User talk:TheLongTone/Archive 1

Missing aircraft

Thanks for the message and welcome to wikipedia. If you do see anything in the missing article list then should be created or redirected then your are welcome to make the change. Normally we would expect that the article redirected to should have a mention of the redirected type somewhere. If you have any doubts then as you have done leave a message on the related talk page. The missing list was a snapshot of some articles missing a few years ago it was not the intention to add to the list but try and reduce it! some of the types as you have said didnt get pass the design stage but are probably mentioned in a navbox or a listing somewhere. It was the intention that perhaps we created an article on each of the companies missing designations like de havilland rather than individual articles but so far nobody has done it. Most of the aircraft article editors hang out at WP:AIRCRAFT and sometimes it is sometimes better to ask questions on the project talk page. Another trick is to list any new aircraft articles at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) which normally causes other editors to check and help if needed (really good at finding my frequent spelling mistakes) We have some really knowledgable people on the project who like a challenge! sometime it can be a bit scary with all the guides and procedures we have but any help is appreciated and we can guide you through the minefield. You are also welcome to ask any questions on my talk page if you need help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, checking in

In the issue of a recent review of actions, please note the MO of the individual involved. Even a cursory look reveals a troubling history of confrontation. I can suggest to follow the precept of water off a duck's back which had, at times, served me well in wikywackywonderland. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. Wind-up merchant is the phrase, I think.TheLongTone (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Respectively

Hallo LongTone

and thanks for your post! Sorry, I missed the repetition of dates, now I corrected it. The problem with your change is that you modified the meaning of the sentence. If you remove the adverb "respectively", the meaning of the sentence is that Michelangelo and Leonardo had been both invited to submit a plan for the bridge twice, in 1502 and 1505. What Vasari writes, is that Michelangelo was invited to do it in 1502, and Leonardo three years later. This is the reason why the presence of the adverb there is necessary. The example from the MacMillan Dictionary confirms it. Feel free to wash in Thames :-) (calque from an Italian expression) the sentence, but please keep the original meaning (unless of course you think that the reference to Vasari is wrong). By the way, I share your sentiments about Sinan, I visited many times his buildings in Istanbul. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) In Italian the exact expression is "rinsing in Arno" (the river of Florence, which is considered the cradle of the Italian Language). The expression originates from Alessandro Manzoni, the father of modern Italian. Of course, the Thames could also be the Potomac :-) Cheers Alex2006 (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R101

Quick note to say nice work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Howard T Wright

Was looking at Howard T. Wright and found your notes at User:TheLongTone/Howard T. Wright, just to let you known the Royal Aero Club licence #331 entry on Ancestry has a picture of him! and he was born 14 November 1867 at Dudley. Last info I can find was that he was a passenger on the Olympic from Southampton to New York in 1923. Cant find a death the nearest is a "Howard T. Wright" in Chichester in 1944 aged 77 but no evidence that his him. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. It's good to know there's a photo, I was beginning to doubt his existence. He certainly did not court personal publicity at all. I'd found the birth ref, the 'Theophilus' is a real help with somebody with name as commonplace as 'Wright'. Which or course is a real pain when entering the terms 'wright biplane' into any search engine (!). When it gets to Howard Wright designing the Wight Seaplane for J. Samuel White, one despairs. Incidentally I noticed you originated the article on Horatio Barber, and I was wondering what you knew of this very interesting figure. Where did he take his degree and where did all that money he spent come from, being two. I'm also baffled by the first ASL monoplane: there's a mention in Lewis of somethin with novel reciprocating wings, Antoinette powered & built of metal, which sounds very Howard Wright. There's also an entry for something called the HW coaxial monoplane, which uses a photo of a clearly different machine, (with perfectly ordinary wings) and, so far as can bt seen, a single prop.
Dont kknow much more about Barber but he appears to have had money from somewhere. As I found my copy of Putnams English Electric is also has an image of Howard T. Wright (1867-1944) and deals with all his aircraft until he moved to J. Samuel White and has load of info on him. Interestingly shows an image of the Battersea workshop in 1910 - must be the first aircraft production line! MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English Electric book is one of the many I don't have, but it's in the library...I've seen the workshop photo, and hve read something about him promising to knock ot an aircraft in fourteen days. I must have rolled over those arches several thousand times, being a sarf londoner by birth.TheLongTone (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note I have just created William Oke Manning, appreciate if you have anything to add, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from his working for HTW, all I really know about Manning is that a search of Flight gives you a full-page caricature of him. I'm sure thre's stuff in Penrose if I furtle about.TheLongTone (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with the image that was originally there except that it ran into the clutches of an over-zealous editor who must use a bot that picks up when the F4 (no licensing entry) violation pops up. I had absentmindedly put the information into the wrong place on the form and the bot removed the file. I'll do it again properly, but for now I found an image that had no copyright issues that would suffice for the infobox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes to the B.E.2 article

