3038:-horsepower engine" and never questioned it until I happened across some more detailed descriptions of aircraft and their engines. That's when I learned that there are generally at least two power ratings for an aircraft engine, a normal rating for sustained output and a short-term rating for takeoff (which is sometimes much higher). Not mentioning this when talking about an engine's performance strikes me as very misleading. I also learned that for supercharged engines the highest altitude at which the engine can develop full power is important, since that determines which altitudes it is best suited for. And the RPM at which highest power is developed is also important, especially when comparing multiple engines or the development of a single engine type, because it tells you something about how the engine makers got increased power--whether by mechanical refinements which allowed faster engine speeds, or by increased displacement, greater compression, or better supercharging. Some other specifications, like displacement, compression ratio, supercharger boost or gear ratio, and required fuel octane rating, would be important for the same reason. (Such thinking led me to include carburetor venturi sizes when I listed the carburetors, but now I would remove those.)
4456:
might be reading their comments. I know that my great uncle who was 87, and a veteran flying
Spitfires would have turned the air blue if he had read it. Pierre Clostermann was not one of his favorite people, but I won't get into the middle of all that. Fact is that it looks as if I've crossed into personal abuse because I stuck some comments on the Supermarine Spitfire operational history talk page, and on those of Dapi 86, Kurfurst and Minorhistorian. Minorhistorian seems to be okay with things and has been helpful - I've been given your name as someone who can help out, and I also see you replied to my query about the reason for the symbols I was getting on the Ki-61. Thanks for that it was a big help. What can I do about the messages I've left?
1517:(Spitfire wing and misquotes) I realise that this has already been discussed at length in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain section, but it is clear that this person has no wish to be co-operative and will go to any lengths to push his own POV at the expense of the articles and to pursue some personal vendetta. I have no objection to properly cited material being used to alter information; after all, that is what historians do all the time; I have no objection to discussing the removal of properly cited, reliable information if it can be shown that an alternative POV has merit - case in point; I added source material to
1541:
being disruptive, self-centered and appears to be acting out of malice. I and other editors have attempted to reason with him several times and I have more than once met him half way and let his nonsense go, but all to no avail; he uses unverified and unverifiable material to support his POV and refuses to let others express someting different when it is clearly supported by citations. He has no talk page, so there is no point in trying to reason with him that way. If this continues I'll forget about having anything further to do with
Knowledge - I can't be bothered with the time wasting exercise of chasing idiots.
3019:
earlier versions at all. The development sequence was very sketchy. The list of applications was a mishmash of significant aircraft and obscure aircraft, some of which used
Whirlwinds only in a handful of examples. It seemed to have been built largely by people who happened to notice "oh, this plane used a Whirlwind, I'll add it there too." without any thought as to whether the usage was a notable one or not. But trying to build a complete, balanced list which covered all significant aircraft fairly proved difficult and unsatisfying; many major Whirlwind-powered aircraft don't even have their own articles.
3961:, which clearly lists the article as being from Flight Journal, while the site seems to be privately hosted. The main changes to the text appear to have been from second- to first-person pronouns, such as "you" to "one". I haven't found the original insertion diff yet, so I don't now if the original user changed the pronouns, or if it was done afterwards. The info somewhat appears to be out of proportion to the rest of the article, even if it was rewritten correctly, it probably still needs to be cut back. It would also be better suited to a separate "Design" section, which I hope to add.
2578:. The template says: "While information has been provided on the source and copyright status of this image..." and then you add as your reason for adding the template: "...there is no information on the source(s) or status of the incorporated work(s)". Those two kind of contradict themselves. You may want to either change your wording, or use another template. FYI, I disagree with your reason for adding that template. The source appears to be: "This was scanned from the back of an action figure package." And the current status is:
2797:
instances because it has a broader meaning than "airplane," I thus attempted to mitigate this issue in my contributions by using "plane" instead as that word is not afflicted by the objected to spelling conflict. My bottom line is, therefore, I have no problem using "airplane" over "plane" in the vast majority of circumstances, but I see no way to justify the use "aircraft" over either "airplane" or "plane" in any instance when so doing would materially change the meaning of the entry and thus degrade or muddle its accuracy.
2773:, not the discussion of matters of style, etc, made in talk pages. I made one initial posting in an already opened thread to offer my view on the matter there under discussion. All my subsequent postings related to this topic have been made in response to comments or questions posed to me by others so that I could further clarify my positions and/or explain why I either agree or disagree with the divergent views advanced by these editors which were made in response to mine. Isn't that the purpose of the discussion pages? (
3127:
2608:
347:
decided to post high quality images of as many items as I can in
Knowledge articles where they are appropriate and relate to the items. I could, of course, just keep these items locked away to be enjoyed by nobody but myself, but I feel an obligation to share them with as many people as I can, and Knowledge seems to me to be by far the best place to do that. Many of these are historically significant in and of themselves and can help others in research. A perfect example of this is the
3045:, which I was using as a guide. Some of the examples there look extremely technical: "two pushrod-actuated valves per cylinder with sodium-cooled exhaust valve, overhead camshaft-actuated, two intake and two exhaust valves per cylinder, sodium-cooled exhaust valve stems"; "twin-choke updraft carburetor with automatic mixture control"; "dry sump with one pressure pump and two scavenge pumps". If you think such levels of detail are excessive, then you should fix those guidelines.
331:, so that anyone who wishes to know my background and areas of interest in order to evaluate my contributions can easily do so. (Unfortunately I was not able to find any such similar information on your user page so I really have no idea who you are, where you are located (although I am guessing either Canada or the UK), or how to evaluate your statements, advice, opinions, or contributions to Knowledge based on your background or areas of expertness about which I know nothing.)
3410:
past tense, but this was before I had discovered the source. I did make other changes to the text for readability, so it might not be a direct copyvio at this point. Now that I know the original source, I could try to rewrite and cite the existing text, and add the newer material, but I'm afraid he'll contine to near-copy-vio text if I leave out anyhting that's covered in the original. Could you double-check my work, and also see if his additions qualify as copy-vios? Thanks. -
1884:(I have both the 1987 and 2000 editions) has a detailed sub-section on the F404 in the Hornet section, and IIRC, it may have some useable history/data on the YJ101. Our F404 article is crowded enough (RM12 and F412) that I think a good stub on the YJ101 would be worth having. I did a quick search on the inter-WPs, but did not find a YJ101 article; sometimes the German side has some good articles, but it's not very consistent - surprising sometimes the articles they
3239:, currently located under my user page, specific to the R-790 Whirlwind series. (I'll also need ones for the R-975, R-760, and R-540.) If you have the opportunity, could you take a look and offer feedback or criticism? (Criticism is especially welcome.) Obviously I pruned some of the excessive specs and technical details, while adding more info or links in other areas. Is there anything for which I've pruned too much or not enough? Any other style issues?
4231:
2482:
to have a go at it. If the editor in question had a user page with a brief description of their background then I might listen but I have to agree that recent additions seem to be made up and are not written with correct grammar which is strange as they are supposed to be direct quotes from a flight manual (which we seem to have discovered differed little between the MkII and MkV). Hope it all gets straightened out anyway.
4514:
78:
3437:: a dual language Italian-English source, in fact a real encyclopedia on the matter. How can I help ? Let me know. Moreover, I collected more historical sources on historical Italian airplanes ready to be used and full of copyright free pictures. Here I am. As a start, I found a weird Italian flag among B-24 operators. I checked my sources and I wrote a note in the appropriate discussione page
1219:
4295:{{Non-free fair use in|ARTICLE NAME}} {{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = ARTICLE NAME (no square brackets) | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = To illustrate the subject in question | Replaceability = (something to the tune of none exist anymore) | other_information = }}
1355:. If we could combine the two templates' functions, it would allow us the actual option of adding on other templates in the future, and might be useful in staving off further TFDs. As far as a title, "Infobox Aviation" is the most generic one, as "Infobox Aircraft Begin" might not be that suitable for some of the broader aviation topics. I think it might work! -
461:, what do we ant to do about the images where Centpacrr has changed the licence as no one else has weighed in on the discussion and even though I post info about this to Centpacrr's talk page he has not come in on it either yet. I suggest we revert the images back to the original image and licence and those that are PD can be moved to the commons asap. Agree?
2022:- the Soaring Association of Canada's journal, which identifies 30 of a specially modified SGS 1-26D built for the Indonesian Air Force. This matches the 30 serial numbers for the one-seat S-2A identified by Baugher. To me, it's clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the TS-1A was the SGS 2-22 and the S-2A was the SGS 1-26D. Unfortunately, this is still only
2807:
compromises. If all were to simply agree to accept
Commonwealth spellings in primarily Commonwealth-centric articles and American spelling conventions in US-centric articles instead of trying to enforce a non-existent and unrealistic spelling neutrality I expect that virtually ALL of the side disputes over word usages this has engendered would go away. (
335:
Trying to select an appropriate licensing tag is therefore always a problem for me, and that is why I ask for suggestions and/or advice on this from you and others. (Unfortunately this often leaves me more confused than before as many of the opinions and advices that I get this way end up being equally inconsistent, vague, or contradictory.)
381:
tagging issue so that i can continue to post more of "my" images for others to enjoy without the hassle of having to repeatedly defend each one over and over again to every editor who has a different opinion as to how it should be tagged. These issues can all be resolved much more easily and quicker with a little direct open communication. (
365:
Knowledge which makes it very difficult to find and select a "correct" tag. There often seem to be as many opinions as there are editors as to what the right tag is as well, so no matter what one I pick I can expect to be constantly second guessed by others who each think the image should have some different tag about which none can agree.
1077:
3486:, but in his utter brilliance, Dave cut-and-pasted it back to his preferred name. I added a histmerge tag to one of the pages, but now Dave keeps removing it. He well knows (or at least has been told enough that he should know by know) that cut-and-paste moves aren't the way to move pages, yet he keeps doing it. SIGH SIGH SIGH! -
3116:(I had to pun a ton of nowikis in there to keep it from filling out, so it may be all messed up. But it gets the point. :D) One of the problems with that, of course, is that DB-I11 doesn't require the URL in the initial tag, so it won't spawn that correctly. Do you have any ideas on how better to handle that? :) --
369:
conducive to inclusion. To me detail is what gives history life and meaning, and so do images. As I have stated before, I intend to restore the
Hindenburg images as soon as the several articles are "settled" in their new forms and I can put them in the most appropriate locations in the revised text and formatting.
506:. The bulk of the page, and most of the pics, are from the company's website. If you're around, could you double check to see if I've crossed all my t's? It's your choice if you want to handle this as an editor or an admin, but I figured you might want to know, since this is an Australian-based company. THanks. -
2454::Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Knowledge, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyoneâwithout specialist knowledgeâwho reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Knowledge passage agrees with the primary source
1724:
only mentions the use of 100 Octane fuel without going into specific details as to when or how the RAF utilised it! If he does not do so then
Knowledge certainly is not the place for bringing up such issues. Perhaps it needs to be left to neutral editors to go through these articles and weed out "padding"?
4730:
Thanks for the fast reply. The Flight article is totally convincing and I wonder whether to cite it: I imagine that many readers would be as surprised as I was by the suggested intermediate trainer role, though having seen it, it makes sense. Is it best to cite an original (and therefore convincing
4712:
I've been working at this page and have a query. You say it was hoped that the military might show an interest. With respect, that sounds a bit surprising for a low powered single seater, but of course may well be right. Do you have a reliable supporting reference? If it's the Jane's book, a page
3590:
WikiProject
Aviation is written in very sweeping, easy to read often using non-aviation terms, WikiProject Aircraft History asks the reader to have a more detailed understanding of the technology of aviation (just like WikiProject Science Fiction is written in broad terms, WikiProject Star Trek needs
3409:
is the last addition, which I reverted as uncited, and issued a warning. The primary change they are making to the text is to change it from past to present tense, but it is still recognizable as being from the
Gulfstream site. A few days ago, I went through the article, and changed all the tenses to
2481:
for the article? The
Spitfire should really be one of the 'shining stars' of the aviation project (along with the P-51 of course!!). Even though it as been split off into variant articles the level of detail is still too deep IMHO and is missing the essence of the aircraft's history. I would be happy
1638:
09:22, 17 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (40,968 bytes) (âFighter aircraft: Re-added 100 octane details for RAF. Section on 100 octane was referenced and verifiable. Its removal was not justifiable, and was only replaced by unsourced text.) Nonsense - this is partly what prompted the call for
1151:
Thanks for the kind words. I hate dumping "stubs" of articles into Knowledge as new articles. I figure if I can't present something that is well-written and carefully referenced then it stands a good chance of getting CSDed. Essentially I was trying to make them CSD-proof by making them pretty decent
1116:
I'll encourage someone at the TSC to create entries both for themselves and for the preserve. I put that up because the bit about the preserve that exists in the basic Monteverde article was so poor. The text I put up for the preserve is excerpted from the official photo book of the preserve, which I
1032:
You alerted me to the copyright issue for the Tropical Science Center. If that is the case you should remove the above page I created (Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve) as well since I didn't write the text (the Tropical Science Center did). I've worked with them for years but I'm not a staff member.
