| Revision as of 21:37, 5 August 2008 view sourceEl Greco (talk | contribs)Rollbackers26,600 edits →August 2008: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:37, 5 August 2008 view source Bzuk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers71,057 edits →August 2008: archivedNext edit → | ||
| Line 363: | Line 363: | ||
| I just don't get it. Signaleer can't seem to be satisfied with ANY version of the story other than his own. I wrote a balanced and reffed sentence about the XB-17 nomenclature, INCLUDING it in the article, and that STILL isn't enough for him. I don't know what it is he wants... ] (]) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette] (]) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | I just don't get it. Signaleer can't seem to be satisfied with ANY version of the story other than his own. I wrote a balanced and reffed sentence about the XB-17 nomenclature, INCLUDING it in the article, and that STILL isn't enough for him. I don't know what it is he wants... ] (]) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette] (]) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == August 2008 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from {{#if:Howard Hughes|]|Misplaced Pages}}. When removing text, please specify a reason in the ] and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's ]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the ]. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> <sub>]</sub><sup>(])</sup> 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:37, 5 August 2008
| This is Bzuk's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
| This is Bzuk's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
 Archives |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter
The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyright problems with Image:MAC Logo.JPG
An image that you uploaded, Image:MAC Logo.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Moonriddengirl 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Though I did not tag this image, I'm placing this tag here because it seems you were never notified of this matter. The image was tagged on June 17th. Since this report has been around a while, I am moving it over to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Older consolidated. Please leave any comments about this there. Obviously, we wouldn't want to delete it without your having a chance to clarify the copyright concerns. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're very quick! :) I have responded to your note at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Older consolidated with some further steps you might take. As I pointed out there, it wasn't the bot that tagged the article, but another user. The other user seems just not to have followed through in notifying you or listing the problem at WP:CP. The bot took care of the latter. --Moonriddengirl 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ann Pellegreno
Hi Bzuk! I am in the process of writing up a new article on "Ann Pellegreno". As you probably already know, she is the one that did the Amelia Earhart flight on the 30th anniversity - similar to Linda Finch. In the research I am doing on this article I am working out in a sandbox now I came across this picture of Pellegreno. Do you know if I can use this publicity photo in the biography? Can I download to Wiki-Commons and under what conditions? I am reading her book World Flight. The Earhart Trail (1971) now to get additional biography information. You don't know of any other picture of her I could use, do you? Should have the article up and going in about a week. Will let you know so you can "tweak" if you want. What about this picture of her and this picture of her plane? I'll check back here on your talk page for any answers later. Thanks. --Doug 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Ann Pellegreno, out of my sandbox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC).
Nice article, much better than I could have done. You are a specialist in this field. --Doug 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Nominated your new article for a possible DYK. If you can think of a better hook, feel free to submit an alternate one. Tried to use a hook that you already have a footnote on. Would it be correct to use additional references from websites that say basically the same thing, so they can verify the hook? If so, I'll locate some. --Doug 16:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Stewart and Sullavan
Dear Bzuk, I don't doubt that Stewart was enamored of Sullavan, but such wasn't because they worked together in the University Players. They never did. Stewart would have first met Sullavan when she was in Princeton during his junior year and in the cast of Strictly Dishonorable with Princeton's Theatre Intime. Additionally, Stewart would have partied with the University Players in Baltimore in the winter of 1931-32 when his Princeton Triangle Club was there in January 1932 performing their show Spanish Blades, in which Stewart was cast. At that time, Fonda and Sullavan had been married less than two weeks. Half the males of the University Players were Princeton graduates, including Joshua Logan, who had been president of the Triangle Club the year before, and others, such as Norris Houghton, Myron McCormick, and Bretaigne Windust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrenrut (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Eliot describes an infatuation but your edit, (my slight revision in the cite) clearly establish the correct timeframe of the Princeton period. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC).
