little, fashinating things, Germans should had them in the B.o.B. instead of Bf-109E(:=)) (short range, until the Bf.109E-7 came, but too late). D.520 and H-75 managed to cross Mediterranean Sea, differently than MB.151/152s, too short ranged as well. Yes, i rate a bit too simple the English language, and in the meanwhile, i rate orrendously complicated the reference system, that everytime drive me crazy (and i am pretty sure, for thousands users is the same). Well, i said all. Good dayStefanomencarelli (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for the work about Re.2000. I removed the sentence of Re.2000 buyed or acquired somewhat by Luftwaffe, because this is untrue. Reggiane fighters, as you can imagine, are very odd items. This is also true, because LW acquired really some Reggianes, but they were Re.2002 (and even Re.2005), similar but not the same aicraft. Anglo-saxon sources often confused them, it seems. Re.2000 was a really odd stuff: many sources claims that 'it had no spin vices, like the other '0's fighters had'. Effectively, it's untrue, as Tullio de Prato instead always said that it had a 'damned tendency to spin', and operational units seems to have thinked the same. Instead, another Caproni fighters, the F.5, was surely 100% out of that vice, but unfortunatly it was not mass-produced (13 units). UK even considered to buy up to 1,000 Re.2000s, it is natural since there was a very ugly situation for them in summer 1940, but the order surely placed was about 300 units. In fact, Re.2000 was almost to make the same success as Curtiss P-36 did, ironically Italy considered once the Curtiss as new fighter, and even P-35. Caproni effectively sold anything to anyone, even Ca.313 to France, delivered until the war declaration (businness as usual! One day we send to them bombers, another day they send to us bombs, c'est la vie).
I have found extra info about D.520 units during the 1940, with kills and losses for each of them, an intestering stuff. And moreover, the Yak-9DD in Italy, a new article in Storia Militare Magazine. It seems that that aicraft was the less liked by its crews (among Yak-9 family), it was heavy and rather a fuel tank than a fighter. But, hold on, it was faced against the best Allied fighters in mock-dogfights, and, at 3-4,000 meters (Yak-9 had not power to fight at altitude, one of its shortcomings) they proved themselves umbeateable. Allied used Spit MkV, Mk IX, P-51B, P-38, P-47. All the ways the Yak-9DD (with a reduced fuel load) whipped them in agility and speed: the Allied pilots expressed the most favourable words toward this soviet fighter and its (expert) pilots. They admired also the 'maintenance-free' Yak engine, especially when compared to the Merlin. In the next Stefanomencarelli Weekly. RegardsStefanomencarelli (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life‎Edit

The "Ugly Betty" story, at least the bare bones of it as mentioned in the Wonderful Life article briefly, actually sounds more like a Mark Twain story, about a young girl who drowns, and it turns out that had she lived, she would have had a miserable life. That was probably in The Mysterious Stranger, but it's been a long time since I've read it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Frank Hawks.jpgEdit

Thank you for uploading File:Frank Hawks.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 created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Schrage muzikEdit

Great new edits on the above - can you give us some sort of side view / sketch showing the postion of the mirror, where the pilot looked and how the gun mirror was positioned. cheers engineman Engineman (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the image File:Schräge Musik cannon.jpg as replaceable. It's clearly possible for someone to draw a Schräge Musik installation from scratch. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no tag you could have added which would have allowed any real debate. I've removed the tag and opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 29. If you think the image should be kept and meets the non-free content criteria, please say so. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion there runs for about 14 days. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Schräge Musik articleEdit

+ Can you look over this article again as there has been a dispute over the use of a diagram which I contend is a historically significant image. Your views are appreciated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

- not sure what I can do???? please is clearly historically significant....where do i say that??

Thanks for the note edit re the 37 mm COW. I didn't fancy attempting the code in the way you like it but I was about to give it a go, so you've saved me from mucking things up. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS September 2010 NewsletterEdit

The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Fw189 1.jpgEdit

I could leave you a templated spam message, but here's a personal one: why do you think this picture is in the public domain? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin C-130J Super HerculesEdit

You're being too sensitive if you thought that I was being uncivil, but if you look at the history logs we both look pretty childish. My point is that we should take the debate to the discussion page rather than clog up the infobox with a single point of view.

If you want to call an admin because of that, go ahead. However, I would much rather work together to improve the article rather than nitpick over semantics. Ng.j (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your latest message. As fellow Canadians we should be above petty disputes and strive for collaboration! I will leave it for now and hope for support on the discussion page. I will copy your point from the Infobox so that we can debate it further there. Ng.j (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Le Prieur Rockets.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:Le Prieur Rockets.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Earhart.electra.jpegEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Earhart.electra.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

External link formattingEdit

Why did you do this formatting? I don't mind it much, but i think my formatting was cleaner and more compact. --Siddhant (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Film plotEdit

Bill in your days with WPFILM, did you ever find an effective way to keep the over-long, over-detailed plot sections trimmed down? I'm about to give up on film articles altogheter,a s it's a losing battle for me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, adding {{plot}} tags and then moving on seems to be the best move for me now. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

F22: Which one is "Martin article," and can you put citation for it next to disputed sentence?Edit

Hi Bzuk, I had thought the sentence and in particular the phrase about the versatility of F35 was unsupported, because when I looked up the next footnote number, I saw no mention of F#% in it. Which article is the "Martin article" that supports it? There are a number of citations from Lockheed Martin. Is it one of those? Best wishes, Rich (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuskegee AirmenEdit

Yes, I could use some backup on the forms of cites, etc. I am more of a writer than a wiki-editor at the best of times. Add to my difficulties the necessity of copying citation forms that someone else originated, and that I do not seem to quite grasp....

I am unsure of which Homan and Reilly book you are referring to; it seems I have two in my stack of references on the Tuskegee Airmen. I was not quoting the picture book, therefore you must be referring to the other--which is not a young adult book. Could you please forward the ISBN of the book you feel I should avoid?

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have books number 1) and 4) in my stack. The cites you objected to referred to Book 4, "Black Knights", ISBN 1-56554-828-0. I rewrote and re-cited one of those quotes already.

I have no plans of referring to the picture book.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize that I am exaggerating the number of links required to complete this article. Often, I am doing this so that I can check to see if the piped items already exist, as in the 100th Fighter Squadron. Thus, many of the red links will be delinked after checking. However, the ten major units of the Tuskegee Airmen–the 332nd Fighter Group and the 477th Bombardment Group and their eight constituent squadrons–should be covered. I expect to write at least stubs on those TA units not yet covered. Unless, of course, someone better qualified steps in, in which case I will bow out.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice additional note adding definition of Jim Crow laws to Tuskegee Airmen. Wish I had thought of it. Thanks for the added content.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitationEdit

As a respected WP editor, you are invited to participate in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

Thanks for removing that "kill" statement about the P-35Edit

Dear Bill,

If there was one statement on Wiki that critics could point to about how unreliable Wiki is it was that kill statement about the P-35 in the Philippines! The statement about it's last mission is true though. The mission was the last combat mission by a Filipino pilot during WW2. It is cited in A BLOODY SHAMBLES. I will look it up later and cite it. Again, thanks. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael PowellEdit

Any reason for reverting the use of the 'cite book' template in Michael Powell's bibliography? -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I'll just correct/update the existing entries in the current format -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Emeric PressburgerEdit

You asked "Is "autobiography" part of the title?" about the Michael Powell autobiography "A Life in Movies". No, it isn't part of the title. But some booksellers and other sources do add it in -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Completed CF-105sEdit

Ok - but the CF site reference clearly states that there were 6 completed prototypes - though only 5 had flown. I would be happy to examine any contradictory sources, however I feel like the Canadian Forces might know how many planes they built... Avro CF-105 Arrow Mk.1, Department of National Defense,, Retrieved October 17, 2010. Addionne (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation templateEdit

Hi Bzuk, any particular reason for removing the citation template for the reference I added to the Hawker Sea Fury page? I only just noticed. No biggie, I'm not upset or anything, just wondering. - Nick Thorne talk 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


  The Citation Barnstar
For swiftly finding and adding a whole mess of references to British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation formatEdit

I just came across your offer to help teach me cites, based on the Max Immelmann article. I did not originate the form of the cites in that article; I merely followed the founder's format.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)Edit


The quotes in Lucas I cannot find on the pages given. The other was uncited and Brickhill's quotation no longer fits the section. Dapi89 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Made a Wikiquote instead; can't be sure that the section applies either, but it was a back up. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC).
You may also be interested to know they were self reverts. Dapi89 (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't we all. Dapi89 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hawks in Glider.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hawks in Glider.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IP a welcome, and pointed them to CITE and RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gamma frankhawks.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gamma frankhawks.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Sea-vixen-sky.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Helldiver Page - Accidents and incidents sectionEdit

Not sure why you consider the discovery of the Helldiver in Lower Otay Reservoir is not worthy of mention as an "incident". That this incident is mentioned in the "Under restoration or in storage" section does not necessarily mean it should not also be included in the "Accidents and incidents" section. As a matter of fact, most of the text in the "Under restoration or in storage" section regarding this Helldiver is about the incident that occurred! Stonnman (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See for response. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC).


Hello, Bzuk. You have new messages at HandsomeFella's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Why you reverted referred edits??? I know - it in russia language, but it is reliable data! If you found english refs, pls change it, but if not, not change that information. THX! --Hornet24 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See response on the article talk page and on your home talk page. Bzuk (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

332nd FGEdit

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of 332nd FG, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: 332d Fighter Group. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010Edit

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give 332d Fighter Group a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please don't template a regular, and assume that I do know what I am doing; my explanation is now on your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 NewsletterEdit

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello! I am just using the citation template to "plug in" the details of a given reference. I am more interested in quickly proliferating references to use; it's not meant to dictate a certain style. Whoever wants to work on an article can use the reference(s), but there's no expectancy for them to use that style. It's just incidental. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to request a change to the citation template? For example, a style=mla parameter to render the values in MLA style? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DH CometEdit

Hi, are you looking to push this article to GA or higher? Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, once you've finished, I think you ought to nominate it for GA. It can't be that far short by now. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

BOAC 19/20 - Sorry about that it was my mistake and you are right it should have been 19. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any more problems with US spellings creeping in. Just try and edit the article to see what I mean.   Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles WhitmanEdit

Hmmm, I've had a quick look at the edit history and talk page. I could semi-protect the article, but maybe a request at WP:RFPP would be in order so that admins more experienced in these matters than I am can make the call. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth raising at either WP level, or maybe ANI if you think the issues with the article are serious enough. If the editor has been blocked as a sock, then you could do a clean-up. Further IP disruption and I will semi the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Re your e-mail, there is info there which is not on my talk page. May I add it to my talk page, or would you prefer it stayed off? Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking that myself, but possibly WP:SPI would also be an appropriate venue. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lexington Institute,Edit

Why are you quoting that comma? Hcobb (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Typically if the publisher and date is linked, then a comma is used to provide full information, as in: Lexington Institute, 1 November 2010, which literally means that the Lextington Institute published on 1 November 2010. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Comet Bzuk112010Edit