426:
I changed these because it is now my understanding that the earlier tags were not the appropriate ones. Also there are no "copyright" watermarks of any kind on any of the images that I have contributed, only sourcing and provenance. If you have any other questions or comments for me, as noted above I
380:
One further thing. I would certainly have much appreciated that since you have decided to discuss how I use Knowledge with other users, that you would have invited me to participate in this discussion instead of my having to find it serendipitously. I am quite keen to resolve this copyright/licensing
4157:
You've covered more bases than I even knew about. If I can think of anything to add or correct, I'll do so, but nothing comes to mind after reading through all the examples. The main challenge, though, is with clearly showing how he handles a single issue; the extensive listings capture this weakly.
3701:
One of wikipedia's policies is if you have a disagreement then is best settled by discusion - take a look at the discussion about photo edits - BillCJ stirred-up trouble, then sat back and did not participate in this discussion - then basicly ignored everything that was talked about and reverted all
3569:
I no longer believe that the Aircraft Survivor series that I created is compatible with WikiProject Aviation. Just like other Knowledge sections (i.e. WikiProject Science Fiction and WikiProject Star Trek) I feel it is time the aircraft survivorâs series became a stand-alone Knowledge Category: âââ
3519:
I DEMAND that BillCJ be perminently blocked from Knowledge for his child like nonsense in playing a game on one-ups manship - everytime I work on an article he issists on playing these games. If you do not block him for his nonsense then I want my request (to have him perminently) blocked forwarded
3299:
Actually, I had preferred to have "Whirlwind" as part of the article name, but I also feel that a number of existing articles should have the engine's name (if any) as part of the article name (e.g. "Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet" instead of "Pratt & Whitney R-1690", or "Wright R-3350 Duplex
3167:
type designation standard enough to have a mass page move? I recently moved a few Nieuport-Delage aircraft pages from NiD.XX to NiD XX just to keep them all standard within the manufacturer. But if NiD.XX is the proper form, I have no problem moving them and the redlinks to that form. In fact, if we
2506:
I like detailed and historically accurate captions - BillCJ has destroyed 6 + hours of work (vandalized) the information I added that enhances this article (also destroyed information added to several sections of this article) asking you to stop screwing around with my changes and leave the detailed
1158:
When I started writing that series I mucked around with the up-to-date templates but couldn't get them working. Later MilbourneOne helped my get them sorted out, but by that time I had them all finished. I used the old-style templates, because I managed to make them work. I had them on my list to go
364:
with another family member, and have digitally restored thousands of historic images. My intention is to allow my contributions to be viewed and appreciated by as many people as possible. The major roadblock to this has proved to be confusing and hard to decipher copyright/licensing tag procedure on
4576:
deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that
3093:
for the first time, and I believe that a minor modification may be in order. Since DB-I11 requires that the uploader be notified, I would like to suggest that you encode the notice into the template so that taggers are aware not only that modification is mandatory, but what template to use to place
3030:
However, I'm not sure that the level of detail in conventional encyclopedias or museum placards is always a good guide. I've often found such sources unsatisfying when looking something up, because important details have been left out. (It also seems a bit inconsistent with the photo on your user
3018:
On the other hand, I was very unimpressed with the Whirlwind article in its original form. It gave specifications for a couple of the final Whirlwind versions, without any explanation of when those versions were built or how they fit into the engine's development. There were no specifications for
3014:
For example, the only reason I included specifics on the types of carburetors and magnetos used in the various Whirlwind models was because their type certificates mentioned this, but that information doesn't really add any value for most people. (For all I know, it may even be misleading--perhaps
3010:
To be honest, I was under a bit of an obsessive-compulsive fit when I was writing that, as I often am when I work on Knowledge. And I was just learning about the Whirlwind engine at the time I started working on that article. I soon realized that the name actually covered several types of engine,
1931:
That is a very good question. I have never come across a military "S" designation mentioned in all my researching of Schweizer designs. One of them may refer to a design study, never completed, called the Schweizer 7-28, which was a mysterious seven-seater glider on which there is almost no info at
1695:
17:40, 1 August 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (65,030 bytes) (âMk IX (type 361): H.F. Mark IX did not enter service until 1944. Minor corrections.) "Minor corrections" entailed removing cited material from "Spitfire Performance" website (it seems he doesn't like the editor). Again, MY research
372:
I do not object to having images that I created and uploaded of items from my collections moved to Knowledge Commons in order to make them more widely available as long as I am informed in advance and the original sourcing and provenance information is retained. Simply specifying "Another Wikimedia
334:
My problem is this: the licensing and tagging options which are offered on the image upload page are both quite limited (i.e., there are a great many circumstances and types of images that none of them seem to apply to), and are also quite confusing to me because they are not at all well explained.
126:
deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that
4455:
It's been a few years since I've edited Knowledge pages mostly in music so I'm a little rusty/hazy on some things. I might have put my foot in it because I got pretty angry with some "discussion" going on in some of the Spitfire pages - it just struck me that some of the people have no idea of who
3697:
Actually, I no longer care - as I stated, I am sick and tire of BillCJ nonsense and his nitpicking for bulls**T reasons - as far as I am concerned, BillCJ is a wikitroll (or wikinazi) who likes to stir-up trouble and watch as editors get extremely mad and make mistakes wich forces these editors to
3026:
I do think there should be a happy medium somewhere. I agree with you that these articles should be geared toward the educated layperson. More specifically, they should be geared toward one who would be interested in the article topic--remember that the only ones who read articles about aircraft
2806:
Airplane and aeroplane are certainly not the only differences in spellings between English as used in the US and Commonwealth countries, but trying to cobble together and enforce a third artificial "neutral" spelling protocol seems self defeating and will just lead to many more of these unworkable
1942:
has no refs for that section on sailplane designations I would have to ask if there is any ref that actually names the "S" designations, or is it just a rumour? It all seems rather odd given that the military always used "G" designations for sailplanes and gliders both prior to and after 1962. qv:
1867:
to the F404 page, and noticed it had been deleted in 2005. It content was in a non-English language. Could you confirm that there was no useful content about the YJ101 in any previous versions? I'd like to start a page on the engine,and if there was actully anything there, it would help. Thanks. -
1723:
Understood; I was wondering if there was a little too much original research - in none of the many books I have read on the Spitfire and/or Bf 109 have I seen the type of information being incorporated into these articles. For example Alfred Price, who is a well respected authority on the Spitfire
1705:
24: Aircraft of the Battle of Britain) and, although he protests about other editors removing his "cited" (but unverifiable) material it does not stop him from removing cited material he happens to disagree with. To be fair he has mellowed a little, but I still believe that he will try to get away
640:
Just to clarify with the reference I normally use (Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft) with turboprops the engine power is shp/kW and when you use the prop fields it might be usefull to show shp instead of hp. Jets are normally listed as lb/kg thrust and the template is looking for kn/lbf. Not a
346:
for them. Over the past forty years I have built up a nice private collection of both transportation related artifacts and unique aerophilatelic and postal history items. However as it is a private collection it is not available to the public. In order to make at least part of it so in some way, I
33:
I don't really agree with this move and broadening the subject. It's not a good idea. The Graf Zeppelin II was an airship that also had many important differences from the Hindenburg and though it might seem like POV I don't think it's fair the Hindenburg gets an article while the Graf II doesn't.
4406:
As far as the I-5, all Soviet aircraft can be very muddled because there was so little standardization before they entered production, there was no strict system of designating new variants to reflect changes, and the information on the internal OKB projects is often conflicting and incomplete. -
4184:
As far as possible I have removed material from Spitfire Performance as references - there may still be some around for which I am trying to find secondary published material. I am hoping that others will be cooperative in this. I dislike the way that these articles have become a battleground - I
3505:
Why is it the BillCJ insists on screwing around with my articles - have been doing the survivors seriers for 18 months now - have been usinig the same format with naming the series all along and all of a sudden BillCJ insists on vandalizing my articles- yet he keeps doing it. SIGH SIGH SIGH! I AM
1654:
I went back to the discussion page and challenged KurfĂŒrst on this; "References to 100 octane fuel" what I got back in reply was an extended tirade - from there things got even messier. In short the article is in limbo and desperately needs work to make it slightly more readable Moving more up to
1634:
08:39, 16 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (34,114 bytes) (Revised section on 100 octane fuel with more reliable and referenced information; noted fact that the German Air Force also used 100 octane fuel in the Battle. Better sectioning. Added armament info.)Again, so called refernces do not
1540:
No supporting evidence has been provided by KurfĂŒrst who has deleted yet more information Then he blithely goes on his merry way, leaving a pretence of discussion; ie: too bad if you disagree with me, I'll continue to edit out whatever I disagree with. This boid is getting away with moider; he is
355:
found to be extremely useful in their research. When I found that they had a question about the fabric (which i became aware of by doing a periodic Google search for "The Cooper Collections" tag), I was able to post the information they sought in their thread on the issue for which they were very
51:
I am going to work on this article. I'm trying to translate (through Babel Fish) some of the dates and details of the airship regarding construction, and the flights and will try to add them into the article as soon as possible, but it might take a while. The German article documents every flight
4314:
I appreciate your concerns and thank you for being so honest and upfront about the matter. My conscience is fairly clear in case of rare 1920s-1930s aircraft. The vast majority of surviving period photos are manufacturer or government PR (hence you see the same photo over and over again in every
3949:
First, the "Surviving aircraft" section, which was added in its present form in August 2006 (pre-Dave) by an IP user. Most of the entries are quite lengthy, and all are unsourced. The histories of the individual are quite interesting, and are the types of entires that would be more suitable in a
3603:
The aircraft survivors series has evolved its own set of rules for article naming convention, layout, style of writing, photo details, etc (some of which are still being established)â these set of rules are no longer compatible with the inflexible, rigid rules already established for WikiProject
879:
in the introduction to describe air mail. As I have told him on his talk page, this word, for the general public, does not mean affixing stamps to mail, though he has found some specialist quotes, the article he linked to does not support the idea he want to get across. Philatelists and franking
368:
I have always been one who opts in favor of inclusion of relevant information rather than exclusion. This, of course, is far more difficult in "paper" publishing because of the expense of physical publishing the work. An internet encyclopedia is a far different animal, however, which is far more
3709:
sandbox page and it is there I will make corrections and these updates and corrections will never see the light of the main wikipedia pages - if you can find someone as stupid as me and willing to take the abuse that I have then this person can do whatever they like with the survivors series as
1120:
No big deal, I'll have someone there take it up. So how will Wiki know if someone at the TSC decides to cut and paste from their own website, that it's ok. I don't get how you screen to see. It has to be ok for the copyright owner to cut and paste, but it seems like your system is automated. I
3732:
Was trying to get my point across - If I title the articles like BillCJ wants, it get pretty stupid and useless (you note I only did two article and not the entire series) I knew that these can easily get reverted and I moved everything correctly so that none of the information could be lost.
2796:
reason this ever seemed to have come up is the kerfuffle over the apparent cultural sensitivities amongst some relating to the American and Commonwealth spellings of airplane/aeroplane. However as the suggested use of "aircraft" as a universal substitute for both is clearly deficient in many
1700:
There has been a pattern of disruptive behaviour, which has compromised at least one article. More often than not when KurfĂŒrst is challenged his reply is a tirade, occasionally sliding into direct abuse. He continually fails to provide verifiable information (one case of which I discussed in
3022:
Matters were made worse by the fact that "Whirlwind" was closer to a brand name than a clearly defined type, rather like the situation with the "Cyclone" or "Wasp". There are four major types with the name: the original smaller 9-cylinder version and the enlarged 9-cylinder, 7-cylinder, and
2744:
Mil replied with some sage advice, that I'm probably pusing water uphill here and my reply was, "the only concern I had was not that a particular user was employing plane talk, but that the argument was drifting towards an acceptance of a colloquialsim and contraction as acceptable wherein a
4378:
My understanding of Shavrov, confirmed by the Green/Swanborough's Fighters book, is that Polikarpov was initially assigned an I-6 designation while I-5 was reserved for the Tupolev project (hence ANT-12). However, Tupolev was making slow progress because of commitment to larger aircraft and
1521:
KurfĂŒrst's alterations to the "late Merlin powered variants article", even though he had simply removed cited material in the first place. As for the rest - I found the nonsense written under (Spitfire wing and misquotes) laughable, and left his information intact even if it is demonstrably
4436:. He refuses to discuss it on talk pages, and makes sarcastic, bordering on racist, remarks in his edit summaries. I'm not really certain what can be done about it, hence I'm wondering if you are able to suggest a course of action for this. Thanks very much for any help you can provide. --
4315:
book), although it's usually impossible to irrefutably prove that's the case and hence tagging as PR photos is not quite legit. I don't do this for mass-produced aircraft with preserved examples but in my mind not illustrating a one-off creation from the Golden Era is a missed opportunity.
1181:
I see you G12'd the articles on HP-18 and HP-14, which might have been justified, but I seem to recall that there was at least a little "non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving" to each. Is there any way to view the deleted material for reference?
