Talk archives (Please do not edit archive pages! All posts should go on
my current talk page.)
·
2006-10 ·
2011-12 ·
2013-14 ·
2015 ·
2016-17 ·
2018-19 ·
2020-22 ·
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
For protecting and guiding a newbie through a minefield of conflict. |
I have now requested a conduct evaluation, citing a few of the comments made towards us. Please feel to join in if there's anything you wish to add. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Despite the suggestion I made at ANI, I do appreciate your attempts to placate our other combatant. I see there are now more vague, unsubstantiated allegations of our ignorance. If you have the time and energy to deal with him, please don't feel you should stop on my account. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 08:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Please be more patient, I learning english by doing edit of good faith, and learn new language is of no easy. I is not doing any vandelism of edit, I trying to learn many new stuff and of make many mistake in learn of said language. Me trying to study abroad so of practice english is being of the much more importance. Thank you. Johnfromchina2015 ( talk) 20:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Who or what is Zapletal? You appeared to be addressing an unregistered editor as Zapletal. Is that a name associated with IP addresses? (It does not appear to be a registered editor. If it were, the IPs might be sockpuppets.) It appears that we have tendentious talk-page conduct again about what should be a complex technical topic, Lift. I am not sure that WP:ANI will be able to handle the dispute if it spills over; it appears that it may wind up going to ArbCom. I will warn the editors that they don't want discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Take the example of a 10keV x-ray photon heading towards a crystal. The momentum of the photon is a vector; its magnitude is 5e-24 kg m/s, and its direction is the direction that the photon is heading. Of course the photon doesn't have an exactly definite direction -- there is no such thing as a beam of light that is simultaneously perfectly collimated and finite width (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). But if the beam width is much larger than the wavelength (which is true in practice), then the X-ray photon can be collimated (i.e. have a definite propagation direction) to very very high accuracy, a tiny fraction of a degree.
Now our x-ray photon diffracts off a crystal. Let's say for simplicity that we orient the crystal and the beam so that there is just one strong diffracted direction. Then, after entering then exiting the crystal, the photon is (with high probability) now moving in a new direction. So it has a different momentum than it had before interacting with the crystal. Again, you can complain that it is not exactly "a direction" because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That's technically true, but if the crystal is macroscopically large, and has no defects, the diffracted beam is collimated to the same degree as the incoming beam. So the outgoing direction has an uncertainty of a tiny fraction of a degree, but it may be 80 degrees different than the direction it started in.
If you say that a photon's momentum cannot change during diffraction, that's the same as saying "Diffraction cannot change the direction that light is moving." Well, this is obviously not the case. What else is diffraction, if it's not changing the direction light is moving?? Just spend a minute looking around a room through a transmissive diffraction grating. :-D -- Steve ( talk) 18:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have just blocked User:Aasarsak for edit warring at Electromagnetic induction. In all conscience, I can't do that without also warning you that you are also edit warring and could similarly face a block if you continue. By rights I should be blocking you too. By rights I should have warned you at the same time as Aasarak. I was kind of hoping you would have had more sense and I wouldn't have to do this. As a long standing editor, and one who has been on the wrong end of admins in the past over edit warring you should have known better. I know you are claiming consensus on the article talk page, but that is a very slim argument: one other editor has supported you, and then not very strongly. Spinning Spark 17:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Lift (force)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 March 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your sensible (i.e. acting like the dutiul card-carrying member of the anti- Ion Nemes cabal that you are) contribution to the ANI. I do admit to not being as polite as I could have been, but there are limits to my patience! TheLongTone ( talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Lift (force), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lift (force), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi Steelpillow! It looks like progress is being made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lift (force). I commend you on the constructive role you are taking.
As a minor point of clarification, I can make a brief comment about something you wrote on 2 April: ... Bernoulli, whose analysis showed that the air above speeded up and that created a drop in pressure. (See your diff.)
Bernoulli's principle doesn’t have any relevance to the observation that air travels faster over one side of an airfoil than over the other side. The relevant principle when explaining this asymmetry of velocity is one attributed to German mathematician Martin Kutta – the Kutta condition. The Kutta condition is the key to explaining the flow pattern around any body with a sharp edge, such as an airfoil with its characteristic sharp trailing edge.
