User talk:Sp33dyphil/Archive 2
|
2010 – February 2011, March–September 2011, September 2011 – February 2012 |
Hi Sp33dyphil, my own personal opinion is that is it unwise that you review Bjorøy Tunnel. The choice of course remains with you, but there is an obvious risk associated with it. Pyrotec (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- From what I seen so far of Talk:Bjorøy Tunnel/GA1 this seems to be a "drive by" review, but I will wait and see. It's not clear so far whether this is "score settling" or gaining points for Wikicup. Your review of Taiwan High Speed Rail at Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA2 was not bad; and I believe that you made the right decision in awarding GA to Justin Boren, but there seems little evidence from Talk:Justin Boren/GA1 that you reviewed it against the requirements of WP:WIAGA. By all means carry out GAN, but do not abuse the system to gain wikicup points or to "settle scores" with other reviewers; and produce some evidence (as in Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA2) that you have reviewed against WP:WIAGA. Guidance can be found at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Pyrotec (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Sp33dyphil, I'm happy with the latest change and you have already stated that you are willing to award this article GA-status. So, I've awarding it a GA on your behalf. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have taken care of the issues you listed at Talk:Sergei Shirokov/GA1. Thank you for the review. Please let me know if there are any other issues that need to be taken care of (you can just leave the m on the review page, it's on my watch list). Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Unreferenced articles edit
I see that you tagged Sam Mitchell as being unreferenced. Better tags to use for articles that have external links which virtually are references are {{No footnotes}}, {{BLP sources}} and/or {{Primary sources}}. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you have changed the referencing style again to your own preference, and again without understanding what the changes in templates do. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 February newsletter edit
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to 
The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and 
Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. 
Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to 
Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to 
Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the Beluga an A-300 or an A-310 ? edit
The A-300 was with a three man cockpit (pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer) with analog flight and engine instruments. Then they made the 310 which had EFIS and ECAM and a two man crew.
Later, the orginal A-300 was modified into the A-300-600 by replacing its rear fuselage and tail with the same from the A-310 and by modifying its cockpit to the A-310 2-man glass cockpit standard with ECAM.
So yes, the Beluga was modified from a A-300-600, but the A-300-600 had many A-310 components, including the whole cockpit and the A-310 existed before the A-300 and the Beluga. Thats is why I claim the Beluga can be considered a derivative of the 310. There is more commonality between a A-310 and a Beluga cockpit than between a Beluga and the original A-300-B2.Hudicourt (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
First four cockpit pictures, listed in the order the aircraft were designed:
First the Airbus B-4 cockpit: http://www.airliners.net/photo/DHL-(European-Air/Airbus-A300B4-203(F)/1802877/L/
Second an A-310-200 cockpit: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran-Air/Airbus-A310-203/1450191/L/
Third an A-300-600 cockpit: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mahan-Air/Airbus-A300B4-605R/1873544/L/
Fourth a Beluga cockpit : http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-Industrie/Airbus-A300B4-608ST-Super/1591308/L/
The A-300B2 and B4s were built, then the A-310. Then all the technical advances from the 310 were integrated into the A-300, which turned it into an A-300-600, which was then turned into a Beluga.
The B2 and B4 had both inboard and outboard ailerons, separated by an outer flap. The 310 didn't and only had the inner aileron, but mostly used spoilers for roll control. The A300B4-600 also adopted the spoilers for roll control like the 310 and did away with the outer ailerons.
The A-310 and the A-300-600 have the same type rating, meaning the pilots which are rated on one can fly the other. However, the A-300-B2 and A-300B4 pilots have a different type rating than the A-300-600. The A-300B4-600 and A310 pilots use the same simulator while the A-300B2 and older B4 pilots have another simulator.
Now look at an NTSB accident investigation report of an A-300-600 accident:
http://accidents-ll.faa.gov/American587/AAR0404.pdf
It say on page 9
" The A300 is designated as the A310 on pilot certificates"
On page 30:
"At the public hearing, an FAA airframe engineer stated that the FAA did not make findings of compliance for the A300-600 because it was a derivative of the A310 airplane but that the FAA made findings of compliance for several areas on the A310. For example, the FAA made findings of compliance on the design and strength of the A310 vertical stabilizer, which is structurally identical to the A300-600 vertical stabilizer. The FAA also worked closely with Airbus and European airworthiness agencies to establish certification and test programs for the A310 vertical stabilizer"
A330 edit
Hi! I'll take a look at it this evening :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 March 2011 edit
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Freakum Dress edit
Hi, I am Jivesh. I worked on this article. Thank you for reviewing it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for passing it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to Let You Know... edit
I do apologize if I interrupt. Just wanted to let you know that there are some sites that I was trying to confirm, but some of them will go to the site of your country if you switch sites to another country, and some have an international version. I will see if there are multiple versions of such and will apply them. Again, sorry for the interruption. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the Conversion of bare references on this page, however it appears that there is something that is a problem with the way that you are copying Arabic. If you look at reference 160, the one for http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=289811&IssueID=2068, the title that you copied was not fully arabic. I'm not quite sure what went wrong though. I copied the title by hand and it appears to work now. See [1] for your changes and [2] for my fix. If your change looks right on your machine and mine doesn't then we may have a problem with display that we'll probably have to get help on.Naraht (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Airbus A330 edit
Heh, that thing hasn't really been relevant for years; I don't even think the two other founders are active on Wikipedia anymore. Alas, my activity in featuring articles is quite limited; I'm not quite up to snuff to the new featured article standards (I'm amazed that some of my former featured articles made it in the first place). However, if you require specific assistance, I can provide some, as well as advice. Specifically, ensure that you avoid citing blogs as references, unless you know for sure that the person writing it is an expert in this field. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
A present for you! edit
Thought you might like this: Commons:VN-A372 (aircraft). A VN Airlines Airbus A330-200 at Da Nang Airport, with the new terminal in the background. Couldn't get pictures at Tan Son Nhat (as I mentioned here) but figured this might be good for now. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- And finally—here's exactly what you wanted: File:Vietnam Airlines - Flight to Danang.jpg --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 March 2011 edit
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
Copy-edit of Airbus A330 edit
I've finished my copy-edit of the article you requested. Overall, there wasn't a lot that needed changed, just a few oddly-constructed sentences. However, due to the fact that the article includes both a lot of statistics and a lot of aircraft with numeric names, I've tried to put quantities into words where possible, to reduce the amount of numerals used - otherwise it gets a little bit too much. Feel free to change this back if you prefer the numeral-only approach. In addition, outside of copy-editing, I don't personally like the amount of depth placed on the #Notable accidents and incidents section. As the article is about the aircraft model, it seems pertinent to me to include only those incidents directly related to the aircraft itself - mechanical failures, etc, rather than, say, terror attacks which happened to affect individual aircraft of this model. Aside from that, good luck with the FA nomination! GRAPPLE X 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Issues regarding General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon edit
It is posible for you to withdraw your nomination of the F-16 article? I'm worried that a lot of preliminary work is lacking, and a discussion is now ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon into the sourcing of the article and other complications. Normally an advanced alert to the community on such a big article is preferred, as then we can respond to the drive to shift the article to a higher gear and create less problems for both the reviewer and responder when the review does take place. I hope you do not consider this as a sign of disrespect, I write to advise on the path which I see as best for creating improvement in the article over its current state today. Kyteto (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011 edit
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dates in publishing information edit
I know you don't see the problem, but the cite/book template you are using is malformed and does not allow the publishing date to appear as part of the publishing information; instead like APA style, it puts the date next to to the author(s). There is no allowance for multiple editions in this form and authors do not have any control over editions, that is entirely a publishing decision. If you choose to change all the presently correctly formed bibliographies to templates, at least try to accommodate the date into a logical location. No one expects you to know everything about referencing styles, and I realize there is a reason for the templates you are using but there are other ways of achieving the same result without changing the bibliographies arbitrarily. I could show you how to do that, but so far, there has been a lack of interest in anything other than rewriting everything into templates. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
The Signpost: 28 March 2011 edit
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
WikiCup 2011 March newsletter edit
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. 
Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Espionage edit
Would like to welcome you to WP:WikiProject Espionage. Unfortunately, the founder has been AWOL for 11 months and his Wikipedia WikiProject is getting revived. Hope you can contribute or give feedback to the WikiProject. Enjoy your stay here at WP:WikiProject Espionage! Adamdaley (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
AWB - inconsequential edit edit
Hi, re this edit - the only change that I can see is the replacement of "Image:" by "File:", twice. Since these are synonymous (see WP:NS#Aliases, I believe that this edit falls foul of the AWB Rules of use item 4. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 April 2011 edit
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank You edit
Thank You so much Phil for the kind words, the service badge and the barnstar. I'm feeling discouraged only because of the rude behaviour by an admin (User:Toddst1), who infact revoked my twinkle and rollback access. I was thinking of continuing for another 2 weeks and retiring forever. But with your words of appreciation, I'm gonna rethink on my decision. Thanks once again. 
—Abhishek Talk to me 10:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually in a conflict with an editor on Electronics City. Although I accept my mistake of edit warring, I was actually removing improperly cited material from the article. User:Toddst1 failed to see this and blocked only me. He revoked my rollback rights considering that I had used rollback on the talk page of the user with whom I had a conflict. Well that was a mistake which I hadn't realised. I had the user's page on my watchlist and had accidently clicked on rollback on the watchlist. The admin considered me to be misusing the right and revoked it.
- He revoked my twinkle access saying that I have previous problems using non-twinkle rollback. What I noticed was that this admin is a very rude user and has made irrelevant blocks many a times which caused him to be taken up at ANI. But there was still a lot of support for him on ANI despite his nasty behavior. So I have come to a conclusion that admins can err any number of times here, but if users like me err about 2-3 times, then we frowned upon. I infact posted on the admin seeking an explanation about his general rude behavior. But he didn't even bother to respond to that, but instead accused me of trolling. Anyways, I have written to an admin from Bangalore who takes care of India related projects, he is yet to respond. I will decide what to do after he responds. —Abhishek Talk to me 09:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have sorted out the differences with the above said editor. I have decided now not to leave. I once again thank you for your extremely kind words, the barnstar and the service badge. It was only because of your kind words that I decided to sort out the differences and stay back. Regarding voicing my opinion on A330 at FAR, please gimme some time, I will do that. Cheers!