I've reverted some changes that were obviously considered and well intentioned - in "tidying" prose the information was unfortunately also "tweaked" - in particular:

1. The fact that the B.E.2c radically differed from the "b" in everything but the general fuselage shape did make it "virtually a new type" - and the wing stagger, while a notable feature, was not particlularly "heavy" - most biplanes of the time had very similar stagger.

2. It is debatable whether stability in a warplane was such a bad thing anyway (several other types of the time were very stable without having attracted much criticism) - there were other factors in the B.E.2c's admitted vulnerability: among them the inferiority of British FIGHTERS that gave air superiority to the Germans, poor or non-existent armament, the fact that all the B.E. types were underpowered, and above all, the very poor standard of piloting - that all impacted just as much as the B.E.'s stability. in any case - "These changes were all too successful" is POV and has unfortunate implications.

3. Changing "performance" to "speed and climb" is debatable anyway - there are other factors in performance - most notably in this context perhaps payload - but the sentence actually no longer makes sense at all!

4. Public opinion would have been concern about casualties - the identity of the actual aircraft type concerned would not have been public knowledge - wartime security and all that - even Billing's most intemperate raves were careful not to give away the technical information to which he was almost certainly privy. And RFC opinion was actually very divided - by no means everyone would have agreed with Ball at least at this point - all in all the text at this point is again a bit POV. In May/June 1917 the case had changed of course - but by then the B.E.s were (none too soon) rapidly being sent home.

5. The MOS says we don't capitalise season names.

Sorry about that - on the whole I have enjoyed working with you on this article - which is now much better that it was, in large part because of your input - I just don't want it to turn into the kind of diatribe against the type that is still all too common, and stems as much from politics and far-right ideology as anything else. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to this on the BE page when I had a browser crash. It's bedtime now:Ill answer fully tomorrow. I don't think that we have much difference in outlook on this aircraft. (as for#5, I know, I thought I was decapitalising 'Spring'...fingers like sausages, brain like mash.TheLongTone (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - perhaps just leave me on my merry mad editing way for a bit (at least on this article) and then we can discuss anything you DO feel I have got grossly wrong. I'm never averse to being corrected if my spelling or grammar are wrong - or if the same thought could be expressed more felicitously, but matters of fact we probably do need to discuss. Regards --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. 1) I think it was the word virtually I didn't like. I absolutely agree that in talking about this family of aircraft, it is essential to distinguish between the early and late BE2 types, I'd just prefer something like...the word escapes me. 2) Totally agree and again that's part of why I weighed in in the first place. A degree of stability is essential, (unless you are talking fly-by-wire, not meaning piano-wire) 3)Whatever. The thing is that the essential problem was that you couldn't get out of the way of an Eindecker and it was a while before anything of ours with a gun was about. The irony is that all this rubbishing of the BE2 went on and that the need for a fighter aircraft was met by a De Havillland designed aircraft. The early stuff does need expanding. There's some general test flight stuff, anything involving CR Samson has some interest.