4053:
I think there is an RAF Wings template, the Commands one I'm not so sure about. However, I'll start implementing it onto squadron articles as soon as the navbox reform is put in; as it stands I borrowed the format from the RAAF's infobox. I should really tell someone at MILHIST as well.
2228:. It's no work of art, has poor sourcing and lacks "character" in the writing. But it will possibly do as a start. I wouldn't have bothered as this is not a topic I know anything about, but you went to the trouble of saving the earlier text so I felt obliged to at least create something.
4672:
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Knowledge page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
4291:
I see you are on a mad roll adding a lot of old rare aircraft to WP:Air. For the vast majority of these, you can add a single photo from Google Images or elsewhere under the Fair Use clause. The image tagging I've been using (with no complaints so far from the Enforcers) is as follows:
1961:
For info - "Although postwar training sailplanes are not normally given designations (for example, Schweizer SGS.1-26B 57-2628 and SGS.2-22A 57-2269/71), two Schweizer types were tentatively designated in the then vacant S class: two-seat TS-1A-SW (60-6631/6660) and single-seat S-2A-SW
1782:
hey i understand, i wouldnt like it if some jerk took a picture of mines and post it somewhere without my consent but no i canot prove that it has a free licensing, its just so a little frustrating finding a picture for these articles especially when u need permission to post them up.
4033:
Hi Rlandmann, As a 'mentor' of sorts to me (you took me under your wing, no pun intended :p), I was wondering how I could introduce this template somehow into WPAVIATION. I noticed there was no template showing which RAF squadrons had been done and which ones had not, so I created
2110:
history book and released them into the public domain. On one image which has been challenged in the past he claims he is the copyright holder of the squadron history. Looks like a likely candidate for the proposed CSD but looking for a second opinion, should these be pui. Thanks.
1746:
information. Question on websites; is it okay to cite them if the reference is to a photo or illustration? eg, for the P-51 I've included links to photos of gunsights which were used by the different Mustang variants. Also, I've copied your replies to me on to the talk page of
4528:, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see
2013:
Thanks guys - I've also received an email from Andreas Parsch, author of designation-systems.net, who added this information to the list, confirming that he was using Andrade as his source. With what you gentlemen have supplied me with so far, I was also able to Google up
1933:
359:
As i have said before, all of this is being done in good faith. I am a longtime student of history, a professional writer (four books as well as many hundreds of published articles), operate a now decade old 10,000+ webpage railroad history website on the history of the
1682:
04:57, 2 August 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (31,848 bytes) (âUpgrades: Please do not make up things. Support claims with sources.) (undo)For once, he actually did say something - after I challenged the removal of information; Discussion "Removal of properly cited
1452:
Yeah, I found it using Google News search, and was assuming it is an actual news. But you seems to be right, I mean about forum post. Anyway, I totally agree, we better don't use thous specs without clear understanding where specs came from (looks too good to be real).
815:
762:
709:
294:
tool. Either way, you'll need to create an account over at Commons (if you haven't done so already) and if you want to use the tool, you'll need to follow the instructions on the tool page itself and create a TUSC password. Let me know if you run into any problems! :)
2365:
sometimes is to establish what the status of an image is, not a unilateral nuke.. I note it was acted on very quickly.. Subsuqent to the WP:PUI, I made touch with the user above, as I suspect that ukfree.tv sites maintainer and him are one and the same entity.
3945:
for the past few weeks, and am about to jump into doing it. There are many problems, such as no variants section per se, and the lengthy section of the Japanese variants, which have their own article. However, there are two problems I want to run by you first.
3031:
page showing "my vision for WikiProject Aircraft...the information in all these books and many, many more"--has your thinking changed?) I think one needs to ask whether some additional details may provide interesting or enlightening information to the reader.
1576:
is a well respected one which takes a balanced editorial stance. KurfĂŒrst's "replacement sources" may be genuine but they do not meet Knowledge verifiability standards. No explanation given for major changes in discussion page. The next instances affected the
3628:
Thanks for the message Rlandmann, I haven't been writing since the 23rd cos I was on holiday in the USÂ :). However, I'm back! :D The book hints at this, however it doesn't explicitly say that nothing is known. Mind you, Stalin's purges resulted that not
3434:
1663:
08:31, 1 August 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (66,440 bytes) (Undid revision 229156503 by Minorhistorian (talk) Please do not re-write direct quotes from references)Absolutely no indication of "direct quote" from anywhere. Reference "cited" again
249:
I concur that the extra attribution he adds to captions is problematic; and that "The Cooper Collections" does appear to be his own private non-notable collection. I was going to tackle this once we had the basic copyright issues sorted out. Cheers
2528:
R, can you temporarily lock the page before the major edit Dave describes which did significantly change the article, to prevent any further editing until the issue of captions is resolved. I would hate to see any editors going into 3R to make a
4346:
The only potential issue with the lack of inline citations is that it is usually one of the criteria for high article quality ratings. Whether this fashion will stay or perish, I tend to throw in at least one inline citation at the end of each
3879:
A particular user is deleting, tampering and distoring my citations. He is now starting to add dubious tags to material by Donald Caldwell, one of the most reputable historians on the Luftwaffe. Is there anything I can do to put a stop to it?
3212:. A regular user thinks I called him names, but for the life of me I don't know what it was! Since you're a non-American-English speaker, perhaps you can see what I've missed. And yes, I know I could have handled the situation better. Thanks -
2873:? I'd very much welcome constructive critique and arguments for as well as against. I'm trying to write a FAQ, so if you have any questions, please leave them in the section on the user page. For other comments, please use talk. many thanks --
1812:
and its subcategories now and see if everything seemed to come through OK in the rename. If you see anything amiss you can fix it, if you can, and if you can't, just let me know and I can help. From what I can tell everything worked out well.
2933:
template. I was going to contact the original creator, he's still about but it says that he has 'retired' on his talk page. Needs more RB numbers and the North American side could be more complete (I don't know what's missing). All the best.
3300:
Cyclone" rather than "Wright R-3350"), with the shorter form as a redirect. Obviously we disagree there, but that's a separate (and minor) issue, and for all I know has already been discussed to death. Anyway, thanks for all your help! --
2728:
R, what's the best way to set up a consensus vote? I really never have been involved in such before but I do see a marginal issue that needs clarification, but maybe not, I could be addled here. FWiW, I also asked Mil for advice here.
2265:
Fair enough. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll just say that I think you've done a decent job all around. (We're too quick here to only comment when people have screwed up and not when they are just plugging along at thankless tasks).
1503:
Apologies for having to complain but one person has been continually removing properly cited information from these articles: No reason is given or when challenged to justify his "alterations" KurfĂŒrst gives way to personal abuse:
442:
Actually Centpacrr is correct, there is no copyright notice, but a source notice, but that was not the issue, I just wanted to inform you of the discussion as you had been dealing with him directly. I did not want to get involved.
990:. Release has been given through the OTRS ticket system but it has been added by the originator when the image was uploaded. I am used to seeing the tickets added by an OTRS volunteer after the image has been loaded. I presume
3983:
IF everyone is so hot to have the aircraft naming conventions per a certain standard then the changes I made to Boeing 727 and Douglas DC-8 need to be reverted - the B-727 was named Whisperjet and the DC-8 was named Jetliner.
4185:
certainly no longer look forward to editing with the same enthusiasm/enjoyment, and I regret to see that Dapi86 has lost enthusiasm completely. As it is I am cutting way down as life in the real world takes greater priority.
3003:- the section on "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is relevant to our discussion here. The art of writing a good article lies very much in choosing what to leave out as much as what to put in.
4324:
On an unrelated note, would you mind throwing in some in-line citations as you are writing the articles for an instant small-but-significant bump in quality (I on my part pledge to do Talk page project tags as I go). -
624:
Nothing missing as far as I can remember I think the only problem I have had is with the power of turbojets and turboprops are not always kn or lbf. Its late here but I will see if I can remember any examples tomorrow.
2949:
Great, thanks. I didn't notice the colour although I did see 'light blue' mentioned in the coding. I had been going through the RR engines recently and was getting very confused! This should make things easier. Cheers
3433:. Apart from the very specific issue, one of your last posts, asked me info on early history from those companies. I was not able to properly address you request that time, but I started my quest. Now I finally have
2446:
Apologies to all over this one. While I understand the criteria on OR the Spitfire II and other flight manuals are available through various publishers and can surely be used as a reference source, because of this
1589:
14:20, 14 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (118,669 bytes) (âAircraft: Fighters: Extended Rechlin trial information with level speed comparison) at which point I intervened to make some sense of the changes:
3011:
and thus I had bitten off more than I could chew, but I didn't want to leave things in a half-done state. Looking back, even I feel I went overboard. The information there could be pruned and better structured.
1626:
00:38, 16 July 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (27,669 bytes) (âFighter aircraft: Describe fuel tank vulnerabilities/protections and modifications. Describe (quietly dropped!) 100 Octane fuel) This was
1269:
1236:
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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
907:
I do not really see this as a "content dispute" but a disagreement as to whether the term "franking" is synonymous with the terms "free franking" and/or "franking privilege" which I say is just not the case.
188:, an admin both here and on the commons, already weighed in on some of Centpacrr's images and as our expert in this area, you might like to involve him. Both of us are active and knowledgeable members of the
3544:
BillCJ bitches that main page still has survivors infor - no kidding - seems evertime I try and delete this redundent information (see B-17 & others) its get replace and I have given-up on these changes
2633:
I am answering an editor directly when he/she asks a question - there is nothing personnel about the what I have written, I was asked a specific comment and I answered (this is what is called conversation)
4578:
128:
403:
where our friend has withdrawn his PD licence from some of his images. I don't think you can do this after you have already released them into PD. I also think that he has uploaded a different version of
322:
and with the sole purpose of sharing both my knowledge and images of some of the historically significant items in my collections with those who visit Knowledge. I have clearly stated both my purpose and
2207:
I came across this article at Special:newpages as what seemed to be a badly written stub on an otherwise notable topic. The structure and grammar were so bad I didn't even consider it might be a copvio.
1642:
19:30, 18 July 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (48,486 bytes) (â100 octane aviation fuel: Removing unverifiable and contestable statements which are contradicted by other sources (see discussion
1433:
I used Google translate to read that. It is a second page of two page news. I'm not sure how trustworthy is China.com plus specs looks more like wish list ("massive use of nanotech" etc.). But anyway...
945:
Hi - you deleted my page Lindy Electronics because it uses text from their website. Lindy Electronics is happy to waive copyright on this text, can I arrange this formally and have the page re-instated?
2982:
We are, most assuredly, writing for a generalist audience: "the educated layperson", and the level of detail needs to be equivalent to what that educated layperson would expect to find in a traditional
1649:
21:11, 18 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (48,693 bytes) (Undid revision 226503714. Removed unsupported speculation.)All of this with no attempt to confer with others. Again his sources cannot be
2337:
4627:
3023:
5-cylinder versions, as well as the abortive 14-cylinder two-row version. (Somebody else has added the Simoon to the list, but I don't see the relationship.) Perhaps the article should be split?
2834:
aircraft and some aircraft use LĂ©O XXX and some LeO XXX, not 100% sure which is correct but they all should be the same. The French wiki uses LeO and your missing/4 uses LĂ©O. Any thoughts please.
3698:
get blocked and thrown off wiki. As far as I know, this is against wikipedia policy but, guess what, I am just an ignorant editor who does not have any influence to get wrong policy's correct.
4379:
Polikarpov/Grigorovich took over and completed the project (the VT bit is left out of Shavrov, not surprisingly, given how old that book is). Are your sources suggesting something different? -
716:
3063:
Thanks for your reply; it was very helpful. And don't worry--I had already realized that you commented on the article only because Trekphiler had singled it out as a standard to aim for. --
211:
to his images. Who is "The Cooper Collections"; probably his own collection of material. If so it is a non-notable collection and should not be there. Google hits show up wikpedia pages like
154:
about the images he has uploaded and most of which relate to the Hindenburg. You may have seen that I also tried to get him to understand copyright on this wiki but he uses such phrases as;
3860:: it is producing a blank line in the output, so that there are two blank lines if one puts one blank line between the specs template and the next header. Could you look at this? Thanks. -
3429:
Hi Rlandmann, I am back hoping to join again the community for a while with useful contributions. Maybe you remember we left several months ago after an intriguing debate on SAI Ambrosini:
769:
181:
3747:
2870:
1667:
11:27, 1 August 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (66,885 bytes) (Undid revision 229190729 by KurfĂŒrst (talk) Hardly a misquote; direct from the pilot's manual;read discussion pagel)
1601:
after some talk amongst other editors on the discussion page "Additions to 109 vs Spitfire in section on aircraft" because KurfĂŒrst is not getting things all his own way this happened:
246:
Thanks for the input, Ww2censor - I have amended my advice to him in this light. Would I be able to enlist you to transfer the covers to Commons and make sure they are correctly tagged?