—Abhishek Talk to me 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have sorted out the differences with the above said editor. I have decided now not to leave. I once again thank you for your extremely kind words, the barnstar and the service badge. It was only because of your kind words that I decided to sort out the differences and stay back. Regarding voicing my opinion on A330 at FAR, please gimme some time, I will do that. Cheers!
AWB edit
I suggest you download the latest snapshot from http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/AutoWikiBrowser5201_rev7660.zip . Then tell me if the bug appears again. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 April 2011 edit
- Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?
- Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news
Good catch. I've removed the infringement and removed the tag. Don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD and remove obvious violations like that in the future when you come across them (of course avoiding edit warring).
I don't see any point in any action against an IP who hasn't edited since December. 20:55, 13 April 2011 Toddst1 (talk)
Rollbacker edit
Hi. I've been looking over your contributions and you certainly seem to do good work here. I've gone ahead and issued you rollback rights. Please be careful with the privilege - it can be easily lost. I recommend you carefully read up on the what you should do and should not do with rollback, then practice here before using it. I'm confident you'll use it wisely. If for some reason you don't want it, let me know and I'll undo this change.
You may wish to display {{User rollback}} on your user page. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 April 2011 edit
- News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news
- WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
What were you thinking? edit
huh?????? We should be trying to improve articles, not delete obviously notable articles. The-Pope (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just saw your reply to The-Pope and it really concerned me. Please read Wikipedia's guideline on notability, Wikipedia:Notability, and also the specific guideline which relates to athletes, Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which states that Aussie rules players need only to have played one match at AFL level to be presumed notable. Stratton has played 23. How you thought that deleting the article would be uncontroversial, which is what PRODs are for, is beyond me. It appears that you didn't even look for sources before PRODing, a simple google news search shows plenty of articles, any one of which would be considered significant coverage in independent reliable sources (to pass the WP:GNG) and also verify that he has played an AFL match (enough to pass WP:NSPORTS). As to there not being much info on his childhood, I would ask how that is at all relevant to notability? And yes, the article could become more than a stub. Please see Ken Hall (footballer), an article about a bloke who payed one game and didn't even get a kick, which is easily more than a stub. The same could be done for Stratton and you would be far better off spending your time trying to improve the article, rather than trying to get it deleted. I would respectfully request that you refrain from PRODing any more articles until you fully understand the notability guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply and my apologies if I came across a bit harsh in the above statement because it's clear your heart is in the right place. Yeah, there are far too many AFL bios that are stubs, but I believe that there is enough info out there to get them all up to at least start class (especially the more recent players like Stratton). About getting them to GA, the article that I mentioned above is at GAN for the simple reason that I want to see if a short article that covers all the info available can be a GA. If it does pass, I'll have a lot more hope that a large majority of WP:AFL's articles can become GAs. Oh, and I go for the dees (who played woefully against your hawks a few weeks ago). Jenks24 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Dylan's RFA edit
I've moved the extensive thread of discussion over Malleus' oppose to the RFA's talk page, but edit conflicted your second change. Would you mind please restoring anything I've missed to the talk page? Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- What would you like me to do, I don't understand? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 23:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a study edit
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2011 edit
- News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
A319 edit
No criticism of your good work but just to note that changing [[Airbus A319]] to [[Airbus A320 family|Airbus A319]] will create a lot of work when the type is eventually split out from the family article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, still thinking of creating A319 at some point when I get time if nobody else does. MilborneOne (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I used to change "A319", "A320" etc. WLs from the type redirect to "A320 family|" wherever I came across it, but I have stopped now on the understanding that we at some stage will be splitting all the family members off into separate articles. However I notice from my watchlist that you are going to "A320 family"; am I wrong in my belief that there was consensus not to do this anymore? YSSYguy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, actually. Where was this matter discussed? If this is the case, I will stop fixing A319 redirects, although I will fix those linking to Airbus A320. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I used to change "A319", "A320" etc. WLs from the type redirect to "A320 family|" wherever I came across it, but I have stopped now on the understanding that we at some stage will be splitting all the family members off into separate articles. However I notice from my watchlist that you are going to "A320 family"; am I wrong in my belief that there was consensus not to do this anymore? YSSYguy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 April newsletter edit
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and 
Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to 
Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Airbus A330 edit
Sorry, I forgot to mention I left one request for clarification in the "Design section" regarding this sentence. The designations were originally reversed because the airlines believed it illogical for a two-engine jet airliner to have a "4" in its name, while a quad would not. Maybe delete the last five words? ► Philg88 ◄ 
talk 07:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The A340 was originally called the "Airbus A330", the the A330 vice versa. I think it's still worth mentioning the Airbus A340 and how it was originally called otherwise. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I see, no problem. BTW, sorry for the screw ups with the ndashes - there is something wrong with that script which has now been flagged to the developer. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 01:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2011 edit
- News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief
Removing backlinks to 777 edit
Can you explain why you have removed the above wiki-links ? Mtking (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because they're redirects. Am I making a mistake? I can revert them back if I'm at fault, but I don't think I am. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you can put them back, I think that the wiki-links are useful, and if in the future the redirect becomes a full article then there is no need to hunt all the ref's down. Mtking (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think 777-200ER will be an article? In any case, the full name should be Boeing 777-200ER, or what ever the last 5 numbers and digits are. Also, these article are saturated with links to Boeing 777, and unlinking the redirects won't create a problem. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- And if Boeing 777-200ER becomes and article (for example after a spit) then 777-200ER will become a redireect to that page and everything works as it should but removing the wiki-link 777-200ER does potential harm, stopping a reader being able to jump directly to the relevant part of the Boeing 777 page. Mtking (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think 777-200ER will be an article? In any case, the full name should be Boeing 777-200ER, or what ever the last 5 numbers and digits are. Also, these article are saturated with links to Boeing 777, and unlinking the redirects won't create a problem. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you can put them back, I think that the wiki-links are useful, and if in the future the redirect becomes a full article then there is no need to hunt all the ref's down. Mtking (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Sydney Johnson/GA1 edit
I have addressed your concerns at Talk:Sydney Johnson/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong edit
Can you clean up Neil Armstrong's talk page archives. I think I have been involved in the article in the past and its archives seem to be wiped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I still think the archive is missing stuff. Look at how extensive the history is. However, I managed to find Talk:Neil Armstrong/GA1, which says I delisted it from GA. I think another person is suppose to review it for GA if I delist it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure what your point is, but aside from speedies, it is quite uncommon for a reviewer to do more than one GA level review for a single article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
GAR tips / suggestions edit
Following our chat on IRC, suggestions: make sure your Bibliography is in alphabetical order. You have (at least) one dead link - try and get another one for it. I have gone through and fixed all the non-breaking spaces which I spotted on a first run-through, for you; no doubt there will be ones I have missed. Best of luck! First impression (from a novice) - I reckon it probably won't take much to go GA, but then that's just my opinion. There will be tweaks, obviously, to do. :o) There always are ..... Pesky (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Q Clash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Neoloogism, No references to show widespread useage
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Porturology (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I found some references and removed the template Porturology (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Areas of interest edit
Hi,
You've done lots of really impressive work on some aviation articles, but I can't help noticing that your User:Sp33dyphil/Master plan is all about aircraft. Would you consider looking at other subjects such as organisations (not necessarily just airlines & manufacturers), regulations, events/incidents, operating principles &c? A lot of the non-aircraft articles seem to be a bit neglected in comparison. Feel free to ignore this comment if you're already overworked or if you have your own particular interests bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing Virgin Blue to Virgin Australia edit
G'day, I have been spending a bit of time this morning reversing your changes of Virgin Blue to Virgin Australia in a number of articles. It seems you haven't been checking the AWB properly (as you are meant to do under the Rules of Use), and have often made the change where it is simply not appropriate. Until last week Virgin Australia did not exist, so anything dealing with the past, such as the Ansett Australia article or text about Air NZ's purchasing a shareholding in DJ, should read "Virgin Blue" not "Virgin Australia"; the parent company is also still called 'Virgin Blue Holdings" at the moment. Also, in the Melbourne Airport article, there were a couple of instances where your edit resulted in the text reading "Virgin Australia (Virgin Australia)", as someone else had already made edits reflecting the change of name. I don't have any more time to look at your edits now, so please review them and revert as necessary. YSSYguy (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please check the edits made with the AWB properly, as you are supposed to do. Your AWB-assisted edit to the Air New Zealand article earlier this evening was inappropriate and resulted in phrasing similar to the case I highlighted above, that occurred in the Melbourne Airport article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Will do Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 May 2011 edit
- In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news
- WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games
- Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back
- Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
Your signature edit
Hi there. Would you mind changing your signature to something less eye-catching and noticeable? Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color, neither tags like <big> nor striking colors that distract editors from the surrounding text should be used in signatures so that other editors are not inconvenienced by it and the text flow is not disrupted. Also, readers with visual disabilities may have problems reading white text on pink. Regards SoWhy 15:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong GA review edit
Hi. The GA-review of Neil Armstrong has been started, by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs) - and I'll be trying to help out a bit.
The page where it'll all happen is Talk:Neil Armstrong/GA2.
There's nothing there right now, but should be, over the next few days - if you can keep checking on that page, and address/comment on the points raised during assessment, that'll be great.
In general, the article looks "OK", so I'm optimistic. One thing you might like to address, whilst waiting for more feedback, is: there are a few parts with no reference. If you skim through, you'll see the odd 'hanging sentence' with no ref, such as He holds honorary doctorates from a number of universities., As the right-hand seat pilot, Armstrong was in charge of the payload release..., Armstrong was one of two civilian pilots selected for the second group... and others.
I'm sure the referencing will be covered in more detail during the review, but thought I'd mention this now, as something to have a look at.
"What was the page that you recommended to me on IRC again?" edit
My place, probably - so, the 1st link below.
live.co.uk Mi casa es su casa, hope to see you there. Chzz ► 15:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2011 edit
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
Competition between Airbus and Boeing edit
 | On 21 May 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Competition between Airbus and Boeing, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
Re Thanks edit
Hi Sp33dyphil,
Most of what's in Airbus A330 is pretty good and I wouldn't usually worry about much of what I've tagged if doing a normal copyedit; I'm just being a bit more picky on things given it's been requested in preparation for an FA nom, and this is the type of stuff that may get spotted or questioned by an FA reviewer. Some of the things I would have checked up and reworded myself, but most of the refs seem to be offline sources, so I can't do so. Also, not really being a plane buff, there's some uses of technical terminology that I'm sure would make perfect sense to anyone in the know, but I'm trying to simplify or briefly explain for a general Wiki readership. Additionally I believe this is the third request for copyedit, so I'm sort of assuming you're looking for things to be pretty thoroughly checked.