Anyway, I can see that you're giving it a thorough rewrite, so I'll stop leaving pawprints. I do think the article would be improved by a bit of reaarrangement. Its a longish article, but the intro is very short, two lines. It should summarise the main content heads, which then need to clearly separate the technical development stuff. I think this would make life easier: you then have B.E.1 and the first farnborough-built airframes including the BE2, the basic technical description of the airframe plus enough 1912 context, like who the Aircaft Factory were. B.E.2a/b service ..., the RFC off to France Mods (Tusk had learnt to fly in in an ASL Valkyrie, he must have been a natural pilot followed by B.E.2c service. I'll leave you to it, but am doing stuff in my sandbox if you want to lookTheLongTone (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)TheLongTone (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was observing and noticed the addition of a link to Herbert Carmichael Irwin. There's a section in his article regarding a high profile seance or two where communication with some of the crew who had passed over (as the phrase has it) was alleged. I wondered if it had turned up in any sources you'd read on the R101? - currently its sourced to web pages. The article on Irwin also mentions Scott a lot with Scott's handling of airships criticised (though not necessarily by Irwin). I wondered what you made of it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit in the Leasor book about paranormal stuff, including the duty telephonist at Cardington reporting that the flag on Irwin's ofice extension was twitching about at 2:07 GMT (Ihate that GMT, it's necessary because that was the night that BST ended, just to make life easier). There's also an entire book, called The Airmen Who Would Not Die. There are enough books gathering dust about the place that I actually want to read. I'm a scientific rationalist and go for cock-up over conspiracy any day. (cospiracies, of course, cock-up). There's quite a bit in Masefield on Scott mishandling airships, much of it from Irwin's diaries. Also hints that he was (allegedly) hitting the bottle. There's one photo of him where he certainly looks like he's lunched too long & too well, and reading Masefield I got the feeling that he was being set up as the villain of the story, making unwise operational decisions in the best RN 'press home the attack' tradition: but this Agatha Christie-like coat-trailing comes to nothing. The problem with Masefield is that he really doesn'twant to be rude about anybody, and the whole book is written from a defensive viewpoint. And, infuriatingly, it seems not to have a proper table or the like of the linear dimensions of the ship, extraordinary because there are billions of tablesto do with weights and fuel consumption &c. I'm giving the R.101 article a rest, I need a bit of distance before I go back to it, its at risk of having too much minute technical detail. I havn't put in anthing about the handling problems tha te article went on bout s much: these seem only to have been noticed on the summer 1930 flights when it was flying heavy & being commanded by Meager, who wasn't used to the ship. They ere flying it without the servos for the first time & I've read something about the controls not becoming fully effective until a certain airspeed was reached, so there were probably issues, but not ones that were seen as major. The standard then wer so differnt: thereis no official record of the first two flight, for example.TheLongTone (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Wheel

In pondering why it wasn't tested, I was only thinking about the wheel rather than the aircraft as a whole.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the wheel is an interesting idea, although I think they would have needed stuff like titanium, carbon-fibre and PTFE to actually build it. As you've probably gathered, I love all those early things and have a great admiration for all those pioneer designers, even if with hindsight their idea were dead ends. The Wheel is interestng: I'm very curious about where the Lewis drawing comes from. (actually plan and front view are incompatible. You always need the third view or you end up drawing rubbish.) Manufacturers were meant to provide specs and a G.A. drawing to the W.O, (most didn't provide the drawings) & particulars, but no particulars appear in the tabel of Larkhill entrants published by flight since 2the machine was the subject of patent aplication". Which is odd, since I would hve thought th prior publication in Fligt would hve made a patent impossible.TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a few ways to build the wheel. Most straightforward is as a giant ball bearing. One hoop running inside another with judiciously placed rollers. Then struts from the inner to the craft. I don't know that things have to be that "slippy" as its purpose seems to be a low friction skid more than a true wheel. But I digress - "more power to your elbow" was what I was going to say. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but you'd have to manufacture a 12 ft diameter ballrace of sufficient stiffness without undue weight. If its only a skid, why carry it all the way round?. And thanks for the encouragementTheLongTone (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "bi"cycles built using this principle were not entirely uncommon at the time, and it seems to be that's almost certainly where the idea came from. None of the worked, though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Franklin Cody