1962:(60-6661/6690). These designations were dropped in 1962, when the S class was assigned to ASW aircraft." from John Andrade's U.S.Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909 (
1995:
supplied to Indonesia as mentioned in that article. In USAF service there were called TG-2s, however. I can't think what else they might have been otherwise, especially for export. -
888:
the article, which of course you warned him about previously. I believe this needs a third party to calm the waters and try to sort it out for us, otherwise I think it needs to go to
1605:
21:34, 15 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst(âAircraft: Fighters: Moved lenghty comparison section the Battle of Britain Aircraft article. Only basic description of aircraft and their roles remain)
1568:
14:40, 13 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst(âElliptical wing design: Comments from revisionist site removed; results of testing by Royal Aircraft Esteblishment from September 1940 quoted instead.)
3764:
4035:
1805:
703:
2355:
4360:
As far as I-5, there was never a Tupolev I-5 (see my addition to the Polikarpov I-5 page yesterday). In concession, I've made Tupolev I-5 a redirect to the Polikarpov page. -
1935:
but that is just a guess on my part. Helicopters had clearly replaced gliders for air assault by 1960 so these would have to have been training gliders or something similar.
3172:
I'd have no problem sorting through the list to make sure all manufactures follow suit. If the french designation system is complicated enough, perhaps an article (Mainspace
3034:
For example, one of my biggest concerns is how power is reported, which is obviously critical for an engine. I had been used to the conventional practice of just saying "an
1585:
14:19, 14 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (118,544 bytes) (âAircraft: Fighters: Some minor corrections to CSP prop introduction; added Rechlin trials of RAF aircraft)
4100:
that DG clearly spells the word 'my' with capital letters for emphasis in the first paragraph. Will chime in when I'm not so tired but I totally support what you are doing.
1091:
For amazingly diligent work updating all the Schweizer glider type articles from the out-of date format I left them into the current WikiProject Aircraft template format. -
822:
756:
3342:
was the proper name per some naming convention I haven't found yet. (and no, he didn't added project tags, or change redirects in the B-24 article!) I'd be OK with either
227:. His licences are not CC with attribution, so there is no need for that and it should be reomved which will no doubt annoy him again. Do you agree? Thanks for your time.
1345:
840:
787:
734:
483:
Finally got it, last week, and it looks great. I haven't been able to do anything on here with it yet, though I hope to get working on the T38 article soon. Thanks! -
176:
licence and should use that rather than an ineligible template. All the Hinderburg covers fall into the Third Reich period and both the stamps and postal markings are
1939:
3309:
3294:
3280:
3266:
3072:
2077:
Thanks - I'd spotted this one, but have had no further luck linking it to the TS-1A designation! I've emailed Schweizer to see if they can point me to something. --
751:
264:
One thing at a time! I am not sure I know how to move the images to the commons but I should learn it anyway. Let me know when you would like me to do that. Cheers
2172:, who as well as creating another Bangladeshi village article in the same style of the others, also recreates another of Hatashe's/his sock's bio stubs/redirects,
1265:
1257:
4600:
I noticed you were still working on it and removed the csd tag. I'm sorry for the disruption I caused, but hey your article hasn't been delete. No harm, no fowl.
804:
4634:
page, for example, it has munged the formatting of the TOC and Archive boxes. I was wondering if you could tell me what I've done wrong? Thank you in advance!
3271:
Me again. I think I've fixed all your nits with the article. Feel free to add some new ones. Â :-) Or should I take the plunge and move it to article space? --
3251:
2204:
Thanks for saving that lead paragraph - I'll use it to create a new version of the article. Topic appears notable, even if the previous content was pretty poor.
1715:
1550:
1531:
1498:
1264:
because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the
1594:
23:23, 14 July 2008 Minorhistorian (Talk | contribs) (117,572 bytes) (âOpposing forces: Adding extra information uneccesary "padding"Â ? (see discussion page))
880:
machine makers do use the term but not the general public. Now he is linking the word to an external web page, a most unusual situation indeed, just to get his
478:
3042:
1823:
Many thanks for your hard work - I know there was a lot to cover there! I'll take a look and let you know of any glitches that I can't fix myself :) Cheers --
4674:
4072:
Alright, I reformed the template into navbox, however there seems to be some kind of formatting error. Could you have a look at this? And does it look good?
2152:
Good call on the block, on closer inspection the similarities, and the fact that this is another account that sprang out of nowhere, are a little too clear.
809:
3596:
WikiProject Aviation is written to embrace an aircraft developmental story, WikiProject Aircraft History is meant to detail the individual aircraft history.
3057:
1613:. At first Bill Zuk reverted, then he decided to let it go. After that the "Revised" article Aircraft of the Battle of Britain became an editing nightmare:
3769:
3826:
1908:
Interested that you should PUI the spitfire image, I had a look at it the other week but uploader has over 150 images in a similar state! I brought it up
1646:
21:10, 18 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (49,152 bytes) (Undid revision 226501752: Removed wishful revisionist editing not backed up by any source)
857:
4648:
4423:
1760:
1733:
1688:
1162:
I like the collaborative nature of Knowledge. I can start an article and someone else will hopefully make it better. I don't have to do it all myself. -
4445:
458:
400:
4258:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
3923:
1679:
18:28, 1 August 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (31,866 bytes) (âUpgrades)He made some major changes, removing cited information with no explanation.
1281:
492:
4279:
3226:
2130:
Thank you Rlandmann for help, edit and improved the article of Hatashe. His Name is Simul,I have to contact with him, I knew two years he did job in
2103:
1808:
now. Due to the large number of categories involved and the fact that there were some complex templates involved, you might just want to surf around
114:
85:
71:
4701:
2507:
captions alone (this are detailed, not verbose and historically accurate) asking that right now, this article be locked (with my changes in place).
2491:
1832:
1687:
He did not, however, provide those sources he claims he has. I did my own research and, as it happened, verified many of the changes he made. On to
4167:
4152:
3874:
3775:
3236:
2975:
2858:
2250:
The article topic is stupid, but I don't think it is vandalism. It looks to me potentially like a good faith effort about a distasteful neologism.
2134:
so he must know what information and photo he can use from BN website and BN have no comments if somebody use photo from their website. Thank you.
1128:
1046:
1018:
695:
650:
557:
4216:
3889:
4138:
2086:
2060:
1485:
1251:
140:
3845:
2686:
Use one OR other of the two specification templates. Delete the one you do not use. aero-specs handles gliders and lighter-than-air craft well.
2375:
4124:
4084:
4063:
3585:
WikiProject Aviation is written in a broad narrative form, WikiProject Aircraft History is written in short, intensive sentences (i.e. a list).
3194:
3140:
2959:
2816:
2621:
2467:
1843:
R, how does an editor ask for a checkuser request? I am fairly certain that a currently banned editor is editing again using sockpuppets. FWiW
1465:
932:
917:
470:
452:
436:
417:
304:
273:
259:
3615:
I think what I am asking is how do I establish this new breakaway wiki with the rules and formatting that have become standard for this series
1909:
529:
and I also linked in the Short 830, I think the 830 is just a radial engined 827 but my refs are not clear. Appreciate any help (I have asked
4590:
2237:
2004:
1058:
987:
4022:
2714:
2697:
2332:
2193:
2161:
1565:
14:23, 13 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst(Removed claims based on revisionist website; added comments of Supermarine test pilots on Spitfire development)
1556:
Well, I'll try and make this as short as possible; the first specific instance of KurfĂŒrst removing properly cited information was 13 July,
579:
356:
grateful. This is exactly the reason that I have chosen to share images of the items in my collections as widely as possible via Knowledge.
2965:
2291:
2275:
2035:
973:
955:
3869:
3553:
3529:
2782:
2437:
1140:
4471:
4415:
4368:
4333:
3904:
3506:
GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BILLCJS NONSENSE - HAVE ASKED YOU ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO PUT A STOPS TO HIS CRAP AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING...
3378:
594:
69:
2943:
1572:
The removal of information from a website because he considers it to be a "revisionist site" is hardly convincing. The site in question
1334:
678:
4483:
Well Hi there ,since you are sincerely telling me to be Civil i think so i should be. I promise i won't do all this stuff again. :-) --
4047:
3950:"Survivors aircraft", assuming they can be verified. Alternately, we just trim the entires back to one or two sentences, with sources.
3797:
3787:
1155:
I am a writer and researcher by trade and so projects like the Schweizer glider types give me a chance to really practice doing that.
901:
563:
64:
46:
4740:
4505:
4396:
4199:
3495:
3473:
2560:
2406:
1609:
With absolutely no consultation with other editors KurfĂŒrst takes it upon himself to cut a whole section and move it to another page
1419:
1206:
835:
782:
729:
225:
I created and posted (on Knowledge) the image of the sample of SSoL fabric in my collection ("The Cooper Colections") of Linberghiana
4623:
talk page; I assumed (hopefully) that you are someone who understands layout & formatting in a vastly greater detail than I do.
3354:
could be used to cover both the PB4Y-1 and -2 variants. Either one is fine with me, just as long as the history is fixed. Thanks. -
2521:
1793:
3851:
3713:
I have a lot more to post on the survivors series (like the P-39, F7F etc) but these will never, ever see the light of wikipedia.
1400:
1386:
1372:
1121:
imagine that a new article is written, and a program enters the new text in google and looks for verbatim matches, is this right?
1027:
173:
4281:
4205:
3667:
Looked at the wiki Airframes like you suggested - could hold a lot of promish - opened and account but lots and lots of questions
2120:
1191:
884:
across. I get the distinct impression that anything that he has not written, or approves of himself gets reverted by him as if he
4010:
3169:
3152:
3120:
2688:
I am sure this originally only used aerospecs and it is also now different from aerostart. Just thought you might be interested!
2601:
2145:
1921:
1817:
614:
4498:
4194:
3575:
It is clear of the past 18 months that the aircraft survivor series article structure is incompatible with WikiProject Aviation:
2420:? Things appear to be getting a bit heated with personal attacks being bandied about. It may need some sort of admin attention.
1897:
1508:
286:
No problem - there's two ways to do it. Either download the image from Knowledge to your computer, then re-upload it to Commons
4098:
4013:. B-727 is just a shorthand by some for Boeing Model 727 or Boeing 727. Those names are not mentioned in the articles now. -
3657:
3642:
2843:
2516:
2307:
1880:
Thanks! Gunston's Aeroengine book has very little on the YJ101, so I'll have to troll some online sources and see what I find.
1410:
Thanks for guiding me along the way in my first few days creating and editing; I am a much better Wikipedian for your help. :)
3973:
3419:
2542:
2217:
4609:
4387:
4306:
4274:
3993:
3722:
3438:
3189:
2671:
2411:
2401:
2327:
2015:
1981:
1111:
542:
196:
4403:. For most of the esoteric aircraft, nothing above C-class is probably feasible simply due to lack of information out there.
3363:
1852:
585:
Wow there is a colour now, its light lilac but there is no other colour which is great. Again great work with this article--
4158:
The most coherent example I know of is the captions debate, but if anything, it actually catches him at his best behavior.
3931:
3158:
1966:
1171:
390:
240:
96:
under the same name, or all references to the image on Knowledge have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
4682:
4638:
2909:
3814:
3686:
3455:
3401:, does not appear to have a good grasp of English. Recently, they have been adding material to the history secrion, with
3027:
engines will be those curious about them, so it would be good to provide enough detail to answer their likely questions.
2914:
2614:
2607:
1702:
1493:
940:
845:
792:
739:
515:
3742:
3221:
634:
158:. However, he seems to slowly be absorbing some of the copyright status info. I have to disagree with you on suggesting
4450:
4028:
2882:
2315:
1956:
1620:
21:37, 15 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (15,525 bytes) (Added E-Stelle Rechlin fighter comparison report quote)
1176:
862:
827:
774:
721:
564:
338:
You have noted that I have also tagged many of the images of unique or original items that I have posted as being from
3450:
2665:
3580:
Under WikiProject Aviation, aircraft survivors is a small paragraph, in WikiAircraftHistory it is the entire article.
3464:), thump sizings, multi-lever terse captions, main article still has survivors info, etc. Some people never learn. -
2297:
2259:
1777:
1748:
1623:
21:47, 15 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (15,966 bytes) (Correction of some mistakes, and finishing the merge)
1617:
21:33, 15 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (14,472 bytes) (Moved fighter section from Battle of Britain article)
1610:
1339:
1330:
656:
4722:
2575:
2026:
right now. Still looking for the definitive published statement that will let me template these two designations! --
4269:
3857:
1405:
1261:
1003:
26:
3257:
Thanks for your quick feedback! I've made most of the changes suggested and also added comments and questions. --
2758:
2738:
2643:
1344:
RL, I had considered bringing this up before, but thought it wasn't worth the trouble to mention. With the TFD of
1117:
authored, but that part, the intro to the book which offers a summary about the preserve, was written by the TSC.
4529:
3177:
2897:
2893:
1446:
1352:
1136:
1100:
1054:
831:
778:
725:
189:
4109:
3919:
3406:
1484:. Could you please revert this? I do not know how to do it utilizing the aerospecs template correctly. Regards,
4478:
3922:
Calling the other person a liar and using straw men arguments is not a good basis for constructive discussion.
