Bill, some IP is claiming I removed his information, I think he has me confused with you- we are both "Bills" but vandals and trolls can't make out the difference. He sounds and writes like an idiot so be careful, poke him first before getting close. Just kidding! |:¬∆ Bzuk 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for your note on the reverts in the aircraft forum. I recall that I only made one reversion in what I thought was a vandal attack (never thinking it was an admin with an agenda); I copied a whole "last clean edit" and put it back in place but he/she immediately reverted, I would put it back and immediately it was reverted, a few more times of this back and forth and I gave up, put a space into the infoboxes to indicate a change and then placed a request in the edit history for an administrator to look at the article. I had already asked for a stop in the attacks and indicated that the 3R limit had been reached as well as placing a query in the aviation group forum for assistance. I would have never guessed that this campaign to eliminate all pop culture sections was coming from an admin but you seemed to have known. When I called for an administrator, guess who responded? I can only laugh at the silliness of this whole escapade with me frantically trying to head off what I believed was a deliberate troll/vandal attack, having seen so many of them in the past concentrating on the popular culture sections, and meanwhile the other person was calmly reverting everything and quoting all sorts of protocal and guidelines. I should have picked up on that, ordinary vandals don't often cite justification for their actions. I have no idea where things are, but I know that Jeff Finlayson was also involved and I bet both of us thought that a very sophisticated vandal was at work. Oh well, live and learn... |:¬[ 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) .
Our mutual Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.
It seems that you guys are trolling against me or i have missed something? I am here by days, not months, and if Bzuk have not patience with my grammar can still wait and do some other things.
As POV statements, well, evidently Bzuk have not idea of waht he says. I am not interested to glorify italian aircrafts, but simply let wikiepians what i learned about. If you have problems with me, as personal, well, you have only to speak clear about. Nobody costrict me to lost my time to write, just to let you delete it just for fun, and babbling against me with your mindless statements.
I await your excuses, still, for the gratuitus deleting and accusations without any EVIDENCE. In faith. -- Stefanomencarelli 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
1-SO you are continuing to insulte me with your GRATUITUS ACCUSATIONS? Well, you have only to add me PROOF. With 'presume bad faith' wiki must close as soon as possible.
I challenge you. In the whole universe, FIND WHERE I HAVE COPIED SUCH TEXT. Or give me your excuses. I DON'T fear any proof against me about copyviol. I wrote 2000 articles in wiki.it and NOBODY have felt me guilty of such accusation. And never it will be, 'cause i simply DON'T NEED to copy anyone. I know that i write, plain and simple.
2-Here you posted in Bzuk talk:
I've never heard of the K1-100 having problems against B-29s over Japan. IIRC, B-29s flew at low-medium altitudes (5000 ft?) during 1945 (mostly for fire-bombings). - BillCJ 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You obviosely don't know A lot of things. Mom hadn't said that Ki-100 wasn't an high altitude fighter? And that B-29s flew at 5000f. ONLY in night missions? And that Ki-100 was rated as 20-22 minuts to climb at 10000m.? As Joe Baugher wrote in his encyclopedia:
However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29. In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance, the Ki-100-II version was evolved. It was powered by a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection to boost power for short intervals. Because of a lack of space, the turbosupercharger had to be mounted underneath the engine without provision for an intercooler and its associated ducting, with air being ducted directly from the compressor to the carburetor. It first flew in May 1945. The lack of an intercooler limited the high-altitude performance of the Ki-100-II, and the turbosupercharger added 600 pounds to the weight, which reduced maximum speed by 15 mph at 10,000 feet. However, the boosted high-altitude power enabled a maximum speed of 367 mph to be be reached at 32,800 feet (the cruising altitude of the B-29 during daylight operations). It had been planned to begin production of the Ki-100-II in September of 1945, but only three prototypes of this high-altitude interceptor had been produced by the time of the Japanese surrender.
So, a bit of examples of what you pretend to know.-- Stefanomencarelli 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
So i am accused of copyvioling. Improving my english has done this result. Excellent. So i am disgusted by the manner found here as well (mainly because the 'patience' of one of the wikipedians, that has an 'Z' in his nickname), that i leave you with happiness. If not to know is best that 'to know disturbating things, well, this ambient is good enough for your desires. I wait excusations by nickanmed involved in this 'bad' story.
PS. The top 5 toughest languages to learn: English, Chinese, Cockney/Irish/Scots/Canajan English, Southern Fried US English, and Caribbean English~ :) - BillCJ 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Did I copy that accurately? and the easiest languages to learn? Number #1 was Ukrainian? (no kidding), then the romance languages, French, Spanish, Italian. FWIW Bzuk 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
Purpose of this gallery was to show pics. I wont tell u reason to put the gallery on that page, but tell me why shouldnt I? zikky
Just a quick heads up on an RfC on User:Eyrian's approach to In Popular Culture AfD nominations here, since I know you've been involved with these and one of the purposes of the RfC is to achieve some more general guidelines on how this class of article is handled. FWIW, I'll add that I'm not unsympathetic to his/her goals, but on a procedural basis, these AfDs seem to me to have turned into something of a kangaroo court... -- Rlandmann 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I had considered volunteering the information earlier, but I'm always very wary of the mob mentality. Furthermore, the it.wikipedia community has passed its sentence, and he is "doing his time" (3 month ban runs out on 15 August) - I hoped he wouldn't be penalised here for offenses that he was already being punished for elsewhere. But I guess that the benefit of at least my doubt has now run out. -- Rlandmann
Hello, You pulled my edits on concorde. Im amused and perplexed by this. Did you ever go on her? Well i did. January 2000, 6 months before the crash, new york to london. Most of what i tried to add is based on that personal experience and was in the passenger experience section. Just what "reference" do you expect to get a passenger experience from? The thump of the afterburners, the gforce in your seat, the really noise and hard taxi on the jfk concrete before take off due to the tyres if you sat forward, the terminator flashing past. Plenty of the other information on that page comes obviously comes from personal experience or perception and is unreferenced.
Please feel free to rebutt. Personally im getting a bit cheesed with constant deleteion of honest additions to wikipedia by an honest person of information that is just not referencable...
My email is rosswnelson@hotmail.com if your at all interested
Thats so funny. at least 50% of the page has no references that i can obviously see, and a "passenger experience" section isnt usually going to have many at all! Its doubly funny seeing im a pilot!
Despite what you and other edits have done and I do not, for a moment, disregard the fabulous work that has been done, the article still seems to be a very convoluted (I could say uncharitably a "dog's breakfast"), wouldyathink? It may work to have the comparison section as a sub-article, maybe "Ki-61 compararison" or "Rating the Ki-61." Just a thought, late at night...[:º Bzuk 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
Hi, Bill. You had about 7-8 sandbox articles showing in Category:Helicopters and Category:Military helicopters. I edited your Sandbox articles by placing a ":" in between the "[[" and "Category" to make it link to the category instead of including your sandbox articles in the namespace categories. I also used {{ tl}} to create links for templates that automatically categorize the article. -- Born2flie 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified. 68.244.13.195 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Comparing max speeds and climbs isn't realistic in my book as LordT (who appears to be a Red Ripper) notes, operational perfromance is nowhere near the manufacturer or Navy Fact File specs. Does it mean they're wrong? Not at all, just different configurations, which is why it's hard to compare aircraft if you don't have same altitude, temperature, loadout, fuel, etc. Suppose it's an aviation task force issue to decide what to use and even if you can get a standard reference for aircraft from different eras or countries. Can only guess what it was that prompted the note. I think you have to stick to official sources on max speeds and other specs. My view is that they are like car brochures (your mileage may be different). HJ 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does it seem like people are naturally uncouth? Do we really learn to be civil, or do they learn to be non-civil? When I look at my granddaughter, and how nice she is, caring, sweet, playful, then I see older people mess with someone, don't care, are mean, and hateful. So I tend to think that humans devolve as they age. Just why is that? What are we doing to ourselves? Thanks for the revert. -- Colputt 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I would merge both articles because both helicopters are in fact different versions of the same design. Different designations doesn't mean different helicopter - look at airborne command post version of the Mil Mi-8 designated Mil Mi-9 for export. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill, I would be glad to help, but unfortunately it will be imposible for me to search in non-english sources, as I'm not speaking the Serbian language at all. Anyway, I will be looking for some sources and I'll let you know if I find something. Keep in touch! -- Eurocopter tigre 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | Sorry, Born. My mind-reading ability doesn't work with people off the continent :) - BillCJ 00:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Had a chuckle at that one, I did! -- Born2flie 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, a little while back, I reverted a new introduction to the Hughes H-4 Hercules as unproductive because I found an error in each of the sentences that were changed. I didn't particularly care for the intro as written but I felt that no improvement had been made in the rewrite,now I have been subjected to a barrage of "you've reverted a Good faith edit" claims. The editor involved may have taken umberage but he made no substantive edits in the article and only "floated" in to make the one contribution which merely "played around with words" but even eliminated an important element. I wrote back to the editor on his page with a fuller explanation since he thought he was aggrieved. Here it is: [1]. Check out my comments, was I way off base here? I do make mistakes and my tone may have been more appropriate but it was not intended to start an editwar. I have been in enough of these and I do not need another one. Write back with your "take". FWIW Bzuk 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC).
Sorry Bill, I checked the five reference sources I have and none of them had details about the victories scored by the Me 262. I will check our local aviation museum library tomorrow. FWIW Bzuk 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC).
I elliminated the uncited accidents and moved them to Talk. Gonna remove the {trim} template unless more trimming is needed. Any objections? Thre is more uncited up in the C-5M subsection that can be removed. LanceBarber 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
On the specs, it's funny I updated the range specs using Lock-Mart numbers in May cause one user thought the AF numbers were wrong. Today somebody tries to change the range to the AF fact sheet value. Can't win for losing sometimes... - Fnlayson 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I would like to thank you for the parable, User:BillCJ#The_Really-Free_Library. The article clearly expresses the problem with unregistered user contributions. -- Dan Dassow 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Now The A-Team article is up to scratch - ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, there is a good bit of discussion on the talk page about the number of destroyed aircraft. concensus seems to put it at 12, all non combat. This might be of interest to those readers that such a sectretive aircraft, with a long history of missions over/near hostile contries, managed to remain unscathed (except for training/accidents). 12.198.79.130 12:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, kind of new to editing wikipedia. I put something up for discussion on the variable geometry wing page. I didn't know who else to approach since you seem to watch many of the aviation pages. It basically boils down to the article name is too broad for the content. I put the details in the discussion. I realize there was just a name change, but I believe this is a problem for reasons discussed on the article's talk page. Jbowman90 12:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment over at World's largest airlines. (1) I'm not aware of having sour grapes with any editor, nor do I know User:Sparrowman980, who appears to be the main editor or World's Largest Airlines. Pdbailey 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, as you know, the saying goes “ please don’t feed the trolls”; although I’m not sure he is a troll, the situation sure is beginning to look like a trollfest. The anon on the Typhoon page is as adamant about pushing his POV as you are, and all that comes of it is disruption. Although I agree with the IP that the F-22 is probably sufficiently unique as to be in a class of its own, the WP:AIR/PC is sufficiently vague that either interpretation is equally correct. In the greater scheme of things, this is a trivial issue that you’re letting get your goat (and the anon appears to enjoy bearding you, if just for the sake of debate). You’re a great contributor with much better work to do to waste your time with this. If nothing else, leave it be for a few months and change it after the anon gets bored and moves on. I guarantee, though, that some other editor will come along and in all good faith, change it back. If you really want to go on with it, may I suggest a straw poll? That's probably the closest you'll ever come to "settling it" (assuming anything can ever really be settled on Wikipedia). Cheers –and have a better rest of your day, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
On another matter look at this article: "Stop Calling It an Airplane!". ;) - Fnlayson 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message for you on the talk:eurofighter page. I'd be happy to work with you and judging by your contributions that should be easy to do. You're welcome to look at mine; I think I've done some good work. I'll point you to the Cessna 150 page. I added a lot, but when someone pointed out my error I retracted.