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
 Issue XXVIII (June 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New A-Class articles: |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
B-2
It is not a bare URL. You can see the webpage. I am not accessing the site from work so I am not on the secure site. That means everyone can see the web page I posted. If I went in from work I would be on the secure server and would be accessing a site that wouldn't be accessable to you. I know this one is. Cbreseman (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Do 17
Thanks for the "tweaks", and goodnight! :) Dapi89 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ashanti.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ashanti.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Ann Pellegreno
|
On 8 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ann Pellegreno, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your accolade. --Doug 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Pusher configuration
A dispute seems to be developing about this between me and another user. Here is the argument as on the other party's talk page. Just between us, am I being very silly? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Was intrigued by your idea that a "pusher" prop "pulls" - although actually on the same grounds a tractor prop "pushes"! The difference is of course really the location of the propeller rather than the nature of the thrust applied to the aircraft. I have tried to keep the sense of what you had to say by leaving your "giving the impression of pushing" - but have cut your sentence that it is "really pulling". The image behind the terminology may well be a bit meaningless (especially in the case of a "push/pull" layout - if that was really what it says the propellers would be thrusting in opposite directions, and would cancel each other out!) - but on the other hand we don't have to get dogmatic about the physics of the situation, I feel. Get back to me if you feel we need to discuss this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(Let's keep this discussion in one place - even move it to the article discussion page? - anyway I have put your reply here)
- I've undone your edit. Aerodynamics is aerodynamics; dogmatics is just POV. Props "pull" and there just isn't any other way. I would, in any rate, suggest you bone up on some basic flight theory. Cheers--Phyllis1753 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Basic laws of physics (and, I suspect, aerodynamics) have nothing to do with "push" or "pull". A force is applied in a particular direction (strictly, "sense") - forward or back. "Push" and "pull" - in ordinary English (as opposed to scientific and technical language) indicate where the force is "coming from" (itself not a very scientific" idea) - we use the word "push" to indicate a force that comes from behind and "pull" to indicate one that comes from the front. You can push a shopping trolley backwards and pull in forwards as well as the other way around, for instance. The difference is where you are standing! This is, as you very rightly point out, not a very scientific use of language - in fact in terms of physics, at least, it is pretty meaningless - but it is the (ordinary language) sense in which the word is applied here. In fact - the propeller is part of the machine itself - it "propells" rather than pushing or pulling!!
- In THIS sense it is quite true that a "pusher" propeller "pulls" an aircraft just as a tractor one does - but in the same way a "tractor" propeller "pushes" it (in a forward direction of course). This is nonsense, but it is where you quibble leads us, I'm afraid.
- I think my edit - that left the first sentence of your edit intact but removed the essentially nonsensical second one, actually kept what was valid in your argument. I remain open to further persuasion, of course! I haven't reverted it (yet) -until we've had a better chance to make sure we are talking about the same thing!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for uploading images/media to Misplaced Pages! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Misplaced Pages:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 18:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
F-16 Citations
Hi Bill, I have a question regarding formating of citations. I'd been using the format shown in WP:CITE/ES, so your changes were a bit novel to me. Is there a preferred citation format? (I know there's not an "official" one, but is there one that tends to better pass on FA/GA reviews?) If so, could you please provide me a link for guidance? I can seem to find anything. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bill. The reason for the variety of styles was because I’d not gone through all of them. I was the one who added the “Anons”; it’s not uncommon, but I mainly did it to signify that there was really was no identified author – as opposed to the more common (on Misplaced Pages) simple neglect to identify one (a problem with several citations I did clean up). I don’t like the “date forward” style either, but was just following WP:CITE/ES. I will probably restore publisher info where appropriate because that’s proper traditional citation, and I do plan to restore parallelism in listing author’s names where there’s multiple authors. Using mixed forms drives me nuts. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Little Miss Sunshine A-class review
I have fixed and/or responded to the issues you raised at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Little Miss Sunshine. Please let me know if I didn't completely address your issues or if any more have arisen. Thanks again for reviewing, and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just wanted to remind you that I have addressed the issues you have raised. If you believe the article meets the criteria, please consider recommending support. If there are still some issues that need to be worked on further, or if you see new ones, please leave your comments on the assessment page. Thanks again for your comments, I appreciate your help. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Biblio & notes
Hi - saw your revision of my edit on Jean Arthur. No beef from me, just wondering what's the logic of the biblio going last?
BTW, How have you been -- how's being a film coordinator going? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- See comment your talk page. Just a rule of bibliographic formatting. I have never seen an example of the bibliography appearing before the citation guide/end/footnotes or appendices. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC).
Aircraft of the Battle of Britain
Apologies for this becoming a bit of an editing can of worms. To mind, the section on the fighters has become overdone, from being a straightforward analysis of the aircraft it has become a jungle. I have made my comments, at length, about unverified, contradictory or inadequately referenced statements being used to push a particular barrow. In the meantime I'll withdraw from editing this page because I'm wanting to concentrate on other articles, and my time is better spent on more important things in life.Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Kurfürst needs to be blocked - look what he's doing to the article. Dapi89 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
My granpappy warned me before I woz born not to get caught up in Misplaced Pages editing! "Boy, jus' ya leave that kinda stuff to th' masochists!" he'd say, "Oh ya porr blin' fool! Ya gonna wish ya ain't gone and done that ya cretin!" I shoulda heeded my granpappy's advice...Minorhistorian (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit war
Looks like another admin beat me to it! Sorry, I was out at a roller derby, if you can believe that! Maury (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A-26 etc
Thanks for your comments. My biblio and refs styles are mostly based on examples I find in the individual articles, where I am generally concerned with technical details and overall sense and presentation to the readers, and standardization of refs comes after standardization of other stuff. As to extra refs for the Third Party section, as the author, I feel I should offer my own refs, although apologetically late. PeterWD (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
|
Wikiwings | |
| Bill Z, thanks for your work on WP:Aircraft and Misplaced Pages overall. Thanks for your help on MLA cite formatting and helping to keep talk page "battles" civil. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC) |
Could You Be of A Bit of Help?