Where I've tagged for clarification I've tried to leave a bit of an explanation in the clarification tag - for example the "were intended to receive 180-minute approvals by 1995 ... and then to 180 minutes after 50,000 flight hours" part I tagged mainly because I don't know about the ETOPs certification program, so this didn't make sense to me. This is the type of technical terminology I'm talking about above that I'm sure is totally understandable if you're in the know, but doesn't make much sense to a general readership. I know it's linked to the ETOPs article, but often it's possible to give a brief one line summary of a process like that which makes that lengthy paragraph understandable without making a reader go and read the other article. If it is perfectly sensible and is standard writing for high-quality articles about planes, then I'm happy for you to just de-tag it.
Re the West Germans, no I'm not wondering what West Germans are, what I'm wondering is what West Germans you are talking about. The West Germans never get a mention until here - at least not that I could see, the article reads as though it's French based - then it's like these random West Germans are suddenly in on the design process. Now if I read the entire Airbus article the significance of this may become apparent, but as a reader I shouldn't have to do that. Maybe it just needs something as simple as a reword like, from:
- The decision to work on the A320, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the West Germans, created divisions within Airbus.
to
- The decision to work on the A320 by the French management, instead of a four-engine aircraft proposed by the West German sector of Airbus, created divisions within the company.
(I don't know the details, so the terms may be out of whack, but with just a few more words someone reading this would know so much more about the company and what was going on in it at this point in time).
I'll have a look at the A-class nomination as you request when I'm done, but to be honest I personally don't put a lot of stock in article ratings. Having seen some pretty cruddy articles that are claimed to be FA, even in the recent past, I wonder whether those processes leave a lot to be desired. Having said which, it is a good recognition when people like you have put huge amounts of effort into articles like this Airbus one to make them thorough and informative.
Anyway, I'll go through and continue to pedantically tag those sorts of things, and if you think that I've missed the mark here and there, then its fine by me for you to just remove the tag. If it's not clear what I'm tagging in some points then again feel free to ask. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the 450/750 million pounds needs an explanation, cos it just drops in out of nowhere as though it makes perfect sense to be there. --jjron (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some big problems in Airbus_A330#A330-200HGW. As written it should come under Airbus_A330#Proposed_variants, but if delivery has already been effected, then it needs to be rewritten to past tense and referenced (I've added a clarification tag with some more details). --jjron (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is Airbus_A330#Proposed_variants correctly named? The subtitle suggests it's about variants that are proposed for development, but it's actually about variants that were proposed in the past and failed. Could be standard naming practice? --jjron (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, as said in my final edit summary, it's done. We basically do an article and then move on (not meaning to sound blasé, but I've copy-edited some 57 articles in the last three weeks, so there's no way I've got time to keep tracking them all). But if there's specific changes or additions you want me to look over, then give me a yell, however I didn't intend to keep indefinitely checking it over. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
On the Floor edit
As someone with near zero (if not zero) input into the article you have no right to nominate On the Floor for GA. Notice that I've edited the article 356 times, more than 6× as much as the next nearest person (see here) I make an edit to the article every 8.5 hours. Now how would you feel if you edited an article as much as I edit On the Floor, genuinely adding content every day and removing vandalism, only for some random stranger to nominate it for GA... especially considering that said randomer has: 1) not contributed to the article and 2) the article isn't ready for GA. For these reasons I've removed the nomination. I consider GAN as a way of achieving a reward for one's hard work editing and certainly when one awards GA to another its a pat on the back for their hard work. Its not ethical or morally acceptable IMO to hijack someone else hard work. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was just surfing a few articles about songs, and I trampled across On the Floor. I thought it was up to scratch, and so, using my initiatives, nominated it. Since your the primary contributor, I accept your actions of removing it from GAN. However, I'll improve the article so, if I nominate it for GAN, you'll have to come up with a really good reason to remove it. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm already working on improving the article...having conducted a peer review and several other informal reviews. I would consider it extremely rude and unwikipedia-like for you to nominate the article again. By all means if you wish to work together on the GA that's another thing. However, to solely nominate something which you've jumped on the bandwagon of, especially after all the hard work has already been done, and considering that there is an active regular contributor who's stated an intention of taking the article to GA... it would be incredibly selfish to do so. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see what you mean. OK, I'm sorry for my thoughtless nomination. I acknowledge you as the driver – please steer us towards the destination. You can talk directly to me at [3] Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a complete outsider... nomination is just nomination. If GA is a mark of prestige then I'm sure that the vast majority of the prestige would fall on the person who wrote the vast majority of the article. I'm sure Sp33dyphil didn't intend to take credit for Lil-unique1's hard work.
- If anybody nominated one of my articles for GA, I'd be thrilled, because I'd get the warm fuzzy feeling of having written a GA even though somebody else is fixing the final impediments that I hadn't got around to doing. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said I've appreciated Sp33dyphil's input but the article was not ready for nomination as the talk page show's it was recently peer reviewed and lots of changes are being made, pushing the article to the stage where it is ready for such nomination. If you look at the edit history, within the last couple of days I've made a mass of changes updating content, fixing references, grammar and adding missing information. Whilst everyone is encouraged to work towards GAs (they are a good thing), Phil should have checked with me first as its evident that this article has a regular editor who is already working towards the standard required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see what you mean. OK, I'm sorry for my thoughtless nomination. I acknowledge you as the driver – please steer us towards the destination.
- I'm already working on improving the article...having conducted a peer review and several other informal reviews. I would consider it extremely rude and unwikipedia-like for you to nominate the article again. By all means if you wish to work together on the GA that's another thing. However, to solely nominate something which you've jumped on the bandwagon of, especially after all the hard work has already been done, and considering that there is an active regular contributor who's stated an intention of taking the article to GA... it would be incredibly selfish to do so. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Update on Nominated articles edit
Please observe that several citation required tags have been added to North American XB-70 Valkyrie, I would advise that they be resolved prior to the GA. Additionally, I have prepared additional content on the Avro Vulcan; personally I would not have considered it ready for A-level reviewing, as I had planned to remodel it at some point, the development section is a little thin on the ground and did skirt some important considerations, such as the export market. More could be added on foreign interest, but I am up to my neck in other projects right now, I have only been able to add information on Australia. It would be advisable to do some reading into the Vulcan's development, if you wish to generate further positive content for the article. Kyteto (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011 edit
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
June 2011 Wikification Drive edit
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's June Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by about 900 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts June 1, but you can still sign up! |
Sumsum2010·T·C 23:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
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 are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
- 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, writing contests, and article logistics.
- We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
- We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
- If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
- If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 May 2011 edit
- News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news
- In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Royal Railway
- Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism
- Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired
- Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter edit
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by 
Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and 
Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011 edit
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011 edit
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Suggestions edit
Hi,
Could I ask for some informal suggestions?
After your gentle nudges last month, I've decided to take some of "my" articles through GA. Any suggestions or hints before I begin formalities? The first one will be Maersk Triple E class (which needs some cleanup of refs first), perhaps followed by some articles on the Ottoman empire. bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Checklinks edit
Hi, Kind of linked to the Removing backlinks to 777 discussion on this page. using Checklinks is linking pages to redirects. For example its linking 777-300ER to [[Boeing 777-300ER]] rather than, [[Boeing 777|Boeing 777-300ER]]. It does redirect but its not really the best way of doing it. Its also going against what you said yourself in Removing backlinks to 777.
--JetBlast (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The changes were made by a script embedded in the tool. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- What way? My only interest is to tag dead links so others become aware of them. I didn't want the changes to take place. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Im totally lost now.... Using checklinks is "breaking" the links in the fleet tables, its doing this as well as sorting other dead links. for example its changing [[Boeing 777|Boeing 777-300ER]] to [[Boeing 777-300ER]]. Its linking to redirects. Not the best practice to be honest. It seems to do it to the Boeing 777 in particular. Before you save the changes the tool makes it might be best to put the links back to what they where. Infact in Removing backlinks to 777 you seemed to change some links so they are not linked to redirects. --JetBlast (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know that. I'm an advocate against linking to redirects. I tried by best to revert some of the changes, but in some pages there are tens of them, particularly in the fleet table. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Before you hit save it might be a good idea to edit the changes it has made and not to just hit save. Someone will now have to go through and revert these edits now. With the tools used on wikipedia like AWB and checklinks the results need to be checked manually and any unwanted changes to be reverted.--JetBlast (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know that. I'm an advocate against linking to redirects. I tried by best to revert some of the changes, but in some pages there are tens of them, particularly in the fleet table. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Im totally lost now.... Using checklinks is "breaking" the links in the fleet tables, its doing this as well as sorting other dead links. for example its changing [[Boeing 777|Boeing 777-300ER]] to [[Boeing 777-300ER]]. Its linking to redirects. Not the best practice to be honest. It seems to do it to the Boeing 777 in particular. Before you save the changes the tool makes it might be best to put the links back to what they where. Infact in Removing backlinks to 777 you seemed to change some links so they are not linked to redirects. --JetBlast (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Every now and then I go on to AWB and go over my edits, and changed fixed redirects. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011 edit
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
The Signpost: 20 June 2011 edit
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
FA on 330 edit
Hey, I'm going to feel bad if you don't even get enough reviews on your article. Personally, I think you need to track down and provide your own reviewers if the process is not doing so. I don't mean "canvassing" or favor trading or expecting a support. But find people who will give the thing a solid look at and then support or oppose. If anything you are doing the process a help, by getting them interacting (if they do good reviews) on the FA page, and maybe they go review a second article as well after yours. And obviously the process does not "assign" reviewers (like a real journal would) and content in general at Wiki gets less and less reviewers...so you can't rely on "people stopping by".
Might try Mil Hist or maybe France projects. I don't know if we have a "Companies" project, but that is also an idea. I would do more than just post a note on the talk pages of the projects (do that), but would also find out who has recent FAs completed in those spaces and then ask those fellows to do a review. I assume you have the aviation project covered. I find people respond much better to direct requests on their talk and kinda tune out requests that are "broadcast".
Another idea: look at the 5 passed FAs and note the reviewers and nominators. Ask each (noting you read his previous review) to give you an A330 review. I would also think that reading those reviews would give you a lot of insight on things to look for in your own article! (I just skimmed the 770 FAC from 2009.)