Happy to look, but I can tell you, judging by the last few days, you've got it handled, so I don't expect to find any big issues. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Very cool diagrams. :D :D Thx a bunch. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Good morning, excuse me, you are much more experienced than me: as my first novel is going to be released next 20 November (a literature book, not aviation's), is is possible to quote it in my personal page os it if forbidden? Maybe without writing the title? Moreover, I do not understand what you wrote about the picture of the Tiger in the Sturmovik page AGF? What is it? (Is is possible to use pictures of other articles and to copy them for other pages, f.i. in pilot's page, yes? Thanks in advance...) --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Thanks a lot, for the informations about the book and the congratulations (by the way, what about your book, I woul like to read one the last about the Polish pilot, if I remember well) you are very kind and well mannered and patient, like always. And I must admit that it is a pleasure and a reason of pride to me, to work here in wikipedia English, even if there are some discussions, they are always not so bitter by Your side as they are instead in wikItaly! SO I take this chance to apologize if in the past I have been in some way rude or not educated, or something similar (or worst) sorry, really! About the pictures, You are right, like always... why not to insert a picture of the steppe. Stalingrad and so on... :) Regards, Saluti dall'Italia! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat operational historyEdit

It's polite to honor the {{Inuse}} and {{GOCEinuse}} tags on an article. Making changes while another editor is making major edits leads to edit conflicts. I appreciate that you want to improve this article; it sorely needs some help... but please, could you wait a few minutes? I'm almost done... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, hopefully my pass through will have addressed most of the grammar and date issues in the article. It came up on the list of old "copyedit" tagged articles at the Guild of Copy Editors during our November backlog elimination drive, which is how I stumbled across it. Since I'm primarily copy-editing, I may look up electronic sources, but I don't have the time to invest in library research; I leave that to folks like you. (Besides, I suspect that I may have more books in my house than my local library has in its stacks...)
Sorry about the reference style mix-up; perhaps you could add a note to the article's talk page, or comments in the article source, about the citation style in use and possibly provide pointers to a style guide for others to use? Without disagreeing with your points about the templates, the fact is that they are a de facto standard on Wikipedia, so in the absence of guidance to the contrary, I tend to use them to correct references that clearly don't adhere to any standard ("According to a post from author Tom Cooper" *eye roll*)...
Good luck developing the article, and I hope you can do something with the Iraqi portion, regarding sourcing. Without reference materials or a naval-aviation background, I couldn't do much other than flag the obvious issues. I figured I'd give someone the chance instead of just deleting the suppositions and weasel statements wholesale... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Dear Bzuk, I have never "talked" with a Wikipedia editor. I am a little confused as this is a "talk page", but the warnng is that if I hit "save page" it instantly become visible to everyopne. I assume that you objected to my insertions regarding use of the C-47 for drug smuggling. You are correct. My references cannot be attributed, although several of the "crash histories" attached ot the C-47 site includes specific cityations to its use as a drug smuggling airplane. I practiced aviation law in the 1990s, and heard that information among attorneys discussing the C-47. It was said to be an airplane that was so sturdy that you could crash land it, gas up, and fly away. I hope that you had no objections to the skydiving commentary, because that was first hand. I did skydive from a C-47 at Lodi, California, and it is a sweet airplane.

Ghigliottilaw (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Jerome J. Ghigliotti, Jr., Esq. 11-12-10, 11:41 pm (PST)


Re this edit - what is wrong with 5B-DAB being on the list of survivors, and what is wrong with the statement about G-ARPI being the worst accident to have occurred in the UK. Pan Am 103 cannot be considered an accident any more than 9/11 can. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

myriad - thbbbbt!Edit

Haha! We don't agree this one!! :P Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Hamlyn Guide to Aircraft MarkingsEdit

I'm not really committed to extensive rewriting as it's only wiki and can be edited anyway. Regarding the Pearl Harbor film article, I am fully aware that it's IJN green and not plain grey, but isn't it IJN gray green? I thought it would be better to present the image caption in basic terms as I'm pretty sure "JN green" can be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. Wolcott (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Reply on your talk page: I was involved in the extensive research and eventual construction of the "Blayd Zero" as I was working on a film regarding the story of the Mitsubishi Zero. Our historical consultant had done extensive background research including using actual Zero components that provided the precise paint chips eventually used in the painting scheme of the aircraft. The colour originally is a faint grey-green which through oxidation rapidly deteriorated into what was commonly misinterpreted in contemporary photographs as either a white, light grey or even bare metal colour. I will make a subtle change in the caption for the Pearl Harbor film article to reflect the actual paint scheme was not accurate. What is more galling is that the producers knew that the aircraft were inaccurately portrayed as to colours, types and use in the attack but chose to have a distinctive scheme so that audiences would easily identify the "bad hats." They also wanted to pit the Curtiss P-40 against the Mitsubishi Zero in dog-fights?! Incredible, n'est pas? Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored to meet someone who was involved with the Blayd Zero, though I admit I've never heard of it until you mentioned it. I fully agree with you about the film. Hopefully one day there will be either a remake or another war film using an authentic Model 21, be it flying or for set decoration. Wolcott (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010Edit


To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


No big deal, but here, you warned an IP for one edit made 4 years ago, and for another edit which you haven't reverted :). Its Ok now. Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpgEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM November 2010 NewsletterEdit

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bzuk I had seen on your Fairey Gannet page there was some important information missing relating to the most historic Gannet still surviving in the world XT752. I put a link to the dedicated website of this Fairey Gannet and its history underneath a link to thunder and lightnings website and it didnt stay at all. Can you let me know how to correct this and get the link to stay as the website for XT752 has an amazing amount of information and interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfirexv11 (talkcontribs) 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Bzuk, I apologize for calling your motivation for the edits into question. If I had been aware of the discussion: a. I would have participated in it; b. I would not have brought it up in the manner I did on the talk page for the article. My thoughts were that since you did not reference a consensus from a group (I even checked the article talk page for a discussion) that your edits were unilateral in nature. I had no clue that WP:AIR would scheme up such a decision, or I would have searched through the talk page for a discussion on dates. --Born2flie (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010Edit


To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Howe imageEdit

Hey Bzuk, thanks for your edits so far, the reason I took out the 1947 Cabinet is: It is PD in Canada (pre 1948) but not in the US. If images were not in the public domain in their home country on 1/1/1996, the day the US acceeded to the Hague Convention, they remain under copyright in the US until I think 2038. There are explanations of this at Commons. As we have an image of the Cabinet from 1935, and also by the way one from '45 is on Commons, we really don't need one from '47 as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another picture, it's a bit blurry and overexposed though.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful DiscussionEdit

The fate of the 1000 film ranking is being mulled over at WT:FILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


FYI see edit at least of the the users edits appear to be good. The rest are not clear vandalism, and appear to be content dispute related. Jeepday (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Ew how I loathe that word :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Short SeamewEdit

Bill, thanks for the question, but there was no interview! I just had a look back through the article history to find the diff - Phil Runciman appears to have added the quote himself, so it is presumably OR, certainly not verifiable and therefore inadmissable. BTW I have been unable to find the official accident report, simply some references to the finding that the cause was a "G-stall" caused by pilot error, which I find highly unlikely, given his years of test flying experience in general and with the Seamew (and specifically that aircraft) in particuöar. I don't know what a G-stall is, actually! Not too long ago I saw a film of the crash sequence (included in a feature film produced for UK Channel 4 / Film 4) but am not experienced enough to determine the cause of the accident from the footage. Incidentally, while researching for the ETPS article I heard from an RAF pilot, based at RAF Aldergrove at the time, who took part in the air display soon after the fatal accident! He must be in his 80s or 90s by now! --TraceyR (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


Bill, I have been spending some time on the ETPS article recently, trying to fill in the gaps in the trophy awards tables etc. Recently, on the suggestion of a US American ex-ETPS student, I added the section "Notable ETPS graduates". This section, as of a few minutes ago, already mentions Zura, but I'm sure that there are many other notables lurking within Wikipedia - if you come across any, please add them to the table when you can find the time (or tell me on my talk page so that I can add them). So far it mentions several who have gone on to become 'astronauts' and/or 'cosmonauts', as well as Neville Duke and Janusz Zurakowski, but there will be others I'm sure. Many thanks! --TraceyR (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Can you tell me what you were trying to do with this edit? [3] Robert K S (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


The etymology of the term gremlin specific to aircraft is from the 1920s ... it states popularized in WWII. (Sticklers, Sideburns & Bikinis: The Military Origins of Everyday Words and Phrases) In the Gremlins book, you added a note "Dahl claimed that the gremlins were exclusively a Royal Air Force icon, but the elf-like figures had a very convoluted origin that predated his original writings". Correct, and its etymology states so. Word histories and mysteries: from abracadabra to Zeus The term for RAF pilots appears in the 1920s (Women Military Pilots of World War II) and was popularized in WWII, with Dahl in particular popularizing it outside the RAF.MusoForde (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, see response. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC).
Done. Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Cheers.MusoForde (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle honorsEdit

Re your revert of BoBr: do you disagree "in" suggests the sinking was a byproduct, rather than an aim? It does to me, which is why I changed it at all. "By" suggests it was a direct consequence or objective. I don't feel really strongly about it, tho, so I'll leave it if you do. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of ear, I guess. Nor a huge deal. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas CardEdit

Dear Bill: Thanks for the wishes, it has been another good year working with you on Wikipedia! - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the card - Merry Christmas! Lugnuts (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Bill! Merry Christmas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the card and a merry, merry Christmas to you and yours, along with my very best wishes :D Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Season's greetings Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
And thanks from the Arctic. Wishing you a Merry Christmas as well. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Mark me down as an AOL as I ditto this. Hcobb (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bill, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year - very best wishes! Sincerely - Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

And for you as well ...Edit

The Merriest of all Christmases, and the Happiest of all New Years! Collect (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for the card and here is one for youEdit

  Merry Christmas, Bzuk!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 04:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons greetings returnedEdit

Seasons Greetings from No. 82 Wing RAAF, 1954

Thanks for the card. Christmas goodwil to you, glad tidings to all editors etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • And likewise from me! Joyous Yule.—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And from me as well sir. Centpacrr (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Merry Christmas to you too. And all the best for the new year!-- BC  talk to me 23:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thx thr the card! And the same to you. Best for Christmas, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, or whatever else. ;p And for the New Year, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


Merry Christmas to you As a small present, I suppose I'll let you know that your first two archives are redlinks. It's nothing special and it's not exactly cheery, but it's all I've got. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A big thanks from me as well. A Merry Christmas to you too. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 23:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you too mate. EbzScrooge (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the card. merry Christmas and Happy New YearPetebutt (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, and I hope you enjoy the coming year! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 22:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your Christmas greeting, and I bid you good tidings as well.  Frank  |  talk  00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! Have a wonderful and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! --707 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a happy, happy New Year! Wildroot (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you had a good Christmas, surrounded by family, as well! Kyteto (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

...and a happy new year! Thanks!!Nigel Ish (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

707 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The holiday wishes are a nice reminder of our shared humanity. Thank you for that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And a (belated) Merry Christmas to you, too! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the card, Bzuk, and I wish you all the best for the New Year. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1Edit

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. SilkTork *YES! 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Avro Arrow- Trenton.jpgEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Avro Arrow- Trenton.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly hi! 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

RAF Phantoms (BAC TSR-2)Edit

Hi Bill - all RAF Phantom FGR.2 squadrons in the CAS/tactical strike/reconnaissance role (Nos. 2, 6, 14, 17, 31, 41 and 54 IIRC) had converted to the Jaguar GR.1 by around 1976 (check the squadron histories at This freed up the Phantoms to be transferred to fighter squadrons (Nos. 19, 23, 29, 56 and 92), replacing Lightnings, and serving until 1992. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 27 December 2010Edit

A little lateEdit

Thanks for this! A Merry Christmas to you too, Bzuk! Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 23:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting the reference with title, magazine and date rightEdit