3760:
3305:
3290:
3276:
3262:
3247:
3068:
3053:
1858:
2920:
2569:
2458:
As far as I know I have done this - if, in the opinion of other editors, I haven't I'll try and correct this.
872:
204:
180:
productions and we cannot copyright an envelope or a written address, so that would be the correct template.
3674:
How compatable is it with wikipedia (ie links and such) what do I have to do to make the article compatable?
1597:
21:22, 15 July 2008 KurfĂŒrst (Talk | contribs) (118,669 bytes) (Undid revision 225697290 by Minorhistorian)
1509:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin_powered_variants)&action=history
3936:
3384:
2501:
1838:
1323:
641:
big deal just confuses me sometimes. Would be nice to have aerospecs listed as the normal template to use!
3633:
is known about anything related to aircraft seized from the Tsarists after the revolution. I'll amend it.
3133:
3126:
2745:
perfectly good word "aircraft" and an acceptable word "airplane" suffices. FWiW, the argument is now into
34:
The German articles of both Airships are very extensive and comprehensive and we should start from there.
4286:
3479:
3461:
2125:
2098:
1944:
1159:
back and update the formats in the near future, but you did all the hard work for me! Much appreciated!
600:
4731:
reference), or a secondary one? Flight talk about a list; I wonder what other aircraft were on it? Best
4630:
thing for my user pages (oh, vanity), but it seems to be breaking formatting that comes after it; on my
1992:
4537:
4433:
4259:
3978:
3958:
3692:
3623:
3321:
2381:
2199:
1903:
1742:
Fair enough, I'll start sifting through material and references I've used and, where possible, provide
1146:
1430:
570:
Great work with this article, there is NO COLOUR, I added a yellow colour since there was no colour!--
212:
4595:
3756:
3398:
3301:
3286:
3272:
3258:
3243:
3184:
3064:
3049:
2417:
2396:
2322:
2314:
to be aviation/aircraft specific? Are you still planning on working on it? Can I incorporate it into
1391:
RL, Nick Dowling has brought up a similar idea at the TFD discussion, so I've commented there too. -
1197:
Never mind, I've submitted the standard "please restore to my workspace" request with another admin.
220:
4532:
for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on
3954:
4678:
4631:
4428:
I noticed your name as an administrator who takes an interest in aviation topics. There is a user (
4190:
2887:
2825:
2463:
1756:
1729:
1711:
1546:
1527:
27:
2184:, apparently by again just copying and pasting the biography from the Bangladeshi Navy's website.
1313:. Thus the second redirect in a disambiguation page is unnecessary. As the page now contains only
156:
significant, unique, because "they were there", key milestones, or unique postal history documents
4541:
4399:. Specifically, the difference between a Start-class and a C-class article is that the former is
3910:
3078:
3007:
Since I was the person responsible for adding all that detail, I was interested by your comment.
2878:
2311:
1809:
1799:
1505:
669:. I will look and see if it is anything obvious but will have to learn the markup first! Thanks.
497:
229:(To keep discussions in one place I reply where I first post, so I am watching you, for a while!)
3790:
linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
1671:
Again, an attempt to discuss met with a tirade of abuse "36: Spitfire wing and misquotes" On to
661:
Appears to be a code error in the infobox to do with logo - on subject pages you get a red link
4547:
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
4179:
4073:
3662:
3199:
2927:
2648:
2388:
Can the template be updated to allow for bi- and tri- planes with wings of differing size. Eg.
2169:
1926:
1864:
1537:
1511:
969:
951:
520:
162:
145:
99:
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
4230:
1476:
Hi! Probably by mistake, you have removed some of the most interesting technical details from
838:. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at
785:. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at
732:. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at
4461:
4246:
4163:
4148:
4134:
4115:
He's not affected me directly but I have been watching all along. We have to have standards.
3727:
3483:
3424:
2854:
2839:
2693:
2582:
2116:
2082:
2056:
2031:
1977:
1917:
1828:
1471:
1286:
1277:
1014:
999:
691:
674:
646:
630:
553:
538:
300:
255:
4143:
Thanks for correcting me on placement. This is actually the first RfC I've participated in.
3927:
352:
318:
of the contributions that I have made to Knowledge (both written and images) have been made
216:
4707:
4533:
4494:
4467:
4253:
3942:
3822:
3520:
to an administrator who will see BILLCJ playing wikipedia editing games with other editors.
3430:
3390:
3181:
3098:
3094:
the notice. I was considering adding something along the lines of what currently exists at
2522:
2393:
2371:
2319:
2141:
1789:
1656:
1557:
1306:
1302:
1124:
1042:
610:
405:
136:
60:
42:
3648:
Oops, it was the one that was in service with the RFC, not Soviets. I'll remove it still.
8:
4699:
4645:
4635:
4568:
4441:
4186:
4120:
4105:
4080:
4059:
4043:
4004:
3843:
3671:
Do you have any problems with my posting the survivors series (as created ) at this site?
3653:
3638:
3339:
3327:
3209:
3149:
3117:
2955:
2939:
2812:
2778:
2487:
2459:
2425:
2350:
2173:
2107:
1969:) - if that helps. Baugher has the serials as allocated for FMS (Foreign Military Sales)
1814:
1752:
1725:
1707:
1542:
1523:
1462:
1443:
1415:
1132:
1050:
928:
913:
897:
853:
800:
747:
666:
466:
448:
432:
413:
386:
269:
236:
17:
2831:
2792:
Just to be clear, my preference in most cases is to use "airplane" over "plane" and the
2310:? Are there further updates to Jane's that need listing? And second, did you intend for
1766:
1706:
with as much as he can, given the opportunity. Sorry, I have gone on for far too long...
4666:
4605:
4586:
4210:
4018:
4000:
2874:
2723:
2597:
2382:
2342:
Please can you explain why you did this to my image? This image was 100% my own work.
2303:
2245:
2233:
2225:
2213:
2181:
1672:
1489:
1481:
1318:
1314:
1298:
1233:
4665:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under the
1771:
i apoligize for any inconvenience on putting on photos without the proper guidelines.
4566:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
3989:
3738:
3718:
3682:
3549:
3525:
3351:
2649:
2639:
2512:
2287:
2271:
2255:
1963:
1784:
1772:
1578:
965:
947:
619:
200:
169:
118:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
93:
4654:
4620:
4614:
4488:
4457:
4411:
4383:
4364:
4329:
4302:
4159:
4144:
4130:
3969:
3900:
3885:
3865:
3491:
3469:
3415:
3374:
3359:
3347:
3335:
3232:
3217:
2992:
2967:
2905:
2850:
2835:
2689:
2392:'s upper span is 39ft, but the lower span is 36 ft 7 in. The same with wing area.-
2389:
2112:
2052:
1973:
1913:
1893:
1873:
1573:
1396:
1382:
1368:
1360:
1273:
1229:
1067:
1010:
995:
687:
670:
642:
626:
590:
575:
549:
534:
511:
488:
3957:
section on flying characteristics that appears to be a direct copy of portions of
291:
4552:
3818:
3810:
3446:
3087:
2628:
2530:
2367:
2189:
2157:
2137:
2131:
2000:
1952:
1167:
1096:
881:
606:
185:
132:
104:
56:
38:
4525:
4524:
requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under
4204:
I appreciate your quick action, but I was removing vandalism, not adding it, so
1076:
89:
88:
requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under
4736:
4718:
4690:
4562:
4521:
4507:
4437:
4116:
4101:
4076:
4055:
4039:
3834:
3783:
3649:
3634:
3394:
3343:
3331:
3205:
2951:
2935:
2864:
2808:
2774:
2766:
2754:
2746:
2734:
2710:
2705:
Is there a way to generate an aviator article though the article creator? FWiW
2661:
2556:
2538:
2483:
2433:
2421:
2343:
2078:
2027:
1848:
1824:
1751:
so people other people know that I'm doing this to follow Knowledge guidelines.
1455:
1436:
1411:
1310:
1242:
1202:
1187:
924:
909:
893:
868:
849:
796:
743:
526:
462:
444:
428:
409:
382:
328:
296:
265:
251:
232:
151:
3402:
3107:
Place this notice on the talk page of the contributor of the image:<br: -->
4601:
4582:
4014:
3786:. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an
3779:
3000:
2593:
2589:
2362:
2229:
2209:
1696:
supported his claims, and I changed the article, citing specific information.
1506:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Supermarine_Spitfire&action=history
1477:
1294:
1287:
991:
983:
889:
885:
290:, specifying "Another Wikimedia project" as the source, or (better) just use
1631:
KurfĂŒrst had quietly deleted properly cited information he didn't agree with
4237:
3985:
3749:
3734:
3714:
3705:
No longer do I care what happens to these articles - I have made copies to
3678:
3545:
3521:
2635:
2508:
2283:
2267:
2251:
2023:
1538:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rolls-Royce_Merlin&action=history
1512:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rolls-Royce_Merlin&action=history
1424:
978:
530:
3397:. The user edits Gulfstream-related articles almost exclusively, but, per
2588:. I do think the current license is incorrect which is why I added it to
1988:
1970:
4484:
4429:
4408:
4380:
4361:
4326:
4299:
4221:
4092:
3965:
3916:
3896:
3881:
3861:
3487:
3465:
3411:
3370:
3355:
3213:
2901:
2478:
1889:
1869:
1392:
1378:
1364:
1356:
1225:
923:
It is a content dispute in my opinion, but it is over now anyway. Thanks
586:
571:
507:
484:
4395:
You are much too kind, thank you. :] I was going off of the criteria at
3803:
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
2282:
Completely accidental. And I have no intention of trying to outdo that.
2049:
3442:
2892:
RL, do copyvios need to be excised from the public history record? See
2185:
2180:, who has recreated another of the master's/puppet account's articles,
2177:
2153:
1996:
1948:
1163:
1092:
343:
177:
3800:
on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
4732:
4714:
3782:, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets
2750:
2730:
2706:
2657:
2552:
2534:
2429:
1844:
1536:
And so he continues once again to delete properly cited information.
1198:
1183:
184:
that uses is properly using the template and I think his should too.
2592:. I suggest removing your template, and let it be decided at PUI.--
348:
4662:
4655:
4513:
2338:
Image copyright problem with Image:ITV West new region boundary.png
1514:
1431:
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/critical3/27/20080714/14966869.html
876:
77:
3778:. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of
4009:
These articles are named according the US civil aircraft line in
1293:
Hi, I am a bit confused about an action. The disambiguation page
92:, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the
2869:
If you'd like to help form the proposals I'm thinking it out at
287:
3895:
I disagree, with good grounds I think. Please see my response.
3043:
WikiProject Aircraft's own guidelines for engine specifications
503:
3109:{{subst:Di-no permission-notice|pg={{PAGENAME}}<nowiki: -->
2656:
R, shenanigans afoot. Step in before editors violate 3R. FWiW
4713:
number? Leave a note on my talk page if you want to discuss.
986:
has added a number of images of russian airlines for example
605:
I left an analysis concerning copyright of it. Please reply.
207:. There is one other issue with his images; adding the words
4644:
Responded at my talk. (I meant to post this earlier, sorry)
4572:
explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for
3563:
3143:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
2749:
so I will withdraw my challenge to go to consensus voting."
2624:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
814:
761:
708:
427:
would much appreciate if you would make them me directly. (
122:
explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for
4241:
1987:
Looking at the dates there from MilbourneOne's mention of
1297:
was written because once there was two Freedom Press, one
1272:
if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
408:
this image with a newly added copyright watermark. Cheers
1218:
199:
description he gave is correct and would be termed as an
1910:
Knowledge:Media_copyright_questions#Lordprice_collection
342:
in order to provide at least some basis of sourcing and
4129:
I've read it and endorsed it. It's sad, but it's true.
3920:
is continuing the personal attacks and the elated tone.
2676:
Noticed that the aircraft article creator now has both
994:
but is there a way of checking the permission. Thanks.
704:
CfD nomination of Category:Royal Netherlands Navy ships
2168:
By the way, another couple recently appeared as well,
150:
I noticed your attempts at meaningful discussion with
3285:
I got bold (or bored?) and moved it already. Â :-) --
1351:
Bascially, "Infobox Aviation" has the same output as
961:
Thanks for your feedback. I'll re-write it next week.
757:
CfD nomination of Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships
3235:
needs splitting and pruning, I've been working on a
1212:
4669:, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
2849:Thanks I will need to sort out some of the others.
1689:
Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants)
533:but they dont seem to be around this week). Thanks
195:Some of his other images may be more difficult but
2999:past that point. You might like to take a read of
2919:Hi RL, I wonder if you could have a quick look at
2428:) 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Toitally agee, FWiW
1268:. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at
361:
4619:Hi there. I picked your name at random from the
4577:if the article does get deleted, you can contact
3964:Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated. -
3915:Unfortunately the 24 hour cooldown did not help.
3591:the reader to understand the world of Star-Trek).