It seems to have the right content. This is very important and I would not lose sight of that. Or think that FA is only about prose and/or endnote format compliance
Is even pretty decent prose-wise, although I did see a few of the glitches that Sandy mentioned. I think "running it through GOCE" doesn't impress anyone at FA (almost the reverse) as they realize (as does the Guild) that GOCE handles a lot of articlees that are well below FA and that a lot of the GOCE has never done an FA ("anyone can copyedit"). I think it's fine that you used them and they seem to have really done some good work. Just explaining...
I just felt bad when I realized you were not even getting reviews...and that you were a young user and a first timer. Good luck!TCO (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The table is fine edit
If someone is going to mess with you for not following a project template data table! Well ignore it. Wiki has article to article variation and that is how we find better formats.
I can't support until I figure out the alphabet soup of the development effort. But after I do, I will.
I'll also go through the grammar, but I agree the problems were isolated. Or if not isolated, they could be called out on many articles that roll through here. I can't talk for Sandy, but looking at the 770 review, and just my reaction as a reader, I think it's the dullness and the number haze that is more the pain point. I know how to fix that for the first couple body sections.
Hang in there. Everyone appreciates that you did some work. You're doing better than I did my first time enduring this process. You just gotta keep your cool. Take actions on the things people bring up that you agree with and be calm and just say no, politely on ones that you disagree with. TCO (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
GA pass - exceptionally well done edit
Like it says, lol! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot to your part, too!
This, you deserve edit
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For courage in the face of adversity, and commitment above and beyond the call of duty, for your work on Neil Armstrong Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
Optimizing variants edit
Hey, I support keeping the coverage of all the variants at this level of content (can't recall if someone complained.) It's towards the end of the article, so the detail is less a concern. And it's a lot better to keep things together in this sort of sitatiation (e.g. see painted turtle where we had all 4 subspecies...much better article...as they had so much in common...than if we split them out.
What I would like to do is just change the order of the variants.
- Cut the overview stuff (not a fan of that duplication. you covered that very well in development and design. Let's make this section just be the different variants.
- Call the first set "commercial variants"
- Sorry, I won't do this specific request because this article is about a commercial aircraft, so any variant is commercial be default. If it is otherwise, we are then required to state what kind of aircraft it is, military of commercial. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Within commercial, go in chrono order (300 first). It's such a short list, you don't get lost. Besides, you are not in strict alphanumeric order now anyway with F coming after HGW.
- Also move "undeveloped" below military.
I think it will make it more organized for the average reader. Just want your OK, before I start moving the sections.TCO (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am in the chat...
citation re-review for A330 edit
I asked Nikki nicely, and she is willing to relook through the vcite refs. (Which we need.) She wants an assurance first, that the refs are not going to change again. Are you OK with them being Vcite? I guess you could change them back, but that will be a hassle with all the intervening edits...and basically still need a re-review if it's done manually. Only reason, I'm asking is because you have this master plan and all.
That fellow REALLY should not have changed them in the middle of the review. If that happens again, would revert (and the FAC peeps will back you up). But my advice on this one:
- let's leave it in Vcite and get the review done and get the plane "launched". Nikki will go over them again.
- If you want your articles in a particular format, I would defend them in the future (people will back you up, if you are the major contributor).
OK? So my suggestion is you go say say nice things to Nikki, leave the vcite, and let's get this fuselage moving forward. :-)
I support edit
I support A330 for Featured Article. TCO (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2011 edit
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Trying to get this table prettied up. edit
See here. [4]
Can you please double-check the accuracy of all the terms here. Note, I intentionally kept it simple (years not exact dates) as the intention is really to be more of a roadmap or a "key" for all the plane models and their nicknames. But fix any mistakes please. It may get converted to an image, in which case it will be more of a hassle to work with.
You can still sign off if you hate it. But I honestly think the confusion on all the plane number letters is a lot the turnoff to aviation articles. Once I had that figured out, the topic was interesting. Just want to give the reader some help with this section, that really talks a lot about the whole A300 family to the 340.TCO (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Your message for SandyGeorgia edit
You left a message for her on her user page, so I've moved it to her talk page. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't realise. No wonder there weren't any other posts! --Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the tense error was, but it did seem like a pronoun error (its out to be their, referring back to several airlines, not the parenthetical Singapore Air.) I can't find the phrase in article though, may already be fixed.TCO (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I fixed it. Thanks for looking at it. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
copyedit for A330 edit
I have been trying to wrestle down a superstar copyeditor to go through this thing and satisfy the director but have not got one yet. That said, looking at it am finding several errors (extra commas a lot, also sentences that change the logic train from front to back). I can try to go through the thing and clean them up. To avoid controversy will do a lot of intermediate saves and edit explanations. Will not do any major changes. Not sure if that will be "good enough" to pass the bar with Sandy, but I am seeing enough clear errors that I can tell I can fix several and help it. Am a little sick so may be a little slow, but I know this article pretty well, so should get it done in 48 hours.TCO (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good, go ahead. I'll back you up. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK. (1) Saying what it "is" in the first half of the first sentence and than saying "developed by" (something from the past) is what I mean by mangling the sentence logic. It's mixing different time concepts. And we don't need to. We have plenty of sentences later on to talk about development. Keep like with like makes it easier on the reader. First two sentences should be what it is now. Clean. Then we have next 3-4 that talk about development with more of a past focus.TCO (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- (2) Later on, there is another sentence that is too tortuous, with the discussion from the 1970s and then culminating in 1987, along with a shift from the A300 to (implied) smaller planes back to the 330. That one needs some untangling (and probably a couple of words of content added in from the body, to make the program evolution more understandable). I gotta sleep, so won't fix it now.TCO (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deadlinks edit
Obviously using a bot or programmed change does identify dead links, but it is more important to replace the links rather than remove them. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- I'm only removing dead links under "External links". Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- But many of them and I have been sweeping up after you, are merely archived or still available in another referenced source and still active; you have to go slower and not rely so heavily on a bot. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- Look, I don't want to be obstructive, but if it was an inline citation, I will be leaving it alone, and will try to find replacements. However, if a particular link falls under the "External links" banner, I will remove it, since they serve no purpose whatsoever. Should the reader want to research the subject further, they can search it on Google. Wikipedia is not a long list of respiratory links – the meaty thing is the text within the article, not the external links, let alone those that are dead. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The external links provide an alternative source of information, see WP:EXT and many editors consider them part of the reference section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- If you look at the first point of "What to link", it asks "Is the site content accessible to the reader?" The answer in this case is no, since some are dead. I'm not sure what sort of computer or software you own, but a page that reads "Error 404", to me, and to most of the readers, is unaccessible. In the lead there's the statement "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Well, I don't want to include a dead link, because, well, it's dead. Have I been deleting perfectly accessible websites? No. Have I been deleting informative websites? Yes. But why are they deleted? Because they're dead. If I had not deleted the link, would you have been replacing them? Maybe. But it's not like I'm doing nothing. I'm cleaning up a few articles as well, replacing dead links and a few other jobs. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The external links provide an alternative source of information, see WP:EXT and many editors consider them part of the reference section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- Look, I don't want to be obstructive, but if it was an inline citation, I will be leaving it alone, and will try to find replacements. However, if a particular link falls under the "External links" banner, I will remove it, since they serve no purpose whatsoever. Should the reader want to research the subject further, they can search it on Google. Wikipedia is not a long list of respiratory links – the meaty thing is the text within the article, not the external links, let alone those that are dead. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bzuk is correct (just to butt in); if a link is completely dead, fine, remove it. But where archived copies of the contents are possible, you should link to them rather than remove the line entirely. Ironholds (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, you have a bot on a mission, great. Identify the problem in the article, and see if there is a replacement rather than leaving it to others to do the repair. In one particular edit, an entire external section was summarily removed, including the commons link, a quick check, however, showed that the first external site was still active under a new section on the website. The original source merely has a new "pointer" in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. Simply removing external links because they don't fit your idea of references, as your argument that "google it" is the alternative is also questionable to say the least. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- Fine. I'll be tagging dead links throughout the article, but will only replace those within the article, not the external links section. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please also tag dead links in the External Links section using the bot, that gives other editors a warning that the link is no longer active which leads to a review of the site in order to remove, replace or substitute a link. FWiW, I agree with you that many external links are of dubious value and should be removed. Bzuk (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- That's what I've been doing the whole time. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please also tag dead links in the External Links section using the bot, that gives other editors a warning that the link is no longer active which leads to a review of the site in order to remove, replace or substitute a link. FWiW, I agree with you that many external links are of dubious value and should be removed. Bzuk (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
- Fine. I'll be tagging dead links throughout the article, but will only replace those within the article, not the external links section. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, you have a bot on a mission, great. Identify the problem in the article, and see if there is a replacement rather than leaving it to others to do the repair. In one particular edit, an entire external section was summarily removed, including the commons link, a quick check, however, showed that the first external site was still active under a new section on the website. The original source merely has a new "pointer" in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. Simply removing external links because they don't fit your idea of references, as your argument that "google it" is the alternative is also questionable to say the least. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
Hi there!
I want to thank you for supporting that article in it's A-Class review. Apologies for not replying, I'm still very busy with my exams. You noted you spotted some minor issues with the article, and I was hoping you would indeed let me know what they are. Cheers! --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation edit
| | Hi there! You are receiving this message because you are a participant of WikiProject Wikify. After the retirements of our first two executive coordinators, Mono and Guoguo12, WikiProject Wikify is undergoing a period of transition. We are currently holding a discussion to create a plan for the future, find volunteers to help fill our many administrative positions, collect any feedback about what has happened in the last six months, propose some new guidelines, and see if there are any creative ideas to increase participation. We appreciate your input! |
Sumsum2010·T·C 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 June newsletter edit
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by 
Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by 
Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Checklinks edit
I'd be happy to know how you use it. I read the page but still a bit confused. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Guess I can't expect an answer. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought that was a comment. OK, you type in the title, and the tool loads the references. If the results are all white, then there's nothing to change. If you see a red link that hasn't been tagged with {{Dead link}}, you press "Save changes" at the top right hand side. Another page will load, showing the differences. Press save. If you like to repair a damaged link "Green", you right click on the url, and press "open in new tab". You copy the new url, return to the tool, press on the the box with the damaged link, and press "Replace link". You paste the url into the pop-up, and press "save changes". Manually change the access dates, and press save. You can chat to me directly via [5] Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. Any other queries, just bring it up. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! edit
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Just thought i would send this for the effort you put into aviation articles JetBlast (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
comma lesson edit
See rule 12 and rule 15. [6]
You DO use a comma when there are two independant clauses (the subject is repeated). You don't if the subject is not repeated.
