| Revision as of 01:09, 8 December 2006 editMark83 (talk | contribs)Administrators24,859 edits →Operation Bolo← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:46, 8 December 2006 edit undoAlan.ca (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,374 edits →Citing sources: citeweb mentionNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| -See further discussion on ]. ] 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | -See further discussion on ]. ] 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Hey Bill, thanks for citing the sources in the article ]. I noticed you had made a few syntax errors in the ref tags, so I fixed them up. You can view the changes using the history page. I also included a template that I like to use called ] for web citations. I hope you find this useful. Happy editing! ] 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Hughes Helicopters == | == Hughes Helicopters == | ||
Revision as of 06:46, 8 December 2006
NOTE: Most comments will be deleted by me after one week. Critical comments are welcome, but ones containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.
Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. Thanks.
Lufthansa 747-8 buy
The Lufthansa 747-8 purchase is not a rumor. It's a fact. Look at the table and associated links. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- The table contains a press release dated today from Lufthansa regarding the 747-8 order. It was there prior to your edit and the one you reverted. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Citing sources
Please, when creating articles, try to cite atleast one reliable source. See wp:cite, Harvard referencing may be the most appropriate for Air Craft as the reader may want to know the immediate source summary. I tend to use footnotes a lot, as it allows sources to be included often without impeding the text flow. Keep up the effort on the co-axial helis, it's an interesting subject.Alan.ca 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-See further discussion on user_talk:Alan.ca. Alan.ca 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Bill, thanks for citing the sources in the article Sikorsky_S-69. I noticed you had made a few syntax errors in the ref tags, so I fixed them up. You can view the changes using the history page. I also included a template that I like to use called template:citeweb for web citations. I hope you find this useful. Happy editing! Alan.ca 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hughes Helicopters
There seems to be a problem with this going on. You'd think they'd never heard of Howard Hughes or the Apache. The same thing happened at some other pages I've been watching. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I've left a comment at Talk:Hughes Helicopters. Mark83 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looper took care of the references.
- --Born2flie 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- He was FAST! And I didn't even ask him for help! :) - BillCJ 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Operation Bolo
Hi. I've had a quick look at the merits of the article and left an opinion at the talk page. I'll look into your concerns about reverting later.
Bill, I don't know how to avoid making this seem conceited - so read the following knowing I don't mean to be: You asked me for help/advice twice in the past 24 hours, I am happy to give it. However with other editors might I sugest a bit of back and fro - e.g thanks for your opinion/I disagree with your opinion etc. It will encourage others to debate with you/help you. Best regards, -- Mark83 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion. The above message was a suggestion that maybe a "thanks for the previous help" would be appropriate. But as I suggested I did not wish to appear conceited, i.e. I meant in general. As I said also in the 1st sentence I will look into reversion etc. later. Mark83 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't fishing for a "thank you" -- as suggested "I don't know how to avoid making this seem conceited" -- I was speaking in general. But thanks anyway. Sorry again for the confusion. As promised, I will have a look at the general behaviour tomorrow PM. Best regards -- Mark83 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)