Dear Bzuk, Believe it or not, I am really trying to get it right as you requested. I check your corrections to try to match future reference to your correction. But it seems with the Mars page I am still not getting it right. So as I see from your correction, you want Popular Mechanics italicized, but the date normal? For example Popular Mechanics, pg 49 June 1944. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

PM on hp power of B-36 with jets and pistons used????Edit

Dear Bzuk can you look at the article on the bottom of page 124 "B-36 Adds Four Jet Engines" Popular Mechanics, July 1949. I have gave this as a reference, but not all things you read are true. I will revert if you find it not probable. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Hi there and thank you very much for the Christmas greetings and I'm sorry for the late reply (I'm currently in a broadband 3rd world area; read: my ol' folks house, and I had to get myself a slow surfing stick just to feed my internet addiction :) However I wish you a great new year! --MoRsE (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your Christmas message. Here's wishing you a happy New Year! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy New Year From The Southern Hemisphere Where it is Mid-Summer...All the best for 2011...Minorhistorian (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


I've implemented the PR, nommed it for FA, and listed you as a conom, hope you don't mind but even though we haven't always agreed, you deserve the credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is this showing up in red? Does this make me Mao or Jesus? Anyway, hope you will keep an eye on the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It has passed. Final score was you were right on one image, and I was right on one. Enjoy the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

About Manfred vonEdit

I do recall a MOS standard on the subject of honorifics that favors inclusion of "Freiherr" in Teutonic names. I just have to locate it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hogmanay greetingEdit

  Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to add mine, too. And best for the New Year. Hoist one for me. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New YearEdit

Thank you! May your 2011 be happy one too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And another thanks from me. The fireworks were a wonderful outcome of the orange noticeboard. MarnetteD | Talk 08:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Me also -- good working with you last year and look forward to more this year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
From me too! I enjoyed the fireworks. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the greeting from Cuba! Havaning a good, rum time we trust. Happy new year to you and yours.TSRL (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Have a great 2011! Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Hope you had/are having a Happy New Year too. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your New Year message, Bzuk, nice of you to remember liitle 'ole me! Thanks also for your kind help given in the past - I'm sure to need it again in the future! Best wishes to you and yours for 2011. RuthAS (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you and your loved ones: very best wishes! Alex V Mandel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

  • Many Happy Returns! ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!! Have a great new year!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bill - hope you have a great year of writing in 2011. - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bill - I look forward to enjoying your contributions in 2011. --TraceyR (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you. All the best in the year to come! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • All the best to you Bzuk and to all your family and friends and to Cuba, may you all grow happy and healthy and prosper throughout this new year 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the New Year note - best wishes to you also (but in Cuba? You lucky duck!!!).Raymondwinn (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy NEW YEAR. Right now, snow is melting on PEI, as though it were late March. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bonne Année 2011 !

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year's to you as wellEdit

Thanks!Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 22:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I also wish you a Happy New Year. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Happy New Year, and all the best to you in 2011! Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Same from me – cheers Bill! --Red Sunset 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Happy New Year from me too! Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 17:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • From me too, and thanks for the good wishes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your wishes; happy new year to you too! :) :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, man. If it seems I don't appreciate what you do, I'm really truly sorry. I was being an idiot; I've got a lot on my mind at the moment and I'm getting a bit stressed out. Whether or not we work together in future, I just wanted to let you know I think, from what I've seen of your work, you know your stuff. Regards, wackywace 18:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pages I Would Like You To Took AtEdit

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) so I am sending you this message for Wikipages in need.

Plain White T's, Edward Wong, David Turnbull, Columbia Revolt, Year of the Lash ,David Garrow,Nell Irvin Painter and Jheri Curls Have improved, but still needs a lot of help. --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    16:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC) PHASE 2 Thomas Latimer Matt Bai are better articles now, because of wikipedians like you who have improved articles. -Stubs- Hans Raastad-- an article I created Ryan Belal Pea enation mosaic virus The Grays (band) Gingivectomy Tom Karsch I have revised this list again. We need to edit and spread the word about these articles to make Wikipedia better. Even edd to this list all the articles you think need help (don't forget to timestamp). Adding references, information, and correcting grammar all really help.--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage.    19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

These stubs is getting better, but needs more work. Professor Mike Donovan Michael Curtis (TV producer)

--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spread the word!--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Avro Arrow picturesEdit

Regarding the discussion at WP:PUF about an Avro Arrow image you uploaded, there may be a way to head off future discussions on that subject. How about making a list of all such files, and using the WP:CONSENT procedure to establish that you have the rights, and that you can therefore release them into the public domain? That basically involves an e-mail where you lay out how you came to own the copyright, and how you are releasing it. This gets logged officially with the Wikimedia foundation, and you'll get an OTRS reference number to go on the image description page that certifies its status. (Since you want to release them into the public domain, I recommend {{cc-zero}} as the licence; it basically means "release into the public domain if legally possible in user's jurisdiction, otherwise licence perpetually with no restrictions"—so it's actually better than tagging as {{PD-user}}, which may not be binding in the EU and elsewhere due to a different concept of public domain.)

By the way, they really mean it when they say don't remove the PUF template. That thing serves to alert other editors to weigh in—if you take it away, the PUF process still happens, but the image may simply disappear one day (if the PUF discussion closes with a consensus of delete), and people may be caught off guard. Plus removing it breaks the categorization of the description page.

Unfortunately, copyright is complicated, and they're right to question any discrepancies; don't be discouraged or embittered by the attention. TheFeds 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One other thing: in reference to File:Avro Arrow- Trenton.jpg you wrote "I am releasing this as a copy of an original 8 X10 that I own rights to, after being obtained from an Avro collector". It's possible to own the photographic print (i.e. the physical medium that contains the artistic work), and not own the copyright to the photograph itself. You need to be sure they explicitly gave you the copyright (which they would have to have owned in the first place), rather than just a copy of the photo. TheFeds 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks F, I just thought it was just bots acting on their own. I have a HUGE collection of photographs due to my being in the business of writing, and so many of them are now proliferating throughout the internet, an occurrence that mainly reflects my lack of attention in protecting them, so that I have lost track of the numerous files that are now circulating. I will let the PUF discussion work its way to conclusion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
File:Avro Arrow- Trenton.jpg is one of a large dump of files that had to be cleared for author's rights so that they could be used for further publications. The original source was Avro Aircraft Ltd., a defunct company that primarily destroyed their archives until my collaborator, retrieved them from the parent company, Hawker Siddeley Group which also ceased operations. When I say dump, the photographs were literally retrieved from a scrap yard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
That's a good save, then! Presumably this recovered material is of great archival value as a record of the Arrow program.
Unfortunately for us, in general, a defunct company's copyright is not invalidated. (The fact that you engaged someone to clear it for republication may prove useful to the OTRS team. Despite that, even if the images were deemed alright for you to republish, there are potential hurdles, such as if the works are free in Canada but not the U.S., or if the copyright owner could not be identified but the likelihood of a lawsuit was thought low enough to proceed.) For this particular image, since a near-identical 1959 photo was attributed here to brigadier general R. M. Cox, and because retrieval from a scrap yard means that Avro/Hawker Siddeley likely never had the chance to assert that they owned the copyright (they could have merely owned a print) and never implied that they were giving away the rights, that particular image will be tough to keep on Wikipedia as a free image.
Given the requirement that we comply with the American 95-year rule for works entering the public domain in the source country after 1995 (more information here on U.S. copyright terms) and the fact that Canadian copyright usually lasts 50 years, it looks like almost nothing from the Arrow's development will be out of copyright in the U.S. for several years to come, absent a more definitive way to demonstrate the transfer of copyright.
So actually, maybe fair use rationales for irreplaceable images are the right way to go. In that case, you should forward the report from the copyright vetting to the OTRS team (via WP:CONSENT), to establish the provenance of the at least some of the recovered collection for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Then, per WP:NFCC, we should be able to find instances where all criteria are met (#1 being the hard one), and therefore use the images on Wikipedia despite their copyrighted status.
Also, for your own writing, you may be interested in the ability to licence "orphaned" works through the Copyright Board of Canada, specifically because the copyright owner can't be located. (Valid in Canada; not much help in the U.S., unless it can be made retroactive to before 1996.) TheFeds 04:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I can see so many hurdles in regard to copyright, that it may be difficult to overcome all concerns regarding this individual photograph. Our lawyers at the time, were confident that we had rights to the photographs as they were taken by Avro employees and the rights reverted to a new company, which gave up those rights in a major purge of the archives. If losing this photo to Wikipedia readers, is no big deal, then, so be it. I have since found other images that were challenged and have found suitable replacements that do fully adhere to Wiki's specific copyright requirements, evidence the recent flap over the Fairey Barracuda infobox photo. I've just learned not to have a hissy fit over every little thing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for being understanding about it. I want to add that I could be wrong—if your lawyers are confident about the rights, and you've got a document you can forward to OTRS, it's entirely possible they'll go along with it.
I'd be concerned about that abandonment theory (that Hawker Siddeley "gave up those rights in a major purge of the archives") unless your lawyer was specific about the legal rationale. It's similar to an argument I've heard in the context of abandonware software—but never in the context of a photo. And I have to assume that it depends on proving that Hawker Siddeley was the copyright owner at the time of abandonment. (Also with abandonware, the idea is that nobody can enforce the copyright, but therefore nobody can licence it either. It's not free, but but since nobody has standing to sue over it, there's no real civil liability. I'm not sure if we've ever tested that concept on Wikipedia.) TheFeds 05:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The provenance goes back to 1961 when Hawker Siddeley took over the assets of Avro Canada and the subsequent later collapse of the company led to my collaborator applying for status as a rights holder for all media available. His interest was in setting up an independent video company to sell and distribute video copies of 16 mm company films, but he also obtained rights to a large amount of photographic material at the same time. During my work as his "ghost writer", he passed away and I ended up writing a book he had initiated. In the course of his estate being cleared, his family passed to me all of his reference documents and media in which I was interested. It amounted to 30 file cabinets full of material, including books, models, film and videotapes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

──────────────────── That's exceptional—and it looks like you've got a great chain of evidence that proves you're the copyright holder. Given the volume of material, I can well understand that the lawyers might not have reviewed every single image, but instead passed judgment on the archive as a whole. Given their professional opinion, I'd say that it would be reasonable to vary the usual Wikipedia procedure somewhat, and rely on your assertion that anything you uploaded from that archive was valid, unless there's a clear reason to doubt it. (WP:AGF seems like a reasonable plan.) With that in mind, I'd absolutely recommend forwarding some documentation to OTRS, so that you can upload material from that archive at your convenience.