EX: I went to the cocktail party, and I put a lampshade on my head and danced around.
First "and" requires a comma. Second and does not. And if you put it there, it will be wrong. Same applies with "but" and other coordinating conjuctions. It's right there in the specs. Rules 12 and 15.
Regarding Hawker Siddeley Harrier edit
Hi, as you've expressed interest in the article and doing work upon it, thought I should fill you in on the details. I've been pottering around on this article since January this year. I made it the informal collaborative article for March, which extrensively redeveloped the article, from about 22 kb to upwards of 65-70 kb. I've been trimming and adding, tuning and improving it since then, and thanks to some very involved reviewers at MilHist, giving the article a very different kind of formalisation to that typically provided from doing it over purely through the aviation front, the article has finally emerged as an A-class. The article is sort of complete and good to go, but if you have books or missing content, now would be the time to raise it on the talk page, or add it yourself into the article, as I'm planning to nominate the article at the FAC in the coming days. Speaking of which, did you know you're about to make Wiki-history; you're the first person in almost two years to successfully navagate an article up to FA level. It happens to rarely that most aviation editors never produce a single one, I had personally given up hope of seeing one created myself. It is just as much a credit to your persistance as it is to the quality of your ability to read into and impliment key overhauls of content. I didn't think I'd ever see the A330 article look so good; nor did I ever expect a single European aircraft to get that kind of attention. It is rare indeed; I hope you will be very satisified when this milestone is accomplished. Got to cut this short now, life calls me away for another series of demands... Kyteto (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. I've had this book for a long time, but when I wasn't a Wikipedian. I thought I'd try giving an aircraft like the A330, which is quite unique, a go. I'm even surprised myself that I was able to expand and improve the article, given my offline commitments – schoolwork and others. Please keep in mind that the current state of the article is due to other's effort as well, not only myself. Anyway, I'll be looking over Hawker Siddeley Harrier over the next few days, to spot any minor discrepancies. Should the article receive FA status, what article do you think we should work on next? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm close... edit
Gotta sleep, but will be done early tomorrow. Then, I'll go to Sandy, show her the diff and try to move this thing ahead.TCO (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Canpark's new Barnstar edit
If you are not going to be objective, you should not assess your friend's articles. Mztourist (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Table looks good edit
Like it better how it looks now anyway. Better to be showing it, works well. Like it smaller. Kudos.TCO (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Better, it's smaller, and doesn't stand out as much. I like it. Thanks for coming up with the idea. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 July 2011 edit
- News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
- Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
- Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin
F-22 Raptor edit
Hello. I saw a photo of F-22 Raptor on your page, so I think you are going to get it to GA/Fa status. Am I right? Claptonn (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, not the F-22 Raptor, but the Lockheed YF-22. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Problems with the YF-23 edit
Hi there. Long story short, I saw the YF-23 article hit the GOCE requests page as a potential FA, so I did an FA style image review for it. Both of the links at File:Yf-23 1.jpg are dead, meaning that the image is pretty much unsourced. Just letting you know ahead of time. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. The other image is fine.
- Interestingly, your replacement image is actually the exact same image as the old one, rotated 180 degrees, with less cropping, and slightly lighter. They both had to have come from the same negative. The old one is credited to the Navy, the new one to the Air Force. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Comanche helicopter edit
Why did you add all the redundant weapons information when it is already listed in a lower section? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikiwings edit
|
Wikiwings | |
| For amazing work reorganizing and rewriting Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche. - Ahunt (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
More of an aviation cobra, then... edit
(P.s. I am a reptile guy, check my Featured List: U.S. state reptiles) TCO (reviews needed) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
disney bomb edit
The last issues for GA nom of Disney bomb article were addressed. See Disney bomb#GA Review. Ready for GA nom IMHO. Please have a look at it. Suggestions are always welcome. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
re GA reviews edit
I replied on my talk page, I guess you haven't seen it. I've reviewed one of your articles so far (only one minor issue holding up promotion). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't you see the review I did here? I figured I'd do them one at a time so you weren't overwhelmed. Is there anything else I need to do for this review? Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just to note - I have also reviewed Lockheed YF-22. The article is in excellent shape, so I passed it with no concerns. I would suggest, however, that some of the images hosted here (which are all works of the US Government and therefore PD) should be uploaded and added to the article, particularly at least one in-flight photo. Great work otherwise! Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I still like it...and think it will make it. edit
|
That is good work. You are doing good stuff and learning how to do what they want. Have a really good feeling about how you are improving the aviation articles on Wiki. TCO (reviews needed) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 11 July 2011 edit
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
Superjet 100 edit
Could you please read Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Mediacenter_links before tagging the links as dead again? Nanobear (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Espionage edit
User:Sp33dyphil, I am back from my "WikiBreak". Would like to know your thoughts and ideas about improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage. It would be appreciated, you can reply on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011 edit
|
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC) |
Good Article promotion edit
_perform_a_formation_fly-over.jpg)
|
Congratulations! |
| Thanks for all the work you did in making both Lockheed XF-104 and Lockheed YF-22 certified "Good Articles"! Your work is much appreciated.
Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk) |
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011 edit
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanx for the thanks; it was a bit of a reappraisal based on a solid piece of research that I just came across. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC).
A barnstar for you! edit
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
| Thanks for the help with my user page - not certain I want the medal but 'tis a minor quibble; what is for certain is that you've left it better than you've found it :) Egg Centric 19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 18 July 2011 edit
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Melbourne meetup this Saturday edit
|
Melbourne Meetup
|
 | |
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there! JVbot (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (this automated message was delivered to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Melbourne)
Talk:Operation Ladbroke/GA1 edit
Hi you started the GA review for operation Ladbroke, just wondering if it was an error, as it's still blank? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Anything further required ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is ten days old now any chance we can move on? Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks I see you have a lot of work on with GA nominations - good luck.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is ten days old now any chance we can move on? Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
About the article regarding Your Favorite Enemies edit
Hello Sp33dyphil, How are you??? I noticed you were making changes on the article regarding "Your Favorite Enemies". However, those are undoing the updates I just made on there, as the official representative of the entity stated in this article. I am simply trying to bring the article at its best, according to the latest news regarding Your Favorite Enemies. I am still new here and open to collaborate with any Wikipedian willing to bring this article forth as well. Feel free to contact me if you have advices to share. However, it would be greatly appreciated not to undo the updates I am trying to make on there. Thank youSophenemy (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Phil (not sure that is your name...), I've have been asked why I do not use templates for citations or bibliography notations numerous times and the simple answer is that the Wiki templates (all of them!!) contain errors that are very difficult to correct, including use of second and et al. authors, full titling, multiple and first editions, location, date location. I have tried to get template designers to address the programming faults, to no avail. I can correct all of these programming errors, but it often makes more sense and less time to start out with the correct Harvard Citation or Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide employed in a "scratch cataloguing" format. I find that the "snapshot" feature of the templates not particularly useful and since there is now a plethora of different templates,, each with its own problems: book, news release, periodical/journal, it is a bother just remembering what the "fix" is for each.
Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloguing that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloguing is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record form an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication. (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."
Further- the style employed for note citation is the Harvard Citation style which one other Wiki editor eons ago had begun to use and even though it works well with the MLA style, it is a separate system. Basically, the first reference is completely cited and all following references are provided in a brief format: "Author(s) Date, page." Sorry, I got off on a tangent in my earlier response, you merely wanted to know what style was being employed. FYI, my other problem is that I have a background stemming from 35+ years as a librarian and due my ancient teachings, I had gone through rigorous training for cataloguing and reference works. As you can visualize, I am an old fossil but I have in my last few years, been able to adopt newer technology. My last assignment in a high school library was eye-opening as my library technician and I simply downloaded MARC (Machine-Accessible Record Control) information from library collections where the questionable book was already cataloged. What a joy, simply copy someone else's cataloguing and paste it into our data base. To me that is like the "template" system but it isn't always the best way. I did have to resort at times to doing my own cataloguing to correct errors. As an author and editor, I have an interest in the mundane and arcane world of cataloguing and referencing.
As you may already determine, there are a number of suggested styles that are in place on Wikipedia. Many of these are based on the use of templates for editing and here is where the issue may actually be of discussion. The template guides have a number of variances that do not match the actual APA (American Psychological Association) style, which is one of the style guides used for referencing research. The APA guide was developed at a University level as a shorter, simpler guideline and intended for psychology, education, and other social sciences. University professors invariably assigned this guide to newcomers because it was considered easier to master and had the basic information required for a citation. However, the Wikipedia templates that were created by editors such as yourself or other editors used the APA style, or some slight variations of it.
I do understand the use of templates, it is merely that the catalog information that is in the "widely-used" template is based on a system that is not best adapted for research papers. I understand that many editors may prefer a template because it looks simple, has some "meta features" and has wide acceptance as to use, but as I indicated before; for me, it is just as fast to "scratch catalog" and if you know how to use the MLA style, it actually provides more information for the user. There have been some efforts to rewrite the templates but I find it easier to do without them and still give a source citation or a bibliographic notation. Again, that's me... where I have been involved in major articles- see Amelia Earhart, North American P-51 Mustang and the Avrocar (aircraft), you will find that I have properly referenced sources of information (just not with templates). As to others' suggestions of having the template designers revise their work, I can't see challenging the whole wiki editing group when most people rely on the templates. My rewriting them to a more commonly used style would take a whole lot of explanation, as I have attempted to do for you. It's hard to summarize 30 years worth of cataloging experience for a non-librarian and make it relevant. If I didn't care what system I used, why would I change? would be the obvious reply. BTW, if you ask me the time, I will tell you how to design a clock. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC).
In recent times, I have accommodated your requests to continue to use the template style on articles you deem worthy of expansion, (why I don't know, as I have already written over 6,000 articles in the other style, but... nonetheless) as the aspect of collaborative work that Wikiwackywonderland fosters, is important to me, and I will endeavour to first work with others, rather than not. Here is my great big proviso, I am still an author and editor in the outside world, and my writing on Wikipedia is actually a very crass exercise. I "try out" my future articles for publication here, and with the prospect of thousands of editors actually reviewing my work, albeit from a professional level to that of rank amateur, I have found some benefits to contributing here. What you may wish to do with the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article has triggered my latest response in revising the article, because the preliminary manuscript that I have been working on was for an article on Canada's choice of a fighter for the future, and a number of articles in which I contributed were already marked for close scrutiny on my "watchlist." The volley is in your court now... BTW, I've run a number of tests on CheckLink and it works fine with or without templates, tell me what is the advantage of the template use? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC).