I'm sorry some anonymous person has be undo-ing me so much, but that's not my fault.
I know that it can seem like good editors are getting ignored or mistreated on purpose, especially when there is a debate about adding information you know to be inaccurate yet nobody will support your point. I saw the accusations made by the IP in this edit. Just because somebody says it, doesn't make it automatically believed by everyone. I don't know if you followed the thread opened about you on the Wikiquette page but the person who replied supported you. Actually you can have a lot of fun with people who throw meaningless accusations at you by asking for proof.
I'm not saying you should come back if you've truly had your fill of the experience, but consider that you may simply need a break rather than defecting to the vandals. I know we've had our disagreements but I've thought of you as a good editor, I'd of said so sooner but you don't strike me as the type to want reassurance. Anynobody 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to thank Bill for all his hard work, he has been personally attacked for defending the articles and the aviation projects not out of a sense of ownership but a reflection of the concensus of the group. Interesting to see that the recent attack on you was by an IP user with only one edit despite having a wide knowlegde of the disputes you have been involved in! Your contributions will be missed hope that you can return after a break. MilborneOne 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bill, you are a real benefit to this community and aviation articles specifically; hope to see you under a different nick soon! Lipsticked Pig 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Drop me a line if you need someone to talk to.
I hate seeing dedicated editors get driven off... but I do love kicking vandal ass. If you've got a cadre of harassers, feel free to drop me a line about where they may post; I'd be more than happy to take care of them (provided you give me the diffs to see what's what, of course). Extremely long-term and wide-spread harassment like this is admittedly not something that the community at large is set up to deal with, but it's something that a few dedicated admins could help address. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill. If there's anything I can do to help, I'm perfectly happy to offer the same as EV :). Feel free to send me a message on my talk page and I will see what I can do. Also, perhaps consider my suggestion on Jimbo's talk page. Hope I can help! ck lostsword• T• C 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I'm in and out on my own little excursions away from the wiki.
What happens when you mix all the flavors of ice cream, would you want to eat THAT? That's what open editing is. Anyone can edit, but not everyone should. That's why books are not edited by everyone. Sometimes you have to WP:IAR, especially when it comes to WP:DBAD! -- Born2flie 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I have certainly not been on Wikipedia as long as you but the two of us seemed to have some similar interests and those intersected at various times. For one, I always found you a truly principled and steadfast protector of the Wiki world. Your expertise in aviation topics was impressive and your ability to enunciate highly technical issues in a straightforward manner was always appreciated. Your departure should be for recuperation and should you decide to return in this guise or any other, there will be countless editors who will welcome you back. Please feel free to contact me by email, I enjoyed our talks, especially your wry sense of humour. (Whoops my Canadianisms slipped out again...) Take heart, you did a great job and have left behind nothing but fond memories with the friends you have made. [:¬∆ Bzuk 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
Bill, I've done some semiprotections in your user space. If this person continues to bother you, cite a diff of this edit by me when you file additional requests for semiprotection at WP:RFPP. This ought to be fairly simple to address: just ask the admins to semi the articles where you're active for a while until the person who's been bothering you gets tired of the game. And try not to let 'em see you sweat. ;) Best regards, Durova Charge! 04:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I have appreciated all you help and teachings you've given me, and have made me a stronger editor. I understand some of your stress. You've been a pillar to all of us. Please come back refreshed and armed with stronger conviction. With highest regards and respect, LanceBarber 08:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with this aspect of Wikipedia, as necessary as it is to a project like this it can also be the biggest problem. As is usually the way of things, I think the answer is a compromise of sorts and I'm wondering what you think of it.
Once an article becomes either WP:GA or WP:FA it ought to be sealed so that we don't have to monitor it for vandalism or other quality eroding edits. Anynobody 05:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that no article is ever really finished, and vandals create accounts too but vandalism isn't the only problem and the constant maintenance to keep a good article "good" is bad for two reasons. 1) It's boring and repetitve to fix articles degraded by vandalism o r good faith edits that are nonetheless wrong. More important though is 2) The lack of quality on a consistent basis makes Wikipedia seem unreliable. Granted my idea won't stop the "It's on CNN so it must be notable..." issues with new articles, but it would free up a bit more time to deal with those arguments. Anynobody 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy. Durova Charge! 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sparrowman980 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Also whats going on with largest airlines? Sparrowman980 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Back at it some today, huh? Either way take it easy.. :) - Fnlayson 00:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for defending me on the largest airlines all i am trying to do is keep it there and one of the problems was it was to confusing.So I obviously made it a lot easier but now i got 3 admins on my case trying to delete the sub pages for the world part of it but thanks! Sparrowman980 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Making major changes without any discussion to an article that has been voted "keep" in a given form twice in quick succession is vandalism, especially when one is on record as disagreeing with the consensus. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bill, an aviation writer/photographer has literally dumped his own photo gallery onto the TOPGUN article [3] subverting the Wikiarticle guidelines. Take a look. May be an act of omission, but certainly not the way it is supposed to be! HJ 09:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, please look at another issue on the F-14 page. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.187.250 ( talk) 10:39, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
...I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but it appears User:Opuscalgary has returned, using a public access terminal of some sort, User:67.79.187.250. He used his time constructively, going to various random editor's talk pages and posting insult-filled messages pretending they were posted by you.
If you get some odd messages here, that's why. Another admin has already blocked. I'm trying to clear up the damage.
There is one amusing bit to the story though. Opus didn't seem to bother to check the block log, and assumed it was me who blocked him. I know this because my spam folder contained a threatening letter ordering me to unblock or he would get Jimbo to kick me off the wiki. Awww, feel the love. :-)
Maury 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you acted as vandal, or i missed something? NExt time you delete some stuff assure you that it's not simply crap, but perhaps article could need it. At least i try to do so, you not. Act as professionist, not hooligan.-- Stefanomencarelli 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
IRT the comment on [4]:
If that is you, I ask what you're talking about, and simultaneously warn you to regard WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and advise you that you've likely been autoblocked.
If that isn't you, please do tell, so I can block the IP for even longer. -- ST47 Talk· Desk 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the comments. You're entitled to remove the PROD template. I wouldn't assume you were trying to be disruptive.
My question is where do we go from here? Fair criticism about my "tabloid" point - but as fair handed as I try to be, surely you can see my point? As is the article is not a sophisticated analysis of large aircraft carriers. It is an entirely unreferenced, subjective article. Yes, it contains one reference, but that is a cut and paste of my reference from Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, which further demonstrates my superfluous argument.
You said "I agree there are no definitive sources in the article, but it does describe the acepted definition of the term." -- Sorry but that is not acceptable. A subject is either verifiable or it isn't. "the acepted definition" is bordering on weasel words. Mark83 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
We've got a guy with the handle "IRGCAF" replacing a legit pic with one he claims is an Iranian MiG-31. What we have here is a bunch of Russian aircraft at an airshow in Tehran. The image is face-on (making it less appealing than the extant image) and there's nothing to indicate that any of the planes have Iranian markings on them. In fact, there is no evidence that Iran ever received the MiG-31 and Russia denies ever selling it to them. I've used two reverts, which is the most I will ever do in 24 hours, so you might want to keep an eye on it as well. (BTW, the images aren't going to last long. As I write, the first one has already been marked with a speedy tag.) Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The references I can find say 4 passengers, i.e. 4 people sitting in the passenger compartment. Perhaps that is what the editor meant? Having seen the aircraft type up close, I'm amazed you can fit 4 people in those things period, much less in addition to the pilot(s). -- Born2flie 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, if you want any of your sandboxes back that I moved, just let me know. Take care.. - Fnlayson 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wrote this, and it's in the DYK queue, but knowing my typing and blindness to my own mistakes, it could probably use a copy edit, if you have time. Also, a short paragraph oughta be added to the C-130 page, but I won't have time this afternoon. If you want, have at it! AKRadecki Speaketh 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, you know anything about the F-4? Check out the page now. FWIW Bzuk 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC). BTW, we also need to change all the formats of aviation articles to a new standard, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. I knew we had it all wrong! [:¬∆ Bzuk 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC).
That guy just does half-something data dumps. Doesn't matter if the text already there covers most of what is added. Argg.. - Fnlayson 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed we and another user were all editing the B-58 Hustler article. I'm happy to wait until you're done, just let me know when. Thank you. Conrad T. Pino 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I replied on Talk there. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the squabble over at CF-104, you might want to be cognizant of the comment I left over on his talk page. If he comes back to the CF-104 page, let one of us handle it, as I don't want you to cross the 3RR line. AKRadecki Speaketh 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Most links fixed? I've searched it & gotten "no page exists". Shouldn't it (re?)direct to C-47? Trekphiler 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bill can you help me get the article back on. I saw your comment in deletion discussion, & I could'nt agree with you more, if this list is gonna happen it needs to be more concise & acurate. This may need to be incorporated in to the helicopter article like Harrier Jump Jet#Popular culture. I have no problem doing the writing, but I need you help to grease the wheels, with the top editors ANigg 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate it, also can you point me in the direction setting up a sand box? Thanx again : ) ANigg 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanx for you help Bill I hope you feel better. Also if so if you have any contribs, please feel free ( And no I'm not trying to pass the work on to you LOL) ANigg 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I see it clearly now Bill; I've just looked at the article on a different computer and I realise the error of my ways. To compound the error, I made several changes to the text at the same time and these have now been undone as well, so I'm going to undo your undo, and manually remove the sizing from the image. My bad, I'm still a relative neophyte at all this stuff. YSSYguy 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am fighting one of the "vandals" right now. Some guy wants me to duplicate what is stated in detail in the rest of the article in the LEAD. I woudl appreciate a third party opinion on the discussion page. Perhaps we can get this to stop while it is on the main page? — BQZip01 — talk 05:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
hope you get better! Also could you point me into the direction of a Admin,that i could trust unless you are one but would you happen to now anyone? Sparrowman980 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Sparrowman980 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Creole should be redirected to Patois. Creole is only really a term used by academics. But, an encyclopaedia isn't really a source for academics, it is a way of condensing academic knowlege for mass consumption. Most Jamaicans refer to their language as Patois (or Patwah). It seems sensible to use that reference point as both they and the non-Jamaican masses who refer to the article will find that to be a more friendly and familiar place.