Since this one image has been attributed to someone else who probably wasn't commissioned by Avro (presumably he was a Canadian Forces officer), it seems to be an exception to all of this. But it's reasonable to believe that most of the Avro/Hawker Siddeley archive will be composed of their own work, and thus available to you. TheFeds 06:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"That's exceptional—and it looks like you've got a great chain of evidence that proves you're the copyright holder" - he actually says that "his family passed to me all of his reference documents and media in which I was interested"; he doesn't explicitly say that they gave him the rights (assuming that the works are not by now public domain). It is quite possible that he owns all this stuff without being able to use it. And re-reading his last paragraph, he doesn't explicitly state that his collaborator held the rights either, only that he applied for them (and some, perhaps unrelated, "photographic material"). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ashley, the publishing house and film company lawyers were satisfied that for the purpose of author/title search, that I retained the rights to materials that were deeded to me, and that the original copyrights had expired. However, the issue appears to be more convoluted and I have no real desire to enter into a legal battle over whose rights are involved. I have retained the majority of the photographs, videos and other resources but other items are donated to archives and other public depositories for other researchers to have access to these materials. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering if there is a way we can take 1 baby step forward on at least some of the Avro pictures. I would think that the Cdn. Gov't has copyright over these pictures seeing as it's their Site with a direct link to their copyright notice. We could request that at least these be released into Public Domain. If it was previously owned & requested from a Cdn Govt site, it should avoid the American 95-year rules problem. Exit2DOS CtrlAltDel 15:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

New Year and MVREdit

Happy new year Bzuk. I guess its to late to enter into the discussion on MVR. For what it is worth, I tend to agree with your arguments. Dapi89 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bill Zuk Picture.1.jpg listed for deletionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bill Zuk Picture.1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you're having a bit of a bad week with image deletion.... The images (this and File:Bill Zuk Picture.jpg) are "orphaned self-photo[s]" according to the nominator. Perversely, simply using the image on a user page (which might have the side effect of promoting you just a little bit) ought to be quite acceptable per Wikipedia:User pages. So maybe just create a page (e.g. User:Bzuk/self-portraits) and link the images there to solve the problem. TheFeds 06:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011Edit

WP:FILM December 2010 NewsletterEdit

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Dear Bzuk thanks a lot for your warm (Cuban) wishes and very sorry that I did not answer in time, but I read it just now... I am in a similar warm place, Thailand, and I see only now Your message and the wonderful video... moreover, I am not logging in en wikipedia, and even less in wikitaly, lately, as I am extremely busy with my next book about Soviet airwomen... you can understand me well... by the way...I wish You a wonderful year of great successes and total happiness.... All the best from Pattaya!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Thx for the card. Great fireworks. (Where was that shot, do you know?) And very best of the season & the new year to you. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Bill. I saw your posts. Ok, Thanks. How are polar bears this winter? Had it snow enough? Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011Edit

I hope my Flight additions aren't making extra work for you...Edit

...since the format I'm using for these isn't consistent with your preferred style. I'm adding these entries as External links (unless they already exist in the References section) because I myself am not citing them within the articles; they are intended as suggested information sources for other potential editors. Also, being an American and somewhat of a traditionalist, I'm using the traditional month-first date format (which was also being used by Flight at the time). Finally, I'm using the "cite journal" template for simplicity, rather than making hand-edited citations. I know you have the opposite preference, because you dislike the style produced by the cite templates. But I personally stick to the template approach because it should make maintenance easier by centralizing control over style in one place, rather than having to edit each individual citation. I don't mind your changing the entries on those articles you watch; I just wanted to explain why I'm doing things this way. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


We could use more reviews. Are there any wikiprojects you can think of where we have not already advertised?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!Edit


Thanks for the whisky! Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia to you too!   wackywace 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bill! - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I trust that it's a single malt. I don't want any of that blended crap!   Thanks anyway. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm at work right now and that's always a good time for drinking. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the drink, Bill. Just what I needed on this ccccold Alberta day.-- BC  talk to me 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That hit the spot Bill! Have a large one yourself. Cheers! --Red Sunset 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, Bzuk! Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!Edit

Happy 10th Wikiversary!Edit


Two questions: 1) is your 10th anniversary template a slightly modified version of the original one?; and 2) is there any reason to keep this page semi-protected (which it has been for nearly three years)? HeyMid (contribs) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Wikipedia!Edit

Make mine a Bowmore 25year old single maltPetebutt (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Lets hope by 2021 the quality and coverage will be massively improved!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!Edit

  • Thanks...and a happy tenth anniversary to you too! Acalamari 14:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

16 JanuaryEdit

Hello! 15 January 2011 has already passed, so I don't think you should continue with your 10th anniversary comments. HeyMid (contribs) 18:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

10th anniversaryEdit

Thanks for the anniversary greetings! Have a happy anniversary too! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bzuk for the virtual MacAllan :P MoRsE (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. Drutt (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I'm not surprised that my "see below" edits were undone, but I don't think it's very satisfactory (for anyone not familiar with this article) that there's no indication to the reader of the UK section that WP _does_ have more details of Jaguars in the GW. Logically the info would be in the UK section, but (as K has explained) this can't be done neatly. Is there any other solution ? (if not I'll accept the status quo) DexDor (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr WarwickEdit

Silly me ... I assumed the 'uk' in your handle indicated you were a Brit ... and I couldn't understand how you did not know how to spell Warwick. I see now that you are from across the pond and things become clear. Checkout Warwick and see how it is pronounced - and it sounds as though your Americanised version of the DVD has a spelling error on it. I just checked out the end credits of my Region 2 DVD of the film (just to make sure he wasn't bizarrely named Warrick or even Worrick) and it is definitely Warrant Officer Warwick. "Two nations divided by a common language" eh? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011Edit

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010Edit

TSR-2' s "stringent" design specsEdit

I see you have reverted my deletion. Who says the design specs were stringent? What is the source for this? As noted in the article, the design specs were changed, the criteria may have been stringent when first issued, but were they still stringent when revised down? Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Trans World AirlinesEdit

TWA was Transcontinental and Western Airlines until after WW II when it was changed to Trans World. So your correction on DC-4E was mistaken. perhaps you can add an explanation.

--Bobby Jim (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Recently you reverted my edit and I am having a difficult time understanding why. The engines and intake design for the J-20 have not been finalized and as of now all of the information on the aircraft is pure speculation (not "hard facts" as the article suggest). The aircraft has only made one confirmed flight so how is it that anyone can make a cruising speed? Also the authors of AusAir have a clearly objective tone and have a long history of showing favoritism and giving undue praise to foreign aircraft, especially when comparing the aircraft to the F-35. If information on the aircraft "must" be filled in with speculation then it should at least come from a source that isnt known for being biased. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011Edit

reference deformatingEdit

I understand that some of the references given in the P-3 Orion article were not properly formatted using the appropriate template and thus need improvement; however, I noticed you also deformated other references that were formated using the Template:cite news or Template:cite web formats. Although I understand that it is not necessary to use said formats, may I ask why they were deformated? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reggiane 2000 or Heja?Edit

Dear Bzuk, how are You? I need Your help: 1) The Transylvania crisis seemed to lead to a conflict between Hungary and Romania, but the conflict did not exploded... how to say it? :) 2) In 1943-1944 the Reggiane 2000 producted on licence, in fact the Hejas, were still used in combat, even against American bombers... shall I write these informations on the page of the Reggiane or on that of the Heja, or on both? That is the question(s)... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, on both articles... Thanks...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of the SunEdit

The article lead text doesn't match the article body text for Box office which is better worded and does not fail WP:WORLDVIEW. Unless you are not talking about the "domestic" messing, it isn't immediately clear which consensus you are talking about from your edit summary. -- Horkana (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

AW EnsignEdit

I've fixed the template, a combination of a few typos messed it up. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the Flight article would seem to be a good source for generally expanding the AW Ensign article. Apparently there was another article later in the year too. Mjroots (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011Edit

WP:FILM January 2011 NewsletterEdit

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you assist?Edit

Re your post at WT:AVIATION, you say you have back numbers of Aeroplane. Do you have the December 2005 issue? Crosswind column has the Hitler kidnap plot, which might be useable to expand the Lympne Airport article. Further info available here. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Airbus A330Edit

After reading you comments on Talk:Airbus A330, I wondered about the credibility of other users whoe have reviewed previous articles. FA-status articles such as Boeing 777 have been heavily formatted with cite templates. On this peer review page sser Ruhrfisch have suggested me to change to citation template formatting. Why are there conflicting comments like this? By the way, I don't understand points 1 and 7; could you please explain that further? Thanks Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mystery planeEdit

Hi. Any idea what this is? --John (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here - Rutan Long-EZ - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --John (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope, it's the Rutan VariEze. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I jumped too fast, the Long-EZ is more likely as it has the baggage holders underwing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks to you both. I had never seen one before. It's rather cool, isn't it? --John (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The rocket powered variant is even more so. - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow! It certainly is. Thanks again. --John (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Britain FilmEdit

After your good work finding a reliable reference for Warrick any chance you have a reliable reference that one of the pilots was listed as from Israel in the credits for the George Goodman (Pilot) article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit


Thanks for your Christmas and Wikipedia anniversary messages! I'm not well-versed in social graces, but my wife is trying to change that part of me. --Born2flie (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330Edit

Since the citation problems seem to be solved now, what other areas do you want me to improve on? Please be really comprehensive and quick so I can work on them right now, since I've got study commitments. Thanks Sp33dyphil (TC • I love Wikipedia!) 07:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, are you going to review the page? If not, I'll request the deletion of the review page and let some else do it. Sp33dyphil (TC • I love Wikipedia!) 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it's passed the criteria for GA status; it is broad in its coverage, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and well-written. So please make your decisions quickly. Sp33dyphil (TC • I love Wikipedia!) 07:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC) The article is now ready for a comprehensive review, with preliminary cleanup completed. FWiW Bzuk(talk) 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

See the word Reviewer? That is an "automatic" insertion; see update. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lufthansa?! It's Lufthansa per MOS:FOREIGN. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Vozdushni Voiski DewoitinesEdit

Hello, what You think, we could create a new section about use with Bulgarian Air force (and one for the use with Regia Aeronautica)? Best Wishes... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 :) How many lines, to "be enough"? :)

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But we could at least create a new section in the Dewoitines paragraph... In foreign use and then "Under Bulgaria Insignia", "Under Regia Insignia" etc... Sorry May be I dont understand You

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

nO, DONT APOLOGIZE, IT's just that I dont know English enough... :)--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


I worked on AFVG - my info accurate and useful!Qinj (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Savoia Marchetti SM.79sEdit

Hello, colleague... :) Excuse me, but I spotted some incongruitys in the section about the RSI: service under ANR insigna started in 1944, but in the title is written: 1943. Moreover, there are in this section datas about the service during the previous years, when the SM.79s where in serevice with Regia Aeronautica. Maybe we can move these datas in another section... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Convair-116.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Convair-116.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011Edit

Re: 1941 (film)Edit

There is nothing arbitrary about removing unsourced or inadequately sourced information. In the case of the two paragraphs in the cast section, they do not belong there in the first place. If sourced, they should be in the production section. The popular culture examples are both trivial and neither of them is adequately sourced, either. So, no, nothing arbitrary about it, simply an enforcement of the rules and guidelines regarding sourced matierial, as I am sure you well know. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011Edit


I see your points. Very well. I certainly know how to write a reference without templates, so that wouldn't be much of a problem. Cite book has a section for additional authors, though.