Once we are aware that there is an asymmetry in the speed of flow around the two sides of an airfoil, Bernoulli's principle is relevant as it explains the asymmetry in static pressure in the flow on the two sides. Regards. Dolphin ( t) 11:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec ( talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Please your completion fill out this Articles The volleyball team and other players. Development volleyball in wikipedia Are waiting you. Good luck. Jacilason ( talk) 10:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Steelpillow
Some time ago you helped me to create the List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force Since a few days there is a disagreement about the use of pictures and a few times aircraft who are used by the swiss air Force where deleted out. So i had now written down my point of view on the talk page. Pherhaps youcan have a look at this and say your opinion. Thank you FFA P-16 ( talk) 08:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
All edits and removal of images done without consensus on article talk page. I have reverted back to User:GraemeLeggett 19:49, 7 July 2015. Consensus must be reached for such an edit. Faraz ( talk) 00:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see consensus for main article to remove images, just the list page(s) and more specifically images inside tables - FOX 52 ( talk) 17:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Fellow wikipedia editor,
Regarding your edit on the List of currently active Russian military aircraft page,made on the fifth of August,there appears to be a problem.
The removing of pictures has caused a problem in the design of the page,making it at least less readable,if not totally unreadable.The columns are too short in length,so the names of the aircraft,their versions and origin appear in two rows,which worsened the quality of the article.Also,the comment section is too long.
I am sorry if I made any grammatical errors in my post,English is not my mother tongue.
I am currently busy,and I hope you will be able to edit the article again.
I have read the WikiProject Aviation talk page,and I understand why you removed the pictures,however,the pictures will have to stay unless we find a solution to make this article readable again.And I hope we will.
Best regards! RussianBear158 ( talk) 10:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
29,and so on.It would be nice if we could resolve this somehow. RussianBear158 ( talk) 11:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
‑
or Unicode U+2011
, which you can use and is this one inside here: [ ‑ ] and can in practice be copy-pasted to hold the IL‑20 together as a single word. Does this help? — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
[[Ilyushin Il-76|Ilyushin Il‑76]]
which looks like this:
Ilyushin Il‑76
![]() |
Thanks! |
For salvaging an oversized white elephant of an article about an oversized white elephant... Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hello..You just clean shaved
List of active Indian military aircraft
!! FYI: Consensus or no consensus.. List looks horrible now. *cry intensely* Reegards—
☮
JAaron95
Talk 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steelpillow, many thanks for making contact, I have joined the group as invited, thank you. I have received useful comments from Kudpung who has again been encouraging. I have several articles lined up as I mentioned to him, there are a couple more in the "Great Escapers" series, plus one on F/L JA McCairns, DFC & 2 Bars, MM, the Spitfire pilot who flew with Bader, escaped from German POW camp and later flew Special Duties Lysanders into France dropping off and recovering SOE agents and finally flying Tempests in combat over Germany 1945, also another one on an SOE agent killed after capture in 1944. I am reluctant to load them incase another Hollywood based editor with specialist knowledge of lace adorned furniture and pink sea shells, nominates these for deletion for not being "notable" or decides that some of my text is unnecessary. Can I load them at some time when they are more likely to be picked up by somebody who has some concept of what these guys went through ? Hope you don't mind me asking but can I reload the 2 or 3 lines of useful stuff on Ted Thorn's article mentioning his father's service and death in WW1 (similar has apparently been passed as OK on my William Henry Franklin article). Can I replace the 2 standard paragraphs ref death removed from my Sandy Gunn article so that it matches the other 16 which have been passed OK (as far as I know). Your advice and help is appreciated. R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 18:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Steelpillow, I just loaded a new article on Jim McCairns and appreciate any assistance with tidying up etc. I have put the "thing" on the talk page for the article that I was shown to use, is that right ? thanks R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Steelpillow, I just put another article in there, one of the "Great Escapers" Tony Hayter that'll be me quiet for a day or so while I finish the next one. Your help is appreciated. R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 11:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've put a few more into the system Edgar Humphreys and Gordon Kidder who were "Great Escapers" and Arthur Steele (SOE agent) and one on AVM James Rowland Scarlett-Streatfeild - the spelling of his name is correct although it looks wrong. Any support would be greatly appreciated. thanks R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 12:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I just investigated it Steelpillow, and can see it being very useful, in fact it just high-lit some more of my mistakes which I've now been able to correct - from when I'd copied over the "thingy" (talk page banner) from other articles and forgotten to amend the name, all done now I think ! I finally got my act together on URL's and I've been back through all of my articles sorting them out on all articles where kind Editors hadn't already done for me. As I said IT stuff is alien to me but I'll learn enough to get by. Thanks R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Steel if you got a minute can you make sure I applied this properly, something looks wrong - cheers FOX 52 ( talk) 23:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steelpillow I just completed work on "improving" the biog of John Grigson and I'd appreciate a hand because I cant get the photo of the DH.9 to appear where I want. Any assistance in arrangement would be very welcome. Thanks R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 17:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
many thanks Researcher1944 ( talk) 17:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of interest, who did design it? W. O. Manning? The article in Flight refers to it "having sprung from the fertile brain" of Barber. Your edit summary says something about a link, but I couldn't see it. TheLongTone ( talk) 11:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the page !