Ackees 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The Chipper Jones article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BilCat. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — talk 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, got a registered user this time adding Scientology look-a-like OR stuff on Douglas DC-8 again. He seems to think a reference makes it OK, even if it is not a real DC-8. If you could help a little I'd appreciate it. - Fnlayson 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad to here it, because I always assumed they were A380s, given the way the Airbus fanboys worship that plane! - BillCJ 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As you know i have gone on a rampage well I am trying to make peace now but recently Russiava has changed stuff but i checked up and there is Qantas group.Now i check Qantas group and all it is is the name that Qantas uses for it company.But it all named under the airline.Just wondering before i do anything if you could (if you werent sick still)that you could double check me please. Many Thanks. Sparrowman980 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello? Sparrowman980 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
yes they should count. Sparrowman980 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I've added my two cents at Talk:Colin McRae. Things seem calm at the minute. I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it for a while. Be in touch if you have further concerns. Mark83 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I won't revert again because oriented is the more common in the USA (and this in an article about a US TV show) but ...
The OED says it's simply an alternative, Fowler’s Modern English Usage says use either
The Free Online Dictionary is Wrong ....! it means exactly the same as oriented
This is simply another USA/UK divide - US uses mostly oriented, and almost never orientated In the UK both are used fairly indiscriminately lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For being fair and reasonable lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 07:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC) |
Bill, I recently reverted a pop culture addition to the AF1 article, and the adding editor just protested on my talk page, and I replied on his...I'm just one voice, and since you were so key in developing that article, maybe you might want to put your 2 cents in, regardless of which way you lean on this. AKRadecki Speaketh 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I was trying to add some background to your former sandbox Sikorsky CH-53K and copy some info from the CH-53 Sea Stallion and realized it had little on its development. I thought you might have sources that cover the CH-53 better than me. If you can, please help with the CH-53 article. Take it easy. - Fnlayson 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the health issues, Bill. Hope feel better soon man. I can get started on this with what I can find. - Fnlayson 03:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's hoping you get well soon. In the mean time, enjoy the soup. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
C'mon Bill no lying around on the Job, Get Well Buddy ANigg 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyedit from my talk page: "BillZ, per this diff, is it "centred" or "centered" up there in in the Great North? I can't keep the differences straight in my head right now! - BillCJ 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"
I am curious why you reverted my edits to P-51 Mustang, stating it is "unnecessary". The last sentence of the first paragraph is a claim to notability that is unreferenced. Who says "The P-51 became one of the conflict's most successful and recognizable aircraft."? I added a notability statement with a valid reference; it was my intent to indirectly support the unreferenced statement and demonstrate how important the Mustang was. I thought I was improving the article; the revert says otherwise. So that I might avoid doing the wrong thing in the future, would you please explain the rationale for deleting this; why is it unnecessary to state the importance of the aircraft with a valid reference? Thanks. Truthanado 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, well it turns out that you were right, it is in fact the deck of the John C. Stennis. I should have clicked on the image to check the description before making the change. When I saw the text of the Rafale being on the deck of a carrier, I immediately thought it was about the tests done a few weeks ago on board the Enterprise when 2 airplanes actually landed and not simply did touch-and-goes. Here is a picture of that event [5]. I didn't realize it was some previous event. Anyway, I corrected my mistake on the article and changed the text to performing a touch and go to avoid any confusion. Thanks for checking. -- McSly 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Given your past history I'm assuming your edit of Thirteen Colonies was some kind of mistake? -- NeilN 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You might find this interesting Bill. The Air Force is considering a gunship version of JCA (from Air Force magazine's Daily Report). They want make a mini-gunship out of it by adding a 30 mm cannon. The gunship will be used for Special Operations Command. Sounds like the set-up with the AC-130. Take care. - Fnlayson 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the box to use the full-width style, but I'm not sure if the separation of the contents into multiple blocks still violates some guideline from WP:AIR. If you could check the template and let me know if there's some particular form the innards need to have, that'd be great. Thanks! Kirill 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill, hope you're feeling better. If time and health permit, a copyedit of my latest project, 2002 airtanker crashes would be much appreciated! AKRadecki Speaketh 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please give me some good faith assumptions. Note where the editor applies for unblock and promises not to do it again. Also, note where I have notified Penwhale, the blocking administrator. There is a note on my talk page regarding this and I have replied. So I don't think the term "Fishy admin behavior" applies. Best regards, Navou banter 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I wondered if you had seen this discussion. I thought you might have a useful opinion on it either way. Take care, -- John 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, since we have the 222U spare at our base, I grabbed some tech images and dropped them onto the article page...feel free to move them around or remove them if you think them unhelpful. AKRadecki Speaketh 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at Sikorsky H-53? I think it was supposed to be a disambiguation page, but it has a stub tag. I don't know how to correct it. Thanks. -- Colputt 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Bill: No problem on the 214ST photo! When I found the article I knew I had some photos. That photo is one I took two years ago. I find the best way to get photos for Wikipedia is to take them myself. I have about 10,000 aircraft photos that I have shot since 2004, so I put them into articles when they look like they will be of use. I have more photos of that 214ST, but that is the best one. Ahunt 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, give your opinion on the discussion page. I believe that it would be relevant to add information about:
- The V-22's lack of autorotation (information not present on the text)
- The V-22's light armament (information not present on the text) EconomistBR 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thought you'd want to see this. AKRadecki Speaketh 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
...split an article? Take a look at the Hughes H-6 Talk page. -- Born2flie 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that for me... Didja read the copy? I just barely skimmed the cream off of the letter, which runs 3/4 of a page, at least! He talks about the airborne units that participated in the jump, and all kinds of marking and code details. I thought I would just began to add SOME of the data that The Battle of Britain (film) has been accorded for a LONG time... For some, reason, a Bridge has received considerably less input.
Mark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I'm finally done with an article that became a lot longer than I originally anticipated, U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal. It could use a good copyedit, if/when you have time. Thanks! AKRadecki Speaketh 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you are up too it if you could take a look at this and if you can please leave a comment. Sparrowman980 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [ [7]
Good compromise. 141.155.128.109 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for watching my back on the vandalism overnight! And thanks for adding your comments in. I've left a message for the editor that got a bit carried away with the del noms. Also, I left a note and offer of help on the uploader, User:Airshipman, probably wouldn't hurt for others to do the same. Hopefully he hasn't been too discouraged...be nice if he checked in and at least saw that someone around here cared. Well, off to work. We're flying a bunch of reporters around this morning, so I have to go clean the grease off the rotor head and make things look pretty! AKRadecki Speaketh 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me on this issue! I have only one Canadian Sea King digital photo and, while it is a nicely exposed and detailed photo, it was shot at an airshow of a static display aircraft and so has general public in the forground of it. I am currently going through my old (1975-1994) 35 mm photo albums and will see if I can find something better there. Ahunt 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I got a little impatient when twice in two days someone (different ones) questioned this well-covered story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
this was an interesting edit...especially since that's a really old address. AKRadecki Speaketh 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, very interesting. Doesn't Air Methods operate in DC? Maybe someone there knows an agent in the VA State Police or Investigations that can give an answer on the legal part, and even do some follow-up. Might mention the stalker appears to spend alot of time with video games, possibly ones featuring the F-22 and/or Typhoon. - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Check out my comment on that article's talk page. Also, check out Ahunt's gallery on my talk page! AKRadecki Speaketh 03:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I managed to get a copy of this book by Spick too. I started looking for books by David Donald and modern aircraft books and ended up finding that one. It's almost too large to read in bed and stuff. I expected in to have short entries on many aircraft, but it's several smaller books put together. Take care. - Fnlayson 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, I had actually done all the background research myself, and was going to go along with helikoeides, even though we have not established it as the actual word used, when Appleyard made another change and only sourced it with the lexicon. He has that problem. He made the first change without the "h" three weeks ago and then he makes the other change stating he "knows" Greek. He knows it so well, that he allowed his own mistake to exist for three weeks. I can easily find references to elikoeides that are Greek references, so I didn't have a problem with the first edit. It also came up in the web translators.
Almost every other historical reference that I've found besides these two (Leishman, Century of Flight) do not mention d'Amecourt by name. If they do, they appear to have used the dictionaries' etymology of heliko + pteron, and one reference even claimed that the word was formed as helic + o + ptere (helik + pteron, needing a "connector": o). Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.
Judy Rumerman (Early Helicopter Technology essay on Century of Flight) used Leishman as a reference for the essay, so that can only mean that the source of the word, misspelled or whatever, comes from one of Leishman's sources:
However, if you want to argue WP:RS look at Leishman's reference list. Most of his references are primary sources. Here is a guy who is thorough in his research and in sourcing his statements, I mean, he has a PhD and is a professor after all. I, for one, would like to get a hold of the paper by Wolf.
How long have you edited with me, and you don't recognize that I only want the article to be as accurate and of as high a quality as possible? It doesn't matter what I know or what I suspect, I source everything I can. I actually do not like disputes but I won't be walked all over, either. Some people push my buttons, and Appleyard's philosophy of editing on Wikipedia is one of those things that irritates me. I mean, take a look at the history section, it is atrocious; but he thinks it looks better than it did. It is an eyesore on this article that should be one of the crown jewels of WP:Air, as should any general article about aircraft. That is my goal. That is always where my edits and comments are aimed, towards meeting the standard of WP:WIAGA and attempting to reach WP:TPA. -- Born2flie 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not thinking clearly here. d'Amecourt is the point of origin, not ancient Greek language. Prior to d'Amecourt, this word helicopter did not exist. His invention does not look like da Vinci's screw, so it would not imply that he meant a helical shape, but rather a helical motion through the air as the aircraft moved, i.e. spiraling. Some clarification, I did not originally put the Greek word in there, I simply found a reference for it. It met my requirements, it had the date, it had the individual, and it had the Greek words that were currently in the article. Now, if one or both Greek words are wrong, this author attributes the wrong words being used to the individual who coined the phrase. Simply saying that it is the wrong words and then changing the words because you know better, is OR. The lexicon doesn't help because the source claims that d'Amecourt used those words. I can also find sources that don't have the year he coined it and claim that he used words you would be totally comfortable with.
So, the issue becomes, which words did d'Amecourt actually use? Did he use an incorrect transliteration because he was unlearned in Greek? You can't say that "this" word is the correct one according to the lexicon and pronounce it so. You have to document that d'Amecourt used that word. As far as references, when you have one that you like and one that is more descriptive but appears wrong, it bears some more investigation rather than to pronounce the one correct and the one you dislike because of error as wrong. I've seen nothing but speculation from Appleyard and yourself about d'Amecourt, and I'd just like some proof. A source, a reference that says he used the wrong word, or that he used the correct word.
I prefer Prof. Leishman as a reference because he lists his two sources that he got his information from, and I can use that to track it down. Or, we can email him as you suggest, but until this issue is resolved, I have removed the reference to the Greek language and attributed it solely to d'Amecourt, which almost any reference will support. -- Born2flie 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The web document is on Professor Leishman's website area (www.glue.umd.edu/~leishman) for the university at which he instructs. If that isn't accurate to anything else he's written, I don't know what would be. That webpage mentions that the essay/article includes extracts from his printed text, whether that includes that portion of the history discussion or not, again, we'll have to contact the Professor. Once again, I'll point out that he directly references where he acquired his information from in that essay, "...see Wolf (19681974) and Liberatore (1998)." I've not seen any other reference online (or in print) do that for where they received their information.