Hi - you've removied a fact tag and pointed to a previous used reference that I can't easily access. Would you mind quoting the paragraph relating to the claim for Cody's first heavier than air flight for where? The earlier text in the article says the first in Britain, and the later text in the article says first in the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation given was a dead link. I'll see if I can come up with an online, but it's not relly a very controversial claimTheLongTone (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying it's controversial, just inconsistent with other related articles. This is the archive of the original link from the Sam Cody article and it uses "Britain". The British Army Aeroplane No 1 article uses UK from a different source - "Biplanes, Triplanes, and Seaplanes, published in 200". The Farnborough, Hampshire article also uses "Britain" and cites "Colonel Templer and the birth of aviation at Farnborough, May 2007, Royal Aeronautical Society, p3". And 1908 in the United Kingdom also uses Britain and cites "The Chronology of British History, published in 1992, pg 340-341". --HighKing (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be internally consistant & guess it should be Britain rather than British Isles. I'll alter it, or you can. 'British Isles' is not a phrase I would use myself.TheLongTone (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be grateful if you could make the change. --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source and used the term that happened to be in the source. In the course of which I found the 1958 discussion in the pages of Flight about exactly which date was the first Flight though not much on geographical areas. I shall read BroomheadBroomfield 's piece more thoroughly. The Times archive wasn't much use though they reported weekly (it seemed) on Cody's ever bounce and swoop. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now read the BroomheadBroomfield piece in Flight. Found this on page 169
At a lecture given to the Aeronautical Society later in 1908 he said: "I have accomplished one thing I hoped for very much; that is, to be the first man to fly in Great Britain..."
These flights, which were observed by the officers and men of the Balloon School and Factory of the Royal Engineers, were the first in the British Empire. J. A. D. McCurdy...did not make his first flight in Canada (at Baddeck) until February 23, 1909, so therefore Cody was, without doubt, the first, both in Great Britain and in the Commonwealth, to fly over British territory.
Gibbs-Smith (after his discussion of the dates) signs off his piece as we can honour him as the first man to make a good and proper powered and sustained aeroplane flight in Great Britain, on October 16, 1908
Is this a discussion better carried out on the article talkpage? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd move most of it to the article Talk page. I originally wanted to enquire about the removal of tags but the discussion blossomed. --HighKing (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email, but in retrospect I don't know why.

If you don't get an email from me today, would you might dropping me a note on my talk page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! The image that's particularly useful is the one with the illustration of all the parts (foresight, backsight, etc). Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. It sounds like you are familir with the book. I'm a little curious as to how you stumbled upon my humble online bookshelf, though!TheLongTone (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google knows all! Try Googling the title in quotes… Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Did you get the files I sent you? The beige box says yes, but I trust it a considerable distance less than I could throw it.TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images received (a bit ago, I got lazy). Do you mind looking in the front cover and seeing who the copyright belongs to? I suspect that it might not be clear, as the publisher likely marked it as their own although the book was written by the government and the images certainly supplied by them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those infuriating books with no proper colophon, so no edition or date. The photos thmemslves are uncredited but thre is a list at the back crediting a few of the pictures (not including thoseI sent)... so the inference has to be that they are Crown Copyrigt. Incidentaly, the small pic of the bomb-aimer in position is from another boo, 'Our Wonderful Armed Forces'....which seems lto have gone awol since I scanned it. Publisher is 'The Odhams Press'....incidentally Odhams was the victim of a bomb dropped from a Gotha in 1918TheLongTone (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JCB

Well, I don't think "diggered" will make its way into my working vocabulary, but thanks for "JCB", which I had to look up. It's generally unknown in North America, and we don't really have an equivalent catch-all name, so we have to say "front-end loader", "backhoe", "excavator", etc. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 14:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A side-effect

Since having communicated with you through your talk page (and therefore added it to my watchlist) I am kept up to date with your latest bon mot (not sure what a bon mot is, but Stephen Fry makes it sound like a good word) on your user page. Have you considered writing more in the same style for the fun of it? Anyway its all good stuff. Dew yew keep a-troshin' as they say in these parts. 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I foolte about on www.Virtualtourist.com, a travelforum site where one can post pictures and travellers tales. One is allowed not obliged to maintain a NPOV there, and I don't! I have attempted to write other stuff, but am too easily distracted, nothing but unfinished jottings.

