User talk:The Bushranger/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:The Bushranger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Hi. Thanks for the reviewing List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War. It took me a while but I finished almost all of the issues you raised. Can you give a second look, please? Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I added references to all sentences in the article. We are done. What's next? Do we just change class to "A"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Nope, we wait for somebody to close the A-class review. Good work, BTW! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Nope, we wait for somebody to close the A-class review. Good work, BTW! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
25 DYK Medal for Creations and Expansions
|
The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | |
| Good going! You got on the board with your first 25 "Did you know?" entries. You placed, and the encyclopedia wins! Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
Congratulations
|
The Writer's Barnstar | |
| For placing second in the May 2010 Military history WikiProject Contest with 120 points from 20 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
- cool! Lots of articles. Good for you. Would you also take a look at the DYK on Gunther E. Rothenberg that I nominated on May 31? I'm not sure it's the right hook. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! And I'll get to it when I get a chance. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the dilemma behind adding a slew of new citations, is that the only authoritative and reputable source is my own book on the project. That's considered a huge no-no in Wikiwonderland. However, if you would like to assist in validating the quotes and factual details if I send you the pertinent verbatim sections, it can be done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC).
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
| |||
With Eurocopter's resignation (see editorial below), this month marks the end of his tenure as a project coordinator. Eurocopter has been with the team for almost three years now and will be sorely missed, but he has taken the tough decision that his real life commitments have unfortunately made it too hard for him to focus on his coordinator duties. We wish him good luck in the future, both in real life and on-wiki. Efforts to redesign The Bugle are moving forward and it is our intention to roll out a new format, based on the Signpost, for next month's issue. We hope that this will allow us to provide better coverage of the project's news by allowing more room to expand on the stories we bring to you. If you have any comments or suggestions on what we can do to improve coverage, please let us know. —your IX Coordinator Tranche, May 2010 |
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
For those of you who might not know me, I'm Eurocopter. I served as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject from August 2007 until few days ago, when I decided to resign due to real life issues making it impossible for me to continue to perform project duties on a regular basis. Reflecting on my experience and activities within the project, I decided to write this editorial to set out a few thoughts and offer some advice to interested members. First of all, what does project coordination mean and how does it help the Military history WikiProject? Although the coordinators do not have any real executive powers, they play an important role in project management. To make editing contributions easier for our members we establish guidelines, manage Peer and A-Class reviews, and consult and assist when needed. The primary goal of the coordination team has always been to stimulate the development of quality articles and, once they have been developed, to facilitate maintaining them at a high standard for as long as possible. This has been carried out through the organization of a considerable number of assessment drives, contests and special projects. However, there is still much to be done to make the project one of the best and most active wiki-communities. Coordinator involvement in trying to achieve this, as the central promoters of any activity undertaken within the project, is more than important; the coordination team should stand as an example of civilised and constructive cooperation. Perhaps the most annoying issue—unfortunately quite widespread through the pages of Wikipedia—is POV-dominated conflict. While such a phenomenon might seem inevitable in a community within which hundreds of members of different nationalities with different historical and political views interact, it doesn’t mean we should accept it. The ability to neutrally mediate such conflicts is an important and desirable coordinator function. Secondly, but most importantly in my opinion, is the question of how the project enables editors to contribute effectively. Perhaps you already know how difficult it is to take an article to the highest quality levels such as A-Class or featured status. It is even harder to do this working alone. I believe the best thing the Military history WikiProject has done is to bring together groups of editors with similar interests. As there are very few editors skilled in all the diverse article development areas, you might feel the need for help from editors more experienced in, for example, advanced copy editing, image editing etc. To this end the project provides task forces and special projects where members should always feel encouraged to ask questions, discuss, debate and give advice. Such cooperation is the best way to create properly balanced articles and to establish a neutral point of view. Our Style guide and Academy are also useful in guiding you along the path of writing an article. A final, but vital, part of the collaborative article writing process is editor behaviour when interacting with other editors who are contributing to the same article. Even on those occasions where an editor upsets you or allows their personal opinions to influence their editing, always remain calm, civil and try to reach an agreement. Contributing to Wikipedia is something most of us do as a hobby; time spent in useless conflicts is precious editing time wasted. All in all, the Military history WikiProject is a good meeting point for milhist-interested editors, both beginners and advanced, with someone always there to give help and advice when needed. I wish to thank all my fellow coordinators and project members who keep this beautiful community running. I will certainly miss it! Best regards and happy wiki-editing! Eurocopter (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Windecker YE-5A
I agree with your statements about the replacebility of the image and have removed the rfu tag from the image. However, their remains another issue with this image. The use of fair use images in lists such as List of military aircraft of the United States is generally discouraged, per WP:NFLISTS. I've moved the image to the main article for the aircraft, at Windecker E-5, and re-directed the fair use rationale on the image to that article. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the explanation. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 15:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Many of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are constructed of composite materials, making detection of them nearly impossible, especially in the regular editor band. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination medal
|
The 25 DYK Nomination Medal | |
| First you attained 25 DYK creations and expansions, now you achieve 25 nominations. Ni-i-ice. Thanks for bringing others' articles to light! Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
LTV L45ØF
BR, two days ago, I raised the question at Talk:LTV L45ØF#Designation on the use of the "Ø" in the designation of the L45ØF. Usually at this point I'd just make the move myself based on the sources given in the post, but since we have a good working relationship, I'm making sure you know the post is there. Could you please comment? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Bill! No worries. I just replied there, in fact. :) Sorry I hadn't gotten back to it sooner, been having an attack of RL here, not to mention connection problems (DSL + boonies = dropping connection every time it even threatens rain, it seems...) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Heads up: George de Bothezat
The article has been blitzed by Moldovan and Romanian IPs. The ordinary "he's OUR man" nationalist stuff. They may actually be right but totally unreferenced ("my" version was sourced to a web page written by G.B.'s only biographer and published on the Academy of Sciences website, but who knows...). Cheers, East of Borschov 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Avro CF-103 article
I don't know if you've noticed, but I've started a review of this article at Talk:Avro Canada CF-103/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
?