If cite book and templates like it really are no good at all, then why are they used on heaps and heaps of FAs, including today's? Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence taken. I'm not a computer nerd, and I'm sure you're right in that many of the folks on Wiki are, without that being a bad thing, in my view. I'm an historian by education, and a museum director and author by occupation.
You may be right in that the cite templates may be far from perfect. Are you sure you couldn't find the time to work on the templates? After all, then many users would benefit. Nice work on the N-3PB article, btw. Manxruler (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Northrop N-3PBEdit

You've obviously noticed my edits, I've made some additions to the references and operational history, and rewritten the intro. In my opinion, it is good enough to GAN right now. I'd never heard of this plane until you mentioned it to me, do you have any special connection to such an obscure critter? Kyteto (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi B. Why should we trust Ragnarsson's word in an aviation magazine over a book written by some of the foremost Norwegian aviation historians? After all, Norway produced a licenced version of the M1917 Browning machine gun, called the Colt M29, before the war. This production included an aircraft machine gun version. The Norwegian authors have access to Norwegian archive sources, did Ragnarsson in 1981? Manxruler (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In 1981, Ragnarsson was the vice president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society. Ragnar J. Ragnarsson was born 1945 in the USA, but has lived most his life in Iceland. He began flight training at the age of 17 and two years later earned his Commercial Pilot's Licence. Following a brief period of 'free-lance' flying DC-3s on domestic routes in Iceland, he entered a business carrier in foreign trade in which he is still actively engaged. Despite leaving a career in aviation, Ragnar has pursued a life-long love for aviation alongside his professional business career, and is still an active private pilot and aircraft owner. He was co-founder and past vice president of IPMS Iceland, co-founder and past president of the Icelandic Aviation Historical Society and past president of the Icelandic Aero Club. He has been involved in the recovery of two historical World War 2 aircraft, both of which have since been restored - a Fairey Battle bomber, on display at the RAF Museum at Hendon and a Northrop N3PB floatplane on display with the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum. For his participation in the latter as recovery team leader, and his research of the type's World War 2 operational history with the RAF's No 330 "Norwegian" Sqn, he was awarded the Order of St Olav, Knight 1st Class, by the King of Norway in 1981. Ragnar has spent many years researching wartime maritime aviation in the Atlantic and has written articles for both the Icelandic and foreign specialist aviation press, as well as contributing to a number of books on the subject. He has an exhaustive account of the building of the N-3PB and was involved with the Northrop company in rediscovery and the restoration of the recovered c/n 320. His involvement gave him access to the Northrop archives and his detailed article corrects many of the previous errors rampant in the N-3PB saga. The article is nearly book-length and is exhaustively researched. I would give him a pass here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly Ragnarsson is an authority on the subject. I'd give him a pass without questioning it in most cases. However, this instance is different.
The armament part of the N-3PB originally had little or nothing to do with Northrop, as it would have been carried out in Norway by the Norwegians, thus making the Northrop archives less relevant. If the original reports in the Norwegian military archives, used by Hafsten and Arheim, say that the Royal Norwegian Air Service planned to install said machine guns in the aircraft, in Norway, then I'd sooner trust that. How could Northrop know better than the Royal Norwegian Air Service what kind of armament the Royal Norwegian Air Service planned on installing in the aircraft, in Norway? Manxruler (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Both the Orlikon and Fabrique Nationale armament was included in the original specifications made by Cmdr. Østby at his specific request at the factory, and included in the contract signed on 12 March 1940. When Norwegian armament was to be substituted, it was due to the lack of availability of these original specified weapons at the source? go figure, was there a war going on? How about we include both of these variances from Ragnarsson and Bjørn Hafsten and Tom Arheim in the form of a note. I see these differences as most likely arising from the tumultuous period from March–April 1940. The original specifications of 7 March 1940 did not even have a third crew member, that was added later and Østby expanded his requirements to include not only a gunner's station but also the provision of a camera mounted in the rear cockpit, all changes that were not in the original contract. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC). Where should we continue this dialogue, your place or mine? Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Northrop N-3PB, maybe? Paaln (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyhow, even Cato Guhnfeldt mentions the Oerlikon dealio in his book, so it is somewhat plausible Paaln (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Would clear up the source conflict issue nicely. I'm also fine with using your place. Paaln might be right, though, that we should talk this over at Talk:Northrop N-3PB. Wanna copy the conversation and paste it there, perhaps? Manxruler (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Just leaving a note that the GA Review has started, and all looks good, though some of the sources could use the addition of locations and publishers. I've done some of them, but you know that stuff better than I do (I don't know if this is down to you knowing the sources off by heart or some sort of searching facility I'm unfamiliar with, but you certainly do it!). Kyteto (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Something interesting to admireEdit

I came across this article, Fairey Rotodyne, last week. It is in a semi-okay state, and it is certainly unique an aircraft to me; it's not quite the Avrocar but if it does take your fancy for redevelopment, let me know and I'll see if there's anything my end to cite from on it. Kyteto (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011Edit


To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

J-20 reffingEdit

Hi Bzuk.

Why did you change my primary ref from to a third party ref to their article? Hcobb (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


If you wish to undo my revisions then I'd have to ask that you provide a reason. "Take that to talk" is not a reason and the information you re-added does not adhere to wiki's WP:NPV. My revision was well explained in the summary and if you felt otherwise then perhaps you should've brought up the issue in the talks page instead of directing me to it. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

While you are correct about vandalism on the article I am not a newcomer to the J-20 article or Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and credibility. The statement you re-added was not taken from a reliable source and was altered to the point that it didn't reflect the statement made in the source as there was never a comparison to the PAK FA. If you were protecting the article then that's fine but I'd hope that with my history on Wikipedia my edits would not appear to you as possible vandalism. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011Edit

The Signpost: 28 February 2011Edit

WP:FILM February 2011 NewsletterEdit

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requiring the skills of an experienced copy editor: Sounds like somebody I know!Edit

Hey Bzuk. The target of the hour is BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4; the initial stage of the GA Review has stated that the article overall needs a good overhaul in its wording. Thankfully it is a small peice, and I have been doing my best in this regard, but if you can spare the time, I would appreciate your aid in dragging the quality of one more article up to scratch. Kyteto (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's wrapped up now, sorry to bother you. Kyteto (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup pour la carte de Noel!Edit

Dear Bzuk: Thanks for the Xmas card. (I just noticed it on my "talk" page.) What makes you think that lowly I am deserving of such a high honour? Writtenright (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)writtenright ‎

Martin MarsEdit

Thanks for the link. Kind of fired and forgot after seeing it on the USAF Museum website. Guess the previous editor didn't understand my note... Ckruschke (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

The Signpost: 7 March 2011Edit

AM MaulerEdit

Have I ever told you how much I hate Harvard citation style with its generally unnecessary year attribute? Pity that Kowalski didn't cover the development of the aircraft in any real depth. Are you aware of any other books that might cover its development in any more detail? I don't think that Putnam did a history of Martin aircraft, but that would have been a natural starting point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Roly's rollEdit

Though your note mentions safety, Hamilton-Paterson stresses that the SBAC request was not on safety grounds but, and I think he's quoting the SBAC, because it was "inappropriate behaviour for a bomber". He cites The Aeroplane Jan 09 p10.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill WatertonEdit

Bill Waterton is now, as you can see, a blue link. I thought I was putting some great lines down on the page as it were but suffered a connection dropout and when I retyped what I thought I'd written it doesn't look so good. But a stub is as good a place to build on, I guess. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Submitted for your reprovalEdit

I found this "gem" in the Arado Ar 234 article: "The Ar 234 (and the Messerschmitt Me 262) showed in which direction plane technique should develop." I checked the history, and, sho 'nuff, it was added here. I think you might know the "author"! I tossed it, as it's really too vague to understand as written. Perhaps you can "translate" it from Italish into something more intelligible? :) - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove alt textEdit

Removing alt text as you did in these edits and adding odd comments about it as you did here isn't very helpful. If you don't like alt text, please discuss it rather than remove it arbitrarily. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA and your removal of citation templatesEdit

Hello, Bzuk. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt text materialEdit

I'm posting the following for your review to assist in understanding other editors on Wikipedia who are inserting what might appear at first glance to be repetitive or unnecessary 'alt' information into images and other items.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)Edit

Further information: Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Size 1.Images should include an alt attribute, even an empty one, that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added it should be succinct, or should refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text: see WP:ALT for more information.

United States: Section 508 LawsEdit

In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities. Inaccessible technology interferes with an ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, open new opportunities for people with disabilities, and encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals.

§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications. (a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).

Web Accessibility Initiative (a project of World Wide Web Consortium)Edit

Modern Language Association (MLA) statements on accessibilityEdit

Guidelines for Institutional Support of and Access to IT for Faculty Members and Students

"Technological innovations that permit persons with disabilities to conduct research and carry out other professional responsibilities effectively should be available. Institutions should be aware of and comply with federal regulations regarding accessibility."

Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages

"Stay Informed about Accessibility Issues. Search, reappointment, promotion, and tenure committees have a responsibility to comply with federal regulations and to become and remain informed of technological innovations that permit persons with disabilities to conduct research and carry out other professional responsibilities effectively."

The Signpost: 14 March 2011Edit

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011Edit


To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011Edit

citation transfersEdit

Hi Bzuk. I'm always around, taking care of links between the English language project and the Italian one. As you probably remember I do not dare to contribute to without well established agreements and preliminary tests. At the moment I am working on several aviation featured articles that are submitted to the "de-featured status" inquiry. In fact, our standards are getting tougher and each and every important sentence must have a citation footnote. Results are examples like it:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress with 117 footnotes and so on. During the "citation analisys" process, I have seen that linked articles I am looking in the same time, sometimes do not have citations notes where I was able to retrieve them on identical sentence and, as I am often quoting English language sources, it could be very easy to transfer my verification work on the English articles. In these days, as an example, I am improving it:Disastro di Tenerife article, which is gradually embedding detailed citation footnotes and some other images I am drawing for the special occasion. I am relying on the official reports, available on the web, I cannot see cited in the article counterpart paragraphs. Question (a very very old one): which kind of citation method do you consider the most ? On, I am easily adopting the Italian version of the shortened footnote template (look at the B-52 article as an example). What do you think of it and could it be considered compliant with the aviation project citation guidelines ? This time we are talking of possible contributions to well established articles and I consider this a sensible issue. Your opinion will be highly appreciated as always in these years. --EH101 (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you for your kind answer. Obviously, prior to proceed to such those improvements, I will present my intentions in the relevant talk page, in order to verify consensus on the matter. See you around. Bye. --EH101 (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Macdonald articleEdit

I've taken John A. Macdonald to FAC. While there is little aviation content in it, given your interest in Canadian articles generally, I'm hopeful you'll give it a review. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


Is it just me, or does WPFILM have more than the usual share of idots? (Present company excepted.) - BilCat (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it is not just you good sir (Present company excepted.). Centpacrr (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011Edit

Opinion from regs neededEdit

I am pinging you because you have over 150 edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and have edited the page this month. I have gotten no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Template:WikiProject_Awards and need some to resume a major cleanup project I have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 NewsletterEdit

The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011Edit

The Signpost: 11 April 2011Edit

Douglas BaderEdit


I have thrashed out my reasons. The rugby aspect was semi-correct, but the cricket stuff is just not supported by secondary sources. I will look around these types of sources to make doubly sure. I take offence at the use of the "History Learning site" being used. It is beneath this article certainly. Cricket he did play in a POW camp, but no evidence for him playing and scoring 65 in an RAF-Army match. Dapi89 (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I'd like to direct your attention to arguments laid out in Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit (diff of interest) --Kubanczyk (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Soviet AviatrixesEdit

Hello, How are You doing? Sorry if I disturb... my book about Soviet Airwomen has been released yesterday. As I collected new informations and datas about them, may I quote muyself in the articles about them? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Dash 7.JPGEdit

Hi Bzuk, could you please fill in the info template at File:Dash 7.JPG? Thank you! I would like to use this file at de.wikipedia and transfer it to Commons therefore. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo problemEdit

Your photo File:RAF Victor B.2.jpg is not yet public domain as it is 47 years old, not 50. Please add a fair-use rationale or remove it. Be advised that your date for the other B.2 picture in the Victor article is incorrectly dated as '57 when the first prototype didn't fly until '59.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011Edit

