User talk:TraceyR/Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TraceyR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan-1967 (talk • contribs) 22:38, December 7, 2006

Did you know? (1)

On 25 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Short Knuckleduster, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Just had a look at your templates on the Short article - still not sure that the chronological one would make sense on any article but the Short Brothers one. Not sure if you are aware but we (aircraft project) are replacing all the old sequence entries with templates for each manufacturer. Would be nice if you could convert your alphabetic navbox into a proper template and we can then place it in every Short aircraft article. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates for the ones that have been done so far. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some further adjustments Tracey: the pure designation sequences are important, since this is the navbox element that directly replaces the old "three back, three forward" navigation element of the {{aircontent}} template. I'm afraid mine is a bit of a hack job created out of your first go at the template: I'm sure you can improve it! As for the second part of the template, if you take a look at some of the other templates that MilborneOne linked to above, you can see that major manufacturers without a simple alphanumerical sequence (or those without such a sequence yet) generally organise types by their role. See the Northrop or Grumman templates for examples with sequences still to come, or the Beechcraft or Curtiss templates with sequences already in place. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Felixstowe F.3 etc

Hi, I note that you have recently attributed the Felixstowe F.3 to Shorts Bros. IIRC there were three or four manufacturers, not just Shorts, who were involved in constructing those first flying boats to the designs of Porte at Felixstowe and Curtiss of America,. I understand that the Felixstowe station also did some construction & repair but I don't have any hard information as to how much they did. I have never heard of them referred to as a "Shorts F.3", etc. as per the Shorts template. As you seem interested in the Shorts story could you sort out a proper attribution and put the template right? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another project you might like to undertake is merging the material from the F.5L article into the F.5 article (since the former is just the latter with Liberty engines...) We don't normally do articles on subtypes until and unless there's so much material there that it overwhelms the main type... --Rlandmann (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
• We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Triplane aircraft

Just seen your message about the new cat and I fixed it but I have now seen what you did wrong! The Category needs to have the word Category: at the beginning. The easiest way is just to follow the redlink cat you created in the article then save it with the appropriate parent cats. Would suggest you use the {{db-author}} tag on Triplane aircraft or redirect to Triplane as it is not needed. Hope that is of some help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Blériot template

Ultimately, the template name doesn't matter too much, because it's not actually displayed in the article. For the same reason, best practice is to name them as succinctly as possible, to cut down typing for editors. The best name for this template would therefore have been simply "Blériot aircraft". This also gets us out of awkwardnesses like "Hawker Aircraft aircraft"; since this manufacturer is usually just referred to as "Hawker".

Fortunately, template renaming is easy - it's just a move like a normal article. Again, best practice would be to go through and correct the links in the articles themselves, but the template will still work fine regardless.

When templating manufacturers, Wikipedia's own List of aircraft is invaluable as a starting point. As I go through, I'm also cross-referencing with the RAF Museum Thesaurus and the NASM Directory.

Thanks for your ongoing help - we're getting close to covering most of the better-known manufacturers with alpha-numeric sequences now. OK - back to Armstrong Whitworth! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination (2)

Hi. I've nominated Felixstowe Fury, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on January 18, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On 22 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Felixstowe Fury, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

SHORT Singapore

THANKS for your addition to the Shorts aircraft entry. Your assistance is much appreciated.Raymondwinn (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tatin

I've amended the template along the lines you suggested. I did encounter an opinion that by the time the C.E.1 was built, these designations had already changed from their original "configuration basis" to their later "role basis", but since it wasn't a reliable source, I'm more than happy to bow to you in what I know is an area of expertise! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland

I've added remarks to my talk page Tracey. Can you read them please? Lin (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jucie Plus

trcey, there is a site you may be interested in adding to the Juice Plus article, http://www.juiceplusreviewed.com/juiceplus_casestudy.shtml?gclid=CLmsoYm5zpMCFRUWsgodBgwTjQ can't wait to see what you think of it. Julia 70.130.201.199 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a balanced and objective view from a distinguished, independent medical authority. I'm quite busy with a few other things at the moment but I'll have a look at how and where it should best be added to the article. Perhaps a better approach would be to mention it on the Juice Plus talk page and see if someone else has the time (and patience) to add it. Thanks for drawing my attention to this source. --TraceyR (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to post on the article due to my personal use of the product and fact that I tell others that based on the science and recommendation of doctors like Rosenfeld they should use the product--that makes me persona non grata on the article because of my "conflict of interest" which of course I think is ridiculous, I have a right to state my opinion as does any other editor. It is just that my opinion doesn't agree with one editor who dominates edits on the article ;) thanks! I hope you have time, you seem to be fair and unbiased. Julia70.130.201.199 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can get enough time scheduled next week to look at this. You might care to look at this, which relates to the sort of dispute this areticle has experienced in the past. --TraceyR (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The current discussion page at Juice Plus says NSA is not upfront about ownership of the Rosenfeld page, yet at the bottom of http://www.juiceplusreviewed.com/juiceplus_casestudy.shtml?gclid=CJeM_7mB2ZMCFQhsgwodUV1zZg this is clearly noted:

Copyright © 2008 Isadore Rosenfeld, M.D. All Rights Reserved. Link courtesy of NSA.

Case Closed? This is one more obvious attempt at article ownership by RIR. It is closed if he says so, it is not wiki worthy if it says so. Rosenfeld wrote an article. NSA published it on line, that does not negate what Rosenfeld wrote. so frustrating. Hi RIR. 70.130.201.199 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Julia

Tracey, I understand that you have a history with RIR and on the JuicePlus article. I'm concerned that this history is making it very difficult for you to be objective and civil in discussions on the article. You posted a link without doing much research on it; other editors called you on it when they noted that it not only sounds like advertising, its actually owned by the JuicePlus manufacturer. Lesson learned; beware of links provided by people who have a clear conflict of interest and do a bit more checking before you suggest something is notable and independent.

There's nothing wrong with suggesting content on a talk page and I understand that it must be embarrassing to find out the quality of that link afterwards, but there's no reason to attack other editors who were being very calm and civil about the entire situation. If you don't like being told that you're acting as a proxy for people with clear conflicts of interest, it would be best not to do so. Obviously you were led into this unfortunate situation and reading Julia's comments here, she is certainly intending to inflame the dispute instead of apologizing for having gotten you in to this mess.