I agree that the document by d'Amecourt would settle all. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online reference of it and a library search would do me little good. -- Born2flie 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you like me to translate the French for you? :D -- Born2flie 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I emailed the Professor. I will let you know his response. I also emailed the Staff at AHS' publication Vertiflite to ask them if Wolf referred to the Greek words in his publication. In the introduction to his essay, Professor Leishman describes Liberatore as one of the most authoritative sources on early helicopter developments, including, apparently, the period during which d'Amecourt coined the term. -- Born2flie 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No response yet, but, in these days of Spam filters, my emails might've been trashed for the sake of sanity. -- Born2flie 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you helping Appleyard with his patience. I resent the email using a more official email and received a response back almost immediately. He is going to try to track down the original d'Amecourt article, saying that it may be in the Liberatore collection, which is now at the NASM. If he finds it, he'll let me know. He also says that Liberatore has the same word in his book (p.224) that was originally included in the Helicopter article (elikoieoas). Thus, the need to get closer to the actual source in order to resolve the issue. -- Born2flie 05:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The d'Amecourt paper is in the Library of Congress. I obviously don't have access, but am contemplating paying for a photocopy or digital reproduction. No feedback on the Wolf paper in Vertiflight Vol. 20 ed. 5. Prof. Leishman also says that he spoke with a colleague who is a native Greek speaker. The colleague spoke with his friends back home and came up with:
It is true that this word cannot be found in any of the modern or ancient Greek lexicon. For this reason we had to dissect the word. After a lengthy discussion over the phone with colleagues in Greece we came to the following conclusion. "Elikoeioas" is probably an old epithet that describes an object in which its main devise has a helical shape. When it is joined with the Greek word “pteron” (wing) then it produces the composite word “elikopteron” (helicopter), which describes the entire object that incorporates wings of a helical (or spiral) shape. The word “elikoeides” or “helicoeides” is more popular but it only describes the shape of an object, period.
I'm not sure if that will meet with your criteria, but it sure does explain why the professor included it as is. -- Born2flie 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's being worked right now, apparently. Although, I will warn up front that any attempts to link the Greek etymological references to d'Amecourt will be edited until a verifiable historical source is provided. And the minute I have any proof that Anthony and Where the Sun Doesn't Shine were incorrect, I will not only happily point it out to them, over and over again, I will forward the information to Dr. Leishman so that it can be propogated to the point of no contestation.
I understand your point of view, however dictionary etymologies are sometimes developed by looking at the word and guessing, albeit an educated guess, what the origins are. I admit I was wrong on the transliteration versus transcription issue, the "h" would be present in an English transliteration of the word today, but I also believe that the issue is more than that, it is also what d'Amecourt intended. Considering that the A.L. Wolf article in the 1974 Vertiflite magazine was his translation of the pamphlet by d'Amecourt (I have a reprint of Part 1, courtesy of AHS), d'Amecourt was a reader of Classical Greek, familiar with a Greek scientist/philosopher that he refers to as Theophile.
The French word for propeller (or screw, as in the screw that propels a ship) is "hélice", which Wolf translates directly as "helix". As near as I can tell, where Wolf has translated the article as d'Amecourt describing what helicopter means ("hélices comme des ailes"), it is essentially, "propellers as wings", since he envisioned more than one main rotor in his description. It is possible that d'Amecourt's use of hélice is what brought about the etymological description of helix being the basis of the word. However, even if we assume the direct correlation, it is possible that elikoeioas isn't a single word, but two or more words, as Classical Greek didn't use spaces, punctuation, or diacritics.
The English phrase "helix as wings" looks like this, "ελικα, οπως φτερα" in modern Greek (a la Google Translate). Certainly looks like a lot of extra characters if you saw it all close together (ελικαοπωςφτερα). Granted, the Classical Greek would not be the same exact words, based on the current discussion. Essentially, what I'm saying is that it looked something like "ελικοειοωςπτερων" ("elikoeioaspteron" or something similar), and instead of separating it into a phrase of more than two words, the uninitiated simply separated the one word he could recognize (pteron) and assumed that the rest was as Dr. Leishman's colleague and friends did, a form of helix to describe pteron.
I'm going to suggest the same to Dr. Leishman and see what his Greek friend thinks of it. -- Born2flie 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The paper by d'Amecourt was published in 1863, yet Liberatore credits d'Amecourt with coining the word some two years earlier. I am no longer thinking that La Conqûete de l'air par l'hélice. Exposé d'un nouveau système d'aviation is the holy grail and that the source is some other correspondence of d'Amecourt's, perhaps with one of his contemporaries or some other worthy. I still feel that the paper has served as a clue of sorts (through Wolf's translation) to getting closer to the truth. -- Born2flie 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
hehehe, the reputation of Wikipedia strikes again. Mentioned the dispute in Wikipedia and the Professor stated that we had come to an end in our correspondence. Can't blame him. He has his academic reputation to maintain and Wikipedia is not held in high regard by universities and other organizations that require research. Oh, well, anything that resulted would've been OR, anyways. Guess I'll have to wait until I have physical access to a library once again. Lesson learned. -- Born2flie 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for me and I was shocked to see that tag to be honest, not sure what the process is but hopefully if there is enough support it will stay. Unfortunately if that article goes then so do I, I have tried my best to wade through the editing minefield. Thanks Nimbus227 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats smacks of elitism if you ask me 12.43.60.50 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, check your email...article on the Bell 429 which might have good info for the article. AKRadecki Speaketh 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: Pete Carpenter
From http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0139432/ :
- Pilot (1999) TV Episode ("Theme from 'The Rockford Files'")
David Chase did the Sopranos, he met Carpenter and Post with Cannell on Rockford. Then Chase used the theme on the Sopranos pilot.
Thanks,
WikiDon 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Now it's the time. I call ARBCOM to decide this amusing staff. It involve you and Bzuk. When it's enough, it's enough. See EH101.-- Stefanomencarelli 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, this link has several public domain pics of the Skycrane crash on the day fire. I'm not gonna have time till at least tomorrow to harvest them and get them uploaded and used. Feel free to do so yourself if you need something to distract you from the Stefo fun! AKRadecki Speaketh 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I only have a 300C in digital format, but let me check and see if I have any 35 mm ones. Still looking for a better CH-124 photo too! - Ahunt 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Found some more specs on the K model on Sikorsky's page. It's supposed to have a MTOW of 84,700 lb with 3 x 6,000 hp engines. Payload peaks out at 36,000 lb on their chart. The H-53's capabilities have come a long way from the A model in the early 1960s. I'll keep working on it. - Fnlayson 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The CH-53K sandbox article is coming along. I'm working on some E model upgrade stuff now. In a few days I should be able to move that over to the CH-53E article. The K article should be ready for main space in a couple weeks. Although it'd be better to wait for preliminary specs out of Sikorsky, I think. - Fnlayson 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish to support your decision to revert this unreferenced and grave NNPOV contribution on EH101, in which some confusion seems made on maybe hostile press rumours (written as rumours) relevant to Canadian structural problems with facts (thousands of flying hours so far). Moreover, in the same contribution it seems it was reported as a fact some Canadian EH101 project opponents complains sometimes used as a pretext in order to show too high maintenance figures. I think everything can be written on wikipedia, but when grave accuses are made to present day projects, I think clear and point by point references should be cited in order to lessen Wikipedia responsibility. I am following all the story since the beginning and the recent days spin-ups. I strongly agree with your choices. Feel free to contact me at will for what I can help. Regards -- EH101 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BillCJ. I saw you revert vandalism a few seconds ago, and I would like you to suggest you warn vandals using the following templates:
{{Subst:uw-v1}} {{Subst:uw-v2}} {{Subst:uw-v3}} {{Subst:uw-v4}}
Thanks, and happy editing! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Aircrafts, planes, aerodromes, datas, fanatism, Irak, pullute, omosexualiy, unjustice, couvered, proposte, machted, outrageus, shxt, cleary! FWIW Bzuk 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
I think you're an admin. As I wrote on the Typhoon page, I think we need an admin to settle the issue. I understand you're on wiki-break and I respect that, but if you have time and are interested, that would be great. If not could you drop me a quick note and I'll seek another admin.
-Much Thanks Kitplane01 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please help me sourcing of the Lavi pic?-- Gilisa 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been playing around in your essays sandbox and added a couple of pics; I hope you like 'em. -- Red Sunset 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Robset)
I've removed the poor-taste photo; it was an on the spur of the moment addition when I first saw the photo, but not worth any amount of humour at the expense of those lost in the accident or affected by it, and I dearly wish I'd never posted it. My apologies to all who may have been offended by it, and I trust that no-one will assume it was your own work. -- Red Sunset 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BillCJ. I noticed this. If you want immediate administrator action, here is a better place for that. Thanks! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
BillBC, follow the edit history of the editor involved in reverts and comments on the talk page and it will take you to the ARBCOM? It seems the actions are malicious and unprovoked. I have asked an admin to look into it. Bzuk 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
[8] Hey, at least they guy has a bit of imagination. AKRadecki Speaketh 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've asked EH101 for a translation. It's creative, as is this, but at a college freshman or high school level. Reminds me of when young kids cover there eyes, and really thing you can't still see them! - BillCJ 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a word or two of encouragement is always useful. Thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the weird message in mencarelli's talk. It's a very poor grammar Italian message (maybe from a babelfish) titled "I declare". It continues with a very very poor grammar with something like: "I barely believe that all those people are against you and don't let you explain your case. Pardon them with their ignorance and all those calumnies against you. They do not understand. As sheeps they are lost without a shepard." It seems a taunt made from a non Italian troll aimed to raise the flame. Nothing everybody really needs. Next move ? Bye -- EH101 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Bill. I've noticed that you have deleted entries from the 'comparable aircraft' section of the article on the Gripen on several occasions. Maybe you could be a little more explanatory, I suggest on the talk page, on why certain aircraft are or are not comparable. I'm not an expert on the subject, in my world you could compare the Gripen with the new Airbus A380. The Airbus is bigger! That's a comparison, isn't it? ;-) LarRan 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, since you asked awhile ago about the USFS AH-1/209 Cobras, I thought I'd let you know that I got to get up-close-and-personal with one of them at Fox a couple of days ago, and have posted a pic to the AH-1 article. I've uploaded several more to Commons, you can see them on my gallery page, in the helo section. I didn't want to overwhelm the AH-1 article with these, but if you think one of the others is better than the one I posted, feel free to switch them out. AKRadecki Speaketh 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyedit form my talk page: "G'day Bzuk, I've been working over in Beechcraft land for a while and have seen a couple of references to the Canadian Forces "CT-145 Super Kingair". Other than on Wikipedia I can find no evidence of the CT-145 in CAF service. Could you please confirm so I can make the necessary changes (of course you could do it yourself if you want to, there are a few different articles where the reference appears). YSSYguy 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, thought you might need this:
Per this, what happens now? Having never been through an ARBCOM, I have no idea what to expect now. It doesn't seem like he is leavibng en.Wiki, just the ARBCOM. I get the feeling he had no clue what really happens in the ARBCOM, but expected a quick censure of us. He's demanded apologies at least twice, and seems put out we haven't responded, or been made to apologize. - BillCJ 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, -- noclador 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, some IP is claiming I removed his information, I think he has me confused with you- we are both "Bills" but vandals and trolls can't make out the difference. He sounds and writes like an idiot so be careful, poke him first before getting close. Just kidding! |:¬∆ Bzuk 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for your note on the reverts in the aircraft forum. I recall that I only made one reversion in what I thought was a vandal attack (never thinking it was an admin with an agenda); I copied a whole "last clean edit" and put it back in place but he/she immediately reverted, I would put it back and immediately it was reverted, a few more times of this back and forth and I gave up, put a space into the infoboxes to indicate a change and then placed a request in the edit history for an administrator to look at the article. I had already asked for a stop in the attacks and indicated that the 3R limit had been reached as well as placing a query in the aviation group forum for assistance. I would have never guessed that this campaign to eliminate all pop culture sections was coming from an admin but you seemed to have known. When I called for an administrator, guess who responded? I can only laugh at the silliness of this whole escapade with me frantically trying to head off what I believed was a deliberate troll/vandal attack, having seen so many of them in the past concentrating on the popular culture sections, and meanwhile the other person was calmly reverting everything and quoting all sorts of protocal and guidelines. I should have picked up on that, ordinary vandals don't often cite justification for their actions. I have no idea where things are, but I know that Jeff Finlayson was also involved and I bet both of us thought that a very sophisticated vandal was at work. Oh well, live and learn... |:¬[ 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) .
