Jump to content

User talk:Bzuk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wycked (talk | contribs) at 02:51, 27 November 2007 (→Secondary?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost
12 December 2024

Image tagging for Image:XF8B-I (Navy).jpg

corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&action=edit Edit this page

Montreal Airports

Hi. Just to let you know that I have left Montreal not disam b/c Montreal is served by 1 international airport (Mirabel does not have any passenger service as it is only served by cargo carriers). We only disam cities that are served by more than one airports with passenger service. I have posted a discuss on WP:Airports if you are interested in responding. Cheers and happy editing! Bucs2004

{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

Have you considered simply formatting your references into the standard inline format, since your the only one that knows what source goes with what information? <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= }}</ref> I see you have been addingthe references, want me to help finish them? I formatted one to show you what it looks like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

I see we have some common interests.

I remember reading of the cancellation of the Arrow in AvLeak when it happened. I was upset then, but had I known about the U-2 photos I wouldn't have been. No use for an interceptor with nothing to intercept.

My primary interest in Earhart is in the "mystery." I have arrived at an "opinion" which satisfies me, but not without much investigation and introspection.

I am a bit concerned when I see stuff like the outright assertion that radio communications were heard for days after she failed to land at Howland.

Although I was born in the first half of the last century, I missed the "golden age" though my library didn't.

I had the good fortune to talk to a number of the old heads and understand why some folks on the Earhart discussion page cannot comprehend the nature of the time and thus have problems with context.

I have been trying to get a feel for the contributors before I spend any time editing.

Most of my work on the Wiki has been on lighter than air and atomic weapons. Mark Lincoln

Gene Tierney

Sorry about that.Time to go to bed it is late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.250.164 (talk) 05:01:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

F-86

I saw cleary where are you going, and not like it. But i would suppose that you are still in good faith. Let's repeat with last edition of F-86 performances:

And so i think you'll agree to read this part of Joe Baugher ency, that reports too the sources he used: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_13.html


Specification of F-86F-40-NA: Engine: One General Electric J47-GE-27, 5910 lb.st. Dimensions: wingspan 39.11 feet, length 37.54 feet, height 14.74 feet, wing area 313.37 square feet. Weights: 11,125 pounds empty, takeoff weight 15,198 pounds (clean), 18,152 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks), 20,611 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks plus 2 1000 pound bombs). Maximum speed 678 mph at sea level, 599 mph at 35,000 feet (at 15,352 pounds combat weight). Initial climb rate 8100 feet per minute. Altitude of 30,000 feet reached in 5.2 minutes (clean). 47,000 feet service ceiling. Combat radius 463 miles. Ferry range 1525 miles.


Now let's see how it matches my numbers:

  • Engine: Joe's: J47-GE-27. Aerei: J47-GE-27
  • Thrust: Joe's:5910 lbs= 2680 kg. Aerei: 2680kgs
  • Dimensions:

Joe's: 39,11ftx37,54ftx14,74ftx313,37ft2.=11,92 m x11.44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

Aerei:11,92 x11,44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

=Matched

  • Weights:

Joe's: 11,135-15,198-18,152-20,611lbs=5,050-6,893-8,233-9,351kg

Aerei datas: 5,046--6,894-8,234-9,349 kg

=Almost 100% matched

  • Performances:

Joe's 678/599 miles at 35,000ft= 1,091/964 kmh at 10,600 m

Aerei: 1091/964 kmh at 10600 m

=Matched

  • Climb; Joe's 9,150 m in 5,2 min Aerei: 9,150 m in 5,2 m
  • Ceiling: Joe 47000ft=14335 m .Aerei= 14325 m

=Matched over 99%


  • Range:

Joe's 465 m and 1525 m ferry= 747 km-2452km

Aerei=745-1795 (internal)-2454km (ferry)

=Matched almost 100%

Weapons: Joe 2x747 l + 2x454kg bombs. 907+1100-1200kg fuel+200/300kg tanks=well over 2 t.

Aerei: max. 2455 kg total, of which 1100 kg weapons (possible that included M2 cartridges, 1,600 crts x 0,1 kg each are 160kg+907=1077)ù

SOLUTION: Take max weight and clean weight and the result will be, 20.611-15,198 lbs=2455 kg! Exactly the same weight indicated in Aerei. 100% matched.


All datas sobstantially matched one each other, with an average of over 99%. Minor differences of 1-10 km are simply ridicolous to tell as 'significatives at all.