And Julia, dare I suggest that you take your concerns to the talk page of the article yourself in the future? While your are unable to edit the article itself, there is nothing that prevents you from civilly joining in the talk page discussion. If you continue this aberrant focus on RIR and trying to sneak promotional content into the JuicePlus article, its likely that you'll be asked not to edit Wikipedia further. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, thanks for the note. Whatever the rights and wrongs about the link, I don't think that Bhimaji and RIR were being at all "calm and civil", especially in their unwarranted comments about the source, Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld. Bhimaji's comment about him, "clearly [he] isn't one of the sorts of people who loves 'every' new piece of quackery he hears about", is both insulting to Dr. Rosenfeld and a clear negative POV about the subject of the article. It was their comments about Dr. Rosenfeld that I commented upon (noting that such comments cheapen those responsible and perform a disservice to Wikipedia); that is still my view. Is this an "attack" or an "objective comment"? Of course I think the latter. No wonder that people like Julia, who like the product enough to recommend it to others, feel frustrated that Bhimaji and RIR (who for good measure is on record as calling Juice Plus "a trivial and insignificant small-fry product") are free to edit the article and they are not. It must be even more frustrating to have one of these same negative POV editors declare that the views of a respected medical authority cannot be used in the article, because his published comments appear on a site registered by Juice Plus. Perhaps WP needs to review its policy in this sort of case. Certainly Dr. Rosenfeld declares his total lack of financial involvement with Juice Plus, or indeed any other supplement, on the website, so I can see no reason not to use his comments in the article.

I also cannot see why RIR feels that he has been harrassed. Several people have advised him against pursuing this through ArbCom, but he must do what he feels is right. For what it's worth, unless he can document the reasons for his comments about me, they remain personal attacks; I'm sure that ArbCom takes a dim view of such behaviour. --TraceyR (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if after everything that's been pointed out to you, you still believe that this link and its material is appropriate for the article, I can see why you're running in to so many difficulties. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote anything - this is why Julia ran into problems with her editing and why this source is blatantly inappropriate. RIR continues to edit because he has tried to modify his behavior - Julia chose to ignore all warnings and continue her promotion at odds to Wikipedia policy.

The fact that you presented this source as neutral, failed to disclose that Julia gave it to you and now continue to advocate its use makes me sincerely wonder about your credibility in regards to this particular topic. While Bhimaji and RIR may have been more blunt about things than you'd like, but they brought up some very valid points that call this expert into question -- while you may not like their opinions, there's no need to chalk it up to a negative POV and start discussing them instead of the article. Your behavior, once the link was called in to question looks more like someone desperate to save an issue once they've been found out rather than someone having a friendly discussion over content -- some of your complaints on the talk page don't even make sense. Even still, Bhimaji and RIR continued to civilly discuss the issue with you and avoided making things personal.

I have been very active in helping resolve issues on the article without pushing for either side and I have to say, with the little research I did, you're assertion that this was an independent expert couldn't have hit farther from the mark. This person has a history of being paid for endorsements and currently lets their name be used on faux research studies and commentary on a website owned by JuicePlus -- there's simply no way to spin that into independent no matter how much you might like that to be true.

I can clear up why RIR feels harassed. You brought up the link, discussion didn't go your way and you proceeded to stop discussing the content and start making things personal. That's not the way to handle disputes on Wikipedia and yet every time a discussion starts at JuicePlus, this is what happens. You presented this as an independent, reliable source - expect that people are going to double-check those kinds of statements. You appear to construe every comment made by RIR as "against JuicePlus" or pushing a "negative POV" and react badly even in cases where he's being perfectly reasonable.

At this point, its becoming a serious drain on resources since someone has to step in and referee every time an issue is brought to the talk page of JuicePlus. If you can't take a step back and deal with collaborating on the article objectively, it might be time to take a pass on it. You have many other areas you seem to contribute to positively - try focusing on those instead. Shell ^babelfish 20:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Shorts template again

Hi again TraceyR - at the suggestion of another user, I've just been doing a bit of clean-up and simplification of the alphabetical "by name" section of this template. Could you please take a look and see if you think that my simplification has crossed into oversimplification, or whether I've made any inadvertent gaffs along the way? Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you have done a good job! The template makes it painfully clear that there are still so many gaps to be filled in the Short story - plenty of projects for next winter! --TraceyR (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Short Type 827

Just started an article on the Short Type 827 would appreciate if you could look at it with your Shorts references and expertise. Is the 830 just a re-engined 827? Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at Barnes and James (1989) confirms your suspicion that they were effectively the same aircraft. The 830 was the 135 hp Salmson-powered version (of which 16 were built, all by Shorts); the 30 827s built by Shorts were powered by 150 hp Sunbeams, while a further 72 were sub-contracted to other manufacturers (Brush, Sunbeam etc.). I haven't been able to confirm the use of the other engine type you mention in the article (was it the same engine made elsewhere under licence?) but it wasn't unusual for other engines to be used when supplies of the original type were limited. Redirecting Short 830 to Short 827 would appear to be fully justified. --TraceyR (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just re-checked the number of 830s built by Shorts as per B&J: this should have been 18 (RNAS ser. nos 819-821, 828-830 and 1335-1346); this leaves 10 unaccounted for.