Our mutual Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.
It seems that you guys are trolling against me or i have missed something? I am here by days, not months, and if Bzuk have not patience with my grammar can still wait and do some other things.
As POV statements, well, evidently Bzuk have not idea of waht he says. I am not interested to glorify italian aircrafts, but simply let wikiepians what i learned about. If you have problems with me, as personal, well, you have only to speak clear about. Nobody costrict me to lost my time to write, just to let you delete it just for fun, and babbling against me with your mindless statements.
I await your excuses, still, for the gratuitus deleting and accusations without any EVIDENCE. In faith. -- Stefanomencarelli 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
1-SO you are continuing to insulte me with your GRATUITUS ACCUSATIONS? Well, you have only to add me PROOF. With 'presume bad faith' wiki must close as soon as possible.
I challenge you. In the whole universe, FIND WHERE I HAVE COPIED SUCH TEXT. Or give me your excuses. I DON'T fear any proof against me about copyviol. I wrote 2000 articles in wiki.it and NOBODY have felt me guilty of such accusation. And never it will be, 'cause i simply DON'T NEED to copy anyone. I know that i write, plain and simple.
2-Here you posted in Bzuk talk:
I've never heard of the K1-100 having problems against B-29s over Japan. IIRC, B-29s flew at low-medium altitudes (5000 ft?) during 1945 (mostly for fire-bombings). - BillCJ 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You obviosely don't know A lot of things. Mom hadn't said that Ki-100 wasn't an high altitude fighter? And that B-29s flew at 5000f. ONLY in night missions? And that Ki-100 was rated as 20-22 minuts to climb at 10000m.? As Joe Baugher wrote in his encyclopedia:
However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29. In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance, the Ki-100-II version was evolved. It was powered by a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection to boost power for short intervals. Because of a lack of space, the turbosupercharger had to be mounted underneath the engine without provision for an intercooler and its associated ducting, with air being ducted directly from the compressor to the carburetor. It first flew in May 1945. The lack of an intercooler limited the high-altitude performance of the Ki-100-II, and the turbosupercharger added 600 pounds to the weight, which reduced maximum speed by 15 mph at 10,000 feet. However, the boosted high-altitude power enabled a maximum speed of 367 mph to be be reached at 32,800 feet (the cruising altitude of the B-29 during daylight operations). It had been planned to begin production of the Ki-100-II in September of 1945, but only three prototypes of this high-altitude interceptor had been produced by the time of the Japanese surrender.
So, a bit of examples of what you pretend to know.-- Stefanomencarelli 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
So i am accused of copyvioling. Improving my english has done this result. Excellent. So i am disgusted by the manner found here as well (mainly because the 'patience' of one of the wikipedians, that has an 'Z' in his nickname), that i leave you with happiness. If not to know is best that 'to know disturbating things, well, this ambient is good enough for your desires. I wait excusations by nickanmed involved in this 'bad' story.
PS. The top 5 toughest languages to learn: English, Chinese, Cockney/Irish/Scots/Canajan English, Southern Fried US English, and Caribbean English~ :) - BillCJ 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Did I copy that accurately? and the easiest languages to learn? Number #1 was Ukrainian? (no kidding), then the romance languages, French, Spanish, Italian. FWIW Bzuk 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
Purpose of this gallery was to show pics. I wont tell u reason to put the gallery on that page, but tell me why shouldnt I? zikky
Just a quick heads up on an RfC on User:Eyrian's approach to In Popular Culture AfD nominations here, since I know you've been involved with these and one of the purposes of the RfC is to achieve some more general guidelines on how this class of article is handled. FWIW, I'll add that I'm not unsympathetic to his/her goals, but on a procedural basis, these AfDs seem to me to have turned into something of a kangaroo court... -- Rlandmann 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I had considered volunteering the information earlier, but I'm always very wary of the mob mentality. Furthermore, the it.wikipedia community has passed its sentence, and he is "doing his time" (3 month ban runs out on 15 August) - I hoped he wouldn't be penalised here for offenses that he was already being punished for elsewhere. But I guess that the benefit of at least my doubt has now run out. -- Rlandmann
Hello, You pulled my edits on concorde. Im amused and perplexed by this. Did you ever go on her? Well i did. January 2000, 6 months before the crash, new york to london. Most of what i tried to add is based on that personal experience and was in the passenger experience section. Just what "reference" do you expect to get a passenger experience from? The thump of the afterburners, the gforce in your seat, the really noise and hard taxi on the jfk concrete before take off due to the tyres if you sat forward, the terminator flashing past. Plenty of the other information on that page comes obviously comes from personal experience or perception and is unreferenced.
Please feel free to rebutt. Personally im getting a bit cheesed with constant deleteion of honest additions to wikipedia by an honest person of information that is just not referencable...
My email is rosswnelson@hotmail.com if your at all interested
Thats so funny. at least 50% of the page has no references that i can obviously see, and a "passenger experience" section isnt usually going to have many at all! Its doubly funny seeing im a pilot!
Despite what you and other edits have done and I do not, for a moment, disregard the fabulous work that has been done, the article still seems to be a very convoluted (I could say uncharitably a "dog's breakfast"), wouldyathink? It may work to have the comparison section as a sub-article, maybe "Ki-61 compararison" or "Rating the Ki-61." Just a thought, late at night...[:º Bzuk 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
Hi, Bill. You had about 7-8 sandbox articles showing in Category:Helicopters and Category:Military helicopters. I edited your Sandbox articles by placing a ":" in between the "[[" and "Category" to make it link to the category instead of including your sandbox articles in the namespace categories. I also used {{ tl}} to create links for templates that automatically categorize the article. -- Born2flie 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified. 68.244.13.195 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Comparing max speeds and climbs isn't realistic in my book as LordT (who appears to be a Red Ripper) notes, operational perfromance is nowhere near the manufacturer or Navy Fact File specs. Does it mean they're wrong? Not at all, just different configurations, which is why it's hard to compare aircraft if you don't have same altitude, temperature, loadout, fuel, etc. Suppose it's an aviation task force issue to decide what to use and even if you can get a standard reference for aircraft from different eras or countries. Can only guess what it was that prompted the note. I think you have to stick to official sources on max speeds and other specs. My view is that they are like car brochures (your mileage may be different). HJ 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does it seem like people are naturally uncouth? Do we really learn to be civil, or do they learn to be non-civil? When I look at my granddaughter, and how nice she is, caring, sweet, playful, then I see older people mess with someone, don't care, are mean, and hateful. So I tend to think that humans devolve as they age. Just why is that? What are we doing to ourselves? Thanks for the revert. -- Colputt 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I would merge both articles because both helicopters are in fact different versions of the same design. Different designations doesn't mean different helicopter - look at airborne command post version of the Mil Mi-8 designated Mil Mi-9 for export. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill, I would be glad to help, but unfortunately it will be imposible for me to search in non-english sources, as I'm not speaking the Serbian language at all. Anyway, I will be looking for some sources and I'll let you know if I find something. Keep in touch! -- Eurocopter tigre 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | Sorry, Born. My mind-reading ability doesn't work with people off the continent :) - BillCJ 00:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Had a chuckle at that one, I did! -- Born2flie 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, a little while back, I reverted a new introduction to the Hughes H-4 Hercules as unproductive because I found an error in each of the sentences that were changed. I didn't particularly care for the intro as written but I felt that no improvement had been made in the rewrite,now I have been subjected to a barrage of "you've reverted a Good faith edit" claims. The editor involved may have taken umberage but he made no substantive edits in the article and only "floated" in to make the one contribution which merely "played around with words" but even eliminated an important element. I wrote back to the editor on his page with a fuller explanation since he thought he was aggrieved. Here it is: [1]. Check out my comments, was I way off base here? I do make mistakes and my tone may have been more appropriate but it was not intended to start an editwar. I have been in enough of these and I do not need another one. Write back with your "take". FWIW Bzuk 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC).
Sorry Bill, I checked the five reference sources I have and none of them had details about the victories scored by the Me 262. I will check our local aviation museum library tomorrow. FWIW Bzuk 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC).
I elliminated the uncited accidents and moved them to Talk. Gonna remove the {trim} template unless more trimming is needed. Any objections? Thre is more uncited up in the C-5M subsection that can be removed. LanceBarber 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
On the specs, it's funny I updated the range specs using Lock-Mart numbers in May cause one user thought the AF numbers were wrong. Today somebody tries to change the range to the AF fact sheet value. Can't win for losing sometimes... - Fnlayson 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I would like to thank you for the parable, User:BillCJ#The_Really-Free_Library. The article clearly expresses the problem with unregistered user contributions. -- Dan Dassow 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Now The A-Team article is up to scratch - ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, there is a good bit of discussion on the talk page about the number of destroyed aircraft. concensus seems to put it at 12, all non combat. This might be of interest to those readers that such a sectretive aircraft, with a long history of missions over/near hostile contries, managed to remain unscathed (except for training/accidents). 12.198.79.130 12:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, kind of new to editing wikipedia. I put something up for discussion on the variable geometry wing page. I didn't know who else to approach since you seem to watch many of the aviation pages. It basically boils down to the article name is too broad for the content. I put the details in the discussion. I realize there was just a name change, but I believe this is a problem for reasons discussed on the article's talk page. Jbowman90 12:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment over at World's largest airlines. (1) I'm not aware of having sour grapes with any editor, nor do I know User:Sparrowman980, who appears to be the main editor or World's Largest Airlines. Pdbailey 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, as you know, the saying goes “ please don’t feed the trolls”; although I’m not sure he is a troll, the situation sure is beginning to look like a trollfest. The anon on the Typhoon page is as adamant about pushing his POV as you are, and all that comes of it is disruption. Although I agree with the IP that the F-22 is probably sufficiently unique as to be in a class of its own, the WP:AIR/PC is sufficiently vague that either interpretation is equally correct. In the greater scheme of things, this is a trivial issue that you’re letting get your goat (and the anon appears to enjoy bearding you, if just for the sake of debate). You’re a great contributor with much better work to do to waste your time with this. If nothing else, leave it be for a few months and change it after the anon gets bored and moves on. I guarantee, though, that some other editor will come along and in all good faith, change it back. If you really want to go on with it, may I suggest a straw poll? That's probably the closest you'll ever come to "settling it" (assuming anything can ever really be settled on Wikipedia). Cheers –and have a better rest of your day, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
On another matter look at this article: "Stop Calling It an Airplane!". ;) - Fnlayson 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message for you on the talk:eurofighter page. I'd be happy to work with you and judging by your contributions that should be easy to do. You're welcome to look at mine; I think I've done some good work. I'll point you to the Cessna 150 page. I added a lot, but when someone pointed out my error I retracted.