Soviet AirwomenEdit

Hello, Bzuk, how are You doing? I hope you are doing well... May I ask You just one question: my book about the Soviet airwomen has been released ... I should add some of the datas and informations that I discovered, but I do not know if it is possible in wikipedia... May I quote myself? I am afraid not... regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk)

You are precious, like always... thanks... I hope You are doing well...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Litvyak KillsEdit

Hello, have You seen the table of Litvyak kills, with name of pilot and units involved? I was so pleased at first to see it, as I am struggling hard to find those datas, checking all books that could refer to Litvyak available on the market, Bergstrom texts, books about JG 52, JG 3, Bographies of German aces, Bundes ARchives researches... but I NEVER found those informations - except those of the double Bf 109 kills in March in the article on the web. As I see there is no reference about those kills. I sent a message to RusoArgentino, but meanwhile I am rather startled... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pearse BiblioEdit

I have just spent all morning editing the incorrect biblio. for Geoff Rodliffe re: Pearse only to have it wiped out a few hours later. The info. is incorrect. MOTAT did not publish most of his books - he did himself - i.e. his is (or was) entirely self-financed. This was as a direct request from Geoffry who incidentally seriously ill and not expect to make it to May. This is very upsetting for his family and myself (I have known and worked with him over Pearse for at least 40 years). You might like to send him a card of good wishes to Hillsborough Hospital, Hillsborough, Auckland, NZ. When I visited him a few months ago I promised him I would sort out the inaccuracies to all references to his books on the web especially Wiki. Incidentally I built him his home page. Even that is slightly wrong. I shall make another attempt to correct Geoffrey's biblio. later. Afterwards please do not change his entries. I will of course leave your added entries. Thank you. C.J.Brady — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisJBrady (talkcontribs) 14:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Pearse - conflicting revisionsEdit

Please email me at chrisjbrady AT yahoo DOT com to negotiate revisions. Otherwise you will be undoing my revisions and I will be undoing yours. Who am I - well see: - and look at my pages about Pearse. ChrisJBrady (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Prepping to redraft Folland GnatEdit

As you suggested some months ago that the Folland Gnat article should be torn down and rebuild from scratch, I intend to do this over the next few weeks. I'll start the draft in my userspace soon, and expand it outwards, eventually it should supplant the current article today. If you're interested, keep an eye out. Kyteto (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011Edit

File:CF-104 on visit to RAF.jpg listed for deletionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CF-104 on visit to RAF.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011Edit


To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 NewsletterEdit

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011Edit


Taking Tecwyn Roberts from a candidate for speedy deletion to a proper article with pictures is quite an achievement, just finished my own imputs there. Thank you very much indeed for your kind contributions! Cyan22 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ken KeiselEdit

Sorry to cut and run, but I'm about to head for bed. I will drop a quick note on his page first though. Will suggest that he leaves the issue for now. Next step would be ANI. Mjroots (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you're doing well. With a quick review, it does seem that things have escalated quickly after the repeated reverts and talk page warnings. It would definitely be preferable for the editor to take a break instead of doing the mass tagging to make a point. He is entitled to create an arbitration page if he feels it is necessary, but hopefully that can be avoided if the involved editors can resolve this on the article talk pages.

By the way, as a side note, since you're heavily involved with WP:Aircraft, I want to let you know that one of the museums here in San Diego has agreed to release a large number of their images, mainly military aircraft under a free license. I'm setting up the process to get a mass upload to Commons, and once it's all prepared, I'll drop a note on the project's talk page for those interested in helping to categorize the material and add it to relevant articles. It's definitely going to help improve a large number of articles on aircraft! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 23:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it currently says no commercial, and I'm meeting with them in the coming weeks to determine if a portion of these can be released straight CC. We'll see how many would be able to be used for various articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bzuk -- Ken's recently been adding a lot of unsourced material to articles; I've been working with him to get some citations in place. We've made some progress, but unfortunately, he's still at it. Yesterday, I warned him that if he continues, I would have to seek some administrative intervention (not the first time he's been warned about blocking if he continues to add unsourced claims to Wikipedia). My warning seems to have triggered the current rampage; but I believe that when he settles down a little, we can work together constructively again. Just give it time. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not surprised, as Ken has always marched to his own drum here on WP. Adding uncited material is not a new problem with him, and he's also been known to add sources that don't exactly back up his assertions. Usually it's just a misinterpretation of the source. In the past, he usually came on for just a few days, and just disappeared for a few months before returning again, giving time for others to clean up his "work". Regarding his recent difficulties, he has been editing more in the past 2 months than before, and perhaps he's suffering from WP burn-out. I'm glad BillZ is attempting to work with him, but after so many years, if it hasn't taken by this time, I'm not sure it ever will. But I hope I'm wrong, as Ken does mean well. - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Stealth Blackhawk.jpgEdit

Bill, File:Stealth Blackhawk.jpg is not showing up on my computer in the article nor in the image file page. Can you confirm that i;'s working on your comp? Btw, I use IE8 on Win7. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011Edit

Cited backcover blurbEdit

Hi, were you getting a little creative with this citation? - Fayenatic (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Some files archived. Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011Edit

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011Edit


To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hughes OH-6 Low-bidEdit

I'm a little surprised that you removed my addition to the OH-6 page about Hughes low-bidding the OH-6 production contract. This is established fact that has been published in numerous sources. I only chose the Jack Real citation as he was actually in the room when the decision was made. Its harder to find a source closer to the action - he was later President of Hughes Helicopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talkcontribs) 05:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See revisions FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks! Your edit is actually better than my original addition! comment added by Aeroweanie (talk] • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Whitelist reqEdit

I can't see the named page on the linked website. Apart from that, I don't know anything about how the whitelist works, so I'm not sure I can help. You may get a better response if you post to WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I found the webpage but the instructions for whitelisting appear to be in either Martian of Venutian, neither of which I speak. I've commented at the whitelist request page. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I've asked Stifle (talk · contribs) to assist with this one. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Like Mjroots, I'm surprised by the lack of clear instructions on the page. I'd say the article looks to be okay for sourcing as bukisa is an aggregator site. I'll defer to Stifle, who looks like he has extensive experience with dealing with these types of links. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 21:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Stifle has asked for clarification as to why the page meets WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011Edit

This is all very complicated, and I don't know what I'm doingEdit

You left a message on my talk page, I assume because you've 'met' some of my edits. I'm strictly an amateur, but can see that a lot of the WW1 stuff.... which is my primaty interest... is very messy. Any constructive criticism would be most welcomeTheLongTone (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Bill,

i am seldomly contribute today in wikipedia, but still, i read her. In the consolidated B-24 page, i've read, for my wonder, that this aircraft was shot down by.. a 20 mm Flak 30.

I've taken the time to read the PDF about the loss report. Already from the picture, it's quite obvious that a 20 mm cannot be the killer of this aircraft -and the most of the crew inside. The ceiling was 19,000 ft. It's futile to remember how the Flak 30 had an effective ceiling of 2-2,5 km at the best.

I still remember very well the amount of censorship i had while editing here, with such cool sensation to be a 'special observed'. Then i'd ask you two things:

1-how is it possible, that a such (silly) statement would last without anyone notice it (in the page of one of the best 'anglosaxon' aicrafts), and modified it (with a Flak '88' of course, just see the ripped wing, it's was an heavy flak gun for sure), and how long it would last if i'd write it (5 seconds?), before BillCJ or you or others came and revert it 'for the sake of wikipedia'.

2-Since i am not much interested in wiki editing, i ask you to correct such gigantic nonsense. I could, but i don't want to explain to ARBCOM, why it's impossible (=impossible*) that a 20 mm can shot down a B-24 flying at 19,000 ft (5,800 m), if nothing else, its shells self-destruct within 5 seconds (2-2,2 km).

Take care, Bill. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to have ignored me. I expected, atleast, more interest for Wikipedia itself, as errors like that are simply laughable. I hope that nobody wants to start an edit war, but i'd not be much surprised if so, seen the qualities of some members here. Good bye. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Meteor marksEdit

You (and our new editor) are of course both right and I (hangs head in abject embarrasment) am wrong - must be just about the first time in the last sixty years or so! Replacing the offending photo was of course a very neat solution, well done... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP Aircraft in the SignpostEdit

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Aircraft for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Trouble, right here in River city?!Edit

I have found an unregistered Yugoslav IP address that has engaged in a series of vandalizing incidents this afternoon. is an unregistered user inserting nonsense into articles. Do you know of an Administrator who deals with these cases? Thanks! Mark Sublette (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011Edit

WP:FILM May 2011 NewsletterEdit

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gwillickers disruptive behavior.Edit

I'm preparing a user conduct RfC on Gwillickers for disruptive behavior, canvassing and making legal threats. I've gathered together and placed a synopsis of the trouble caused at Alexander Graham Bell and have a draft page of the RfC in my user space. If you have some spare time to look over the synopsis I would appreciate it. I think I have the spirit of what happened but I'd like your opinion since you were a participant. Feel free to bring up questions or comment on the talk page there. Unfortunately Gwillickers didn't learn his lesson at AGB and has gone on to disrupt several other articles. Thanks. Brad (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit of CA-15 article 13 Feb 2011 (you can't introduce personal opinion)Edit

Hi Bzuk,

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I appreciate that the rigour applied to the monitoring of edits is what makes Wikipedia such a useful reference. I note that you recently removed the statement "(Photographed from the rear turret of an Avro Lincoln bomber.)" from the description of a photograph I contributed to the CA-15 article (, with the comment (you can't introduce personal opinion). However, it was not my own opinion that the photograph was taken from a Lincoln, it was the opinion of the pilot (my dad). The difficulty I have now is proving it.

If you examine the roundels on the wings of the CA-15 in the photgraph I contributed, you will see that the red dot at the centre exists. This dates the photo graph to the second series of CA-15 tests (May 1948 - March 1950), carried out by RAAF ARDU (Aircraft Research and Development Unit). There is a brief ARDU history at, which confirms that ARDU was flying both the CA-15, and at least one Lincoln bomber.

My dad's log book has him flying the CA-15 on the 18th, 20th, 21st, 24th and 25th of May 1948. The 25th was the day of the 'gentle' dive over Melbourne at 502.2 mph. It also has him piloting the ARDU Lincoln A73-20 on May 20th and May 26th 1948. It seems extremely like that the photograph was taken from the Lincoln A73-20, but does this constitute sufficient proof?

What do you think?