B&J mention the ordering of 102 x 827s (30 Shorts, 20 Brush, 12 Fairey, 20 Parnall and 20 Sunbeam). B.A.D. mentions 36 made by Shorts. I'll have to check these figures. Since the article mentions that 108 x 827s were built, 6 are as yet unaccounted for. I'll have another look tomorrow! --TraceyR (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! re 827, B&J and B.A.D. agree after all - 36 made by Shorts, making a total of 108 (as stated in the article). Sorry about the confusion. --TraceyR (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - your help is appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnes & James is/are unclear as to the engine used on the 830 (apart from stating that it was a Salmson); two versions, a single-row radial producing 135hp and a double-row radial producing 200hp, both designed by Canton and Unné, are referred to. Do you know which it was? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Tracey, thanks for coming to the page and offering some edits. I apologize that the one relating to "officially known" has been reverted by another editor. I agree with the editor who reverted your edit because as he explained in the edit summary, this issue has been discussed at length on the talk page and it was the consensus of editors who determined that the reference clearly states that the official name is "Catholic Church" per Church officials. The reference is considered to be of the best quality per WP:Reliable source examples so we are sticking with this text. On another note, I noticed you are interested in airplanes and I wanted to show you two pictures I took of a DeHaviland Beaver that is based in Kodiak, Alaska out of Andrews Air. My husband is a private pilot with his own plane so I can get some more pictures of other aircraft if you like. NancyHeise ^talk 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response to my edit (and for the Beaver pics!). I see that the "official name" debate is lively and ongoing, with no sign yet of a consensus being reached. For what it's worth, my position is that since there is no one "official" name used exclusively by the RCC when referring to itself, the first sentence of the article is misleading and needs to be corrected. I realise that there are perhaps emotional and "religio-political" reasons why its members would like it to be referred to as the "Catholic Church", but WP requires rather more than that; using the word "official" requires definition, i.e. "official according to whom". I have looked back through recent WP archives but I have yet to find a definitive answer to that question. No doubt this one will run and run. --TraceyR (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tracey, I have responded to your inquiry on the talk page of RCC regarding beliefs of other Christians. Let me know what you think. I will not submit the article to FAC until you are finished taking a look. I appreciate your time and attention. I have posted a note on the talk page regarding the "official" name. We did gain consensus of editors regarding the name as one editor wanted to tag the page as being POV because of our use of that sentence. However, both Catholic and non-Catholic editors agreed that the references support the article text. The references beside the Official name sentence provide reader with more detail as to instances when the Church has used Roman Catholic instead of Catholic also letting the Reader know it happens mostly in English language but does not apply to the official worldwide Church. We felt we needed to let the refs take care of that detail in keeping with WP:summary style. However, I am not opposed to including quotes in the refs to discuss this detail if it will make everyone happy. NancyHeise ^talk 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just checked and the second ref does include the actual quote letting Reader know of those instances and the first ref provides a link so Reader can see the ref itself. Incidentally, the first reference also says the same thing that the second reference states regarding the use of Roman Catholic. Honestly, I don't think I can change this without some sort of reference to back up its elimination or violating WP:summary style by expanding upon it. NancyHeise ^talk 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:SA4 crop.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:SA4 crop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC) MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Tracey, I've just inserted a copyright-free image of the first Sperrin before seeing your note about the photo you copied. Do you want to re-insert this image, if so where? I'm closing for the night now! RuthAS (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

John Alcock

Hi, TraceyR ! Have checked my reference material re Alcock and now feel that I've misinterpreted where Alcock trained and flew. It looks like Brooklands at first (1912). He certainly flew in the 1914 race from Hendon to Manchester - photo evidence available. Leave it with me for a couple of days, as I'm away tomorrow, and I'll clarify and amend - with more detailed references! RuthAS (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Short S.32

Just created an article on the Short S.32 with your interest in Shorts aircraft I would appreciate if you could look at it for me. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you help appreciated. The Shorts image reference came from an article on the Sperrin in Air-Britain Aeromilitaria Winter 2005 written by Phil Butler. It has five black and white images of the Sperrin all labelled with the shorts numbers and also credited to the Tony Buttler collection. Sorry I dont known any more than that. Just a comment on the Sperrin Image:SA4 crop.jpg image I marked for deletion as not public domain. If have changed the tag to non-free and added a fair use rationale. It could probably do with uploading a lower resolution version to meet the non-free rules. See what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably with a width no more than 500, the image is not on commons it is still on wikipedia so you can just upload to the same name and it will overwrite the older version. Just out of interest I have started Short Valetta. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Short Sealand specs

The Figures quoted from Jackson is for "Prototype and Early Production" - it gives an empty weight of 7,065 lb for "Late production" aircraft, with the dimensions the same as those quoted in the original wiki article for the Sealand III - it could be just the diffence between different individual aircraft, possibly the difference due to some having a wheeled undercarriage and some being pure flying boats.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to change the specs to those in Barnes as long as it is properly referenced. ps - Barnes doesn't happen to have the maximum speed of the Short S.8 Calcutta does it?, as Jackson only gives the cruise speed and I've only managed to find pre-testing estimates in the Flight archives.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RNAS Grain

RNAS Grain also falls within WP:KENT, you might want to post there, but things are pretty quiet on there atm. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For finding a mass of obscure references for Transponder (aviation) Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and the barnstar, too. I find far too many editors just add unsourced opinions to the articles, but you were out there finding references and that makes the encyclopedia more reliable and therefore better - credit where due! - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK (3) for Patrie (airship)

On January 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lebaudy Patrie, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Patrie assessment

Hi, you are quite right. The article is very good and I enjoyed reading it. I saw it was unassessed and assessed it as start class which places the B class checklist template on the talk page ready for the next step which I do think the article is worthy of. It was just a lack of time on my part, hope that you understand. There is a big backlog of aviation articles to be assessed (currently 333), sadly it is one of the neglected areas and I try to help when I can. I will try to get back to it, I do like to assess articles thoroughly and would expect the same of any articles I created. User:Born2flie gives thorough reviews, sometimes leaving comments on the article talk page, might be worth contacting him if I forget to do it. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did spot that paragraph but hey, there's a lot worse out there! I'm mainly improving the aircraft engine articles at the moment. Some editors assess their own articles (ok for a stub or start I think), some editors ignore the assessment system completely. Like you I get a sense of achievement when they get promoted. I can understand why it gets passed by, there are all sorts of traps including promoting an article that is a copyvio. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the B class checklist code now, partially completed the article is now C class. That paragraph is a a bit of a sticking point, maybe it can be modified or at worst removed? The reference for the specifications needs converting to an inline cite (currently an embedded external link) and two images close together are causing a white space problem (just need shuffling around). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff, I've finished the checklist, 'jetzt ist alles in ordnung, kein probleme'! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Short Satellite.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Short Satellite.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Short 166

Just created Short Type 166 any help appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Read through

Right, I have a read through and this is what I came up with. First of all please remember you don't have to do all or any of the stuff I suggest, I couldn't bloody stand people telling me what to do with Cardiff. If I cover the small stuff first:

• I'd recommend using {{reflist|2}} for your references section
• All those images will need accompanying text, even if it states the bleedin obvious
• Consider turning the Level 2 "Operations" banner to a Level 3 (more on this later)
• Remove the white space in the "Performance" section isolating the "ballonet volume:"
• You'll have to shuffle the two images of the broken propeller and the flight path as these are committing the cardinal sin of "sandwiching" the text MOS:IMAGES

• The lead basically needs to have 3 paragraphs, each at least 4 lines long. Your more than welcome to rip-off mine, I ripped it off the USS Wisconsin article. Remember the lead isn't supposed to tease the viewer into reading the article, it's meant to summarize (not that I'm accusing the lead of "teasing"). I'd recommend the last paragraph be solely about it's disappearance and the first paragraph will need to be more explanatory i.e. reading it left me with these questions; Was the airship part of the official French military? Why was the word "Lebaudy" omitted from the intro? (is it like the "HMS" prefix?). Sorry I can't be more help, but admittedly the lead is the most trickiest part to write, mainly because it's the most scrutinized.