Mass addition of source to articles that don't use it. edit
Why have you added the following source to dozens of aircraft articles, most of which don't seem to use it as a source?
Wilson, Stewart. Combat Aircraft since 1945. Fyshwick, Australia: Aerospace Publications, 2000. ISBN 1-875671-50-1.
(Hohum @) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I started to revert some of your speculative referencing before I was distracted by real life, but my reverts have been challenged so I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Adding unused references, although I find it hard to believe it is allowed but if you have any guidelines or policies that support it they would be welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2011 edit
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
Reference moves = please stop edit
Can you please stop moving unused references into the articles while we are still discussing the matter at project. Just adding the references for the sake of it is not really needed. I appreciate that you are trying to improve the articles but it may be better if you slow down and stick to one article at a time adding content from your references. Moving these unused references appears to be disruptive and not improving the encyclopedia so please slow down and consider what you are doing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
RE: GA edit
Yea, sure, I'll tackle one later today. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/GA1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I replied to your replies on the aforementioned GAR, and I also replied to your concerns in the Bridget GAR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for Bridget! As for FAC, I probably wouldn't nom that, seeing as I have one up there now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I replied to your replies on the aforementioned GAR, and I also replied to your concerns in the Bridget GAR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That was a really fun GA to review! Particularly considering its importance and length. Great job on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: GA review edit
Sure; I'll tackle one in a couple days. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
August 2011 Wikification Drive edit
| | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's August Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 1,000 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Note: The drive starts August 1, but you can still sign up! |
Peer reviews edit
Hello, Phil; how are you? Remember me from our chat at #wikipedia-en? The Singaporean movie article is Money No Enough (its peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Money No Enough/archive1) and the other article is about a highly successful, but highly controversial, Singaporean blogger, Xiaxue (its peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Money No Enough/archive1). Your reviews would be most appreciated! Thank you. 谢谢. Terima kasih. Arigato. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion edit
|
You did it again! |
| Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making North American XF-108 Rapier and Sukhoi Su-33 certified "Good Articles"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) |
- And McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II too! Well done. – Quadell (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter edit
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are 
Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and 
PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from 
Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011 edit
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
William Anderson GAN edit
Hi mate, I saw the GA criteria all ticked on the review page but no comments -- did you have something to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Northrop YF-23 A-Class review edit
I've closed the above as successful... congratulations! I've also suggested here that, given Fnlayson's input on the article, we might record them as a co-nominator along with you. Would this be okay with you? EyeSerenetalk 19:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
MilHist Contest edit
Hi mate, saw your additions to the August contest -- great you've decided to enter, I think you'll do really well this month and in the future! Just a couple of things to note so you can finetune your entries -- the key thing for eligibility is the change in the MilHist assessment between the first and last days of the month:
- McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II was B-Class on 1 August, so its entry level should be B, not C
- North American XF-108 Rapier was GA on 1 August, so its entry level should be GA (meaning unless you successfully nom for A-Class during the month, it's not worth entering)
- Lockheed Have Blue was Start-Class on 1 August, so its entry level should be Start, not C -- however, I saw you raised its assessment to B-Class and in fact it should be a peer who assesses for B-Class and above, especially when you enter them in the contest, so I'm happy to review this one independently but generally just list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests for an independent B-Class review (you can review others' articles for B-Class there as well)
- Northrop YF-23 was indeed GA on 1 August and was promoted to A-Class during the month under review, so your scoring of that one is spot on!
Hope this helps -- if you feel the contest instructions are not clear enough re. this sort of thing, let me know and I'll have a look at improving them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Whisperback edit
Hello. You have a new message at Prayerfortheworld's talk page. Message added 03:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC).
Hello. You have a new message at Prayerfortheworld's talk page. Message added 03:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC).
Re:GA reviews edit
Sure, why not? Go review Hurricane Jimena (2009) after I review one of yours. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Lockheed Have Blue/GA1. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify's August Newsletter edit
| |||
Re: Being a co-nom for the article's Featured Article candidate review, is fine, but remember, I do have particular bias as to editing. But Phil, why, oh, why you persist in using malformed templates, is still a puzzle to me. It is so difficult to try to find solutions to the mashed-up formats rather than writing out the parameters of a bibliographic notation properly in the first place. Mais, c'est la vie... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
- As a reference librarian who has been working with bibliographic notation templates for decades, the Wiki templates are the most f$%^&*ed up I have ever seen and are being added to expeditiously by a countless number of new designers as well as the problem of the great unwashed simply not using the templates properly, reinforcing the computer adage of "garbage in, garbage out." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC).
- The speed in which I can write tracings is mainly because of a familiarity with formats and that makes it an exercise of simply following the traditional: Author, title, publisher, date convention. Knowing just that simple format, allows for any reference source to be formatted. For example, a new release would like this in this fictional example. Simpson, Homer. "The ABCs of Nuclear Plant Supervision (News release)." J.Burns Enterprises, 2011. Retrieved 7 August 2011. FWiW Bzuk (talk).
A barnstar for you! edit
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| For all the amazing work you have done in improving aircraft-related articles, bringing so many to GA status, I award you this shiny blue symbol of admiration. Thanks for all you do! – Quadell (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 08 August 2011 edit
- News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
- In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news
- WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close
- Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news
Just a little note re: a few of your AWB edits edit
G'day; just to let you know, when you change USAF → U.S. Air Force, you are actually replacing one redirect with another. At any rate, the target United States Air Force was already linked earlier in the B-2 Spirit article; it might be better to delink USAF when you find it and perhaps make sure the article says "United States Air Force (USAF)" at the first mention of the term. Just a suggestion, that is what I do whenever I come across USAF, USAAF, USAAC, USN, USMC, RAAF, RNZAF, RAF, NTSB, FAA etc. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't do it anymore. Just in case I do restart those AWB edits, I will keep in mind your advice. 06:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sukhoi Su-35 edit
The article Sukhoi Su-35 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk page for things which need to be addressed. RohG ??· 03:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup edit
I know you have points to submit dude. Don't forget to do that. The race just opened way up with one of the leaders dropping out, so it looks good for your odds on making the next round. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Sp33dyphil, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Sp33dyphil.
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011 edit
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Assessment edit
Appreciate your good work in the assessment stakes, an editor has done a lot of work recently on LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, it looks good as a "B" but I think it may be worthy of a higher grade with a bit of copy editing etc., Any chance in your "unofficial role" in the aircraft project to have a look and see what you think, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the article is GA-class yet, because I spotted a few crucial problems.
- Footnote 6 is from the German Wikipedia
- There are unsourced paragraphs
- The lead doesn't completely summarise the article, and
- There are too many images compared to the amount of text.
BTW, thanks for your comment about my "unofficial role" in the aircraft project. Sadly, there aren't many people who are willing to go the extra mile (I'm not saying that's you). Cheers Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 August 2011 edit
- Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix
- WikiProject report: The Oregonians
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress
- Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection
Orphaned non-free image File:Velocity Rewards logo.gif edit
Thanks for uploading File:Velocity Rewards logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Colourlines (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
GAN Review edit
Hello mate! I just want to inform you that i have started reviewing the article which you have nominated for GA and want you to review this .Thank you. RohG ??· 14:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, Roh G asked me for a second opinion, which I gave. The nomination is currently on hold at Talk:Sukhoi Su-37/GA1. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Sukhoi Su-37 has passed GA status. Thanks for you efforts, and it was a pleasure working with you. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
XF-85 FAC edit
Copy/edit from my talk page: Hi Bzuk, I'm wondering if you'd like to co-nom the article for FAC with me, considering the changes XF-85 has gone through the last month. Thanks Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sure thing, however, I do have additional resources that I did not use in the first "sweep", but I will wait to see how things are going first. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC).
- I'm done now, there's still a bit more information I could squeeze in, but this should be sufficient. Now take a look at a related project: FICON project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC).
- Sorry, go for the FAC, if you leave me at it, I'll still continue to add to the article, so it looks good about now. As to the FICON project, I think the projects where fighters were carried by wingtips were not related to the final FICON project B-36/Rf-84 combination. I typically come in after the fact but in this case, I am willing to rewrite the article based on a number of resources I have found. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC).
- I'm done now, there's still a bit more information I could squeeze in, but this should be sufficient. Now take a look at a related project: FICON project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC).