RussianBear158 (
talk) 12:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Steelpillow. I would like to hear your opinion, because i have disagreement with a other user.
One is that on the Swiss Air Force page by Planned acquisitions and projects. its planned that the swiss air Force buy 2-3 Transport Aircraft, one of the candidats was the C-17..so it is listet up there. But because such things like buying an aircraft for the swiss air force took, because of politics, years the production lines of the C-17 are closed down and only one aircraft is not yet sold. so it is no more one oof the candidats. So i deletet it out. The Baner was against this, with a point i can agree, he said all original candidats have to be there. OK well, but he is also against to write that the C-17 is no more a candiidat for the swiss air force because it run out of production. I think without this reader can get the impression that the C-17 still is in the run.
The Secoond thing is that he delet out in the
Dübendorf Air Base (a swiss air Base) in the History part, the first visit of the
Zero-G Aircraft and the first ZeroG flight with start from swiss soil. he says it is noothing special, but if you have a look at
Zero-G
You can see that only a handfull of aircraft exist for this (Fuelsystem has to be modified) an that in Europa usualy this flights are made from the 2,3 same Airports. So thank you if you let us knew your opinion FFA P-16 ( talk) 09:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This User:Riduan Has Been Create An Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force.So Please,Understand What I said Thank you.Malaysian Cyber Security 14:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaysian Armed Forces Modernizarion Act ( talk • contribs)
Hello, Some belive that the part "Aircraft serial numbering" on the Swiss Air Force page is too much going into the details. So my Idea is before I stard with something new ( create a own page about this) is to ask for your opinion about something simelar.. do you think this is notable and not to detailed? United Kingdom military aircraft serials. FFA P-16 ( talk) 15:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of taking out what's now in the main article, but it would be not much bigger than it is now in the main article... So I think, after your replay, i will let everything as it is. Thank you for your opinion. FFA P-16 ( talk) 17:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hullo! Many thanks for discussing and acting positively in the Cirrus SR22 discussion. Should you be interested, the importance of the CAPS can be judged from the discussion at http://www.euroga.org/forums/hangar-talk/4915-why-has-the-sr22-been-such-a-success?page=1 ( a long read, though ) , several participants being pilots/owners of such a craft. The CAPS seems to be a strong argument in getting partners agree to acquiring a private plane! Very kindly yours, Jan olieslagers ( talk) 22:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I might have guessed you wouldn't rise to it. Glad the refs got sorted. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 13:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An Experiment with Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flying Scotsman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
North American XB-70 Valkyrie#WS-110A Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
For consistently refusing to nail jelly to the wall. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 15:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi SP, I am trying to improve the presentation of my RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II but am struggling with sizing the image of the Lancaster which I have top right beneath the info box, it is currently a THUMB but I want it about 6 times bigger to fill some of that empty space created by the TOC. I've tried several options but failed. Please can you help me. many thanks R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 09:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Very many thanks. Researcher1944 ( talk) 13:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm hereby formally warning you over this edit. Using the semi-protection as a device in an ongoing dispute (thankfully, you made it very clear that you did this) is not a good way to proceed, and should not happen again. Thanks in advance for your understanding and compliance. Samsara 15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, yet again, for your endless patience and good grace. I have learned a great deal from you, but have decided I now need a break.
In case we don't meet before, have a peaceful holiday and a happy new year!