• Per a suggestion on the article's talk page, some juggling around of the design section will be required, as we don't want the Level 2 headline "Military uses" next to an image (the Gondola one). Also, currently the "Military uses" section is a level 2 with only three lines in it, they wont like this, so I'd suggest turning the "Operations" headline into a level 3 and making it part of the "Military uses" section.

• All the references will also need re-doing, are you familiar with {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}} etc? Suffice to say, it's very boring and I still don't have much of a clue about how it all works, but fortunately there are loads of people who do and they will happily do it all for you when it's at a peer review or FAC etc. I have a couple of automated tools for referencing, would you like me to run em through the article?

Hope that helps, let me know when you go for reviews FAC etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Claude Shannon

I assume you do not have a background in electrical engineering. From his wiki page: "It has been claimed that this was the most important master's thesis of all time". The concepts in his thesis are the basis of all logic gates, which are the basis for the digital electronics (which are most of the integrated circuits) in the digital computers we use today. Here is a one-pager about the quote

His working circuit is the entire PSTN. Shannon worked for Bell Laboratories, the research arm of AT&T. There was a time when American corporations were more heavily involved in research, unlike today. The people in Bell Laboratories spent their working lives on the telephone system of the US. So yes, he had a direct effect on the telephone system of the US.

Today there are many implementations of Boolean logic gates: Relays, tubes, transistors, integrated circuits, and there will be more technologies to come. They are now seen as logically equivalent, but as commentators on Shannon have noted, he tied it all together. The mathematics came in the century before him. One can argue that Shannon reduced logic circuits to practice by taking something on paper from the nineteenth century, and unifying it all in electrical circuits in the twentieth century. And there were at least three generations of engineers after Shannon who built on Shannon's work, which of course, was based on those who came before Shannon. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lebaudy Patrie

Hi TraceyR, many apologies for not replying sooner, but due to working 'ridiculous' hours at the moment I've only been dropping in briefly from time to time and just got your message! Thanks for approving of my 'interference' – it's an interesting article that I came across while idly looking at what 'Nimble' was up to (no, I'm not a stalker Lol) and before I knew it I was rattling the keys!

Certainly I'd be glad to do what I can – it's always a pleasure to work alongside regular reliable editors. I've been involved in the odd GA and FA (not for the faint-hearted!) and the first thing you need to do is request a peer review when you feel the article is ready. That will bring fresh eyes to the scene that should spot any weaknesses, and having addressed them, then nominate tha article for GA – sounds simple doesn't it!!! Standardising the refs would be a good step forward since consistency and compliance with WP:MOS will be essential, particularly for FA so it might as well be done sooner rather than later. I have to admit I tend to use 'scratch' referencing rather than templates, but the latter are more widely accepted and I'm sure there's one that covers a web page which contains a pdf archive – I'll see what I can find out. All the best --Red Sunset 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Back again – I reckon the {{cite web}} template should suffice, and enter "pdf document/file" next to "format". What do you think? Give it a try, and in the meantime I'll ratch around for mention of the Lloyds Torr Head sighting, and possibly do some tweaking later if time permits:-) Cheers --Red Sunset 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been having a look through the reference formatting and spotted the {{cite journal}} templates – they seem to do the trick. There are other pdfs cited without using templates, so for consistency perhaps they should be given the same treatment. Back to Torr Head now! --Red Sunset 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh!!! I was just about to let you know that it was on the Times online archive page when I got the message – ah well! The Torr Head photo text mentions that it was "... important in the 1800s for recording the passage of transatlantic ships, relaying the information back to Lloyds of London", and so I imagine that the station was located at Torr Head and was the only station in the area. I haven't found anything more than you as yet, but at least this little snippet can be added to the article. Onwards and upwards! --Red Sunset 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Having meddled some more I've spotted an inconsistency in the order of sightings during the last flight – the article's "Approximate flight path" and text states that the Patrie was reported over St Patrick's Isle between the Wales and Ireland sightings, whereas this says that it was last seen over St Patrick's Isle after the Ireland sighting!??? They can't both be right! Any ideas? Early start again tomorrow and been on too long tonight so got to get some ZZZs in now! Cheers --Red Sunset 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen that and was going to ask for help on that subject one day. In fact I originally had the order of sightings as in the photo caption, but when I was preparing the flight path graphic, I realised that it was unlikely to have been that way. I scoured the area for another St Patrick Isle, because the Isle of Man isn't really between Scotland and Ireland either. Perhaps the reporter got the island's name wrong, perhaps the order wrong. I couldn't decide, so went with the most likely flight path for an airship sailing along with the winds - even if it does a bit of a dog-leg; it is only an approximation! To get to the Isle of Man after Torr Head would have meant going back the way she had come. Since the caption is wrong about the last sighting, it could be wrong about the location! What should we do? --TraceyR (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there'd be another St Patrick Isle, but I'll consult my son's atlas just in case. Yes, there is an element of doubt as to the accuracy of the photo caption (e.g. position of I.O.M. relative to Scotland and Ireland) so I think the best thing to do for now is stick to the current (logical) flight plan unless more concrete information surfaces in due course. The article is looking pretty good now IMHO, and your latest additions have added a bit more accuracy and colour. There is one small suggestion I'd like to make however – it occurred to me that the text concerning the engine and propellers might sit more comfortably with that of the steering within a "Steering and propulsion" section – WDYT? Got my orders for the evening but will pop in for a bit later on. :-) --Red Sunset 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, haven't found another St Patrick Isle!

