Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 14 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)

airlist box?

Hey Bill, I dont get what you are saying. What airlist box?--Bangabalunga 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why this Golich guy is deleting them. --Bangabalunga 18:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On a different subject, whats happening with the Boeing 737 page? Drastic changes happening there. I thought it was fine before.--Bangabalunga 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

XWB misnomer

It's Boeing PR, but it states the reason why the anonymous person added the comment to Airbus A350: http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/12/out_to_launch.html —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should find an NPoV press article that says the same thing. Looking at the 777/787/A350 specs, you can tell that Randy is right about which models compete against which (eg. Airbus has no direct 787-3 or 787-8 competitor) but that would be original research. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

787

Good job on deleting that guy for 787-3. As I had said in 787 discussion, I visited the Boeing plant in September and learnt most of that stuff. But this guy realy has credibility problems. For one, the 787-3 does not have a larger verticle stabilizer. Secondly, the fuselage is not thinner. Yes weight saving is a priority, but not by thinning the structure. Maybe here and there but he makes it seem like its more than that. And on and on. So I dont know where he gets his info from. Boeing will provide a much more detailed analisys of the 787-3 by May 2007. They will launch a 20 page PDF file on the 787-3 at that time. In 5 months, we will know a lot more about this variant.--Bangabalunga 02:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

image sizing

I was about to revert Boeing 787 following my reply to Leonard G. on his talk page, but you beat me to it! Thanks for backing me up on it, as it shows I'm not just some crazy guy misinterpreting the Manual of Style! :) Happy editing. ericg ✈ 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)