In case you didn't see it...

Course Setting Bomb Sight. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I have seen it, & thought I'd replied to the email. Good workTheLongTone (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Farman Aviation Works
Compagnie des Messageries Aériennes
Blériot Aéronautique
Tandem wing
Henri Fabre
Musée des Arts et Métiers
Wilhelm Kress
Cleanup
Henri Farman
Octave Chanute
Add Sources
Bristol Boxkite
Antoinette (manufacturer)
Breguet Vultur
Wikify
Heinkel HD 24
Ruth Gledhill
Catherine Philp
Expand
Bristol TB.8
Breguet Bre.4

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleriot XIII

I'd leave the Limousine/Aeronef in for the moment. 1)it gets a mention of an as yet unarticle aircraft without starting a stub, 2) It can always be spun off later without issues of attribution 3) under Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) you can have the fun of claiming a "partial" and setting the count to "x½ articles". (perahps not the last one)GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Chucking it in shortly.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bleriot XI

Not to be critical of you at all, as I did not tie any of the changes to the recent revision, but there were some dramatic uses of language and style that seemed a bit out-of-place. It appears to be another element of the "too many cooks" syndrome that is both Wikipedia's greatest strength and sorest weakness. Note, I write in pure hyperbole at many times, but the old editor in me sometimes kicks in. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No, I didn't take it personally, and I dislike what (I think it was) you decribed as Gee-whizzery...it's simply that I couldn't see any where the surgeons knife had cut. Maintaining the encyclopdic tone is a strain, isn't it: thats why I put stuff on my userpage, becaue my natural writing style is very far from encyclopedic!TheLongTone (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr Weymann"

I would warn you beforehand that this is very likely to be the well-known Weymann, but the cite given doesn't confirm this. Given past history with this article, this sort of change is likely to kick off an enormous flame war with the usual suspects (both in Brasov and outside) on the grounds that if that's acceptable, then the claims for Coanda's anti-gravity rocket engine is equally acceptable.

I'd agree that (given the small pool of likely buyers) they're almost certainly the same Weymann. However there may be some pushback against this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it by all means if it's likely to promote idiocy. My logic in assuming the Mr Weymann the thing was sold to was Charles Weymann is that since Flight simply says 'Mr Weymann' it is most probabale tht they are referringto a Mr Weymann already known to their readers.11:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sterling work on R101

Had a quick look at the current state of the article. Answering your question about referencing, if every paragraph had a cite that would be a good position to be in. At the moment Background and Design and development are short of specific cites. Not to say that the content is inaccurate. It is an interesting subject, I've looked on my library shelves but not gone as far as checking the actual catalogue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanksTheLongTone (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Progress has definitely been made if Bzuk (talk · contribs) thinks it no longer needs the tag. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was rather pleased by that. There are close to three times the number of cites now....TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia

Hi TheLongTone. Thanks for your message regarding Olympia. As a noncommittal suggestion, maybe you can add some info about the Aero Show (when it was held etc.) to Olympia (London)? (or start Olympia Aero Show, which has 6 incoming links) That will make the links from aviation articles more relevant. Greetings LittleWink (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Gustave Eiffel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lyons and Santa Rosalía (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Here is the content of the Monoplane article from Britannica. It's not an initial. Monoplane, type of aircraft with a single pair of wings. The monoplane design has been nearly universally adopted over multiplane configurations because airflow interference between adjacent wings reduces efficiency. The first monoplane was constructed by the Romanian inventor Trajan Vuia, who made a flight of 12 m (40 feet) on March 18, 1906. Louis Blériot of France built a monoplane in 1907 and flew it across the English Channel two years later. Monoplane design proved itself conclusively during World War II, and since then the craft has completely supplanted the biplane except for special purposes. Compare biplane Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks like an Vuia with a V, which is what I meant.TheLongTone (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but I could swear it was "Buia" when I started this morning. I made the edit to monoplane and did not actually type in the name, but only wikified it and got a red link. I'm not making this up. I don't know if Britannica corrected it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We all have our moments!.....TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Nathaniel Drew just now, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome message, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your words are heeded. I try to be a sweetie, but sometimes fail. TheLongTone (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, the milk of human kindness does tend to sour after too much NPP! JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i accidently hit the rollback button