Regards, John Archer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyOneSpeed (talkcontribs) 12:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See talk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011Edit


To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Laurel and HardyEdit

Hi Bzuk. There are comments about some of your contributions to the L&H page: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Laurel and Hardy/1. I realise you have discussed the Maurice Sendak addition and the further reading secion before. Not sure what you think? Szzuk (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A comment is here: User talk:SilkTork Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy reviewEdit

Please see my comments on Laurel and Hardy review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Bzuk, whilst most certainly a helpful L&H editor has a particular attachement to the Sendak book and further reading section - he wrote them and defended them here: Talk:Laurel and Hardy/Archive 2. I realised this and asked on his talk page what he felt should be done without altering them. I wasn't expecting the comments in the GAR. Not sure how to proceed with that now? Szzuk (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. WP:FURTHER and WP:Further reading give some advice on listing books, and I would direct you both to those guides. My personal view is that the current list appears little better than putting "laurel and hardy" into Google Books. Given that it is not difficult to find books on the subject, I would question the need to have a Further reading list at all. However, if there are some books on the topic that are particularly noteworthy, I can see an argument for listing them. But I would then question why those books were not used as sources in building the article. Further reading lists are not standard any more. They were used in the early days of Wikipedia when we didn't do much actual sourcing, and when we did it was general sourcing - simply listing a few books at the bottom of the article. However, since the requirement to use inline citation, editors have found that the major books on the topic are the ones that are being used as sources. There could be a case that, for example, there are 10 major sources, and only 6 of those are actually needed to support the statements in the article, so the other 4 are listed for the reader to consult; so we don't actually ban the Further reading section, but it is depreciated. SilkTork *Tea time 20:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I could argue for a keep of the book on the basis of you trimming the further reading. As I didn't add any of that I don't know what is worth keeping. Szzuk (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome note! Guthrum (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011Edit

Bare URLsEdit

Thanks for the tips - I'm still learning! Aeroweanie (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Repair citations?Rewriting citation notes into templates is not repairing, it is merely re-formatting, and not necessary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)" The repair is in the updated link, not the new format. Please pay attention to the detail. Graeme374 (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

re Baugher crusade?Edit

Part of the problem is that he isn't paying any attention to whether or not the link adds any value - indeed he is adding it to a great deal of articles to which it is completley irrelevant (Raj Hamsa Ultralights?!)Nigel Ish (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Links to Baugher can not be corrected by simply changing the domain name, the new links are divided between navy and airforce so do not follow the structure of the dead links.

Irrelevant links should be deleted, including the existing dead link. Graeme374 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011Edit

Possibly unfree File:Douglas DC-1.jpgEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Douglas DC-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Douglas DC-1.jpgEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Douglas DC-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011Edit

The Signpost: 27 June 2011Edit

Missing ISBNEdit

Hi Bill, hope you are well. I couldn't find an ISBN anywhere in that book, I even shook it to see if it would fall out!! Will come in handy for the Mirage stuff though the 'G' is missing. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 NewsletterEdit

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Drawing ideaEdit

Hey Bzuk. I came up with an idea a moment ago, can't say it is the most probable one, but it is an interesting doozy. Ever heard of the Skyhook system? A crazy idea from British Aerospace, for grabbing Harriers right out of the air and launching them in the same manner from destroyer-size ships, or even large SSBN-scale submarines. An idea which lacked practicality for sure, but still comically novel and fairly unique as far as I know. I was wondering, as you are good at drawing aircraft, would you ever be fancing to draw a rough schematic of such a system? I can link you over to several Popular Mechanics articles that have described and displayed the system, but there would be few who could fault artistic leeway in interpreting such a system. It would be a nice image to have in the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article if it was around. No pressure, I understand it is a tall order and a random request. Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here is some sources: Popular Mechanics article, Real world testing image featuring, informal fan creations on the theme, might be inspiration. The cover of "Strike from Beneath the Sea: A History of Aircraft Carrying Submarines" by Terry Treadwell is of the Skyhook as well; for a system that never made it out in the real world, it got a lot of attention ftom naval aviation fans. It is a pity it doesn't have a Wikipedia article - yet. Kyteto (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
FlightGlobal site has a few articles with illustrations as well... 1 234 Paaln (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC) oh bother, these links never work as expected, but it was the first four hits entering harrier and skyhook at flightglobal.coms archive search

Emeric PressburgerEdit

I took a look at that citation on google books now, but I could find no mention of Emeric Pressburger or anyone named Pressburger. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011Edit

Max AitkenEdit

The other article was created way back in 2002. As you're the only editor of the article you created, I would suggest that you copy any info into the old article. If you want the old article moved to the new title, It needs a G6 deletion to enable that, which I can do, although it may be better for the moment to convert the new title into a redirect, and then make a request at WP:RM, just to ensure that there is consensus for the mover. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Trying to make the comparison to either the Junkers Ju-87, an attack aircraft to the PZL. P.11 is illogical. You are comparing two dissimilar types. If you want to make valid comparison, be ready to provide authoritative and valid reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC

Fair enough. Ive rephrased it again, Leave it at Messerschmitt. Goldblooded (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

James JabaraEdit

How's it going? I just started working on Korean War jet ace James Jabara, and noticed that you added a few book citations for Joseph McDonnell. Do you have any print citations that are available for Jabara? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits and listed book sources. I don't know about the citations, I've been using those citation templates since I've been on here. I may get two more potential book sources from the library in the next day or two and see if it can be expanded any further. I've also contacted a Kansas historical society for access to a 1984 book no longer in print. I guess I may be able to get a DYK and hopefully a GA at some point. The awards section and infobox details on the awards still need to be verified with the other mentions in the article. I may even try the main image at FPC. This article has a lot of potential from what it was a few days ago! Again, thanks for helping out, I appreciate you catching my mistakes (I'm a fan of military time, but can't stand military date formatting!). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011Edit


Thank you very much for your single-edit expansion of McDonnell XF-85 Goblin. I'd just like to say that your thoughtful edits will not be neglected and that you deserve some recognition for your hard work. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011Edit


To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


Can you remonstrate with the new editor about his edits to Macdonald? Some need discussion but some are just bad.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as close to vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011Edit

Avro VulcanEdit

Thanks for your message Bill. I have contributed before but gave up because the bulk of the article was largely inaccurate and unreferenced. Now it's just inaccurate and the numerous references give the inaccuracies credibility. The problem is that too many accept what has been printed over the years as being the gospel truth and these guys are rewriting history. 'When the legend becomes fact, print the legend!' I'm a graduate of the CNAS flying out of Trenton, commuting daily from the Skyline via Downsview and a Cosmo. Those were the days. XJ784 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

North Star reference on the Yukon pageEdit

I noticed you changed back my revision of the reference to the North Star on the Yukon page. I made the change as it made it seem as if the North Star were nothing but a Canadian built version of the C-54. Based on Larry Milberry's book The Canadair North Star(CANAV Books, Toronto (1982)), it would seem referring to it as such is to neglect giving credit for the work done on the design of the plane by Canadair.

If you see pages 24-27 of the book, it discusses the work involved in taking the basic template of the C-54/DC-4 (not pressurized) fuselage, and designing what became the North Star. It incorporated such things as the landing gear from a DC-6, a Canadian designed brake system, and of course the pressurized cabin (Milberry refers to the fact Canadair tried to get Trans Canada Airlines to go for a non-pressurized cabin in order to use more US parts and tools - TCA refused).

So to refer to the North Star as a "modified C-54 Skymaster with Merlin engines" seems to me to be inaccurate. There is no question as to the basic relationship, but there is a significant enough difference to make that description, at the very least, misleading.

Thanks, James Phieffer Jphieffer (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphieffer (talkcontribs) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, and sorry about not signing the comment I left earlier (I tried to fix that, but may not have). I appreciate your time. Thanks, James Phieffer Note - I'd kill for a simple 'reply' function. Jphieffer (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gloster_Meteor_(Prone).jpgEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gloster_Meteor_(Prone).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Loganberry (Talk) 23:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super HornetEdit

The reason why I changed the style because integrated into Checklinks is a feature that looks at snapshots of a particular page. The manual formatting style that you're endorsing lacks that ability. Any comments? Also, why can't you change the layout of these templates? you talked to me about it once, but I can't remember where. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Washington D.C.Edit

Don't know if you or any of the Navy folks here are interested, but there currently a discussion going on over at the article on Washington D.C. and on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts about the relevance of describing the United States Navy Band. There was already a pretty nice description of the United States Marine Corps Band in the article on the city, and when I tried balancing it with information on the Navy Band, and one of its leaders, it was deleted. Apparently there is a consensus that the Marine Corps Band is "relevent" to the city and the Navy Band merely "symbolic", whatever that means. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011Edit

Tupolev Tu-144‎Edit

Dear Bzuk, I totally agree with your sentiment on this article & I'm honestly trying my best to tidy it. I would appreciated a little help from an experienced Wikki editor like you :) Steve Bowen (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Got your mailEdit

  • Think my last rebuttal to him really drove in the point and I don't give a rat's ass if he is happy or not with his life because WE ARE HAPPY WITH OUR LIVES, thank you! Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dave and Bzuk. That is not true. I am irreplaceable! Just think, every time You or Bzuk or Wilson, step on some toes -- especially an administrators -- you can always point to me and say "Well, at least I am not as bad as Jack!!" <GRIN> Jack Jackehammond (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Jack, you are way too cool to be replaced, just like my professor. In case you're wondering, I'm currently taking a part-time degree in network security. BTW, we were discussing over email about an asshole who is about to be BANNED from Wikipedia on a permanent basis.   Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011Edit

WP:FILM July 2011 NewsletterEdit

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion that might interest youEdit

here--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Bzuk! I'm here just to tell you that XF-85 Goblin is at A-class review, and with three supports, I'm expecting a pass. If you don't mind, would you be a co-nom for the article's Featured Article candidate process, given your contributions to it a few weeks ago? I guess you'd like to co-nom with me for FAC, but if you feel reluctant, then that's OK. BTW, I just want to raise a point about the Cite book template – my 2010 Microsoft Words has a layout similar to template, so I'm thinking if I could proceed with using the template without manipulating the parameters ie. placing the year of publication in the publisher parameter. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! And, to answer your question, I dunno. I guess it's instincts now. At first I didn't use the template, but I thought using it would be neater since the template organises the relevant info. The first thing I do when I press <ref> is the {{Cite. It's hard to change the habit now. I've got a query, has a discussion about this issue been raised anywhere? A number of editors still seem pretty unaware of the problems you are presenting to me. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You once said that altering the formatting would take ages, can you explain why it takes so long? Also, when there's a press release, how should I format a page? Where should I put the dates? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Bzuk, I'd just to say that XF-85 had passed A-class review, and preparations are now underway prior to FAC. Do you have any comments? BTW, this page is getting awfully long, could you please archive some of the posts? Cheers Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ping! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Bzuk. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Swarm u | t 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011Edit

Publication dates of US periodicals in footnotesEdit

Periodicals such as The New York Times and TIME Magazine as US based publications and thus no matter what date formatting is used within the article, the date format for periodicals in footnotes should match the format that appears in the publication being cited which, in the case of the Times and TIME, is m/d/y. Centpacrr (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill: Please see my "Talk" for my reply Centpacrr (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Bill I'm afraid I don't see your email address on your WP home page. You can provide it to me "off the reservation" through the email link to me on my hockey history website, (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Me 209 (display model).jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Me 209 (display model).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011Edit


To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011Edit

Lavochkin aircraft article namesEdit

See WT:AIR#Lavochkin aircraft article names for my attempt at centralizing hte discussions. FWIW, "La-xxx" makes the most sense, and Lavochkin aircraft xxx the least sense, with Lavochkin Aircraft xxx being a second choice, if we don't use the "La-". - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

XF-85 FACEdit

Hi Bzuk, I'm wondering if you'd like to co-nom the article for FAC with me, considering the changes XF-85 has gone through the last month. Thanks Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do whatever you can, the sooner the better, because I'd really love to nominate it for FA status. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like FICON project is very poorly sourced and needs a good cleanup; what would you like me to do? BTW, are you ready to nominate XF-85 for FA status now? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do whatever you can, I'll back you up if you just me a ping. As for the Goblin, I've nominated YF-23 for FA status ATM, so I'd like someone who had contributed greatly to the article to jointly nom XF-85 for FA. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 737Edit

Re this edit, the answer is yes, and in both cases the damage was described as "substantial", so they should be included. Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cary GrantEdit

Bzuk, I want to thank you for stepping in to stop the looming edit war over the wholesale deletions in the Cary Grant article. When someone makes deletions of that size for no apparent reason, it makes a contributor momentarily want to give up on Wikipedia altogether, especially since we all know that finding oneself in any sort of adversarial dynamic with some online stranger is obviously best avoided. I really appreciate your intervention. Your information is most interesting, by the way; I just corresponded recently with a contributor who reminds me of you in terms of interests, User:Bwmoll3. By the way, an early sound aviation movie remains one of my favorites, Hell Divers with Wallace Beery and Clark Gable, from around 1930. If you somehow haven't encountered that one yet, I think you'll enjoy it. And thanks again, Bzuk. Upsmiler (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-28 - VariantsEdit

I notice you switched round the variants section to put it an alphabetical order - It was in the order it was to try and get it in some sort of rough chronological order.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011Edit

Yokosuka MXY7 OhkaEdit

Thanks for the extremely effective edit on Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka! Jim1138 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI - 3RR reportEdit

please see - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011Edit

Old stuffEdit

I have found an unregistered Yugoslav IP address that has engaged in a series of vandalizing incidents this afternoon. is an unregistered user inserting nonsense into articles. Do you know of an Administrator who deals with these cases? Thanks! Mark Sublette (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest stuffEdit

Bzuk, you wanted me to support your fetish about dates. I do. I also remember how you stood up for the bimbo that refused to even check my citation about the search for Amelia Earhart. Not even though that citation was in a book by the man who's organization which is most vocal in promoting the conspiracy theory she is passionate about. I remember EXACTLY where I was in a housing development outside NAS Oceana when I read in Aviation Leek that Diefenbacher had canceled the Arrow.