I have to agree that the bibliography section does look a bit odd – the NYT archive links are good, but would look better if they could be consolidated into one "Home page" -type link. Any other sources such as the ones you mention would also make valuable additions – I'm afraid I get a bit mixed up when it comes to bibliography and further reading sections – where do you draw the line? Nice additions again – I understood the Lebaudy 1 was rebuilt from the attached ref ([4]), but it doesn't mention that it was renamed Lebaudy 2. (I've found one that does so I'll tack it on as well.) In view of this, should the Patrie be regarded as the second or third Lebaudy airship? One source states that it was the third, but technically speaking it was the second entirely new airship! This is something that might well come up at a GAC review, but in the end it just comes down to point of view. --Red Sunset 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello folks! Sorry, I am busy with engines but I just had another quick look through and did some tweaking. I can see a mixture of metric and Imperial units (11 foot props, 280 Liter fuel tank etc). I think the guideline is that as a French aircraft all the units would have to be primarily metric with Imperial conversions given as an option (although highly recommended). I have a handy conversion programme if you don't want to use the templates. Never enough hours in the day for me at the moment. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you onboard 'Nimble' – good points that can be quickly addressed; I suppose the mixture of primary units has occurred as a result of those used in the relevant sources!

You're certainly doing your homework TraceyR; that source you gave me sorts it out once and for all! Trust the French to complicate matters; still, a bit of rewording to the effect that the Patrie was the second entirely new Lebaudy airship together with that ref will put the matter straight. Off for the day now, but if you haven't been able to get to it yourself I'd be happy to attend to it this evening. Cheers for now. --Red Sunset 09:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right; this string really ought to be on the article talk page (believe it or not that thought did cross my mind this morning). Anyway, I don't think that anyone's sensibilities would be upset if it was copied over and provided with a forenote to that effect. Re the name of Patrie's predecessor/s (what a mix up!), Lebaudy Lebaudy seems a bit inelegant even if it is correct – I prefer the encompassing title Lebaudy 'Jaune' – but either way, a short footnote following its first mention within the text explaining its incarnations should prevent any confusion and at the same not bring side issues into the main text. Similarly, perhaps the template entry could be Lebaudy(1–4) 'Jaune' linked to Lebaudy 'Jaune'??? BTW, that part of the translation is into good English, and no doubt it would be a 1st in football! (Lol)

I've spotted a small number of non-metric primary units in the text which can be addressed, but there are two that I'm loathe to alter since they're within quotes (although I'm sure the figures were converted during translation), and the 10 and 20 lb (4.5 and 9.1 kg) sandbags were probably 4.5 and 9 kg originally before translation. To avoid making assumptions and changes for the sake of consistency, I think the answer is to look through French sources for the original values. We seem to keep coming up with more questions than answers so I guess that peer review is a little way off yet! --Red Sunset 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied the main thread over to the Patrie's talk page. You're doing a grand job BTW ;-) --Red Sunset 10:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's brilliant; you can't get much better than the original source!!! As for the photo (thanks BTW), I have to ask myself what on earth was Girard doing to get his trousers caught in the magneto drive??? Sleeve, yes – I could understand that, but ... ah well, never mind! At least we're getting some laughs out of this.:-)) --Red Sunset 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Back again – just like the proverbial 'bad penny'! I hope you don't mind my tinkering recently, but with the recent interest in the article's promotion and the conclusion of the Merlin FAC I thought I'd take another look with fresh eyes so to speak. It still looks good to me, but I thought a few minor style and wording (some of my own) tweaks might help. The MoS is a positive minefield and can be a bit confusing – it wouldn't be quite so bad if it didn't keep changing – I'm coming across new stuff all the time! BTW, I've never seen non-breaking spaces used in dates before – can't do any harm though I guess! Here's to a successful promotion. Cheers. --Red Sunset 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorts experimental aircraft

Hi TraceyR! Thank you for your kind remarks re my Wiki contributions! Have previously noted your own quality contributions. Will try to "keep it up" - until my material runs out, of course. Of the Shorts types you mention, I've already added a shot of the Sperrin, which you might consider for the heading photo, as the present one is a "publicity shot". Have another Sperrin from rear port side which I can upload. Have a Seamew, but not top quality. Also a Sherpa - but very similar to the one now used - but mine would be clearly copyright-free. Finally, I took a photo last year of the SC.1 in the Belfast Museum. Will work on these over the next few days. RuthAS (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another trick learned!

Hi Tracey! You've rightly made out that I'm still a 'Wiki novice' - and it's not easy to teach an old girl new tricks! Thanks for this tip - I probably would not have worked it out for myself. Had wondered tho', why the new section title would not appear in my new posts. Still don't know how to start a new aircraft type article with the preferred Wiki set layout . . . I just cannot 'call-up' that feature . . . On the bright side, have already added some of your requested photos. Best wishes. RuthAS (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Winter Gardens

Tracey. Yes, I was encouraged to learn to use a camera by my father at an early age. He was interested in aviation and I went with him to Farnborough etc. Re Winter Gardens. Have not heard of an airfield with this name in this country. My amateurish attempt to trawl thru the Flight archive only brought a 1911 reference to an aircraft passing over Southport's Winter Gardens on a flight from the nearby Hesketh Sands. Did you pick anything up of a more substantial nature? RuthAS (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tracey! Yes - you're right - the airfield in question is undoubtedly Squires Gate, now claiming the overly-grandiose title of Blackpool International Airport. The history section of the Wiki article on the latter was largely contributed by yours truly - also the snippet in Blackpool. I've never heard before of the airfield being described as Winter Gardens - just journalistic waffle at the time, I think. Have further information on the 1909 and 1910 Flying Meetings but this would not fit readily into the existing Wiki articles which are primarily intended to cover the present day. Im not presently sure whether a seperate article on Blackpool's 1909 and 1910 Flying Meetings or, more broadly, Blackpool Airport History, would be justified. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Atomic size

Hi Tracey! I see you edited this header part in Oktober. Please do not take my correction personal. We want the same - make it easier to follow. Thanks for your engagement. Kopovoi (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pauling and Rath

I have replied to your comment here. You have a very good point. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Short Folder S.64 in 1913?