Dimensions matchings, weights are almost exactly the same, speed and climb are equals, range and endurance are pratically equals, weapons load matching as well.

What about sources? If i presented them, they will been obviousely unreliables-rubbish-BS. Well, judice yourselves:

Sources: Joe's:

  • F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
  • The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.
  • The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
  • The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966.
  • The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
  • Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.
  • F-86 Sabre--History of the Sabre and FJ Fury, Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1993.
  • Thirty Seconds over Sargodha, John Fricker, Air Enthusiast, Vol 1, No 1, 1971.


Aerei:

  • Aerei 6/79
  • Aeri modellismo 5/92
  • Air Enthusiast 17
  • F-86 in action (Squadron signal)

Moreover, the not exactly silly site: http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/northam/f-86f.htm has datas widely matching mines.


Just to realize how silly these discussions are, seen how i am seen as the Antichrist of wikipedia.--Stefanomencarelli 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commas

Oops, yes should have spotted that it was completely unnecessary, rather than focussing purely on the fact that it was inside when it should have been outside. David Underdown 14:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the Wikipedia standard. Unless the punctuation is part of the quoted text, it's supposed to go outside the quotes (which does seem most logical to me). See WP:MOS#Quotation marks as I mentioned in my original edit summary. David Underdown 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dieppe Raid

I'm not quite sure why you changed all the references. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to the appearance on the page. And if there is no standard, why is there a Wikipedia cite book template? I can't claim any great knowledge here so haven't a clue what MLA or scratch formatting is. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a silly question.....Thanks! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "reference" heading

I can not find the "WP:Air format" item that you referred to in an edit summary on the "B-17" page. I found "Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content", which includes a section on references. This is in regards to "bibliography" being a sub-heading of "references". Snowman 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Dear Bill: Thanks for the wikiwings - I appreciate that - Ahunt 18:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you have uploaded many images directly from the website WWII in Color, however, many of the images which you loaded failed to cite the source or copyright status of the images. I noticed that there was an old Wikipedia copyright template used for licensing images for the WWII in Color website but it is apparent that this template is obsolete and no longer valid.
It is fair to say that at least some of the images were indeed copyrighted from various websites and the copyright which you provided on several of the images were simply made-up license templates.
FAQ for WWII in Color

Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions).
Most of the images in the gallery are products of government works and therefore are required to be in the public domain by copyright law. However, some of the images were photographed by private individuals, media or other government entities (such as the United Kingdom) that do not fall under public domain law.

-TabooTikiGod 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:P-63 Kingcobras.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:B 26.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B 26.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B-25 refuelling.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:P-39N.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:P-39N.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B-25s in New Guinea.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Junkers 88.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps this image appears on the current BBMF website: [1] and is labelled as Crown copyright which implies to me that it was taken by a UK government employee. The date from another reference is September 1942. The Squadron is noted as 303 not 316. Cheers -- Nimbus227 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mosquito Fighter-bomber.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:DH98 Mosquito bomber.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Hawker Typhoon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawker Typhoon.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Beaufighter252sqn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beaufighter252sqn.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Short Shetland.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Short Shetland.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. TabooTikiGod 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Westland Whirlwind prototype.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Westland Whirlwind prototype.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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TabooTikiGod 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate Discussion

For all intent and purposes, please consolidate all discussions in reference to unsourced images from WWII in Color on one talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Help_needed_on_Image_challenges instead of being scattered on various pages. Thank you -TabooTikiGod 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

[2] - be careful when you're editing. Corvus cornix 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hi Bill. I answered to AH-64 Apache peer review request by submitting a proposal for improving the "development" paragraph. As I wrote there, I did not dare to post directly in mainspace and I posted a draft in my sandbox for reviews. Improving that text, I am now wondering if it is better to consider that work suitable for AH64_Apache article, Attack helicopter one, both of them, none of them? Thanks in advance for your opinion and help on the whole matter. --EH101 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli closed

The above-linked arbitration case has been closed. Stefanomencarelli is banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. 219.104.30.216 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith- Washington (film).jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith (film).jpg. The copy called Image:Jean Arthur-Mr. Smith (film).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Barnstar

Thanks for the comment, appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mooner72

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of TougHHead. Be wary. Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe this? (This is not an indictment, just fact-gathering.) Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book Cites