Defenbacher was aware that there WAS NO SOVIET BOMBER THREAT for the Arrow to counter.

A magnificent airplane with a totally deficient radar, fire control system and missiles which was WAY over cost and which had no reason to exist.

Do you believe I had forgot your position on the Earhart article and who's ass you kissed?

I do not have a clue what exactly happened to Amelia and am not certain I would like to know. I am drawn to mysteries and was not totally happy to find out what happened to Mallory. I have absolutely no doubt that the end of the Arrow was correct. Nor do I doubt for a minute that the day/month/year format is appropriate unless absolutely demanded by other circumstance.

Did you REALLY want me to look at the Graf Zeppelin article or were you just jerking my chain thinking I was a fool?

I have EVERY reason to think you tried to con me, and that kind of crap is EXACTLY why I stopped editing Wikipedia.

Is there ANY reason why I should presume it is any less a sand box for pathetic egos and absolutely uninterested in decent scholarship than it was a few years ago? I decided 40 years ago that I did not wish to pay the cost in intellectual restraint and crushing of curiosity that making a career in history would require. I chose to pursue a life in business at the cutting edge of technology for that is what my education and proclivities had prepared me for.

I still have no interest in wasting my time. Especially on being a prostitute for someone who thinks me a fool.

Your argument on dates is valid. Your refusal to bring statistical presentation in line with your arguments for dates proves your lack of real substance. Were the reasons you cite true, then the need to replace commas with periods would be true. I would support your position on both for the simple reason that the bulk of the world would understand. That is ALL I consider really important.

Give me a reason why I should not just kiss the Wikipedia off as the playground of feeble egos that it appears to be?

I just put several days into providing citations for an article on the Sputnik Program, only to learn that it would be all flushed down the toilet of conformity because a feeble and un-referenced article on the Sputnik Crisis already existed. That was after discovering that an article on US Navy airships had been totally trashed because someone who knew nothing thought it should be erased in favor of a general article on Airships. It is not so much a matter of the work, as having the work disposed of out of ignorance or bias.

I have the books, several linear yards of them, to document the LZ-127 article. But why should I waste the time when all I might do will be just a toy for a bunch of ass kissing anal-retentives?Mark Lincoln (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I read your reply to my vent. The question is do you REALLY want someone to work over the Graf Zeppelin page? The stamp collector is correct to the extent that without stamp collectors, DELAG could have never afforded to operate the Graf Zeppelin. How may one address the 'american' aspect? That in fact the 'world flight' was measured twice? Once from Lakehurst to Lakehurst for the benefit of the Hearst papers who were paying many of the bills, and from Frankfort to Frankfort fore the Germans who owned and flew the airship. Which 'flight' to specify. I go with the German round the world flight. I try to document what is in an article, or that I add to an article. As stated before, I have a big library and have trained to write history. My historiography thesis, now over 40 years old, was on weapons system development. Specifically the Military Rigid Airship.

I will do what I may on the Graf Zeppelin page, but cannot start for a while as a) I am involved in pursuing a few books on another subject at this time, and b) I will wish to review the article and my library on the subject before setting forth.

Good luck on the zealots and hobby horse ridders. Why not have a 'Zeppelin Cover" article to keep the stamp koo-koo happy? I agree that there are too many stamps on the site. What happens when I start citing books and thus slight the guy who thinks You Tube is a great source for serious history? BTW I agree that the films are 'source material,' but largely superficial and ephemeral.

I am bound to tread upon folks sensibilities and passions if I start whacking in the citations and rooting out the fluff. I think the article is not bad, though thin in a few places and padded in others.Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Lincoln: First you are free to disagree with me on any interpretation of WP guidelines, historical facts, my approach to research and/or writing style, or anything else. I would appreciate it, however, if you would not call me a "stamp koo-koo" which I am not. (I do not see myself as a "koo-koo" of any kind actually.) If you had taken the time to look at my user page you would see, I hope, that I am serious about history and try my best to make useful and worthy contributions to WP in the areas in which I have some levels of particular interest, experience, and/or expertise. In my professional life I have written and/or edited seven published books on ice hockey (3) and the history of North American railroads (4) the latter subject on which my family and I have developed a 10,000+ page website over the past dozen years called the "Central Pacific Railroad Photographic Museum".
I am already considering creating articles on the postal history (as opposed to "stamps" which is a completely different subject) relating both to airships (Zeppelins and the US Navy airships Los Angeles, Akron, and Macon) as well as one on Lindberghiana. These will be based on and illustrated with items from my very large personal collections in both of these areas.
I concede that I can be stubborn at times and apparently you can too which is fine with me. But that does not mean that I don't have a serious appreciation of history -- quite the opposite actually. I contribute to WP to the best of my ability because I want to freely share what I can bring to those who visit it and offer what I can about the fields I know about based on my many decades of experience in writing, researching, collecting, and traveling. Centpacrr (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution FYIEdit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1". Thank you. -- (I think Ken forgot to notify the other involved parties.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation formattingEdit

Hi Bzuk: I hereby award you the * * Citation Formatting & Style Wunderkind Medal * * for cleaning up my tacky cite changes, as you did in the P-38 article. For the life of me, I've always believed that the city of publication normally followed the publisher's name—I've probably been doing that since grade school.... ahmmm. I've now completed some retraining at WP's Citation Reform School to brush up on basics. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011Edit

SDASM ImagesEdit

It appears to me that the second and third images are Hennessey's, but since the image descriptions say "possible" I don't think we can just accept that if considering verifiability requirements. I would recommend sending a message to the SDASM Flickr page to see if they can research if it is the correct plane. I've never seen a fact tag added for an image addition, and from what I read in the article history, is it actually for adding the image, or for the captions being used? There's no discussion on the talk page about what the fact tags are requesting, so this should probably be raised there first. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue (as discussed fully here) is not whether or not this image is of the "Hennessey Monoplane", but is instead that the claim that the "Hennessey" is a "modified JN-4" which is not supported by either source cited but instead appears to be speculative original research based on an editor's own "cursory examination of the photo". It has always been my understanding that this is not an acceptable standard on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Howard WrightEdit

Nice image, thanks. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I'd call that a Howard Wright 1909, unsucessful type I've sort of got a start going on.('side curtains, box tail, nacelle) I love all those cigarette cards: an area of nerdery I'm not into, just like looking at them. I also suspect the card is from the 20's or thirties. The Wills 1935 sets on military & civil aircraft, collected as a boy by my dad, were among my first intoduction to aircraft, and in fct my maajor interest in aircraft tails off where they end, the Wellesley and (only just) Battle, Spitfire & Hurricane. Don't scrub the image, it brings back memories! (I was wondering what was up with the file that seems to have brifly there, of the NZ flight??TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Yak-42 plane crashEdit

Sorry, Bill, but I had a close friend of almost thirty years, former NHL defenseman and coach Brad McCrimmon, killed in the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Yak-42 plane crash in Russia earlier today and will be preoccupied with dealing with that for the next day or two. Centpacrr (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see my blog on this here Centpacrr (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Date Formatting on US Non-Military US Aviation articlesEdit

When I looked at the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company I found dates formatted in two different ways -- two were DD/Month/YYYY and the rest were Month/DD/YYYY. As you have made it a point to tell me that dates must be consistent throughout articles, I corrected the two non-conforming dates to match the rest.

On September 4 you wrote the following to me re date formatting: "That's like saying the B-27 is now a civil aircraft because its history is longer as a crop duster. FWiW, I've been consistent, US- US-military (D/M/Y), US-civil (M/D/Y), other nations (Usually D/M/Y). Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)."

As the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company was a publicly owned commercial aircraft manufacturer (as are, for instance, Boeing, North American Aviation, and McDonnell Douglas), it is a non-military (ie "civil") US aviation topic and as such -- by your own criteria above -- the correct date format for this article is Month/DD/YYYY which is also the same formatting used in the Boeing, North American, McDonnell Douglas, and other similar articles. Centpacrr (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011Edit


To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011Edit

XF-85 FACEdit

Hi Bzuk, can you please answer some of the questions from Nikkimaria at the FAC? Also, you can become the co-nom if you like. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Argus photoEdit

There is an Argus photo at this link that can be uploaded to Commons. Refer to this for the information you will need to upload it. Just letting you know as you were the editor who did a major expansion of that article. --Russavia Let's dialogue 21:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Comet 1.jpgEdit


A tag has been placed on File:Comet 1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011Edit

Flight (1929 film)Edit

Bill: nice adds and writing on this article (we both must have watched the most recent showing), but all your footnotes seem to be messed up, app/ without closing tags. Please check. Thnx.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Amelia EarhartEdit

Hi, you deleted the reference to Earhart's home. Since Toluca Lake is an enclave for many famous celebrities that was created by Bob Hope, Bing Crosby Amelia Earhart, Frank Sinatra and others, its standing as a unique place of residency for celebrities and studio moguls is fairly well known. It continues to be one of the most desirable locations in Los Angeles Country, and home to many famous celebrities, including Steve Carrell, Kirsten Dunst, Rick Dees, Zac Efron, Andy Garcia, Miley Cirus, Jennifer Love Hewitt, the Jonas Brothers, Hilary Duff, Ashley Tisdale, Swoosie Kurtz, Denzel Washington, Joel David Moore, Garry Marshall, Demi Lovato, etc. That she was one of the very first residents of this unique town and lived in the first house built seems relevant. Thanks for considering. WikiBob47 (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011Edit

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for contributions to aviation articles, and for creating this picture.   Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 NewsletterEdit

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Page articlesEdit

Dear Bzuk, how do you handle multiple page articles. Is it p.165-168 or is is pp.165-168 or pg.165-168? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Off site canvassingEdit

Bill: Canvassing, especially when done in secret and "off site" such as you apparently engaged in by email with User:Ashley_Pomeroy as he noted in a posting here, is considered to be inappropriate on WP as it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process of the community, shows bad faith, and thus constitutes disruptive behavior. I would appreciate it if you would avoid engaging in this practice in the future. Centpacrr (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Bzuk/Archive 9".