1515:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire
127:if the article does get deleted, you can contact
3748:Another new Whirlwind article for your perusal:
3204:RL, would you mind looking over my edits on the
2991:, or a monograph for aviation enthusiasts). The
1574:http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html
1317:, I want to merge this disambiguation page into
2048:Not sure if it helps but I did find this image
1499:continual removal of properly cited information
4526:section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion
3813:. For assistance on the image use policy, see
3389:RL, I have been having some problems with the
1245:}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
988:Image:Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-134 - CCCP-65976.jpg
131:to request that a copy be emailed to you. -
90:section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion
4563:the page that has been nominated for deletion
1009:Thanks - I have asked one of the volunteers.
875:, where he keeps insisting on using the word
810:CfD nomination of Category:Russian Navy ships
115:the page that has been nominated for deletion
4581:to request that a copy be emailed to you.
3770:Image copyright problem with Image:Go229.jpg
3755:Just finished it and moved it into place. --
3132:Hello, Rlandmann. You have new messages at
2923:for me. It's a fair upgrade/revision of the
2613:Hello, Rlandmann. You have new messages at
826:, which you created, has been nominated for
773:, which you created, has been nominated for
720:, which you created, has been nominated for
479:Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines
351:of the Spirit of St. Louis fabric which the
4424:Are you able to assist with a problem user?
4038:. What do you think? What should I do now?
3334:. It looks like someone tried to put it at
502:RL, I've filed a potential copyvio against
4536:subjects and should provide references to
4401:weak in many areas, usually in referencing
2361:Indeed, I second this... The purpose of a
4432:) who continues to revert an edit to the
4397:Knowledge:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment
4250:was updated with a fact from the article
3227:New detailed article for R-790 Whirlwind.
1074:
3953:Second, there is a lengthy entry in the
3875:Supermarine Spitfire operational history
3856:RL, there seems to be an anomoly in the
3784:Knowledge's requirements for such images
2148:Ahsan.American International University
4011:Knowledge:Naming conventions (aircraft)
3170:Knowledge:Naming conventions (aircraft)
2987:(as opposed to, say, a pilot's manual,
1256:An image that you uploaded or altered,
1252:Possibly unfree Image:Voskhod2patch.png
373:project" as the source, however, would
14:
2308:Knowledge:Aircraft encyclopedia topics
2302:Two things. First, how did you create
2106:has uploaded a lot of images from the
172:as they quite clearly fall within the
3439:Talk:List of B-24 Liberator operators
3110:|url={{{1|{{{url}}}}}}<nowiki: -->
717:Category:Royal Netherlands Navy ships
4626:My question is: I created a sort of
3941:RL, I've been mulling a redo of the
3677:Is the editing the same or different
1991:it is possible that the S-2 was the
1321:. But I am not sure how to proceed.
1232:) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
3815:Knowledge:Media copyright questions
1703:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Aircraft
770:Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships
23:
4512:
3125:
2871:User:Joopercoopers/Tabbed articles
2684:preloaded with the instruction to
2606:
2316:Knowledge:WikiProject Aviation/FAQ
1882:The Great Book of Modern Warplanes
1217:
813:
760:
707:
665:instead of a logo, for example on
565:List of Iranian Air Force aircraft
76:
24:
4754:
4298:Thanks for your contributions! -
4200:Accidentally added vandalism back
3570:WikiProject Aircraft History âââ.
3478:Some people never learn. I moved
3460:SIGH! Non-standard article title(
1749:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain
1611:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain
1429:You might find this interesting.
1085:The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
399:You might want to take a look at
182:Here is an older Hindenburg cover
4229:
3858:Template:Aircraft specifications
3852:Template:Aircraft specifications
3702:the captions on the F-16 page.
3015:substitutions were often used.)
2551:Thanks for your help here. FWiW
1262:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images
1075:
1028:Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve
3809:This is an automated notice by
3178:RLM aircraft designation system
2771:tendencious editing of articles
2574:You may want to view your edit
1353:Template:Infobox Aircraft Begin
4741:22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
4723:21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
4702:17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
4683:17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
4649:04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
4639:02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
4610:20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4591:20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4499:15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4472:12:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4446:09:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4416:20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
4388:01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
4369:20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4334:02:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4307:01:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
4282:18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
4217:04:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
4195:13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4168:02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4153:02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4139:02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4125:01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4110:01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4085:20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
4064:20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
4048:20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
4036:Template:List of RAF squadrons
4023:20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
3994:15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
3974:14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
3932:08:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
3905:20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
3890:18:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
3870:11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
3846:00:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
3827:03:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
3765:22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
3743:16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
3723:16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
3687:16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
3658:20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
3643:20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
3326:RL, I just found out that the
2769:cited above it has to do with
1363:) 04:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC) -
168:as an appropriate tag for the
13:
1:
3554:17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
3530:17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
3496:17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
3474:06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3451:02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3420:22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3379:22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3364:17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3310:22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3295:19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3281:09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3267:07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3252:08:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3222:06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
3195:00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2672:Auto aircraft article creator
2412:Supermarine Spitfire nonsense
1635:meet verifiability standards.
1348:, I think its time has come.
1112:Tropical Science Center (TSC)
873:Airmails of the United States
871:is in an edit war with me on
314:First let me assure you that
219:is questioning the status of
4667:criteria for speedy deletion
3999:Relevant article histories:
3159:French aircraft designations
1863:RL, I created a redirect at
1241:Smile at others by adding {{
7:
3480:Chance-Vought F4U survivors
3462:Chance-Vought F4U survivors
3456:Chance-Vought F4U survivors
3405:being the apparant source.
3403:the Gulfstream history page
3393:article, specifically with
3153:23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
3121:23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3073:15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3058:01:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2960:20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
2944:20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
2915:Rolls-Royce engine template
2910:13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
2896:from Feb 08, and my revert
2883:22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
2859:20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2844:19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2817:20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2783:07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
2759:17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2739:17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2715:17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2698:11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2666:21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
2644:16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
2602:21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2561:20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2543:19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2517:19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2492:00:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
2468:23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2438:19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2407:02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2376:22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2356:22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2238:03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2051:of an Indonesian SGS-2-22.
1945:Template:US_glider_aircraft
941:page deletion re: copyright
823:Category:Russian Navy ships
10:
4759:
4451:Old Knowledge ed returning
4434:List of Airbus A350 orders
4097:Just noticed in this diff:
4029:New template - what to do?
3231:Since we both agreed that
3168:write something up in the
3134:Moonriddengirl's talk page
2830:Just been looking at some
2615:Moonriddengirl's talk page
2333:23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2292:21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2276:20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2260:19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2218:04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2194:21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2162:21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2146:20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2121:17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2087:19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2061:17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2036:22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
2005:17:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1982:17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1957:22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
1922:21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1898:01:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
1853:23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1833:19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1818:12:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1794:00:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1761:11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1734:03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1716:13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1691:and the same old formula:
1551:12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
1532:03:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
1401:19:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1177:Removal of HP-18 and HP-14
863:Is this a content dispute?
686:Oops missed that - Thanks
52:ever made by the Graf II.
4661:A tag has been placed on
4520:A tag has been placed on
3399:Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
2418:Talk:Supermarine Spitfire
2416:Could you have a look at
2298:Article creation and help
1494:13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1466:02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1447:01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1420:16:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1387:20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
1373:07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
1346:Template:Infobox Aviation
1340:Template:Infobox Aviation
1335:04:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1282:02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1207:00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1192:00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
1172:22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1141:21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1101:21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1081:
1059:17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1019:21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
1004:21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
974:11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
956:16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
933:18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
918:18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
902:14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
858:14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
846:Categories for discussion
805:14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
793:Categories for discussion
752:14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
740:Categories for discussion
696:10:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
679:10:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
657:Infobox Aircraft broken !
651:10:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
635:23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
471:15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
453:03:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
437:01:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
418:23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
221:Spirit of St Louis fabric
84:A tag has been placed on
3041:I should also point out
2016:the Feb/March 2005 issue
1406:Thanks for all your help
615:02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
595:11:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
580:01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
558:19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
543:14:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
516:17:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
493:06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
391:01:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
362:Central Pacific Railroad
305:21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
274:19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
260:17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
241:14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
141:01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
65:02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
47:00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
28:Hindenburg class airship
4260:Did you know? talk page
2682:aircraft specifications
2312:User:Rlandmann/PhotoFAQ
1810:Category:Sport aircraft
1778:Mexican Military Photos
1767:Mexican Military Photos
1325:Otolemur crassicaudatus
1258:Image:Voskhod2patch.png
1039:user name - Brettcole
174:PD-German Empire stamps
4517:
4479:Kingfisher A350 Orders
4074:Template:RAF Squadrons
3798:non-free use rationale
3338:, but Davegnz thought
3130:
3005:
2611:
2456:
2170:User:Sanzida.Harvard.U
1888:have! Thanks again! -
1865:General Electric YJ101
1859:General Electric YJ101
1266:image description page
1222:
1152:from the first post!
818:
765:
712:
340:The Cooper Collections
209:The Cooper Collections
197:the propaganda leaflet
81:
4516:
4497:comment was added at
4470:comment was added at
4254:Kress Drachenflieger
3774:Thanks for uploading
3484:F4U Corsair survivors
3330:was a cut/paste from
3176:Wikipediaspace) like
3129:
3001:What Knowledge is Not
2980:
2610:
2570:Wording of a template
2452:
2020:Free Flight/Vol Libre
1792:comment was added at
1260:, has been listed at
1221:
817:
764:
711:
406:Image:DLZ129 spar.jpg
223:to which he replied;
190:Philately WikiProject
80:
4005:Douglas DC-8 history
3943:Messerschmitt Me 163
3937:Messerschmitt Me 163
3757:Colin Douglas Howell
3391:Gulfstream Aerospace
3385:Gulfstream Aerospace
3302:Colin Douglas Howell
3287:Colin Douglas Howell
3273:Colin Douglas Howell
3259:Colin Douglas Howell
3244:Colin Douglas Howell
3210:Talk:XFL Airabonitaâ
3083:Hi. :) I got to use
3065:Colin Douglas Howell
3050:Colin Douglas Howell
2523:F-16 Fighting Falcon
2502:F-16 Fighting Falcon
1839:A technical question
1657:Supermarine Spitfire
1558:Supermarine Spitfire
1307:Freedom Press (U.S.)
1303:Freedom Press (U.S.)
848:page. Thank you. â
841:the category's entry
795:page. Thank you. â
788:the category's entry
742:page. Thank you. â
735:the category's entry
4579:one of these admins
4506:Speedy deletion of
4287:Old aircraft photos
3340:Consolidated PB4Y-2
3328:Consolidated PB4Y-2
3180:would be useful. -
2966:Too much detail in
2174:Haider Ali Talukder
2126:Thank you Rlandmann
2099:No. 46 Squadron RAF
1377:OK, that's fine. -
667:Spirit of St. Louis
601:Third Reich leaflet
203:using this licence
129:one of these admins
70:Speedy deletion of
18:User talk:Rlandmann
4518:
4001:Boeing 727 history
3979:Naming Conventions
3693:re:Another warning
3624:Re: Unknown things
3322:Cut and paste move
3141:remove this notice
3131:
2622:remove this notice
2612:
2477:How about another
2383:Template:Aerospecs
2304:User:Rlandmann/JAE
2200:Sarwar Jahan Nizam
2182:Sarwar Jahan Nizam
1912:but had no reply.
1904:Lordprice Spitfire
1804:HI; I've finished
1673:Rolls-Royce Merlin
1482:Talk:MDM_MDM-1_Fox
1319:Freedom Press (UK)
1315:Freedom Press (UK)
1299:Freedom Press (UK)
1223:
1147:Schweizer articles
819:
766:
713:
215:and mirror sites.
82:
4596:Re Levasseur PL.4
4413:
4385:
4366:
4331:
4304:
4266:
4265:
4166:
4151:
4137:
3352:Consolidated PB4Y
3193:
2974:A while back, in
2405:
2331:
2024:Original Research
1796:
1579:Battle of Britain
1247:
1143:
1127:comment added by
1106:
1105:
1061:
1045:comment added by
327:on my user page,
230:
201:de:Amtliches Werk
94:Wikimedia Commons
4750:
4696:
4695:
4646:Prince of Canada
4636:Prince of Canada
4558:
4557:
4551:
4544:their content.