Thanks for adding the IWM image of a Short Folder being hoisted aboard (or lowered from?) HMS Hermes. I'm puzzled that the image is supposed to have been of S.64, taken in 1913, since Barnes & James (Putnam 1989) contains on p. 92 the following statement:"The second 160 hp seaplane (S.64, serial 82) was completed in March 1914 ...".If the photo was indeed taken in 1913, which seems likely, since trials of the first Folder were indeed carried out by HMS Hermes in July of that year, then the aircraft shown must be S.63 (serial 81), which, as Barnes and James report, "flew successfully on 26, 27 and 31 July, reporting back the position of ships by means of a Rouzet transmitter". So it would appear that the IWM has incorrectly identified the aircraft. --TraceyR (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they may have got it wrong.. they also describe it as being hoisted OUT.. but the Wiki article states it flew off the ship.. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You may like to conatact the Imperial War museum ( http://iwm.altarama.com/reft100.aspx?sk=CM ) and pass on the info you have - I've found they welcome corrections if verifiable. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Photographs taken by or for the British Government come under "Crown Copyright" which lasts for 50 years after the year the photograph was taken in. Hence any photographs taken by or for the British government before 1959 are now out of copyright - i.e. public domain - and we don't need permission to use the images. This would include photographs taken on active service by service personnel... but e.g. private studio photographs of people, as opposed to official photographs, would have copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer. AS a matter of courtesy, I only use the small free "thumbnail" images from the IWM website on Wikipedia.. people can pay for the fullsize image and the money goes to a good cause.Rcbutcher (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Torquemada

I'll take the conversation to the article talk page itself. I have responded to your post on my talk page there [[1]]Farsight001 (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary - the PREVIOUS version was discussed. The one you just re-added to the article, which has the EXACT same source-misrepresenting problems as the first was NOT discussed. The conversation is ongoing, or at least it would be were you willing to discuss. Just because you came up with a new version doesn't mean its all perfectly ok now.Farsight001 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page - no, no you haven't taken into account my comments. As I have already said 3 times, your new version has the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS as the old one. Try again. And no, you don't need my permission to edit, but it is proper etiquette to discuss first and edit later when there is another editor who disagrees with your additions.Farsight001 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of airshow accidents

I just added an entry for a crash during 1922. The accident occurred during a nighttime war game demonstation open to the public (25,000 spectators according to cited source). I wanted to see if you feel this should be included.Shinerunner (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining, but the England flag has already been taken, could you choose another one please? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alt med cat

If you look at Category:Alternative medicine, there must be a subcategory there in which the article Juice Plus was listed, such as Category:Dietary supplements or I probably wouldn't have reviewed it.:) As you can see the category is large and includes subcategories about supplements etc. All the class rating means is that the article has been reviewed by a member of the Wikiproject. Looking at the article, it does seem that the product does make claims for itself which would count as alternative/complementary medicine, or not mainstream dietetic beliefs, hence the current dispute some people are having over the article- but I'm not bothered, I was just reviewing articles which had already been placed in the subcategory by someone else.:) So, when it comes to that article Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law .:) Sticky Parkin 00:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Nacelle du Patrie 1906.jpg

File:Nacelle du Patrie 1906.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Nacelle du Patrie 1906.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Nacelle du Patrie 1906.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Juice Plus. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

TraceyR, I'm in agreement with RIR on this one. Your comment here went over the line.[2] Would you please consider deleting or refactoring it? The best way to proceed here, is to keep comments on an article talkpage strictly focused on the article, not on other editors. --Elonka 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrie

Hi mate, don't forget to answer the comments made in the Patrie's MiliHist A-class review here. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You can carry-on with your re-nomination now. Ryan was able to help you out (the second set of instructions at WP:MHR#A-Class under requesting a review are the salient ones). Now you can go ahead and carry-on with the nominal instructions from Step 4. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I found the process rather complicated but I hope that all is now correct. --TraceyR (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is far from it, you have nominated the article to have A-class status removed, not conferred upon it. You should have set up the new request as if it was its first all over again. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfitzner Flyer / Alexander Pfitzner

No problem - when you post them on the Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) page, that gets attention! - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfitzner Flyer DYK nom

Hello! Your submission of Pfitzner Flyer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. --TraceyR (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Flight Global Images

Morning TraceyR: Encouraged by your use of such images in your recent Pfitzer launch, and having not seen the note from the FG editor before I added a few to three of my recent starts (e.g. Carden-Baynes Auxiliary). They greatly improve articles, of course. I exactly followed your text in the Commons upload, particularly in the permissions panel, the more info bit and the licence. However, I've just got a note from Commons on all of them, saying they will be pulled in 7 days unless explicit consent is obtained for that licence (think this is the issue). If we can't sort this out, we will have lost an enormously valuable resource. As one who was involved in the discussion with FG, any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, This was what I feared might happen, which was why I included so much corroborative evidence of the original discussion about Flight as a resource (it took place here) - I wonder whather this thread would be enough to satisfy the watchdogs, or whether they need explicit permission for each image (which would surely be too much of an imposition on Flight Global). There is a consent form, which could perhaps be used to provide blanket consent. I'll copy this discussion to the project thread, so that those involved at the time see it.

Not sure if it helps but if the artist of the drawings is unknown then the drawings are public domain If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after first publication.. If the author is known If the work was published during the author's lifetime then copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was photograph with a known author taken before 30 June 1957 then copyright also expires 70 years after the death of the author. (from [3]). So if it before 1938 with an unknown author it is public domain. If the author is known you need to know when they died. It might help with some of the earlier images. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Few, if any, of the Flight images are attributed to an individual, so for those unattributed works (drawings and photos?) anything published up to 1939 would seem to be usable without license. Michael Targett's (Flight Global editor) comments in the Aviation style guide thread (mentioned above) gave permission for all images from the Flight Global PDF archive to used (e.g. after screen grab), irrespective of age. Should he be approached to confirm this on a WP consent form? That would seem to be the most suitable approach, which would extend permission to all WP editors to the whole archive - a very generous offer. For a start I'll try to point those who wish to delete the images to that offer. --TraceyR (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We really need to get somebody from Flight to email into the WP:OTRS system with permission as you have said from WP:CONSENT otherwise we will allways end up in discussion. Need to make sure it is for Commons not just English Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast responses, both.TSRL (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For information, here is a log of my interaction with the watchdogs:

TSRL: "Can't see the problem here. The editor of Flight Global has given the OK to the use on Wiki of their material, and the link to his agreement (2009-02-12) is in (see additional info) which I quoted in full. It's a hugely valuable archive, open for us for 10 months."

REPLY: "As this image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it requires the owner to provide a specific release under a suitably free license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL), which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws). If you can supply this, then the content may be used on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not adequate enough."