Thanks for your tweaks on my latest edits, I have used the cite book template thing before - is it not the right format to use? MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks - I did not realise there was a difference but bottom line is if it has cite style already in the article stick with it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

Hey Bzuk, how's it going in sunny Canada? I've been keeping an eye on the Beechcraft King Air article, mainly because people keep on putting stuff in it which belongs in the Super King Air article. Anyway, I came across an interesting situation. Someone did an edit a day or two ago, adding info to the section about upgrades. The person did a poor job with the referencing and did some damage, so I reverted it. I did a little mouse clicking; this is the interesting bit - the person thoughtfully registered a user name, which is identical to the name of the manager of the company that the info was about. In other words, it looks like someone is touting for business using Wikipedia. Have you seen this before, and is there any need to do anything else? YSSYguy (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the info is actually accurate, the company holds an FAA STC for the mods. BTW we have a Federal election this weekend, hopefully that will be the last we see of some national embarrassments, fingers crossed. Howard himsef is in danger of losing his seat as the Labor party has inserted a very well known television political/current affairs journalist named Maxine McKew as its candidate, and the demographics of the electorate have changed somewhat. Didn't your Tories cop a caning a few years back?
I'll keep an eye on things to see if the guy figures out what he did wrong and edits again (he made such a mess I had an easy excuse to revert), but as I said, the info is accurate, and it is something I might have discovered and included myself if I had done some more digging. Regards YSSYguy (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malton, Ontario

Malton, Ontario is located in Mississauga, not Toronto. :) And as you can see, it has an article to go with it. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just link to the article next time. It's simpler. :) vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been edit wars regarding Malton? If Malton existed at the time of whatever the event was, it as in Malton. If you link to the article, it exists. You must be dealing with some pretty stubborn people. :P Linking to the article itself should be enough to end most edit wars over whether or not it exists, and if it isn't, then someone has a problem. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 03:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decommissioned highway. 'Nuff said. What a mess that has turned into! At least a megabyte of arguing in less than a month and not even close to done. The edit wars lasted only a couple days and was quite minor, but trying to find something to replace it has been a bitch. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than me, all I have is Decommissioned highway and there was another but it was really short. Terry Fox gets a lot of vandalism but that isn't edit warring, it's just tedious. They won't protect the thing. It went for ten days without vandalism earlier this month, which must be a record for this year. Oh, and there was an odd debate about how to pronounce Winnipeg. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Win a pig, Man a tuba. :) vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Teranna? There really is a Tirana. I thought that was interesting when I first found out. Congrats on the barnstar, btw. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a publisher is hard. It must really suck to find one and then have it die on you. :/ vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well congratulations! :) vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Great work updating aviation-related articles. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minorhistorian; help needed

Hi Bzuk From NZ. I'm finding the process of uploading images a tedious, frustrating process; The photos I'm trying to upload are all UK Government crown copyright and over 50 years old (eg Hawker Typhoon etc.) The instructions for downloading templates and providing information are, to me, downright confusing. Please, I need some help!!! Cheers and TIA Minorhistorian (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help; I've written your templates to an Open Office document. Most of the photos I intend uploading are covered under Crown Copyright or Public Domain.

CheersMinorhistorian (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Ju88-5.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ju88-5.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, 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, 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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell 533

Bill, a question on your comment:

Did you mean you'd like us to cite them more often in the article, cite more references, or both? Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenary Indulgence

I hereby present this Plenary Indulgence to Bzuk
in recognition of all his patience during this November 2007 --EH101 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wonderful Life

I apologize. I only wish to defend myself by saying that I thought I was improving the article. I will attempt to condense it pronto; please feel free to edit it if you feel it isn't up to par.

I hope that the non–plot-related changes were okay. Sincerely, thanks for your input! –TashTish (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pored over my additions, and I couldn't figure out what to delete. (Ironically, I found it easy to condense other parts of the article, but when it comes to plot, I tend to get a bit fanboyish.) I'll leave it to you or anybody else to cut 'n' slash. <heh>
In defense of myself, I don't think I added that much: I put in the part about the bloody lip because it's mentioned earlier in the plot summary then never mentioned again; I put in the part about Zuzu's petals because it's related to the bloody lip; and I felt the emotional impact of the finale was give short shrift, so I addended what I thought was as concise an addition as possible (about eight lines). Oh well, I'm just a pushover I guess. –TashTish (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I did read the article's talk page, and past edits, and boy, you're right: the past plot points were way too long. I'm sorry I rolled back the clock, to a degree. Again, maybe I'm not the best to pare it down; if you (or anyone) feels strongly about it, I won't object to just reverting my additions (really). Thanks again! –TashTish (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Hi Bill. Just a quick question; is the way you write citations (and correct citations) founded in any regulations or just your personal style?