4538:reliable sources
4502:
4475:
4412:
4384:
4365:
4330:
4303:
4277:
4272:
4233:
4226:
4225:
4213:
4162:
4147:
4133:
3840:
3839:
3796:That there is a
3348:PB4Y-2 Privateer
3336:PB4Y-2 Privateer
3233:Wright Whirlwind
3187:
3148:And again. :) --
3144:
3113:</nowiki: -->
3103:
3097:
3092:
3086:
2993:Wright Whirlwind
2968:Wright Whirlwind
2932:
2926:
2888:Copyvio question
2832:Lioré et Olivier
2826:Lioré et Olivier
2625:
2587:
2581:
2399:
2390:Austin Greyhound
2348:
2325:
2176:. There as also
1787:
1458:
1439:
1326:
1239:
1122:
1079:
1072:
1071:
1040:
228:
167:
161:
110:
109:
103:
86:Image:DFS228.jpg
72:Image:DFS228.jpg
4758:
4757:
4753:
4752:
4751:
4749:
4748:
4747:
4710:
4693:
4691:
4659:
4617:
4598:
4555:
4549:
4548:
4511:
4492:
4481:
4465:
4453:
4426:
4296:
4289:
4275:
4270:
4224:
4211:
4208:put it back. ~
4202:
4182:
4095:
4031:
3981:
3939:
3913:
3911:Cooldown failed
3877:
3854:
3837:
3835:
3776:Image:Go229.jpg
3772:
3753:
3730:
3695:
3665:
3626:
3566:
3458:
3427:
3387:
3350:. Alternately,
3324:
3229:
3206:XFL Airabonitaâ
3202:
3200:XFL Airabonitaâ
3161:
3145:
3138:
3108:<nowiki: -->
3101:
3095:
3090:
3084:
3081:
3079:Template DB-I11
2995:article is now
2976:this discussion
2972:
2930:
2924:
2917:
2890:
2867:
2828:
2726:
2674:
2654:
2631:
2626:
2619:
2585:
2579:
2572:
2526:
2504:
2414:
2386:
2344:
2340:
2300:
2248:
2202:
2132:Bangladesh Navy
2128:
2104:User:Dougiebarr
2101:
1929:
1906:
1861:
1841:
1815:Good Olâfactory
1802:
1800:Rename finished
1780:
1769:
1501:
1474:
1456:
1437:
1427:
1408:
1342:
1324:
1309:is merged into
1291:
1254:
1249:
1215:
1179:
1149:
1114:
1070:
1030:
981:
943:
865:
812:
759:
706:
659:
622:
603:
568:
523:
500:
498:Austal copyvios
481:
459:this discussion
401:this discussion
377:be acceptable.
165:
159:
148:
107:
101:
100:
75:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4756:
4746:
4745:
4744:
4743:
4709:
4706:
4705:
4704:
4675:Jordan Timmins
4658:
4653:
4652:
4651:
4616:
4613:
4597:
4594:
4530:Knowledge:Stub
4522:Levasseur PL.4
4510:
4508:Levasseur PL.4
4504:
4480:
4477:
4452:
4449:
4425:
4422:
4421:
4420:
4419:
4418:
4404:
4376:
4375:
4374:
4373:
4372:
4371:
4353:
4352:
4351:
4350:
4349:
4348:
4339:
4338:
4337:
4336:
4319:
4318:
4317:
4316:
4294:
4288:
4285:
4264:
4263:
4234:
4223:
4220:
4201:
4198:
4187:Minorhistorian
4181:
4180:Spitfire pages
4178:
4177:
4176:
4175:
4174:
4173:
4172:
4171:
4170:
4094:
4091:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4067:
4066:
4030:
4027:
4026:
4025:
4007:
3980:
3977:
3938:
3935:
3912:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3876:
3873:
3853:
3850:
3849:
3848:
3807:
3806:
3805:
3804:
3801:
3771:
3768:
3752:
3746:
3729:
3726:
3694:
3691:
3690:
3689:
3675:
3672:
3664:
3663:Wiki Airframes
3661:
3647:
3625:
3622:
3621:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3617:
3616:
3608:
3607:
3606:
3605:
3598:
3597:
3593:
3592:
3587:
3586:
3582:
3581:
3577:
3576:
3572:
3571:
3565:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3537:
3536:
3535:
3534:
3533:
3532:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3509:
3508:
3507:
3457:
3454:
3426:
3423:
3395:User:Mavin 101
3386:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3344:PB4Y Privateer
3332:PB4Y Privateer
3323:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3317:
3316:
3315:
3314:
3313:
3312:
3228:
3225:
3201:
3198:
3160:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3150:Moonriddengirl
3137:
3124:
3118:Moonriddengirl
3112:
3080:
3077:
3076:
3075:
2971:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2916:
2913:
2889:
2886:
2866:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2827:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2787:
2786:
2725:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2673:
2670:
2653:
2647:
2630:
2627:
2618:
2605:
2571:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2525:
2520:
2503:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2460:Minorhistorian
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2413:
2410:
2385:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2339:
2336:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2279:
2278:
2247:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2201:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2165:
2164:
2127:
2124:
2100:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2008:
2007:
1989:Baugher's page
1938:I guess since
1928:
1927:More Schweizer
1925:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1860:
1857:
1840:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1801:
1798:
1779:
1776:
1768:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1753:Minorhistorian
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1726:Minorhistorian
1708:Minorhistorian
1698:
1697:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1669:
1668:
1665:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1624:
1621:
1618:
1607:
1606:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1587:
1586:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1543:Minorhistorian
1524:Minorhistorian
1500:
1497:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1426:
1423:
1407:
1404:
1341:
1338:
1311:David Steinman
1290:
1285:
1270:the discussion
1253:
1250:
1238:
1216:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1178:
1175:
1148:
1145:
1113:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1088:
1087:
1082:
1080:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1036:Thanks, Brett
1029:
1026:
1024:
1022:
1021:
980:
977:
963:
962:
942:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
864:
861:
811:
808:
758:
755:
705:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
658:
655:
654:
653:
621:
618:
602:
599:
598:
597:
567:
562:
561:
560:
527:Short Type 827
522:
521:Short Type 827
519:
499:
496:
480:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
455:
423:
422:
421:
420:
353:"papermodlers"
329:user:Centpacrr
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
279:
278:
277:
276:
247:
147:
146:User:Centpacrr
144:
74:
68:
30:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4755:
4742:
4738:
4734:
4729:
4728:
4727:
4726:
4725:
4724:
4720:
4716:
4703:
4700:
4698:
4697:
4687:
4686:
4685:
4684:
4680:
4676:
4670:
4668:
4664:
4657:
4650:
4647:
4643:
4642:
4641:
4640:
4637:
4633:
4629:
4624:
4622:
4612:
4611:
4607:
4603:
4593:
4592:
4588:
4584:
4580:
4575:
4571:
4570:
4569:the talk page
4565:
4564:
4554:
4545:
4543:
4539:
4535:
4531:
4527:
4523:
4515:
4509:
4503:
4500:
4496:
4490:
4486:
4476:
4473:
4469:
4463:
4459:
4448:
4447:
4443:
4439:
4435:
4431:
4417:
4414:
4410:
4405:
4402:
4398:
4394:
4393:
4392:
4391:
4390:
4389:
4386:
4382:
4370:
4367:
4363:
4359:
4358:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4354:
4345:
4344:
4343:
4342:
4341:
4340:
4335:
4332:
4328:
4323:
4322:
4321:
4320:
4313:
4312:
4311:
4310:
4309:
4308:
4305:
4301:
4293:
4284:
4283:
4280:
4278:
4273:
4261:
4257:
4256:
4255:
4249:
4248:
4247:Did you know?
4243:
4239:
4235:
4232:
4228:
4227:
4219:
4218:
4215:
4214:
4212:JohnnyMrNinja
4207:
4197:
4196:
4192:
4188:
4169:
4165:
4161:
4156:
4155:
4154:
4150:
4146:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4136:
4132:
4128:
4127:
4126:
4122:
4118:
4114:
4113:
4112:
4111:
4107:
4103:
4099:
4086:
4082:
4078:
4075:
4071:
4070:
4069:
4068:
4065:
4061:
4057:
4052:
4051:
4050:
4049:
4045:
4041:
4037:
4024:
4020:
4016:
4012:
4008:
4006:
4002:
3998:
3997:
3996:
3995:
3991:
3987:
3976:
3975:
3971:
3967:
3962:
3960:
3956:
3951:
3947:
3944:
3934:
3933:
3929:
3925:
3921:
3918:
3906:
3902:
3898:
3894:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3887:
3883:
3872:
3871:
3867:
3863:
3859:
3847:
3844:
3842:
3841:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3824:
3820:
3816:
3812:
3802:
3799:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3789:
3785:
3781:
3777:
3767:
3766:
3762:
3758:
3751:
3745:
3744:
3740:
3736:
3728:Article Names
3725:
3724:
3720:
3716:
3711:
3708:
3703:
3699:
3688:
3684:
3680:
3676:
3673:
3670:
3669:
3668:
3660:
3659:
3655:
3651:
3645:
3644:
3640:
3636:
3632:
3614:
3613:
3612:
3611:
3610:
3609:
3602:
3601:
3600:
3599:
3595:
3594:
3589:
3588:
3584:
3583:
3579:
3578:
3574:
3573:
3568:
3567:
3555:
3551:
3547:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3539:
3538:
3531:
3527:
3523:
3518:
3517:
3516:
3515:
3514:
3513:
3504:
3503:
3502:
3501:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3493:
3489:
3485:
3481:
3476:
3475:
3471:
3467:
3463:
3453:
3452:
3448:
3444:
3440:
3436:
3432:
3425:SAI Ambrosini
3422:
3421:
3417:
3413:
3408:
3404:
3400:
3396:
3392:
3380:
3376:
3372:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3353:
3349:
3345:
3341:
3337:
3333:
3329:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3298:
3297:
3296:
3292:
3288:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3264:
3260:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3249:
3245:
3240:
3238:
3234:
3224:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3211:
3207:
3197:
3196:
3191:
3186:
3183:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3166:
3154:
3151:
3147:
3146:
3142:
3135:
3128:
3123:
3122:
3119:
3114:
3105:
3100:
3089:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3055:
3051:
3046:
3044:
3039:
3037:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3004:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2986:
2979:
2977:
2969:
2961:
2957:
2953:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2945:
2941:
2937:
2929:
2928:RRaeroengines
2922:
2912:
2911:
2907:
2903:
2899:
2895:
2885:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2875:Joopercoopers
2872:
2860:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2795:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2748:
2742:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2679:
2669:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2651:
2646:
2645:
2641:
2637:
2623:
2616:
2609:
2604:
2603:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2584:
2577:
2562:
2558:
2554:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2524:
2519:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2480:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2455:
2447:availability.
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2409:
2408:
2403:
2398:
2395:
2391:
2384:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2364:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2354:
2353:
2349:
2347:
2335:
2334:
2329:
2324:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2205:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2166:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2133:
2123:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2109:
2105:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1968:
1967:0 904597 22 9
1965:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1941:
1936:
1934:
1924:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1875:
1871:
1866:
1856:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1816:
1811:
1807:
1797:
1795:
1791:
1786:
1775:
1774:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1704:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1681:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1674:
1666:
1664:unverifiable.
1662:
1661:
1660:
1658:
1648:
1645:
1641:
1639:a discussion.
1637:
1633:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1619:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1612:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1596:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1580:
1575:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1520:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:MDM MDM-1 Fox
1472:MDM MDM-1 Fox
1467:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1432:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1347:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:Freedom Press
1289:
1288:Freedom Press
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1248:
1246:
1244:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1220:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1118:
1109:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1037:
1034:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:User:Russavia
976:
975:
971:
967:
960:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
904:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
878:
874:
870:
860:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
842:
837:
833:
829:
825:
824:
816:
807:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
784:
780:
776:
772:
771:
763:
754:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:
710:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
652:
648:
644:
639:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
617:
616:
612:
608:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
566:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
525:Just created
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
495:
494:
490:
486:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
454:
450:
446:
441:
440:
438:
434:
430:
425:
424:
419:
415:
411:
407:
402:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
392:
388:
384:
378:
376:
370:
366:
363:
357:
354:
350:
345:
341:
336:
332:
330:
326:
321:
320:in good faith
317:
306:
302:
298:
293:
289:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
248:
245:
244:
243:
242:
238:
234:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
164:
163:PD-ineligible
157:
153:
143:
142:
138:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
116:
106:
97:
95:
91:
87:
79:
73:
67:
66:
62:
58:
53:
49:
48:
44:
40:
35:
29:
19:
4711:
4708:Arrow Active
4689:
4671:
4660:
4625:
4618:
4599:
4573:
4567:
4560:
4546:
4519:
4482:
4454:
4427:
4400:
4377:
4297:
4290:
4267:
4252:
4251:
4245:
4238:20 September
4209:
4203:
4183:
4096:
4032:
3982:
3963:
3959:this website
3952:
3948:
3940:
3914:
3878:
3855:
3833:
3808:
3773:
3754:
3750:Wright R-540
3731:
3712:
3706:
3704:
3700:
3696:
3666:
3646:
3630:
3627:
3477:
3459:
3428:
3388:
3325:
3241:
3230:
3203:
3173:
3164:
3162:
3115:
3106:
3082:
3047:
3040:
3035:
3033:
3029:
3025:
3021:
3017:
3013:
3009:
3006:
2996:
2988:
2985:encyclopedia
2984:
2981:
2978:, you said:
2973:
2918:
2900:. Thanks. -
2891:
2868:
2829:
2793:
2770:
2743:
2727:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2675:
2655:
2632:
2583:GFDL-self-en
2573:
2527:
2505:
2457:
2453:
2415:
2387:
2351:
2345:
2341:
2301:
2249:
2226:As suggested
2206:
2203:
2136:
2129:
2102:
2019:
1960:
1937:
1930:
1907:
1885:
1881:
1862:
1842:
1803:
1781:
1770:
1743:
1699:
1686:
1683:information"
1670:
1653:
1628:
1608:
1600:
1588:
1571:
1535:
1518:
1502:
1475:
1461:
1454:
1442:
1435:
1428:
1409:
1390:
1376:
1350:
1343:
1322:
1292:
1255:
1240:
1224:
1180:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1119:
1115:
1107:
1084:
1063:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1023:
982:
966:MurrrayMunch
964:
948:MurrrayMunch
944:
866:
839:
821:
820:
786:
768:
767:
733:
715:
714:
662:
660:
623:
604:
569:
531:User:TraceyR
524:
501:
482:
379:
374:
371:
367:
358:
339:
337:
333:
324:
319:
315:
313:
224:
208:
205:PD-GermanGov
194:
155:
149:
123:
119:
112:
98:
83:
54:
50:
36:
32:
4561:the top of
4493:âPreceding
4466:âPreceding
4458:Circlingsky
4430:user:Rhp 26
4160:Askari Mark
4145:Askari Mark
4131:Askari Mark
3788:explanation
3237:new article
3099:copyviocore
2851:MilborneOne
2836:MilborneOne
2690:MilborneOne
2479:peer review
2113:MilborneOne
2108:46 squadron
2053:MilborneOne
1974:MilborneOne
1914:MilborneOne
1806:this rename
1788:âPreceding
1274:Vinhtantran
1243:subst:Smile
1123:âPreceding
1041:âPreceding
1011:MilborneOne
996:MilborneOne
867:Our friend
688:MilborneOne
671:MilborneOne
643:MilborneOne
627:MilborneOne
550:MilborneOne
535:MilborneOne
457:Further to
113:the top of
4347:paragraph.