So maybe there is a more appropriate licence which allows Wiki to use it but does not permit anyone else to do so. With that restriction (and I see their point) maybe the problem would be solved. I don't know much about the various licences, but could look; any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no knowledge in this area but my impression is that Wikipedia will only permit the use of images which anyone else can re-use under the same terms. The original permission covered this, I believe, since Michael wrote that the quality of screen captured images wouldn't be high enough for anyone else to be able to use them commercially, so it was OK for Wikipedia to use them to illustrate articles. I have left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't seen it there. The best solution as I see it would be for Michael to send an appropriate form of words, to whom it may concern at WP, saying what he wrote to the project in the first place. Perhaps we need to find out what wording the WP powers that be would accept. We'd then need to contact him to ask him to give the required consent by email. I'm offline for a few days now but we can pick this up later. So far none of the images that I have captured and uploaded to Commons hase been deleted, but I'd rather get this sorted out once and for all. This resource is too valuable for it to be lost due to lack of interest! --TraceyR (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Morning Tracey. Is there any news on this issue? Anything I can do? Who exactly are the "WP powers that be"?TSRL (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK (4) for Pfitzner Flyer

On December 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pfitzner Flyer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the DYK! - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Same here. The record on DYK Pfitzner Flyer is here. Because the update is manual (by Shubinator or myself), there is a delay of 1-2 days before a featured nomination gets there. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for you not to misunderstand things - Shubinator and I do the archive updates, but there are indeed many other operations, and several editors keep it running, just to mention a few, Gatoclass Ucucha, Calmer Waters, Chamal N, SoWhy, Allen3 and many others, many admins (even bureaucrats) also fix dabs and formatting right on the main page - it is great to know many people care about the project :-) Materialscientist (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

December Aviation Contest

		Third Place in the December 2009 round of the Aviation Contest
		Belated congratulations! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Contest

Hi TraceyR! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For extraordinary contributions to Aircraft in fiction, thus improving hundreds of aircraft type articles along the way! - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been helping, so credit where it is due! Actually if you check my records I haven't done that much with this article, more talk pages than anything!. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Short S.36 aka Short T.5

Hi TraceyR -- I'm back here after a rather lengthy absence and am settling back into the final march from S to Z in the list of aircraft that Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation covers and that we don't... yet :)

I wonder whether you have anything on a type that the Encyclopedia calls the "T.5" -- a two-seat trainer of 1911 with a Gnome rotary still in service with the Admiralty at the outbreak of war? Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I mentions it in passing, also giving it the designation S.36. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Barnes, where I suspect the answer lies.

Any help with this one much appreciated! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of some help. Yes, the T5 is mentioned in Barnes & James, 1989 (pp.80-87): It was given the Shorts serial no. S.45 (i.e. not S.36); three others '45s' (S.48-50) were built. It had a 70 hp Gnome engine. It was one of two tractor biplanes ordered by the Admiralty in March 1912 (on the strength of S.36's performance, the other being S.41); both were to have exchangeable landing gear for land or water. It was first flown by Lt. Spenser Grey as a landplane on 24 May 1912 and was accepted by the Navy and given the serial T5. On conversion to a floatplane it was given a single central float, with a streamlined air-bag under each wing. At first it retained the tailskid, since the float was long enough to keep the tail clear of the water; later an air-bag was fitted to keep the tail out of the water when on tow. It took part in the 1912 Portsmouth Naval Review (with S.41). It was modified (wings extended, extensions supported by kingposts and wires; square engine cowling; ailerons acting both up and down; '5' rather than 'T5' on the rudder; faired coaming added to the top decking between the tandem cockpits) before being posted to Carlingrose, nr. Rosyth on the Firth of Forth, where it eventually capsized on landing on 4 October (the single float made it hard to land and conditions there were unsuitable). That seems to have been its last flight.

Specs (p.87.): Span 42 ft (12.8 m); length 35 ft 6 in (10.8 m); wing area 450 sq.ft. (41.8 sq.m.); empty weight 1,080 lb (490 kg); loaded weight 1,500 lb. (680 kg); speed 60 mph (96.6 km/h).

There might be more details in the text, but that's the bulk of it; please ask if you need more details and I'll have a look. --TraceyR (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick and comprehensive response! That's more than enough to stub this one :) When it's done, I'll ask you to take a look and see if there's any tweaking to be done. Thanks again --Rlandmann (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Some more in this Flight article.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel -- it's all coming together now :)

TraceyR, does Barnes have anything on the "sister ships" S.48 – S.50? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All were destined for C.F.S. at Upavon; S.48 became 413, 49-50 became 423-424 and then 1268 and 1279!

"On 10 October Capt Gerrard ferried S.48, serial 413, from Farnborough to Upavon, and it was flown on each of the next two days by Capt J. M. Salmond, who found it rather underpowered by C.F.S. standards. Nevertheless, it was flown fairly regularly, and on 28 November Lieut Smith Barry took it up to 7,000 ft, but this minor triumph was short-lived, for on 3 December Lieut Hubbard, with a passenger, stalled while approaching to land and wrecked it completely, though without injury to themselves. The other two S.45s already ordered arrived at Upavon in February 1913; Gerrard ferried 424 from Farnborough on the 17th in a gale and, after a good landing in difficult conditions, had the misfortune to be over-turned by a gust while taxying in; he was luckier when he brought in 423 on 22 February, and this was used for instruction for about a month, but then disappears from the record. Then, to the surprise and confusion of historians, both 423 and 424 returned to service in the spring of 1914, but had become B.E.8s! This was an example of a trick of War Office accounting which permitted the identity of an aeroplane to be vested in its original engine, regardless of the extent of `repairs made to its airframe, and was a subterfuge to which Col Seely resorted to avert a scandal when called to account in Parlia¬ment by Joynson-Hicks and other M.P.s over the alleged deficiency of serviceable aircraft available to the Royal Flying Corps. The two Short tractors, 423 and 424, having donated their identities and Gnome engines to two new Royal Aircraft Factory-built B.E.8 airframes, became surplus to War Office requirements; they were transferred to the Admiralty in August 1914 and, repaired and re-engined with 100 hp Clerget rotaries, flew again at Eastchurch as 1268 and 1279. No more Short tractor biplanes were built primarily as landplanes until the Bombers of 1915-16, and for the remaining years of peace all new Short designs were seaplanes".