I'm mainly referring to this edit.

If there's some rule involved then I'd like to learn about it so I can amend my own citations, if not then I don't see why its better to keep everything inside like so: [text]. Isn't it better to keep the website name outside the box and the link name itself inside? I'm just thinking here. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Bill, thanks for the very thorough lesson in MLA citations. I appreciate it. I must admit that I haven't used the MLA system for citations much, when I've created articles or brought them up from stubs I've used the system they taught us in university a couple of years ago, can't remember what that was called again. Well, anyway, I'm sure the MLA is a fine system. When encountering a article that already has references I usually use the same system used previously on that article. Often that's MLA, and that's good. The Brits have a different system, and we Norwegians another one. All professional, I assume.
As to the website citations, isn't it a bit over the top the include all those details? Is it really neccessary? I totally understand the need for a detailed system for book citations, and I've always included the required information in my references, but for websites I don't really see the use. Its there, you click it and you're on the page, a simple "name of site, title of page/section, and language of the site (if its not in English) should do, shouldn't it? I understand the ideal, but is it really required for websites? Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, agreed. But why is "[1]" better than "[2]"? They include exactly the same information? Manxruler (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill. I have been looked at this interesting dialog since the very beginning as I am obviously interested in the specific article. Here below I post the article references transformed by using standard templates.
What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article ?
  • Cappone, Max C.A. (2000). "Re 2000". An online World War II aviation history magazine. Retrieved 2007-11-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Henriksson, Lars (2005-06-29). "Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)". avrosys.nu. Retrieved 2007-11-26.
  • Cattaneo, Gianni (1967). The Reggiane Re.2000 (Aircraft in Profile Number 123) (1972 ed.). Windsor Berkshire: Profile Publications Ltd.
  • Mondey, David (1996). The Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft of World War II. New York: Bounty Books. ISBN 1-85152-966-7.
  • Punka, George (2001). Reggiane Fighters in action. Carrolton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications. ISBN 0-89747-430-9.
  • Taylor, John W. R. (1969). Reggiane Re.2000 Falco I (Falcon). New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 0-425-03633-2. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
What is your opinion ? May I substitute them in the article ? In order to improve our knowledge on this topic, which parts of these results you do not agree with ?
Moreover, I have several black and white RE2000 photos in my books. Do you think I could move present Swedish variant color photo in the article body and putting an Italian variant one in the infobox ? --EH101 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed ! Really ! It is a pleasure to meet a real expert on these matters. What do you think if I create a {{MLA cite book}} and a {{MLA cite web}} template in my sandbox, just to experiment. It should not be too difficult. Then I could move them in mainspace and authors will have more possibilities for citations, choosing what they prefer. At the end, after a consensus check, existing and MLA templates could merge, maybe with a field MLA/APA initial switch. May I try ?
Relevant to the picture: the story is not so simple. Re.2000 were indeed Italians, but production figures state: 158 built of which 60 exported to Sweden, 70 to Hungary. This leaves only 28 of them in Italian service. My books say this is due to the cold welcome given to its innovative metal wing fuel filled design Regia Aeronautica felt uncomfortable with. So, amazing to say, Re.2000s could be considered Hungarian planes much more than Italian ones. Anyway, I will upload my picture, filling the textbox, moving the other in the text body. Let’s see the result.--EH101 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix (static).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix (static).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary?

If we're going to call use in a classic series from one of the biggest game developers "secondary," then I think we should add use in movies and inspiration for the design of a car to that list. I think all three would be considered equally popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wycked (talk • contribs) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to sign. I'm new at this. And now, my edit...

If the lack of "P-38" means it doesn't count, then you better do something about the 19XX entry that states the plane in question is the "Lightning," and links directly to the Wiki entry on the P-38. It doesn't say "P-38" in the entry or the game, so it must not be a P-38 then. Right?

I think considering the planes look exactly the same in all the games (except for the detail levels capable on each type of hardware), and are identified in at least one as actually being a P-38, then I can accurately put 2 and 2 together and make a factual edit.

Or you could have just removed the titles of the games in question.

Wycked (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)
  2. ^ Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&oldid=174052613"