Hey. Just letting you know that this should probably be closed one way or the other. A couple other users have made some modifications, but since the original nom's gone probably not much else will happen. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you don’t happen to have any sources (or know any) that deal with the composition of Polish forces during Operation Tractable and in particular their effort around Hill 262? If so would you pop by the talk page and chime in, were at a bit of a lost end.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not the best person to ask about these matters because I'm pretty confused between what a battalion, battle-group, regiment etc., are; may you be kind enough to explain to me what they are? If you do want to ask me about something, please let it relate to aviation. Nevertheless, I am interested in bloody engagements, so ask me as a last resort. Cheers! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- No probs :)
- As for your confusion: A battalion is a entity made up of 3-4 rifle companies. 3 battalions made up a regiment (in German or American armies for example, but a what is called a brigade in the British - i think some of the armies have changed how they word things but am talking what i know for the Second World War period). A battlegroup is, second world war wise, something scrapped together at a particular moment or a force assembled for a specific task. I hope that didnt sound too confusing? :PEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- No. Anything else you'd like to ask me? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Airbus A330 edit
Hi, when are you going to renominate Airbus A330 for FAC? 107.20.67.82 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- When somebody is willing to co-nom with me. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 August 2011 edit
- News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens
- WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation
- Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography
- Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration
- Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed
Hey, just a quick note- please remember to update your submission page promptly so that others (including the judges) can keep track of your submissions and score. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2011 edit
- News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
- Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
- Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four existing cases
- Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter edit
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and 
MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sp33dyphil 2011! edit
I for one am rooting for Australia. jorgenev 02:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good to know there's someone cheering me on! Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback edit
Message added Jetstreamer (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks! edit
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| For all of your excellent work on fighter aircraft articles, including many Good and A-class articles, I award you the WikiChevrons! Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC) |
- What a most pleasant surprise! It's good to recognised for my dedicated work, but my long sought-after accomplishment is to write an FA article – do you mind lending me help? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
MILHIST coordinator edit
Phil, I note that the MILHIST coordinator elections are hapenning soon (or now?), and I was wondering if your were going to run for it? - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi BilCat, good to see you. I am running for MILHIST coordinatorship, having just added my name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2011. Are you running as well? Hope to see some of your comments about me. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 08:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Your Opinion edit
Hi. I was wondering if you would please give an opinion on the Qatar Airways Talk Page on the section Go-Around Controversy please? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 September 2011 edit
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
GAR for P.1154 edit
Talk:Hawker Siddeley P.1154/GA1 only needs some minor attention before I can promote it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but I think Phil might be unclear on what it is he needs to do. Are specifications for the Navy variant essential, or is the issue something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, ignore that, I see it had already been passed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
AV-8B things to check edit
Hi Phil. In the last line of this edit, HJ has asked for checks of a few things he's changed. The changes needing checks are marked in his edit summaries in the history of the article. They all look fine to me, in that I think what he's changed them to are indeed the meaning intended, but I wanted someone more familiar with the material to check them over as well. Could you have a look, and reply here/there/somewhere? Thanks --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
An ATF for you! edit
|
An ATF for you! |
| I'm leaving an ATF here just to congratulate you on your first featured article, the other sort of ATF. (Click the full-size image to see Tornado afterburners in action in the background.) Well done to you and everyone else involved in helping get the article to featured status. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
- Congratulations from me too on your first FA, Phil -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh what? That's unbelievable! I really didn't think I'd promote something to FA. Thanks guys! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 22:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Boeing 737 MAX edit
 | On 10 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boeing 737 MAX, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the smallest member of the Boeing 737 Next Generation family will not be continued in the family's replacement, the Boeing 737 MAX? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boeing 737 MAX.You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 16:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Featured Article promotion edit
|
|
Congratulations! |
| Thanks for all the work you did in making Northrop YF-23 a Featured Article! Please these wikiwings in honor of your accomplishment. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you Quadell :D Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Re:WikiCup edit
Sorry, but not a lot. Jarry's various tools count a total of your claims throughout the competition- as the rounds in which you could have claimed these are over, you can't now claim them at all. J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011 edit
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
re:GA reviews edit
Thanks for your offer but I really don't think I'm eligible to evaluate this article. Firstly my knowledge with that subject is mediocre and secondly I'm not a native speaker of English so I can't give a thorough judgement on the language. Thanks again for your request and good luck with the nomination I'm sure it will be approved in no time.--Rafy talk 18:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a mop reserved in your name edit
|
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity. |
My76Strat (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- What a great thing to hear, especially coming from an established user like yourself My76Strat :). To answer your question, I've been thinking about becoming an admin for a few weeks now, because I'm ready to move on from writing articles and working more behind the scenes. You might not have noticed, but I'm not as well-versed in engaging others about maintenance aspects as I am with writing articles. To alleviate this problem, which might become a big issue should I go for adminship right now, I've started to participate more in AFDs more often during the last month (see my contributions and look for particularly the percentages). I need to do immerse myself in the admin environment first before I can even think about nominating myself (it'll better if someone else nominates me) for the mop. I hope to be ready to take the plunge by the end of January next year. Again, thanks for your warmest of messages, and yeah, I hope I will finally lay my hands for one of those mops. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are definitely on the right track, and you have a very good attitude about it. Regardless that I personally believe you are already qualified, what matters most is your own comfort level. And some of your reservations are genuinely valid. Like I said there is one with your name on it, when you put your hands on it will be your decision. When you decide that you are ready, you can request for someone to consider nominating you at WP:RRN. I hope to see WP:ALTRFA functioning by years end, and if so, it will just be another option for you to consider. By all means, God speed. Best - My76Strat (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- If I go for adminship, you'll be the third person I ask to participate in the event. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Be cautious of asking people to participate! For sure someone will accuse WP:CANVASS. Don't worry about telling me, I will know as soon as you transclude it. Or the very next time I login after. My76Strat (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Right, be careful about asking people in general ahead of time for help, but don't worry about asking anyone who brought the subject up on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Be cautious of asking people to participate! For sure someone will accuse WP:CANVASS. Don't worry about telling me, I will know as soon as you transclude it. Or the very next time I login after. My76Strat (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- If I go for adminship, you'll be the third person I ask to participate in the event. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are definitely on the right track, and you have a very good attitude about it. Regardless that I personally believe you are already qualified, what matters most is your own comfort level. And some of your reservations are genuinely valid. Like I said there is one with your name on it, when you put your hands on it will be your decision. When you decide that you are ready, you can request for someone to consider nominating you at WP:RRN. I hope to see WP:ALTRFA functioning by years end, and if so, it will just be another option for you to consider. By all means, God speed. Best - My76Strat (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please let me know as well, whenever you decide to try for adminship. It won't be canvassing to let me know. – Quadell (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 September 2011 edit
- News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked
- WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics
- Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures
- Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications
- Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live
- Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
I need assistance edit
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hello, I've got a problem with Twinkles. During the last few CSD tags (see my contribs), TW hasn't updated my CSD log. I don't understand what's going on. Explanations will be appreciated. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Would help if you could quote the Afd for it. I can't see one in the delete history - not even a prod (which wouldn't count anyway - not a discussion). Could be another variant of the name. Peridon (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- I watchlisted the article, and saw "Deletion log", clicked on it, and saw the article there. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Aviation articles edit
I'm frustrated too ... I see a lot of activity in aviation articles, but we're kind of stuck until we get more aviation people working on each other's articles, and that just doesn't seem to be happening in Milhist's A-class review. You asked me to ask people to get moving ... but I've found that doesn't work well on Wikipedia; people get interested when they get interested, so the only things that seem to work well around here are hard work and patience. My two cents is: try putting some of your articles up at Aviation's A-class review (and I'll help with reviews), and try helping other aviation people out with their articles, for instance, articles that are up for GAN ... that might inspire them to help you out. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
RE: Article creations edit
Hello. The minor planet articles are listed by the hundred and groups of ten of them are concatenated into longer lists. As to their notability, outside of potentially hazardous and trans-Neptunian objects, most smaller minor planets, particularly those of the main belt, are, I agree, not of great importance. Many are technically unremarkable yet still have received names; the names are arbitrary designations which make reference easier. The names are also primarily up to the whims of the discoverer(s). The page on common article deletion discussion outcomes says only
- Asteroids and comets are acceptable e.g. List of asteroids, List of non-periodic comets, and List of periodic comets.
Under these guidelines I have been operating to complete Wikipedia's record on the minor planets. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 03:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have just tagged a host of these. By Merovingian's own words, these are un-notable objects. I thought I was tagging good-faith article creations, but I see you have already brought this issue up to Merovingian and even suggested a reasonable alternative: making a list or adding to an existing one. Wikipedia cannot possibly be a catalog of every astronomical object discovered. I'll likely be putting these up for either speedy deletion or AfD soon. Have you got any further suggestions, Sp33dy? AstroCog (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, thinking about it, I think they should be nominated for deletion, because they're not notable (fails WP:GNG). However, please leave the possibility of bringing them together under one article (as a list maybe) wide open. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a bright idea – it'll clog up the logs. I'd propose them for deletion, if I were you; quick, smart and easy, and uncontroversial :) Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing new articles. Please be aware that foreign-language articles are not considered to be patent nonsense and should normally be tagged {{notenglish}} and listed at WP:PNT. However, I have deleted this article as an advert. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you! edit
|
Hello Sp33dyphil! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
- Oh thanks SwisterTwister. Yum! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yumi Clothing page edit
I've tried to comply with Wikipedia's tips in the creation of the page Yumi Clothing, but it has been put forward for Speedy Deletion. Why is this? And what can I do to prevent this from happening? This is a global company that I was shocked was not already listed... (LCPR (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC))
- It needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 08:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I tried to write from a neutral point of view. Are there any particular lines that you can recommend revising in order to save the page? (LCPR (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC))
- Please rewrite the article in your userspace under User:LCPR/Yumi Clothing. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules regarding page inclusion (particularly WP:CORP). When writing articles, please write from a neutral point of view, reference all controversial statements with independent, reliable and high quality sources. Have fun! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I feel like I'm fighting a war with bots here - and they wonder why newbies are leaving in droves! The two articles have entirely different scopes - the (suburb) one is focused on one small bit (in geographic terms) and has a decidedly more local focus, whilst the main article is focused on the whole thing. I'd actually written this on the talk page before you went through. This is becoming increasingly standard for places in Australia - eg Perth, Western Australia and Perth (suburb). The situation's been rectified now but could you please look at the settings for whatever tool you're using to identify these things - I mean, it doesn't bother me all too much as a going-on-6-year editor, but it would probably stop newbies from wanting to contribute. Orderinchaos 11:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's worth duplicating info on a subject which isn't as notable as Perth. For the record, it seems like Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are the only areas that have both suburb (CBD) and city articles. Searches on Ballarat, Geelong, Gold Coast and the lesser major towns only yield one article for each of them. I think Fremantle isn't classified as a state capital, so IMHO it shouldn't have two duplicated articles. Also, I see that the coordinates, area (which is small), population etc. are virtually similar, which contradicts your claim that the suburb article documents a smaller geographical area. This might confuse some readers, and will split the effort of other editors. Lastly, can you please explain your last sentence? Cheers Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- In response to your main point here - we have two schema, one being cities and one being suburbs, with for example East Fremantle or South Fremantle having curiously more coverage by default than the CBD in spite of the CBD being more notable. From a reader perspective, why is this so? In fact, I was asked this exact question by someone the other day. It's as if we're saying the CBD of Fremantle is somehow less important *because* it is a CBD. If you read enough Australian city articles, you get a sense that they suffer from a split personality as they're sort of trying to cover both and getting very confused. You say the populations are "virtually similar", but I fail to see how 7,000 and 25,000 are similar - one is almost four times the other. You mention the Gold Coast but the Gold Coast's CBD, Surfers Paradise, Queensland, has its own article. It makes little sense to suggest it is more notable because it has a different name. And lastly, about splitting effort, the Fremantle article is already largely complete, so is actually difficult to contribute to beyond maintenance, whereas the Fremantle (suburb) article is a stub and hence can be a seed for further growth as we now have active interest in the area due to the Wikipedia Takes Fremantle activity tomorrow from non-Wikipedians. Read some of the editor research and this is borne out.