--TraceyR (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the ongoing help. Is all the data on the S.45 above on page 80, or scattered through several pages up to p.87 where the stats are? What about the material on the S.48–S.50? If it's not all bunched together, I wonder if you could indicate where the page divisions are in both blocks of text? Sorry to be a pest -- I think this will be all that I need to wrap things up. You can see the work in progress here. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. re S.45: the Admiralty order of 1912 is mentioned on p.80; S.45/T.5 is mentioned on each page up to and including p.85. S.48-50 are first mentioned on p.85 as ordered specifically for C.F.S.; the scanned text above spans p.86-87; the specs appear on p.87, prefixed by "S.45,S.48-50". Unfortunately there is no index entry for these aircraft. The only other mention I can find is in Appendix F on p.527 (Constructor's Numbers - Eastchurch and Rochester 1910-1948). S.45 is listed as "Tractor biplane, 70hp Gnome, RNAS 5 (T5)", S.48-50 as "As for S.45, for C.F.S., 413, 423, 424". The S.45/48-50 don't warrant their own chapter, but appear in "Short Tractor Biplanes (1910-12), pp.79-87, which covers S.36, S.41, S.45 & S.48-50 and S.47. All page nos. refer to Barnes & James 2nd. revised edition, 1989 (Putnam). That's about it. I look forward to the finished article. --TraceyR (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK -- it's gone live at Short S.45. Thank you once again: your help has been nothing short of invaluable. :) Any corrections or fine-tuning are of course very very welcome. I owe you one :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Channel wing

Thanks for the tip, I'd forgotten all about that one. Now done, see Wing configuration#Dihedral and anhedral. BTW, apologies for forgetting to thank you for the barnstar until now. Thanks for that, too. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Handley Page HP.88

Hi Tracey. On 7 June 2007 you added the following external web link to Handley Page HP.88.
Test Flying Memorial site

It is still the only external link in the article but unfortunately it appears that it no longer links to an active website. It would be excellent if you can find the latest link to that site. Regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The site has been moved to here; I've updated the link. --TraceyR (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is an excellent website! Dolphin51 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain

Captain (land) covers both land and air according to the article. The exception is for Group Captain, which is used by most Commonwealth countries, which Sweden isn't one of. That's why I used the link I did. Captain (air force) redirects to Captain (land) as well. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rhomboidal wing

Hello, TraceyR. You have new messages at Steelpillow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

George Bertram Cockburn

Another link for your sandbox article George Bertram Cockburn #5. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much but I have just created George Arthur Barnes #16. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One more #15 George Cyril Colmore. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Alec Ogilvie

Noticed you asked Greenshed about Ogilvie, interestingly his date and place of birth are missing on the RAeC card. One candidate is in the 1911 Census at Prospect House, Camber, Sussex -

• OGILVIE, Alec Head Single M 29 1882 Private Means London Hampstead

One of his visitors in the census is

• SEARIGHT, Trevor Prince Visitor Single M 28 1883 Automobile Engineer London

Searight also appears to be connected with early aviaton and it appears Olgilvie was a friend of Orville Wright see Wright Glider and The first air-speed indicator is patented by Alec Ogilvie and fitted to his Short-Wright biplane at Rye in Sussex. Plenty of mentions about in on the web, Lt Col Ogilvie CBE died in 1962 aged 80. I have his Times obit and I will do an article at the weekend if nobody else starts one. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's good news. I had a dig around and found nothing conclusive. "Private means" is a good indicator for the pioneer aviators! --TraceyR (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For some info on Ogilvie, try http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/search.aspx?ArchiveSearchForm%24search=Ogilvie+&ArchiveSearchForm%24fromYear=1909&ArchiveSearchForm%24toYear=1914&x=33&y=8 for starters. Greenshed (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Flight links. Yes, I had seen these, and they demonstrate that he was a diligent, internationally active and inventive pioneer, but I found very little there about Ogilvie's background - i.e. little material for a WP article. MilborneOne has been successful, so I await his article with interest, since Ogilvie is the earliest certificate holder without his/her own article at present. --TraceyR (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It would also seem that Alec Ogilvie was granted a temporary commission as a squadron commander in the Royal Naval Air Service on 19 February 1915. By the 11 May 1917, he was an acting wing commander gaining a mention in dispatches. See:

• http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/29086/pages/2092
• http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30460/supplements/383

Greenshed (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In late 1917 / early 1918 Ogilvie worked at the Air Board / Air Ministry on aircraft design and aerodynamic research (http://www.jstor.org/pss/769259). Greenshed (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs more work but I have started it here. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he went to Australia could explain the apparent dearth of information. There's a photo of Ogilvie with Wilbur and Orville Wright at Kitty Hawk here. It's attributed to the "Library of Congress Collection, 6-17-08" - does that mean that it's in the public domain and can be used in the article? --TraceyR (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Semi-rigid airship

Yes, you are right, sorry. In the Leonardo_Torres_y_Quevedo article, it's said that he invented a new type of airship, a rigid one. But I had not read the semi rigid page completely and I have interpreted it incorrectly, since it seems that it was JUST another new model. I have removed the category. In this case, do you agree adding the "Brazilian inventions" category? --PabloCastellano (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Have a look at the historical details at Rigid airship - there seems to have been earlier developments than this in other coutries. --TraceyR (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

If you wish to have a POV tag it needs to be explained what the POV is. An OTRS is not sufficient and I have left Alison a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red was warned by at least three admins to stand back from editing this article, but virtually his first action, after a break of almost 6 months, was to remove this tag! His edit was immediately reverted by one of the admins involved - there's more to this than a simple POV issue. A check back through the history of the Juice Plus article and the related user enquiries is needed to get a fuller picture. Perhaps the admins who have got involved should all be consulted. --TraceyR (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have posted a comment on one of the admins pages. However this tag is being used as a advertising method by an outside organization. See my post on the article talk page. This is an attempt to make Wikipedia look bad and Juice Plus look good. A corruption of the purpose of Wikipedia. These tags are too be used to help improve the article. I am willing to look into improving the article but unless someone is willing to explain why they placed the POV tag it should not be there. As soon as someone explains what concrete problems need to be address they may return the tag.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this differently. The POV tag is there because people had been using this article to promote partisan views pro and contra Juice Plus. With an article of this sort there will always be distributors e.g. trying to add their own urls or remove criticisms, so others keep an eye on it and refert these when they occur. This is normal and part of the everyday Wiki world. The admins stepped in because of one particular editor's "obsessive" behaviour and "classic article ownership" (it's there in the various talk pages). It is the admins who stepped in to prevent Wikipedia being damaged by these actions. The tag is there to warn readers that the content is the subject of controversial discussion and IMO should remain there until the issue is resolved. --TraceyR (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As per here the discussion is too be ongoing if a tag is placed otherwise it is to be removed. [4] [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest taking this up with the admin(s) who put it there. --TraceyR (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)