i accidentally hit the rollback button and reverted a good edit of yours, sorry about that. Thebestofall007 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, as long as the poop remains unthrown that's no problemTheLongTone (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried creating a page for the Accelerate Michigan Innovation Competition twice and both times it has been deleted. The first time I posted the page last week, Wiki administrator Shadowjams claimed on March 15 that it violated section G12 for copyright infringement. I conducted thorough research on the topic and believe I did not plagiarize. However, I made modifications to the text and solicited permission from the source I allegedly plagiarized from, <acceleratemichigan.org>. I received permission to use the text and images from the site a few days ago. The site administrator from Growth Capital Network, the organization who owns the site, emailed Wikipedia the suggested transcript for donating copyright materials and I re-posted my page with the OTRS pending tag yesterday, March 21. You, TheLongTone, then nominated my page for speedy deletion under a violation of section G11 for unambiguous advertising.

I strongly contest this. The Accelerate Michigan Innovation Competition meets many of the suggested requirements that make a topic notable and worthy of coverage as outlined by Wikipedia. 1) There is significant coverage of the topic by reliable, independent secondary sources unrelated to the event's organizations. More than 40 Google pages of relevant search results come up for the topic. 2) The competition is the world's largest business competition, a major achievement. 3) The audience of this topic is international. Media sources, businesses, and investors from other countries participate in the event. 4) The Accelerate Michigan Innovation Competition has a significant effect on Michigan and the Midwest because of the $100 million dollars it gives out to help revitalize the region's economy. I am a student at the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor and believe, along with the campus and the community, that the revival of Detroit and the economic development of the Midwest are extremely important matters. 5) My tone was neutral and unbiased. I think I thoroughly explained the background and significance of the competition in a non-promotional way.

Please reconsider the deletion of this page. What can I do to move forward with posting this page again?

Pkolesar (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

guidance requested

Hello, noted that you requested the speedy removal of UniPrint. Wanted to ask what I can do to help retain this content on Wikipedia. Shall I add additional references, etc.? AspectusUS (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Your Edit, Which Broke The Template!

I have reverted your edit from User:Titodutta/Welcome, which is a personalized Welcome template! I personally did not create the article Adithyaa. I feel you want to warn someone and in his page you have seen this template, but, when you are changing the template, it is actually being changed in every talk page where the template is placed! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 09:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo digitising

Yes, it gave nothing more than the existing article. But... In addition to that, it was the start of some spam. When you see something worded in that sort of way - all smooth and friendly, and using phrases like 'dear to us' - drop an extract into Google (in quotes). I did, and found http://www.digitiseit.com.au/pages/about-us so I added copyvio to the deletion reason you gave. And deleted it. Keep up the good work. Peridon (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well be deleted for a sheep as for a lamb...TheLongTone (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion Follow-Up

Thank you for your response to my previous post. I added the draft of my article to my sandbox. I would appreciate any specific feedback you could give me so that (hopefully!) I can get my page up and running.

In response to your first set of comments, I feel like my draft already includes what you suggested me to add. I have an introduction section. I elaborated on the competition's need and significance in the history section to make it seem less promotional (though, of course, promotion is not the intention of the article). After conducting thorough research, I could not find any documented suggestions for improvement for/weaknesses of the competition. I agree that this is an important thing to add, however, I do not want to hypothesize what these things might be. Thoughts?

Thanks!