3819:FairuseBot
3811:FairuseBot
3369:Thanks! -
2765:As I read
2724:Plane talk
2652:page again
2368:Sfan00 IMG
2346:BRIANTIST
2246:Ass in ass
2178:User:Alp09
2138:Ahsan.AIUB
1480:, compare
1305:. But now
1301:and other
607:SYSS Mouse
344:provenance
325:bono fides
178:Reichspost
133:AWeenieMan
57:Frankyboy5
39:Frankyboy5
4621:WP:LAYOUT
4438:Nick Moss
4206:your edit
4077:LGF1992UK
4056:LGF1992UK
4040:LGF1992UK
3650:LGF1992UK
3635:LGF1992UK
3604:Aviation.
3564:BREAKAWAY
3441:. Bye. --
3435:this book
2894:this diff
2809:Centpacrr
2775:Centpacrr
2678:aerospecs
2422:Nigel Ish
2079:Rlandmann
2028:Rlandmann
1993:SGS 2-22s
1825:Rlandmann
1744:published
1650:verified.
1457:TestPilot
1438:TestPilot
1412:LGF1992UK
1129:Brettcole
1047:Brettcole
925:ww2censor
910:Centpacrr
894:ww2censor
892:. Thanks
869:Centpacrr
850:Bellhalla
797:Bellhalla
744:Bellhalla
620:Aerospecs
463:ww2censor
445:ww2censor
429:Centpacrr
410:ww2censor
383:Centpacrr
297:Rlandmann
266:ww2censor
252:Rlandmann
233:ww2censor
217:One forum
152:Centpacrr
55:Regards,
37:Regards,
4663:Lebed 12
4656:Lebed 12
4615:Question
4602:RockManQ
4583:RockManQ
4015:Fnlayson
3955:Me 163 B
3924:KurfĂŒrst
3780:fair use
3710:posted.
3431:this one
3190:Contribs
3185:MacInnis
3139:You can
2620:You can
2594:Rockfang
2531:WP:POINT
2402:Contribs
2397:MacInnis
2328:Contribs
2323:MacInnis
2230:Euryalus
2210:Euryalus
1940:the list
1486:Vierzehn
1234:WikiLove
1137:contribs
1125:unsigned
1068:Barnstar
1055:contribs
1043:unsigned
836:renaming
828:deletion
783:renaming
775:deletion
730:renaming
722:deletion
548:Thanks.
4694:Radecki
4688:fixed.
4534:notable
4495:undated
4468:undated
3986:Davegnz
3838:Radecki
3832:Fixed.
3735:Davegnz
3715:Davegnz
3679:Davegnz
3546:Davegnz
3522:Davegnz
3163:Is the
3111:}} ~~~~
2767:WP:TEND
2747:WP:TEND
2636:Davegnz
2629:Warning
2533:. FWiW
2509:Davegnz
2284:JoshuaZ
2268:JoshuaZ
2252:JoshuaZ
1790:undated
1785:Homan05
1773:Homan05
1659:again:
1519:confirm
877:franked
844:on the
832:merging
791:on the
779:merging
738:on the
726:merging
231:Cheers
4628:navbox
4574:speedy
4553:hangon
4542:verify
4485:Rhp 26
4409:Emt147
4381:Emt147
4362:Emt147
4327:Emt147
4300:Emt147
4164:(Talk)
4149:(Talk)
4135:(Talk)
4117:Nimbus
4102:Nimbus
4003:&
3966:BillCJ
3917:Dapi89
3897:Dapi89
3882:Dapi89
3862:BillCJ
3488:BillCJ
3466:BillCJ
3412:BillCJ
3371:BillCJ
3356:BillCJ
3214:BillCJ
3182:Trevor
3088:Db-i11
2989:Jane's
2952:Nimbus
2936:Nimbus
2902:BillCJ
2865:Thanks
2590:WP:PUI
2484:Nimbus
2394:Trevor
2363:WP:PUI
2352:(talk)
2320:Trevor
1890:BillCJ
1870:BillCJ
1643:page))
1522:wrong.
1393:BillCJ
1379:BillCJ
1365:BillCJ
1357:BillCJ
1226:EZ1234
992:WP:AGF
890:WP:RfC
587:EZ1234
572:EZ1234
508:BillCJ
504:Austal
485:BillCJ
170:covers
124:speedy
105:hangon
4540:that
3443:EH101
3165:AB.14
2186:Benea
2154:Benea
1997:Ahunt
1949:Ahunt
1932:all.
1886:don't
1655:date
1629:after
1213:Nice!
1164:Ahunt
1093:Ahunt
882:point
834:, or
781:, or
728:, or
663:210px
349:image
213:these
16:<
4737:talk
4733:TSRL
4719:talk
4715:TSRL
4679:talk
4632:talk
4606:talk
4587:talk
4489:talk
4462:talk
4442:talk
4242:2008
4191:talk
4121:talk
4106:talk
4081:talk
4060:talk
4044:talk
4019:talk
3990:talk
3970:talk
3928:talk
3901:talk
3886:talk
3866:talk
3823:talk
3817:. --
3761:talk
3739:talk
3719:talk
3683:talk
3654:talk
3639:talk
3631:much
3550:talk
3526:talk
3492:talk
3470:talk
3447:talk
3416:talk
3407:This
3375:talk
3360:talk
3306:talk
3291:talk
3277:talk
3263:talk
3248:talk
3218:talk
3208:and
3069:talk
3054:talk
2956:talk
2940:talk
2921:this
2906:talk
2898:here
2879:talk
2855:talk
2840:talk
2813:talk
2794:only
2779:talk
2755:talk
2751:Bzuk
2735:talk
2731:Bzuk
2711:talk
2707:Bzuk
2694:talk
2680:and
2662:talk
2658:Bzuk
2640:talk
2598:talk
2576:here
2557:talk
2553:Bzuk
2539:talk
2535:Bzuk
2513:talk
2488:talk
2464:talk
2434:talk
2430:Bzuk
2426:talk
2372:talk
2318:? -
2306:and
2288:talk
2272:talk
2256:talk
2234:talk
2214:talk
2190:talk
2158:talk
2142:talk
2117:talk
2083:talk
2057:talk
2032:talk
2001:talk
1978:talk
1964:ISBN
1953:talk
1918:talk
1894:talk
1874:talk
1849:talk
1845:Bzuk
1829:talk
1757:talk
1730:talk
1712:talk
1547:talk
1528:talk
1490:talk
1425:J-XX
1416:talk
1397:talk
1383:talk
1369:talk
1361:talk
1331:talk
1278:talk
1230:talk
1203:talk
1199:BoKu
1188:talk
1184:BoKu
1168:talk
1133:talk
1097:talk
1051:talk
1015:talk
1000:talk
979:OTRS
970:talk
952:talk
929:talk
914:talk
898:talk
886:owns
854:talk
801:talk
748:talk
692:talk
675:talk
647:talk
631:talk
611:talk
591:talk
576:talk
554:talk
539:talk
512:talk
489:talk
467:talk
449:talk
433:talk
414:talk
387:talk
301:talk
292:this
288:here
270:talk
256:talk
237:talk
186:Stan
137:talk
61:talk
43:talk
4559:to
4491:)
4464:)
4276:dan
4271:Jor
4236:On
4222:DYK
4093:RfC
3482:to
3346:or
2997:way
2650:BoB
2018:of
1972:.
375:not
316:all
111:to
4739:)
4721:)
4692:AK
4681:)
4608:)
4589:)
4556:}}
4550:{{
4444:)
4268:--
4262:.
4244:,
4240:,
4193:)
4123:)
4108:)
4083:)
4062:)
4046:)
4021:)
3992:)
3972:)
3930:)
3903:)
3888:)
3868:)
3836:AK
3825:)
3763:)
3741:)
3721:)
3707:my
3685:)
3656:)
3641:)
3552:)
3528:)
3494:)
3472:)
3449:)
3418:)
3377:)
3362:)
3308:)
3293:)
3279:)
3265:)
3250:)
3242:--
3220:)
3174:or
3104::
3102:}}
3096:{{
3091:}}
3085:{{
3071:)
3056:)
3048:--
2958:)
2942:)
2931:}}
2925:{{
2908:)
2881:)
2857:)
2842:)
2815:)
2781:)
2761:.
2757:)
2741:.
2737:)
2713:)
2696:)
2668:.
2664:)
2642:)
2600:)
2586:}}
2580:{{
2559:)
2545:.
2541:)
2515:)
2490:)
2466:)
2440:.
2436:)
2374:)
2290:)
2274:)
2258:)
2236:)
2216:)
2192:)
2160:)
2144:)
2119:)
2085:)
2059:)
2034:)
2003:)
1980:)
1955:)
1947:-
1920:)
1896:)
1876:)
1855:.
1851:)
1831:)
1759:)
1732:)
1714:)
1675::
1581::
1549:)
1530:)
1492:)
1418:)
1399:)
1385:)
1371:)
1333:)
1280:)
1205:)
1190:)
1170:)
1139:)
1135:âą
1099:)
1057:)
1053:âą
1017:)
1002:)
972:)
954:)
931:)
920:)
916:)
900:)
856:)
830:,
803:)
777:,
750:)
724:,
694:)
677:)
649:)
633:)
613:)
593:)
578:)
556:)
541:)
514:)
491:)
469:)
451:)
439:)
435:)
416:)
393:)
389:)
303:)
295:--
272:)
258:)
250:--
239:)
192:.
166:}}
160:{{
139:)
108:}}
102:{{
63:)
45:)
4735:(
4717:(
4677:(
4604:(
4585:(
4501:.
4487:(
4474:.
4460:(
4440:(
4189:(
4119:(
4104:(
4079:(
4058:(
4042:(
4017:(
3988:(
3968:(
3926:(
3899:(
3884:(
3864:(
3821:(
3759:(
3737:(
3717:(
3681:(
3652:(
3637:(
3548:(
3524:(
3490:(
3468:(
3445:(
3414:(
3373:(
3358:(
3304:(
3289:(
3275:(
3261:(
3246:(
3216:(
3192:)
3188:(
3136:.
3067:(
3052:(
3036:x
2970:?
2954:(
2938:(
2904:(
2877:(
2853:(
2838:(
2819:)
2811:(
2785:)
2777:(
2753:(
2733:(
2717:.
2709:(
2692:(
2660:(
2638:(
2617:.
2596:(
2563:.
2555:(
2537:(
2511:(
2486:(
2462:(
2432:(
2424:(
2404:)
2400:(
2370:(
2330:)
2326:(
2286:(
2270:(
2254:(
2232:(
2212:(
2188:(
2156:(
2140:(
2115:(
2081:(
2055:(
2030:(
1999:(
1976:(
1951:(
1916:(
1892:(
1872:(
1847:(
1827:(
1755:(
1728:(
1710:(
1560::
1545:(
1526:(
1488:(
1414:(
1395:(
1381:(
1367:(
1359:(
1329:(
1276:(
1228:(
1201:(
1186:(
1166:(
1131:(
1095:(
1049:(
1013:(
998:(
968:(
950:(
927:(
912:(
908:(
896:(
852:(
799:(
746:(
690:(
673:(
645:(
629:(
609:(
589:(
574:(
552:(
537:(
510:(
487:(
465:(
447:(
431:(
412:(
385:(
299:(
268:(
254:(
235:(
135:(
120:]
59:(
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