I'm sorry some anonymous person has be undo-ing me so much, but that's not my fault.
I know that it can seem like good editors are getting ignored or mistreated on purpose, especially when there is a debate about adding information you know to be inaccurate yet nobody will support your point. I saw the accusations made by the IP in this edit. Just because somebody says it, doesn't make it automatically believed by everyone. I don't know if you followed the thread opened about you on the Wikiquette page but the person who replied supported you. Actually you can have a lot of fun with people who throw meaningless accusations at you by asking for proof.
I'm not saying you should come back if you've truly had your fill of the experience, but consider that you may simply need a break rather than defecting to the vandals. I know we've had our disagreements but I've thought of you as a good editor, I'd of said so sooner but you don't strike me as the type to want reassurance. Anynobody 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to thank Bill for all his hard work, he has been personally attacked for defending the articles and the aviation projects not out of a sense of ownership but a reflection of the concensus of the group. Interesting to see that the recent attack on you was by an IP user with only one edit despite having a wide knowlegde of the disputes you have been involved in! Your contributions will be missed hope that you can return after a break. MilborneOne 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bill, you are a real benefit to this community and aviation articles specifically; hope to see you under a different nick soon! Lipsticked Pig 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Drop me a line if you need someone to talk to.
I hate seeing dedicated editors get driven off... but I do love kicking vandal ass. If you've got a cadre of harassers, feel free to drop me a line about where they may post; I'd be more than happy to take care of them (provided you give me the diffs to see what's what, of course). Extremely long-term and wide-spread harassment like this is admittedly not something that the community at large is set up to deal with, but it's something that a few dedicated admins could help address. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill. If there's anything I can do to help, I'm perfectly happy to offer the same as EV :). Feel free to send me a message on my talk page and I will see what I can do. Also, perhaps consider my suggestion on Jimbo's talk page. Hope I can help! ck lostsword• T• C 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I'm in and out on my own little excursions away from the wiki.
What happens when you mix all the flavors of ice cream, would you want to eat THAT? That's what open editing is. Anyone can edit, but not everyone should. That's why books are not edited by everyone. Sometimes you have to WP:IAR, especially when it comes to WP:DBAD! -- Born2flie 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I have certainly not been on Wikipedia as long as you but the two of us seemed to have some similar interests and those intersected at various times. For one, I always found you a truly principled and steadfast protector of the Wiki world. Your expertise in aviation topics was impressive and your ability to enunciate highly technical issues in a straightforward manner was always appreciated. Your departure should be for recuperation and should you decide to return in this guise or any other, there will be countless editors who will welcome you back. Please feel free to contact me by email, I enjoyed our talks, especially your wry sense of humour. (Whoops my Canadianisms slipped out again...) Take heart, you did a great job and have left behind nothing but fond memories with the friends you have made. [:¬∆ Bzuk 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
Bill, I've done some semiprotections in your user space. If this person continues to bother you, cite a diff of this edit by me when you file additional requests for semiprotection at WP:RFPP. This ought to be fairly simple to address: just ask the admins to semi the articles where you're active for a while until the person who's been bothering you gets tired of the game. And try not to let 'em see you sweat. ;) Best regards, Durova Charge! 04:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I have appreciated all you help and teachings you've given me, and have made me a stronger editor. I understand some of your stress. You've been a pillar to all of us. Please come back refreshed and armed with stronger conviction. With highest regards and respect, LanceBarber 08:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with this aspect of Wikipedia, as necessary as it is to a project like this it can also be the biggest problem. As is usually the way of things, I think the answer is a compromise of sorts and I'm wondering what you think of it.
Once an article becomes either WP:GA or WP:FA it ought to be sealed so that we don't have to monitor it for vandalism or other quality eroding edits. Anynobody 05:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that no article is ever really finished, and vandals create accounts too but vandalism isn't the only problem and the constant maintenance to keep a good article "good" is bad for two reasons. 1) It's boring and repetitve to fix articles degraded by vandalism o r good faith edits that are nonetheless wrong. More important though is 2) The lack of quality on a consistent basis makes Wikipedia seem unreliable. Granted my idea won't stop the "It's on CNN so it must be notable..." issues with new articles, but it would free up a bit more time to deal with those arguments. Anynobody 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy. Durova Charge! 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sparrowman980 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Also whats going on with largest airlines? Sparrowman980 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Back at it some today, huh? Either way take it easy.. :) - Fnlayson 00:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for defending me on the largest airlines all i am trying to do is keep it there and one of the problems was it was to confusing.So I obviously made it a lot easier but now i got 3 admins on my case trying to delete the sub pages for the world part of it but thanks! Sparrowman980 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Making major changes without any discussion to an article that has been voted "keep" in a given form twice in quick succession is vandalism, especially when one is on record as disagreeing with the consensus. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bill, an aviation writer/photographer has literally dumped his own photo gallery onto the TOPGUN article [3] subverting the Wikiarticle guidelines. Take a look. May be an act of omission, but certainly not the way it is supposed to be! HJ 09:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, please look at another issue on the F-14 page. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.187.250 ( talk) 10:39, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
...I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but it appears User:Opuscalgary has returned, using a public access terminal of some sort, User:67.79.187.250. He used his time constructively, going to various random editor's talk pages and posting insult-filled messages pretending they were posted by you.
If you get some odd messages here, that's why. Another admin has already blocked. I'm trying to clear up the damage.
There is one amusing bit to the story though. Opus didn't seem to bother to check the block log, and assumed it was me who blocked him. I know this because my spam folder contained a threatening letter ordering me to unblock or he would get Jimbo to kick me off the wiki. Awww, feel the love. :-)
Maury 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you acted as vandal, or i missed something? NExt time you delete some stuff assure you that it's not simply crap, but perhaps article could need it. At least i try to do so, you not. Act as professionist, not hooligan.-- Stefanomencarelli 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
IRT the comment on [4]:
If that is you, I ask what you're talking about, and simultaneously warn you to regard WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and advise you that you've likely been autoblocked.
If that isn't you, please do tell, so I can block the IP for even longer. -- ST47 Talk· Desk 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the comments. You're entitled to remove the PROD template. I wouldn't assume you were trying to be disruptive.
My question is where do we go from here? Fair criticism about my "tabloid" point - but as fair handed as I try to be, surely you can see my point? As is the article is not a sophisticated analysis of large aircraft carriers. It is an entirely unreferenced, subjective article. Yes, it contains one reference, but that is a cut and paste of my reference from Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, which further demonstrates my superfluous argument.
You said "I agree there are no definitive sources in the article, but it does describe the acepted definition of the term." -- Sorry but that is not acceptable. A subject is either verifiable or it isn't. "the acepted definition" is bordering on weasel words. Mark83 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
We've got a guy with the handle "IRGCAF" replacing a legit pic with one he claims is an Iranian MiG-31. What we have here is a bunch of Russian aircraft at an airshow in Tehran. The image is face-on (making it less appealing than the extant image) and there's nothing to indicate that any of the planes have Iranian markings on them. In fact, there is no evidence that Iran ever received the MiG-31 and Russia denies ever selling it to them. I've used two reverts, which is the most I will ever do in 24 hours, so you might want to keep an eye on it as well. (BTW, the images aren't going to last long. As I write, the first one has already been marked with a speedy tag.) Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The references I can find say 4 passengers, i.e. 4 people sitting in the passenger compartment. Perhaps that is what the editor meant? Having seen the aircraft type up close, I'm amazed you can fit 4 people in those things period, much less in addition to the pilot(s). -- Born2flie 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, if you want any of your sandboxes back that I moved, just let me know. Take care.. - Fnlayson 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wrote this, and it's in the DYK queue, but knowing my typing and blindness to my own mistakes, it could probably use a copy edit, if you have time. Also, a short paragraph oughta be added to the C-130 page, but I won't have time this afternoon. If you want, have at it! AKRadecki Speaketh 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, you know anything about the F-4? Check out the page now. FWIW Bzuk 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC). BTW, we also need to change all the formats of aviation articles to a new standard, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. I knew we had it all wrong! [:¬∆ Bzuk 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC).
That guy just does half-something data dumps. Doesn't matter if the text already there covers most of what is added. Argg.. - Fnlayson 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed we and another user were all editing the B-58 Hustler article. I'm happy to wait until you're done, just let me know when. Thank you. Conrad T. Pino 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I replied on Talk there. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the squabble over at CF-104, you might want to be cognizant of the comment I left over on his talk page. If he comes back to the CF-104 page, let one of us handle it, as I don't want you to cross the 3RR line. AKRadecki Speaketh 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Most links fixed? I've searched it & gotten "no page exists". Shouldn't it (re?)direct to C-47? Trekphiler 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bill can you help me get the article back on. I saw your comment in deletion discussion, & I could'nt agree with you more, if this list is gonna happen it needs to be more concise & acurate. This may need to be incorporated in to the helicopter article like Harrier Jump Jet#Popular culture. I have no problem doing the writing, but I need you help to grease the wheels, with the top editors ANigg 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate it, also can you point me in the direction setting up a sand box? Thanx again : ) ANigg 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanx for you help Bill I hope you feel better. Also if so if you have any contribs, please feel free ( And no I'm not trying to pass the work on to you LOL) ANigg 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I see it clearly now Bill; I've just looked at the article on a different computer and I realise the error of my ways. To compound the error, I made several changes to the text at the same time and these have now been undone as well, so I'm going to undo your undo, and manually remove the sizing from the image. My bad, I'm still a relative neophyte at all this stuff. YSSYguy 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am fighting one of the "vandals" right now. Some guy wants me to duplicate what is stated in detail in the rest of the article in the LEAD. I woudl appreciate a third party opinion on the discussion page. Perhaps we can get this to stop while it is on the main page? — BQZip01 — talk 05:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
hope you get better! Also could you point me into the direction of a Admin,that i could trust unless you are one but would you happen to now anyone? Sparrowman980 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Sparrowman980 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Creole should be redirected to Patois. Creole is only really a term used by academics. But, an encyclopaedia isn't really a source for academics, it is a way of condensing academic knowlege for mass consumption. Most Jamaicans refer to their language as Patois (or Patwah). It seems sensible to use that reference point as both they and the non-Jamaican masses who refer to the article will find that to be a more friendly and familiar place.