Pkolesar (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me it still reads like a press release. This has to be dealt with, especilly in the header. Othersise i'll get a kneejerk 'spam' reaction (guilty as charged) before anybody reads enough to understand a) that this is not not a product being sold & b) its not a desparate attempt to get publicity from an organisation that has faild to get any coverage. If I were to do a copyedit on it I bet I could reduce it's length by around half. Only say things once if possible, avoid jargon and use of adjectives. Use it or another pronoun if you can do so, ie if its clear what the pronoun refers to. Actually copyediting is not easy: there's quote by Bernard Shaw or somebody (citation needed) I am sorry to write such a long letter, but I did not have time to write a short one. But it pays off, because people then read the whole thing rather than skipping bits.
Your leader needs to say WHO is giving the award. Right after the name. It is given by in order to
"The Accelerate Michigan Innovation Competition targets mid-to-late-stage business start-ups with potential to generate an immediate impact on Michigan’s economy, as well as student concepts with longer-term business viability. Companies from anywhere in the world with a strong technology/concept and high growth potential can apply", for instance."The Accelerate Michigan Innovation Competition is aimed at mid-to-late-stage business start-ups who could have an immediate effect on Michigan’s economy and student concepts with longer-term prospects. Companies from anywhere in the world with a strong technology/concept and high growth potential can apply. If you can cut a word without removing meaning do so.
You can probably tell that I a a pedantic middle-aged Englishman: I abhor 'targeted at' & loathe impact, although t least you are ung it as a nn not a vb. Which really is beyond the pale.
Cut the photos. Pictures are nice but these all look the same and add nothing. I've seen a billion pics of popl with bigcheques,and thy areonly at al interesting if somene you know is in them. try to findsome piures that are visully exciting and add content.
Just a few thoughts. It is better than I remember! Incidentally you only need copyrightrlase if you are quoting large chunks verbatim, or your paraphrse is too close to the original in structure. Some cites from a national rather than local news would be good.TheLongTone (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: The Midwest Beat

Hello TheLongTone. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Midwest Beat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Per my own standard: Has released records which are not self-released, rising beyond garage-band level A7 is meant for. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough,although the aricle intro is written in pure Spam.TheLongTone (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page Deletion Follow Up

Thank you for your detailed response. If you get a chance, please check out my revised sandbox. The draft includes some revisions you suggested I make. I removed the photos and the list of competition winners. I added a sentence to the introduction section to make the topic's significance clear and added a sentence in the history section (second paragraph) noting that the impact of the competition is still unknown (hopefully creating a more impartial tone). I also tried to take out text that does not add anything (repeat sentences, unnecessary adjectives, etc.). I found some interesting pictures and I'm currently checking on the copyright status before I add them. Should I try posting my page again?

Thanks

Pkolesar (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remeber Me?

Hey, TheLongTone, I'm that guy that messed up your article. I'm sorry about that, and I will be careful not to do that again. I remember thinking that I had hit the muther load of typos! I realize now that the article was not intended to be in American English, so thanks a lot for not getting angry (or at least not showing it). If you catch any more of my mistakes, please let me know. I am still new, so I appreciate a of the correction that I can get before it is engrained into habit. Thanks again, AsusStealth (talk|The SandBox Project) 18:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. My typing needs all the help it can get, & reliance on word-processors has seriously eroded my spelling.TheLongTone (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
This is for being so nice when you corrected me on my errors earlier. Thanks! AsusStealth (talk|The SandBox Project) 19:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
awww, don't mention itTheLongTone (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triumphs at Friday B.O

When you find one worded like that was, drop a bit of the text into quotes on Google. That one proved to be a copyvio. It's good to get copyvio established in case of reposting - gets rid quicker the next time. In fact, it's not a bad idea to do this with anything looking promotional. Quite often they come from an official site, or are being copy and pasted all round everywhere. If that's the case, try to find one where there is a posting date earlier than the date of the stuff posted here. (If all dates are later, they're probably mirroring us.) Peridon (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bear that in mind, if it helps to control the creepsTheLongTone (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Koechlin