Burninthruthesky (
talk) 08:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I really would like to lower the level of protection on Skyfall. Betty Logan last night gave me her promise not to engage in further editing w.r.t. box office figures (just pinging you for transparency, Betty - no need to reply!). Given that some other editors are currently blocked, I'm hoping that if you can also tell me you will abstain from editing that part of the article, then lowering protection will be a safe thing to do, and nobody else will get "hurt". Will you agree to this? Samsara 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I usualy work only on Swiss Militay and aviatic topics (only minor things in other aviatc topics. Iknow I had a disagreement today again with the Banner..
Well, if we look at the past over 12 months, The Banner is every day very active on wikipedia (nothing wrong with this), but usualy he is not acvtive in aviatic topics. In this more than 12 Months timeframe:
not bother him on any other page like Fairey Delta 1, Avro Ashton, Hawker P.1052.
So he is usualy not active in Aviatic topics most of the time with total differend topics , like Restraurants, Beautycontests,... But if it is something about swiss aivatic, and if had creadet the page or just add a few words, all hell breaks loose. I have the feeling this is Wikihounding, and Racist action against Swiss aviation topics. FFA P-16 ( talk) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That are not false accusations, that are facts, I have given all evidences, and ther is no need to say more FFA P-16 ( talk) 20:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
For me it is till not logical why The Banner in aviatic topics jump on swiss aviatic articels to delet them to delet informations out. I have given exampels above and shown simelar articels who are not relatet to swiss aivatic.. It can only see that he not all treated equally. And that it is very straing that his only work in aviatic topics is only indeleting out parts of swiss aviatic... never seen that he does this in russian, english, etc. aviatic pages. I don't care what he is doing in other topics , but it looks not right what he is doing here. Fighting against every word about a Swiss Air Force Team but not care on the same circumstances about the Greec Solodisplay? I try to present informations about swiss aviatic topics to everyone who is interested but (if you look at the list i have given here before about the pages of the last 12 months) it really feels as if he wants to chase me. How can it bee in the worldwide english wikipedia that in aviatic topics only my work is wrong? I can not belive this. FFA P-16 ( talk) 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
In the end they blocked me because I used my workingpage to prepare the text so that someone can translate the text to NL language.. this non NL language gave the final blocking. Yes I made there a few mistakes.. Well now the NL Page about the swiss air force is now the worst/outdated Swiss Air Force page of wikipedia. FFA P-16 ( talk) 10:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I do not want to be disrespectful but if I look what the Banner said about for example about the Zero-G flights at Dübendorf Air Base..."totally irrelevant, non-notable , irrelevant" he often use also "promo" or "Revert adding promo" well but would all this not also fit to this page? List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands Is it not promo too? Is this realy notable? I think not. But I don't go there and delet things out or nominate this page for deletion even it is in my opinion notsomething important. FFA P-16 ( talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Another approach? Soon I will "publish" the article about the Berijev S-13 [1] in the German Wikipedia or the Tupolev Voron [2]. I have not plan to work on an English version, but as the Banner understand German working together on this together could help to understand each other better ? FFA P-16 ( talk) 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steelippow,
Thank you for the rescue of info on the AME-Canada data.
This wiki entry business is new to me although back about 2000 I had info on AMEs in Wikipedia.. however it has apparetnly been deleted or superceded so many times it is now gone..
I have put many hours of research into what an AME is.. in fact I have ancestors who were in the RFC during WW1 - which prompted me to look much closer into what they did and it led to many startling revelations ..
Everything I have is documented (1000 pages with references and source citations and many stacks of printed documents, which my wife hates since the dining room table is no onger visible!)
I have copies of the King's Regulations for the Air Force and Air Council dating bacl to the 1920's and Hansard extracts from the UK parliament and Canadian parliament going back to the very birth of aviation.
unfortunately I have had no luck or poor luck in getting source references into wikipedia so that they work and an greatlt dis-appointed when Wikipedia says "Anyone can add / edit / update" and when I have it unceromoniously gets rolled back.. without anyone even looking at what was added...
I have been an AME since 1990, apprenticed under AMEs who were in their 60's and 70's and have worked around the world.
Where I currently work there are nearly 300 AMEs who have an average 32 years in the business ( a collective of well over 9600 years of knowledge), none of us is under 45 years old and the oldest is 75 and has been an AME for 45 years.