Where did you disappear to? :-/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Glad to see you are back! - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it! We need all the help we can get! - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Roger Davies talk 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC) |
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have removed three categories ([1]) from the above article. Could you explain why you did this, since this was a pusher aircraft and there are others in the same category. To my mind this is not an improvement to the article, since anyone interested in e.g. pusher aircraft will not be able to find this aircraft. Feel free to reply here, since I'll watch this page. Thanks.--TraceyR (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there. The reason the categories were removed, is because I'm helping WP:AIR rationalise their categories and fix overcategorisation. Category:Pusher aircraft is one of the categories in question - there are so many aircraft that used/use the configuration, that it is too broad (same with Category:Single-engine aircraft and (most horrifically) Category:Propeller aircraft). It's a slow process, but eventually the Pusher Aircraft category will be a holding category (like Category:Jet aircraft is, the first of the aircraft cats to be rationalisd.
- This shows how the final outcome of the rationalisation project will likely wind up. The discussion was several months ago in the WP:AIR talk page - I got kind-of burned-out for a couple of months so there hasn't been much further process (after the jets) until now.
- As a note, it's possible that Category:Pusher aircraft might be borderline on "too broad", so if there's a consensus that it should stay, I don't have any problem with it. Hope this helps! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy reply. That's fine, although IMHO the pusher configuration is interesting enough to warrant a category of its own. I'm not familiar enough with the options: is there a way of finding e.g. all pusher aircraft other than by category? A search on "pusher aircraft" just returns a list, whereas a category is structured nicely. If there's a better way, then ideally the removal of the category should go hand-in-hand with e.g. the provision of a search key or keywords. FWIW I don't mind categories with many entries, since they are well-organised and therefore easy to check through, but jet/propeller is rather broad, even for me! But what's the alternative? I'll have a look at the debate anyway. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Pusher" is borderline, yeah, now that I think about it more. I'll hold off on zapping any more of them for awhile in any event, in case there's discussion to be had. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I have reinstated this one category for the time being. Thanks for the above information. --TraceyR (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Re:File:Pithlachascotee River North of FL 52.JPG
It looked kind of black when it was flying away from me. I'm glad you like my pics of the Pithlachascotee River, I've got more images from FL 52, Grand Boulevard, and Main Street, than what I've posted, but a few locations were difficult for me to get, like Madison Street, Rowan Road and Little Road. I think I could get the one from Little Road if I park at one of the shopping centers nearby. ----DanTD (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories
I am sure you watch it but I have just raised a question at WP:AIRCRAFT on some of the new categories that you have created recently, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do, but, thanks! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Fairchild C-123 Provider cit need
Dear Bushranger,
I thought the cit. I needed about the XC-123A having engines from the B-47 line was in one 1962 publication, but it wasn't. But I found something else I had missed on the XC-123A. I think it is one of the piles of Air Enthusiasts I have stacked against the wall, but I am looking. But I knew a USAF captain involved in the early days of Operation Ranch Hand and he filled me in on the engines and rational for the XC-123A, but I can't cite. beer talk, can we. <GRIN> But if you get a chance check the TALK page on the C-123. I am hunting for the reference and hope to be able do it legal soon. But the statement that the XC-123A was in consideration as a rough field tactical transport is not true. And that photo in Popular Science I found was just sheer luck. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. Well, I wasn't sure how the sentence was supposed to be working, so I tweaked it. I'll tweak it again a bit. Hopefully that ref will turn up, the C-123's always been one of my favourite aircraft! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |
Sea Control Ship
Unfortunately due to system security I am unable to use the wikipedia login. Is there any reason other than failure to login that all edits today on the Sea Control Ship article were deleted. You should notice that most of the content on that page was authored by me at times that I was unable to log in. I appreciate you choosing to use the no nonsense approach so if there is any reason for me to not revert the page back to my edits please leave notice in the Sea Control Ship talk page since my working IP address changes, otherwise I will replace my edits at some undefined time after 24 hours.
- Already done there. It seemed to me that the details on the armament and such of the Invincibles and Kievs was stuff that worked better in the class articles for those ships, but if you think they belong there, that's cool. Thanks for the note! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Grosset Wines
Hi, I've responded to your comment at DYK, but I'm afraid I don't really understand sorry. Camw (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Responded again, thanks for the clarification. Camw (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! Glad to help. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Horten H.III
Hi bushranger. I've put my money where my mouth is and written the H.III article. would you care to assess it for B-class?Petebutt (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Consider it done. :) The bit about the ones testing controls was a bit short, IMHO, is there anyting that can be added to that? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
T-28
Thanks for finding that ref - you are fast! - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Finding obscure things about aircraft (especially about obscure aircraft) is one of my favourite things. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- A useful and appreciated talent around here! - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)