I need your services, if possible. I've added a statement to the P-61 page and I need someone to link it to the book "Queen of the Midnight Skies" in the reference section. Much obliged. Ken keisel (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try for a page # tonight. Much obliged. Ken keisel (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Banned user alert
BillZ, we had an uncited text dump
Image without license
Unspecified source for Image:EAA Ford Trimotor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EAA Ford Trimotor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Miles M-100 Student.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Miles M-100 Student.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images 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 image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Bill, tagged an image you uploaded as public domain - it obviously was not taken before 1 June 1957 as the registration G-MIOO was not issued until 1984! - comment welcome, Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
LMS A-class
Hey Bill, I was just wondering if you had any further comments or objections to the Little Miss Sunshine review. If not, your indication of a support should be sufficient to conclude the review and confer the A-class upon the article. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Dolphin (Canadian Air Force).jpg
User talk:138.88.35.77 and CSX Transportation
Hi
The edit summary 138.88.35.77 (talk · contribs) used was of course extremely rude, but he was right, and it wasn't misleading either: The source wasn't quoted correctly, it didn't say "T for Transportation", and that's what he removed.
Also, he was already warned for both of his rude edit summaries.
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree, as a matter of fact I was about to warn him myself when I saw that EronMain already warned him about both edits.
FWIW, I also redid his edit on the Air Force One article (with hopefully a more civil edit summary), since that one too seems OK. --Amalthea (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing date and other links
The guidance in the Manual of Style on what shouldn't be linked has recently been clarified. The relevant bits are at WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked and WP:CONTEXT#Dates.
| “ | The names of geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should generally not be linked where, in the context, they are unlikely to be confused with other locations of the same name, and the linked article would not specifically add to readers' understanding of the topic at hand. | ” |
I'd say in general the same principle applies to universally understood concepts such as World War II, and common professions such as actor, singer, and quite a few other examples that are often unnecessarily linked. No-one is ever going to click on those links, so they're just clutter.
| “ | Dates that contain day, month and year or day and month may be linked using MediaWiki's date autoformatting mechanism. Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text. | ” |
Wikilinking dates provides a small benefit to a small proportion of readers but is at best useless and at worst a distraction for the vast majority, so when I'm making some other change to an article, I'm also de-linking dates. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's a recommendation, not a rule - but the emphasis of the MoS guidance has definitely changed towards linking less - only things that the ordinary reader of the article would want to find out more about - and not linking/autoformatting dates unless there's some special reason to do so. The problem has been that the autoformatting mechanism and the linking mechanism are inextricably entwined, so there are masses of completely valueless blue links on pages just for the benefit of the small number of users who've registered and set a date format preference. And because the rules of the autoformatting mechanism are not particularly intuitive, the mistaken impression has grown up that all years shoud be linked as standard, which is another source of link clutter. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Optional" was your word, not mine. It means "not compulsory". That means that if I, in my judgement, think an article would be improved by unlinking the dates, I'm entitled to do so. If you, in your judgement, disagree with me, you're entitled to re-link them. It's not something I propose to get into an edit war about. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- If I thought that the linking of dates in an article was the result of "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism", then I would be reluctant to unlink them. But all experienced editors know that >99% of the date linking is just there because that used to be the recommendation, and editors just copied the practice from other editors. When I was following the previous recommendation to link dates, occasionally - but rarely - another editor would raise an objection. Now I'm unlinking them, occasionally another editor will object to that change. If any particular editor feels strongly that s/he wants to keep the linking, they can have it, I'm happy to explain my reasons, but ultimately they can have it if it matters so much to them - it's not important enough to battle over. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Doolittle Raid