Ackees 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The Chipper Jones article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BilCat. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — talk 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, got a registered user this time adding Scientology look-a-like OR stuff on Douglas DC-8 again. He seems to think a reference makes it OK, even if it is not a real DC-8. If you could help a little I'd appreciate it. - Fnlayson 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad to here it, because I always assumed they were A380s, given the way the Airbus fanboys worship that plane! - BillCJ 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As you know i have gone on a rampage well I am trying to make peace now but recently Russiava has changed stuff but i checked up and there is Qantas group.Now i check Qantas group and all it is is the name that Qantas uses for it company.But it all named under the airline.Just wondering before i do anything if you could (if you werent sick still)that you could double check me please. Many Thanks. Sparrowman980 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello? Sparrowman980 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
yes they should count. Sparrowman980 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I've added my two cents at Talk:Colin McRae. Things seem calm at the minute. I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it for a while. Be in touch if you have further concerns. Mark83 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I won't revert again because oriented is the more common in the USA (and this in an article about a US TV show) but ...
The OED says it's simply an alternative, Fowler’s Modern English Usage says use either
The Free Online Dictionary is Wrong ....! it means exactly the same as oriented
This is simply another USA/UK divide - US uses mostly oriented, and almost never orientated In the UK both are used fairly indiscriminately lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For being fair and reasonable lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 07:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC) |
Bill, I recently reverted a pop culture addition to the AF1 article, and the adding editor just protested on my talk page, and I replied on his...I'm just one voice, and since you were so key in developing that article, maybe you might want to put your 2 cents in, regardless of which way you lean on this. AKRadecki Speaketh 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I was trying to add some background to your former sandbox Sikorsky CH-53K and copy some info from the CH-53 Sea Stallion and realized it had little on its development. I thought you might have sources that cover the CH-53 better than me. If you can, please help with the CH-53 article. Take it easy. - Fnlayson 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the health issues, Bill. Hope feel better soon man. I can get started on this with what I can find. - Fnlayson 03:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's hoping you get well soon. In the mean time, enjoy the soup. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
C'mon Bill no lying around on the Job, Get Well Buddy ANigg 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyedit from my talk page: "BillZ, per this diff, is it "centred" or "centered" up there in in the Great North? I can't keep the differences straight in my head right now! - BillCJ 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"
I am curious why you reverted my edits to P-51 Mustang, stating it is "unnecessary". The last sentence of the first paragraph is a claim to notability that is unreferenced. Who says "The P-51 became one of the conflict's most successful and recognizable aircraft."? I added a notability statement with a valid reference; it was my intent to indirectly support the unreferenced statement and demonstrate how important the Mustang was. I thought I was improving the article; the revert says otherwise. So that I might avoid doing the wrong thing in the future, would you please explain the rationale for deleting this; why is it unnecessary to state the importance of the aircraft with a valid reference? Thanks. Truthanado 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, well it turns out that you were right, it is in fact the deck of the John C. Stennis. I should have clicked on the image to check the description before making the change. When I saw the text of the Rafale being on the deck of a carrier, I immediately thought it was about the tests done a few weeks ago on board the Enterprise when 2 airplanes actually landed and not simply did touch-and-goes. Here is a picture of that event [5]. I didn't realize it was some previous event. Anyway, I corrected my mistake on the article and changed the text to performing a touch and go to avoid any confusion. Thanks for checking. -- McSly 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Given your past history I'm assuming your edit of Thirteen Colonies was some kind of mistake? -- NeilN 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You might find this interesting Bill. The Air Force is considering a gunship version of JCA (from Air Force magazine's Daily Report). They want make a mini-gunship out of it by adding a 30 mm cannon. The gunship will be used for Special Operations Command. Sounds like the set-up with the AC-130. Take care. - Fnlayson 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the box to use the full-width style, but I'm not sure if the separation of the contents into multiple blocks still violates some guideline from WP:AIR. If you could check the template and let me know if there's some particular form the innards need to have, that'd be great. Thanks! Kirill 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill, hope you're feeling better. If time and health permit, a copyedit of my latest project, 2002 airtanker crashes would be much appreciated! AKRadecki Speaketh 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please give me some good faith assumptions. Note where the editor applies for unblock and promises not to do it again. Also, note where I have notified Penwhale, the blocking administrator. There is a note on my talk page regarding this and I have replied. So I don't think the term "Fishy admin behavior" applies. Best regards, Navou banter 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I wondered if you had seen this discussion. I thought you might have a useful opinion on it either way. Take care, -- John 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Bill, since we have the 222U spare at our base, I grabbed some tech images and dropped them onto the article page...feel free to move them around or remove them if you think them unhelpful. AKRadecki Speaketh 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at Sikorsky H-53? I think it was supposed to be a disambiguation page, but it has a stub tag. I don't know how to correct it. Thanks. -- Colputt 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Bill: No problem on the 214ST photo! When I found the article I knew I had some photos. That photo is one I took two years ago. I find the best way to get photos for Wikipedia is to take them myself. I have about 10,000 aircraft photos that I have shot since 2004, so I put them into articles when they look like they will be of use. I have more photos of that 214ST, but that is the best one. Ahunt 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, give your opinion on the discussion page. I believe that it would be relevant to add information about:
- The V-22's lack of autorotation (information not present on the text)
- The V-22's light armament (information not present on the text) EconomistBR 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thought you'd want to see this. AKRadecki Speaketh 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
...split an article? Take a look at the Hughes H-6 Talk page. -- Born2flie 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that for me... Didja read the copy? I just barely skimmed the cream off of the letter, which runs 3/4 of a page, at least! He talks about the airborne units that participated in the jump, and all kinds of marking and code details. I thought I would just began to add SOME of the data that The Battle of Britain (film) has been accorded for a LONG time... For some, reason, a Bridge has received considerably less input.
Mark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I'm finally done with an article that became a lot longer than I originally anticipated, U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal. It could use a good copyedit, if/when you have time. Thanks! AKRadecki Speaketh 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you are up too it if you could take a look at this and if you can please leave a comment. Sparrowman980 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [ [7]
Good compromise. 141.155.128.109 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for watching my back on the vandalism overnight! And thanks for adding your comments in. I've left a message for the editor that got a bit carried away with the del noms. Also, I left a note and offer of help on the uploader, User:Airshipman, probably wouldn't hurt for others to do the same. Hopefully he hasn't been too discouraged...be nice if he checked in and at least saw that someone around here cared. Well, off to work. We're flying a bunch of reporters around this morning, so I have to go clean the grease off the rotor head and make things look pretty! AKRadecki Speaketh 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me on this issue! I have only one Canadian Sea King digital photo and, while it is a nicely exposed and detailed photo, it was shot at an airshow of a static display aircraft and so has general public in the forground of it. I am currently going through my old (1975-1994) 35 mm photo albums and will see if I can find something better there. Ahunt 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I got a little impatient when twice in two days someone (different ones) questioned this well-covered story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
this was an interesting edit...especially since that's a really old address. AKRadecki Speaketh 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, very interesting. Doesn't Air Methods operate in DC? Maybe someone there knows an agent in the VA State Police or Investigations that can give an answer on the legal part, and even do some follow-up. Might mention the stalker appears to spend alot of time with video games, possibly ones featuring the F-22 and/or Typhoon. - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Check out my comment on that article's talk page. Also, check out Ahunt's gallery on my talk page! AKRadecki Speaketh 03:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I managed to get a copy of this book by Spick too. I started looking for books by David Donald and modern aircraft books and ended up finding that one. It's almost too large to read in bed and stuff. I expected in to have short entries on many aircraft, but it's several smaller books put together. Take care. - Fnlayson 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, I had actually done all the background research myself, and was going to go along with helikoeides, even though we have not established it as the actual word used, when Appleyard made another change and only sourced it with the lexicon. He has that problem. He made the first change without the "h" three weeks ago and then he makes the other change stating he "knows" Greek. He knows it so well, that he allowed his own mistake to exist for three weeks. I can easily find references to elikoeides that are Greek references, so I didn't have a problem with the first edit. It also came up in the web translators.
Almost every other historical reference that I've found besides these two (Leishman, Century of Flight) do not mention d'Amecourt by name. If they do, they appear to have used the dictionaries' etymology of heliko + pteron, and one reference even claimed that the word was formed as helic + o + ptere (helik + pteron, needing a "connector": o). Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.
Judy Rumerman (Early Helicopter Technology essay on Century of Flight) used Leishman as a reference for the essay, so that can only mean that the source of the word, misspelled or whatever, comes from one of Leishman's sources:
However, if you want to argue WP:RS look at Leishman's reference list. Most of his references are primary sources. Here is a guy who is thorough in his research and in sourcing his statements, I mean, he has a PhD and is a professor after all. I, for one, would like to get a hold of the paper by Wolf.
How long have you edited with me, and you don't recognize that I only want the article to be as accurate and of as high a quality as possible? It doesn't matter what I know or what I suspect, I source everything I can. I actually do not like disputes but I won't be walked all over, either. Some people push my buttons, and Appleyard's philosophy of editing on Wikipedia is one of those things that irritates me. I mean, take a look at the history section, it is atrocious; but he thinks it looks better than it did. It is an eyesore on this article that should be one of the crown jewels of WP:Air, as should any general article about aircraft. That is my goal. That is always where my edits and comments are aimed, towards meeting the standard of WP:WIAGA and attempting to reach WP:TPA. -- Born2flie 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not thinking clearly here. d'Amecourt is the point of origin, not ancient Greek language. Prior to d'Amecourt, this word helicopter did not exist. His invention does not look like da Vinci's screw, so it would not imply that he meant a helical shape, but rather a helical motion through the air as the aircraft moved, i.e. spiraling. Some clarification, I did not originally put the Greek word in there, I simply found a reference for it. It met my requirements, it had the date, it had the individual, and it had the Greek words that were currently in the article. Now, if one or both Greek words are wrong, this author attributes the wrong words being used to the individual who coined the phrase. Simply saying that it is the wrong words and then changing the words because you know better, is OR. The lexicon doesn't help because the source claims that d'Amecourt used those words. I can also find sources that don't have the year he coined it and claim that he used words you would be totally comfortable with.
So, the issue becomes, which words did d'Amecourt actually use? Did he use an incorrect transliteration because he was unlearned in Greek? You can't say that "this" word is the correct one according to the lexicon and pronounce it so. You have to document that d'Amecourt used that word. As far as references, when you have one that you like and one that is more descriptive but appears wrong, it bears some more investigation rather than to pronounce the one correct and the one you dislike because of error as wrong. I've seen nothing but speculation from Appleyard and yourself about d'Amecourt, and I'd just like some proof. A source, a reference that says he used the wrong word, or that he used the correct word.
I prefer Prof. Leishman as a reference because he lists his two sources that he got his information from, and I can use that to track it down. Or, we can email him as you suggest, but until this issue is resolved, I have removed the reference to the Greek language and attributed it solely to d'Amecourt, which almost any reference will support. -- Born2flie 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The web document is on Professor Leishman's website area (www.glue.umd.edu/~leishman) for the university at which he instructs. If that isn't accurate to anything else he's written, I don't know what would be. That webpage mentions that the essay/article includes extracts from his printed text, whether that includes that portion of the history discussion or not, again, we'll have to contact the Professor. Once again, I'll point out that he directly references where he acquired his information from in that essay, "...see Wolf (19681974) and Liberatore (1998)." I've not seen any other reference online (or in print) do that for where they received their information.