These ladies and gentlemen have valuable information and some ( the ones who have been AMEs for over 25 years) recall their mentors as having held "RCAF issued AME" licenses for civilians since back then the Minister of Defense for Air was the person who was responsible for ALL things relating to Aircraft certification and maintenance release authorisation..
Currently there are numerous issues with regard to trades people and trades training in Canada - and AMEs not well understood as being both trades people AND public safety inspectors - hence the info to the translation bureau and the National occupation codes - which the Human Resources people in the government look at as "Official Data and definition".. and what is found on their websites is erronious and wrong.. so people need to be mande aware..
Also, the source ref and data on the European recognition of AMEs as Professionals must be read by people - as it shows the marked difference in how AMEs are seen between the EU and Canada ( Where the provincial P.Eng associations refuse to acknowledge us as "Professionals" let alone engineers..) It is a documented fact that the AME nearly became extinct in Canada and that the P.Eng assoc of Quebec took Transport Canada to Ccourt over the use of the term "Engineer" on our licenses.. The judge ruled that there was a "pre-existing precedent for these people being termed engineers" and they lost their suit... however TC bowed down in order to keep them happy and so the AME in Quebec holds a "Technician License" and not an Engineer's license as is issued in English speaking Canada ( Hence the need to put in the references to "Check the Source link buttons on the Translation Bureau" definition of the AME...
Any help that you and your fellow editors can provide would be greatly appreciated before another generations' history fades into the mists of time.
CanadianAME ( talk) CanadianAME CanadianAME ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
<ref>citation details here</ref>
, at the end of the sentence. I can then see if anything needs tidying and perhaps whether it is really appropriate. Not everything may stick, but some of it surely will. It may be that we will need to research other national practices so we can compare Canadian practice with them, as a way of showing which aspects are the same or different. That way, we should be able to build up the two articles sensibly, bit by bit. I will be away for a few days now, so no hurry. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 17:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Almost every aircraft page has the same old table. It's been like that for years and no one ever complained. List of active Russian military aircraft - People's Liberation Army Air Force - French Air Force - List of active United States military aircraft. OK, I agree with the table form reflecting the consensus but how about making a little change, which is putting similar aircraft together, the combat aircraft together, the trainer aircraft together. What do you think about that ? - AHMED XIV ( talk) 23:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
If you think I was warring with anyone, that's a misunderstanding. I simply asked you if you see other aircraft or not, because I thought you didn't (and this is my own mistake before knowing the plural of aircraft). I'm sorry if I made you unpleasant for this. Howard61313 ( talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Magnus effect into
Flettner rotor. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
Your help to this Newbie has been greatly appreciated. R44 Researcher1944 ( talk) 10:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Holidays! And all the best to you and yours in the New Year. - theWOLFchild 20:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I made an edit on the Dassault Rafale page where I removed Qatar from Primary users since it doesn't have any Rafales in service yet although the contract was signed. My edit was reverted without giving any clear reasons for that. It would be great if you look into it. - AHMED XIV ( talk) 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Interesting read. btw - Happy New Year - theWOLFchild 14:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of active United States military aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this picture? It looks like a toy boat to me. Like a model or perhaps an RC. It's a crummy low-rez pic so it hard to tell, but it doesn't appear to have the finer details of a life-size ship, and then there's the water - look at the size of those "waves". Anyway, I'm hoping for a second opinion from you. It's being used in 4 different articles. It's not real, should it exist? (I can't access the permission links and I don't know very much about image/file deletion). Lemme know. Thanks - theWOLFchild 00:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Steelpillow, 79 Pilatus P-3 where build and used by the Swiss Airforce and the Brazil Navy. Some of this Aircraft are in Museums sme in private hands now. A few days ago I added that the P-3 flyers are a private areobatic team who use five P-3. with the reference to the Teams homepage (who is in english). But some person say this is not notable, other say it need more refs. Well I think to put the information on the P-3 page that a team exists with 5 aircraft is notable. I add on the discussionspage some links to italian language newspaper who had written about the team. Also i put there the references from the german & italinan wikipedia about the P-3 Flyers Team ( in it & de wikipedia this team has its own page [3] . and on the P-3 page its link to this wikipedia P-3 flyers page).. But now I have given all this refs and nothing is going on. ( I am afraid if I add something, some will delet it out again). Can you have a look at it? Thank you. FFA P-16 ( talk) 21:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)