Saw your edit of my edit and your reasoning. I rewrote that because the impression left by the previous text and the footnote seemed to imply that the Chuchow bases were not the original interim stop for fuel. They were. (The map in Craven and cate seems to imply that Kweilin and Kian were planned as bases, when in fact they were well beyond the range of the B-25 even if they had reached the planned launch point). Without the tailwind, none of the raiders would have made the China coast, period. York didn't even try because the civilian maintenance in Sacramento had replaced his pre-set carburetors against Doolittle's orders. Even so, a number of the raiders dead-reckoned to C'hu-hsien, which the Allies mistakenly call Chuchow. (The topo maps show that Lishui to the SE is actually Chuchow). Doc Watson, Brick Holstrom, Bob Gray, Major Hilger, and Davey Jones all reached and flew past Chuhsien--Watson by more than 100 miles. Joyce, Greening, and Bower bailed out in the vicinity while they had a little gas left. So while Lawson, Hallmark, and Smith all had to ditch because they ran low on gas, and Hoover and Farrow came down at Ningpo, it wasn't so for most of the crews. They were fouled up by the storm front and the lack of radio beacon to guide them in. That is why I used "locate". If you can think of a better way to phrase it to encompass both situations, feel free to try.--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
MOS Elitists
Wow, what a mess? Seems pretty clear who the elitists are there, huh? It's obvious they only want to scrap the date autoformatting, and they couldn't even get a concensus for that. Yet Greg point blank says that is what the consensus is! And with all the name-calling from theire side - elitist, brain-damaged - it's obvious there just don't care what anyone else even thinks. And to, that is true elitism! I think we need to find a place to take this issue over their heads, and get broader community involvement on the issue. - BillCJ (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Citizen Kane
If you're going to work on Citizen Kane, I invite you to check out User:Erik/Citizen Kane and User:Erik/Citizen Kane/Draft. It was something that Alientraveller, J.D., and I attempted to start, but we kind of dropped it. Thought it might come in handy for you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. The journals marked (saved) mean I have electronic copies of them in case you're not able to find them yourself. Just email me if you want to see about using them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Removal of properly sourced information
Once again we have one editor sneakily removing or altering properly sourced information in order to trundle his own barrow. Another example can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rolls-Royce_Merlin&action=history Same thing with the Spitfire variants article, where information has been altered and a reference removed with nothing cited as a reason for altering things. I ended up doing that. On top of that he resorts to rather laughable personal attack. Is there anything that can be done about this? Sorry to complain, but this kind of behaviour begins to grate.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to interject but I have been watching what's been going on. He is blocked now and you are right BTW. Better to take it to User:Rlandmann who is an admin or just shrug your shoulders and carry on! Nimbus (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right Nimbus, I should have taken this elsewhere. Sorry about the grizzle; ps am I doing better with my citations? Cheers!Minorhistorian (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Please Read WP:EL
Please read WP:EL, Misplaced Pages does NOT link copyvio.
The removal of the URL's in the cites was because the site linked is not necessarily hosting the material with the permission of the copyright holder.
If you can make a justification for fair-use please feel free, especially in the case of Google Books.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- It has been held in the US that, linking to sites that then link to copyright material hosted without the consent of the copyright holder is a form of contributory infringement.
I do not remove links indiscriminately, and in most cases have left details of the ORIGNAL work (as opposed to web linked scans) which would enable someone to find the relevant document.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- More specifically, WP:ELNEVER covers it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
|
Issue XXIX (July 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured portals: New A-Class articles: |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Supermarine Spitfire heading photo
Hi Bzuk. Perhaps a compromise would be in order? I have changed the photo to one which I hope both you and Kaiwhakahaere can work with. I have discussed this on the Spitfire discussion page.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Hola amigo. Thankyou for your kind words. Always nice to be appreciated. Yes sometimes I don't meet eye to eye with others unfortunately which is to be expected on a site this size, but I generally get on very well with most people I come across. Best ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
P.s excellent work with Anna May Wong!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 14:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with this new "guideline" on screenshots. I've seen screenshots removed from articles which not only identify the main characters but describe a key event or moment in that film. In many caes it seems like a point of view of the editor who removed it rather than a general community feeling. I'm not for overuse or unnecessary use of screneshots in articles but personally I think a screenshot which identifies a key moment or cast in a film is far more encyclopedic than a film poster can ever be and in identifying a film we need such images for something which is primarily visual. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser
Now who could that be? Carefully read the preamble, and then make a request here. Please be as specific as possible when making a request - it may be worth perusing the closed cases and their outcomes before posting. If you need any help, please give me a hoy. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Signaleer with a mission
I just don't get it. Signaleer can't seem to be satisfied with ANY version of the story other than his own. I wrote a balanced and reffed sentence about the XB-17 nomenclature, INCLUDING it in the article, and that STILL isn't enough for him. I don't know what it is he wants... Mark Sublette (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)