I agree that the document by d'Amecourt would settle all. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online reference of it and a library search would do me little good. -- Born2flie 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you like me to translate the French for you? :D -- Born2flie 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I emailed the Professor. I will let you know his response. I also emailed the Staff at AHS' publication Vertiflite to ask them if Wolf referred to the Greek words in his publication. In the introduction to his essay, Professor Leishman describes Liberatore as one of the most authoritative sources on early helicopter developments, including, apparently, the period during which d'Amecourt coined the term. -- Born2flie 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No response yet, but, in these days of Spam filters, my emails might've been trashed for the sake of sanity. -- Born2flie 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you helping Appleyard with his patience. I resent the email using a more official email and received a response back almost immediately. He is going to try to track down the original d'Amecourt article, saying that it may be in the Liberatore collection, which is now at the NASM. If he finds it, he'll let me know. He also says that Liberatore has the same word in his book (p.224) that was originally included in the Helicopter article (elikoieoas). Thus, the need to get closer to the actual source in order to resolve the issue. -- Born2flie 05:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The d'Amecourt paper is in the Library of Congress. I obviously don't have access, but am contemplating paying for a photocopy or digital reproduction. No feedback on the Wolf paper in Vertiflight Vol. 20 ed. 5. Prof. Leishman also says that he spoke with a colleague who is a native Greek speaker. The colleague spoke with his friends back home and came up with:
It is true that this word cannot be found in any of the modern or ancient Greek lexicon. For this reason we had to dissect the word. After a lengthy discussion over the phone with colleagues in Greece we came to the following conclusion. "Elikoeioas" is probably an old epithet that describes an object in which its main devise has a helical shape. When it is joined with the Greek word “pteron” (wing) then it produces the composite word “elikopteron” (helicopter), which describes the entire object that incorporates wings of a helical (or spiral) shape. The word “elikoeides” or “helicoeides” is more popular but it only describes the shape of an object, period.
I'm not sure if that will meet with your criteria, but it sure does explain why the professor included it as is. -- Born2flie 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's being worked right now, apparently. Although, I will warn up front that any attempts to link the Greek etymological references to d'Amecourt will be edited until a verifiable historical source is provided. And the minute I have any proof that Anthony and Where the Sun Doesn't Shine were incorrect, I will not only happily point it out to them, over and over again, I will forward the information to Dr. Leishman so that it can be propogated to the point of no contestation.
I understand your point of view, however dictionary etymologies are sometimes developed by looking at the word and guessing, albeit an educated guess, what the origins are. I admit I was wrong on the transliteration versus transcription issue, the "h" would be present in an English transliteration of the word today, but I also believe that the issue is more than that, it is also what d'Amecourt intended. Considering that the A.L. Wolf article in the 1974 Vertiflite magazine was his translation of the pamphlet by d'Amecourt (I have a reprint of Part 1, courtesy of AHS), d'Amecourt was a reader of Classical Greek, familiar with a Greek scientist/philosopher that he refers to as Theophile.
The French word for propeller (or screw, as in the screw that propels a ship) is "hélice", which Wolf translates directly as "helix". As near as I can tell, where Wolf has translated the article as d'Amecourt describing what helicopter means ("hélices comme des ailes"), it is essentially, "propellers as wings", since he envisioned more than one main rotor in his description. It is possible that d'Amecourt's use of hélice is what brought about the etymological description of helix being the basis of the word. However, even if we assume the direct correlation, it is possible that elikoeioas isn't a single word, but two or more words, as Classical Greek didn't use spaces, punctuation, or diacritics.
The English phrase "helix as wings" looks like this, "ελικα, οπως φτερα" in modern Greek (a la Google Translate). Certainly looks like a lot of extra characters if you saw it all close together (ελικαοπωςφτερα). Granted, the Classical Greek would not be the same exact words, based on the current discussion. Essentially, what I'm saying is that it looked something like "ελικοειοωςπτερων" ("elikoeioaspteron" or something similar), and instead of separating it into a phrase of more than two words, the uninitiated simply separated the one word he could recognize (pteron) and assumed that the rest was as Dr. Leishman's colleague and friends did, a form of helix to describe pteron.
I'm going to suggest the same to Dr. Leishman and see what his Greek friend thinks of it. -- Born2flie 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The paper by d'Amecourt was published in 1863, yet Liberatore credits d'Amecourt with coining the word some two years earlier. I am no longer thinking that La Conqûete de l'air par l'hélice. Exposé d'un nouveau système d'aviation is the holy grail and that the source is some other correspondence of d'Amecourt's, perhaps with one of his contemporaries or some other worthy. I still feel that the paper has served as a clue of sorts (through Wolf's translation) to getting closer to the truth. -- Born2flie 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
hehehe, the reputation of Wikipedia strikes again. Mentioned the dispute in Wikipedia and the Professor stated that we had come to an end in our correspondence. Can't blame him. He has his academic reputation to maintain and Wikipedia is not held in high regard by universities and other organizations that require research. Oh, well, anything that resulted would've been OR, anyways. Guess I'll have to wait until I have physical access to a library once again. Lesson learned. -- Born2flie 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for me and I was shocked to see that tag to be honest, not sure what the process is but hopefully if there is enough support it will stay. Unfortunately if that article goes then so do I, I have tried my best to wade through the editing minefield. Thanks Nimbus227 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats smacks of elitism if you ask me 12.43.60.50 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, check your email...article on the Bell 429 which might have good info for the article. AKRadecki Speaketh 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: Pete Carpenter
From http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0139432/ :
- Pilot (1999) TV Episode ("Theme from 'The Rockford Files'")
David Chase did the Sopranos, he met Carpenter and Post with Cannell on Rockford. Then Chase used the theme on the Sopranos pilot.
Thanks,
WikiDon 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Now it's the time. I call ARBCOM to decide this amusing staff. It involve you and Bzuk. When it's enough, it's enough. See EH101.-- Stefanomencarelli 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, this link has several public domain pics of the Skycrane crash on the day fire. I'm not gonna have time till at least tomorrow to harvest them and get them uploaded and used. Feel free to do so yourself if you need something to distract you from the Stefo fun! AKRadecki Speaketh 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I only have a 300C in digital format, but let me check and see if I have any 35 mm ones. Still looking for a better CH-124 photo too! - Ahunt 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Found some more specs on the K model on Sikorsky's page. It's supposed to have a MTOW of 84,700 lb with 3 x 6,000 hp engines. Payload peaks out at 36,000 lb on their chart. The H-53's capabilities have come a long way from the A model in the early 1960s. I'll keep working on it. - Fnlayson 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The CH-53K sandbox article is coming along. I'm working on some E model upgrade stuff now. In a few days I should be able to move that over to the CH-53E article. The K article should be ready for main space in a couple weeks. Although it'd be better to wait for preliminary specs out of Sikorsky, I think. - Fnlayson 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish to support your decision to revert this unreferenced and grave NNPOV contribution on EH101, in which some confusion seems made on maybe hostile press rumours (written as rumours) relevant to Canadian structural problems with facts (thousands of flying hours so far). Moreover, in the same contribution it seems it was reported as a fact some Canadian EH101 project opponents complains sometimes used as a pretext in order to show too high maintenance figures. I think everything can be written on wikipedia, but when grave accuses are made to present day projects, I think clear and point by point references should be cited in order to lessen Wikipedia responsibility. I am following all the story since the beginning and the recent days spin-ups. I strongly agree with your choices. Feel free to contact me at will for what I can help. Regards -- EH101 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BillCJ. I saw you revert vandalism a few seconds ago, and I would like you to suggest you warn vandals using the following templates:
{{Subst:uw-v1}} {{Subst:uw-v2}} {{Subst:uw-v3}} {{Subst:uw-v4}}
Thanks, and happy editing! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Aircrafts, planes, aerodromes, datas, fanatism, Irak, pullute, omosexualiy, unjustice, couvered, proposte, machted, outrageus, shxt, cleary! FWIW Bzuk 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
I think you're an admin. As I wrote on the Typhoon page, I think we need an admin to settle the issue. I understand you're on wiki-break and I respect that, but if you have time and are interested, that would be great. If not could you drop me a quick note and I'll seek another admin.
-Much Thanks Kitplane01 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please help me sourcing of the Lavi pic?-- Gilisa 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been playing around in your essays sandbox and added a couple of pics; I hope you like 'em. -- Red Sunset 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Robset)
I've removed the poor-taste photo; it was an on the spur of the moment addition when I first saw the photo, but not worth any amount of humour at the expense of those lost in the accident or affected by it, and I dearly wish I'd never posted it. My apologies to all who may have been offended by it, and I trust that no-one will assume it was your own work. -- Red Sunset 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BillCJ. I noticed this. If you want immediate administrator action, here is a better place for that. Thanks! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
BillBC, follow the edit history of the editor involved in reverts and comments on the talk page and it will take you to the ARBCOM? It seems the actions are malicious and unprovoked. I have asked an admin to look into it. Bzuk 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
[8] Hey, at least they guy has a bit of imagination. AKRadecki Speaketh 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've asked EH101 for a translation. It's creative, as is this, but at a college freshman or high school level. Reminds me of when young kids cover there eyes, and really thing you can't still see them! - BillCJ 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a word or two of encouragement is always useful. Thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the weird message in mencarelli's talk. It's a very poor grammar Italian message (maybe from a babelfish) titled "I declare". It continues with a very very poor grammar with something like: "I barely believe that all those people are against you and don't let you explain your case. Pardon them with their ignorance and all those calumnies against you. They do not understand. As sheeps they are lost without a shepard." It seems a taunt made from a non Italian troll aimed to raise the flame. Nothing everybody really needs. Next move ? Bye -- EH101 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Bill. I've noticed that you have deleted entries from the 'comparable aircraft' section of the article on the Gripen on several occasions. Maybe you could be a little more explanatory, I suggest on the talk page, on why certain aircraft are or are not comparable. I'm not an expert on the subject, in my world you could compare the Gripen with the new Airbus A380. The Airbus is bigger! That's a comparison, isn't it? ;-) LarRan 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill, since you asked awhile ago about the USFS AH-1/209 Cobras, I thought I'd let you know that I got to get up-close-and-personal with one of them at Fox a couple of days ago, and have posted a pic to the AH-1 article. I've uploaded several more to Commons, you can see them on my gallery page, in the helo section. I didn't want to overwhelm the AH-1 article with these, but if you think one of the others is better than the one I posted, feel free to switch them out. AKRadecki Speaketh 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyedit form my talk page: "G'day Bzuk, I've been working over in Beechcraft land for a while and have seen a couple of references to the Canadian Forces "CT-145 Super Kingair". Other than on Wikipedia I can find no evidence of the CT-145 in CAF service. Could you please confirm so I can make the necessary changes (of course you could do it yourself if you want to, there are a few different articles where the reference appears). YSSYguy 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, thought you might need this:
Per this, what happens now? Having never been through an ARBCOM, I have no idea what to expect now. It doesn't seem like he is leavibng en.Wiki, just the ARBCOM. I get the feeling he had no clue what really happens in the ARBCOM, but expected a quick censure of us. He's demanded apologies at least twice, and seems put out we haven't responded, or been made to apologize. - BillCJ 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, -- noclador 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)