- With regards to my last point, in my view, you handled this poorly. What would have been wrong with engaging in a little dialogue on the talk page or on the user's talk page rather than going straight to the "CSD A10" and intimidating notice stage? If I had have been a newbie, I would have felt that my contributions were undervalued and perhaps not come back. The editor survey is clear that the biggest group we are losing is non-vandal newbies, and at Wikimania we discussed the impact of the "bot" mentality of Wikipedians as being a big factor in this - it's needed for some things, but this wasn't one of them. Orderinchaos 14:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for my ignorance, and, as you said, I was wrong about the population (silly me). Can you explain to me how the area difference between Fremantle (5.6 km2) and Fremantle (suburb) (5.6 km2) correlates to a population difference of nearly 17,000? Before I tagged the latter for SD, I looked at the infoboxes of both articles and saw that they were basically the same (except for the pop. diff), which led me to tag it for CSD A10. BTW, when I saw that the creator of the suburb article was a sysop, and with more than 50,000 edits, I went oh oh. Sorry about my action, but I at the time it occurred strongly to me that this was indeed a duplicate because of I wasn't aware of the apparent guideline. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, these things happen, I was more concerned about method than the content issue. Yeah the separation was done hastily, the area on the bigger Fremantle article should be more (I'll fix that when WP starts behaving normally again, I can't access my own talk page right now :/.) Hopefully once I get back from tomorrow's
festivitiesactivities, we'll have a few more eyes on the Fremantle pages so can sort out the anomalies. Orderinchaos 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, these things happen, I was more concerned about method than the content issue. Yeah the separation was done hastily, the area on the bigger Fremantle article should be more (I'll fix that when WP starts behaving normally again, I can't access my own talk page right now :/.) Hopefully once I get back from tomorrow's
It's bad form to ask five questions at a single RfA. We're not testing candidates over every single little detail. Not to mention that your questions are vague in what they're asking for. Are you going to oppose if they disagree with you on Q10, or if they don't write down every single mental process in Q9? Q12 is especially misleading—do you want them to say histmerge because they read it as a copy-paste move, or did you mean that it was copied from an external source?
If you want to ask questions at RfA, please limit yourself to the one or two most important ones and ensure that you are wording them well. That is, unless you want to trip up the candidate, in which case, just don't bother asking questions at all. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
tb edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Article creations -- Rivers edit
Replied on my talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Replied again, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 September 2011 edit
- From the editor: Changes to The Signpost
- News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised
- Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork
- WikiProject report: Back to school
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word
- Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year
Your GA nomination of Boeing E-3 Sentry edit
The article Boeing E-3 Sentry you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Boeing E-3 Sentry for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Harrison49 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrolling edit
Please do not tag any more pages until you have read and fully understood WP:NPP. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung, thanks for your message. I don't have any problem with understanding WP:NPP, but I'm taking an indefinite break from new page patrolling, as I think my views on the standards that should be expected from new content are not quite the same as the community's right now, and I'd rather get back to creating content of my own. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. The community actually sets high standards for new articles. The problem is getting New Page Patrollers to enforce them. You may be interested in WP:ACTRIAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Advanced TIFF Editor page edit
What are problems with this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraphMan1 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
William King edit
Your speedy deletion request had been dealt with before I logged in again. If you read the article you will see that it cites two eminent sources, one of which states (as quoted) that King was one of the ten best players of his day in the 1750s. That underlines his notability. If you have doubts about the sources, and this applies to other projects also, I suggest you raise a question on the WikiProject talk page before turning to the deletion process. ----Jack | talk page 18:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2011 edit
- Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews
- News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content
- In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references
- WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles
- Featured content: The best of the week
Removal of cats edit
We appear to have a problem in that you seem to be removing cats quicker than I can add them? not sure why you think multi-engine is a parent cat it has always been used for aircraft with more than one engine. If it is a parent cat then what do you suggest we use for twin-engined aircraft? On another note you are adding the introduced in cats which I understand we said we would not use on aircraft, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- The cat says "This is a container category. Due to its scope, it should contain only subcategories."; I don't know how you interpret it but I think it means it should not directly contain articles; I suggest you create separate cat for twin-engine aircraft. To answer your last point I wasn't aware that there was a discussion on this and that a few articles already had them. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apology Speedyphil I had not seen it says container cat. I will look for the discussion we had on introduction cats. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, we all make mistakes. You can chat to me further about any of the two issues at [7]. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Found intro discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 31#Introductions MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Chipping in: this was discussed several months ago on the WP:AIR talk page as well...IIRC the consensus was that cats by number of engines would be a good idea, with "multi-engine aircraft" as a container cat. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Found intro discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 31#Introductions MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, we all make mistakes. You can chat to me further about any of the two issues at [7]. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apology Speedyphil I had not seen it says container cat. I will look for the discussion we had on introduction cats. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
|
Thanks for the welcome message, but are you lagging like come of my computer games! I doubt if I'd need it ;) Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Interview with Wikimedia Foundation edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Sp33dy, Hope this finds you well. I'm a Storyteller on the fundraising team at the Wikimania Foundation. In preparation for the 2011 fundraiser this November-December, I'm interviewing Wikipedians who contribute significantly to the projects. In the past, we've relied pretty heavily on Jimmy to carry the fundraising burden, and while his appeals have done very well, he alone doesn't represent the multitude of content creators on Wikipedia. I'm curious if you would like to interview with me? I would hope to speak with you for about 60 minutes and would ask you a number of questions about your personal experiences editing on Wikipedia and about its impact more generally. If you are inclined, please email mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 23:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- What an offer! Yes, I'm willing to have a interview with the Foundation. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, can you email me mroth (at) wikimedia.org and we'll set up a time? Cheers! Matthew (WMF) 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your Comments edit
Phil, Thanks for your feedback regarding my withdrawal from the coordinator election. I appreciate your candor and see the truth of statement. It is quite true that I have not been participating in the project discussions as much as I could. Upon some consideration, I think that should increase my participation in project discussions and who knows I might even contribute something productive. Regardless, thanks for the feedback.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearance: Northrop YF-23 edit
This is a note to let the main editors of Northrop YF-23 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 30, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Northrop YF-23 was a single-seat, twin-engine fighter aircraft designed for the United States Air Force (USAF). In the 1980s, the USAF began looking for a replacement for its fighter aircraft, especially to counter the USSR's advanced Su-27 and MiG-29. Several companies submitted design proposals; the USAF selected proposals from Northrop and Lockheed. Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas to develop the YF-23, while Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics developed the YF-22. The YF-23 was stealthier and faster, but less agile than the competition. After a four-year development and evaluation process, the YF-22 was announced the winner in 1991 and entered production as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The U.S. Navy considered using one of the ATF aircraft types to replace the F-14, but later canceled these plans. The two YF-23 prototypes were on exhibit in museums as of 2009. (more...)
Congratulations! edit
I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!
Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.
If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks BilCat, I hope I can serve the Project well. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks edit
Thanks for the barnstar, greatly appreciated! It's pretty cool that my efforts are appreciated in faraway Australia :) Best wishes, — Toдor Boжinov — 06:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- No problems. Please keep in mind to award other users who do good deeds, no matter how small or gnomish they are. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
KC-10 edit
Responded on my talk page and also wanted to note that I have looked over the article. It may sound strange, but I have always made it a point NOT to look too much into the KC-10 article before because I always knew that if I did, I would want to work on it (regardless of whether or not I actually had time to.) It definitely needs some work, but I'm too tired tonight to really quantify that thought. First thing that DOES pop out is the "incidents" section which I have already boldly removed. The KC-10 has had a very accident-free track record, but even if it didn't, I don't see the need for such a section. We don't have an "incidents" section for the Honda Accord for every time someone dies behind the wheel of one. Unless there is a VERY notable reason why the aircraft itself, through a reason such as design flaw, contributed to someone's death, I fail to see a reason to specifically examine it within the article. I will look at it some more tomorrow. Trusilver 06:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've definitely changed my mind. It's been a couple years since my last encounter with the esteemed members of the Aviation Wikiproject, and I had forgotten their nasty tendency to own articles.[8] I'm happy to read over the article and give my input as a pilot of said aircraft, but I really have no interest in participating in the actual article itself. I will simply be lurking in the background as needed. Trusilver 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Phil, my guess is the delegates are going to want someone to do "spotchecks", wiki-jargon for checking the article against some of the sources for accuracy and (lack of) close paraphrasing. Which sources are available at least in "snippet view" at Google Books? - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Dank, I'm afraid that there aren't any books available for snippet view at Google Books. I believe that I've written the article very well to avoid any form of copyright infringement – I summarised what I read before rewriting them, and then Bzuk and yourself come along and give it some expansion and touchup, so a chance of infringement being present is almost nil. In any case, I'll go over the article again to make sure. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 22:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Right, I hope I'm not giving the impression that I think there's anything shady about your writing, I'm just dealing with FAC realities here ... for anyone who's new or relatively new at FAC, "spotchecks" are needed to pass, and that means someone other than you has to compare at least some of the sources against the current article text ... and it's not just a yes/no, copyright infringement or not kind of check, it's also to get a general sense of whether someone reading the article will take away the same information as if they had read the sources. Probably, some people who have read my notice at WT:MIL about this FAC will have the books, and I'll ask over at WT:AV as well. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not offended – I understand where you're coming from. I hope the spotchecks will pass with flying colours. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- See my comment on this astounding request. P, if you aren't offended, you should be, I certainly am. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC).
- No, I'm not offended – I understand where you're coming from. I hope the spotchecks will pass with flying colours. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Right, I hope I'm not giving the impression that I think there's anything shady about your writing, I'm just dealing with FAC realities here ... for anyone who's new or relatively new at FAC, "spotchecks" are needed to pass, and that means someone other than you has to compare at least some of the sources against the current article text ... and it's not just a yes/no, copyright infringement or not kind of check, it's also to get a general sense of whether someone reading the article will take away the same information as if they had read the sources. Probably, some people who have read my notice at WT:MIL about this FAC will have the books, and I'll ask over at WT:AV as well. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9/GA1 edit
Hi what's happening with the Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9/GA1 review, It seems to have stalled.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
B Class assessments edit
Hi can you stop removing the B Class assessments from articles. If they ever get downgraded they need the assessment filled in or they will go to Start Class. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)