I have noticed your vandalism-fighting efforts there. But the reason I did is that it presently has a 2006 birth date for him, which I assume is wrong. If you would like the article semi-protected, that can probably be arranged.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate in the infobox was correct: As you must have noticed, there has been quite a bit of vandalism on this page. Actually the mistaken birthdate is my fault, trigger-happy reverts on my part. I've sorted it now. The page is on my watchlist, so I don't think protection is necessar: but I need to be more careful about whatI'm doing!TheLongTone (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As do we all! OK, great.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again....(must try harder)TheLongTone (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Wright biplane

Redirects can be overwritten. I made Howard Wright biplane into a disambiguation page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksTheLongTone (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spurensicherung Art

"This is the fourth apearance of an article of this title, and differs from the last version only in having cites" - true. But it's not been at AfD so it can't be speedied G4. That's only for AfD (and other -fDs), and not for things deleted at CSD or prodded. I feel it should go to AfD for a definitive decision (and possibility of G4 in the future...) Peridon (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, misunderstood the guidelines.TheLongTone (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Caproni Museum

Thank you very much for your help, there's no way I could mind your "weighing in"! I'm glad you liked the article; seeing that you are into early aviation and history of art, that must be an interesting subject to you, just as it is to me :) I made the corrections you suggested and, having your approval, within a few hours I'll move the article to the main namespace. I guess Bzuk must be quite busy, so I'll let him know that you gave me the help I needed and everything will be all right. Thanks again! --M.L.WattsAir Mail ✈ 07:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short Brothers

Hi, thanks for your message. I only decided to do the biog of Oswald after noticing on the Short Brothers page that there was not already one for such a notable aerospace engineer. I was fortunate to access an ODNB entry, and to have a copy of Barnes on loan via a public library system outside my local one. There are no ODNB entries for Eustace or Horace, so I have little material for them, and the Barnes book will have to go back in about a week. Meanwhile, I'm continuing my original plan to add images to as many aircraft articles as possible that don't already have them. Just done the Mussel, next the Gull; let me know if you want any others scanned and edited, ideally for those that are more than one-offs. PeterWD (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. I already have a Crusader image in the queue, but no rush because no PD images in Barnes, or on IWM or RAF websites, so Flight images are last resort. PeterWD (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using images

Thanks for your message. If you use images from Flight, or IWM, just make sure you comply with all the conditions, to avoid having them deleted. In particular, for Flight, add the qualifying statement, plus a web link to the source, and the hidden Category. For IWM stuff, use the Commons template that helps compile the link. I had a problem with Oswald, the Flight obituary for whom was apparently in Flight 11 Dec 1969, but that issue doesn't seem to be present on Flightglobal. I've grabbed a poor shot of the last S.26 from Flight, and a distant shot of one from IWM, but unsure which to go with. Also got candidate images for Tandem Twin, Triple Twin, S.166 and Bomber. Today I collected a book by A.E. Clouston, so I might do a biog on him soon.PeterWD (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the hiden category, it's hidden too well!. If you're looking for somewhere to put the triple twin & tandem twin pictures, there isn't an article on them (unless one has appeared very very recently), but I gave the S.27 article a going over recently & included them there as type variants, since writing a separate article about them would include so much S.27 stuff & I have written more than enough descriptions of Farman-pattern biplanes.TheLongTone (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I temporarily confused myself about cats. The Flight category is Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive. BTW, the IWM template can be found at Category:Collections of the Imperial War Museum. I figured that the Tandem Twin and Triple Twin deserved images to illustrate their evolution from S.27, if not separate articles. Now, I usually have a golden rule to always press the Preview button before Save, but there's something odd about this page - last time, it screwed up my default WP formatting (Vector skin), and needed restart of Firefox to clear it.PeterWD (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...I'm being more than usually stupid today & didn't twig who the IWM were, but I've browsed the site: they've some nice Cody stuff that could be used.TheLongTone (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blériot memorial

Hello, TheLongTone. Since you are interested in Louis Blériot, I wonder if you would be in a position to replace the current picture of the Blériot memorial on the White Cliffs with a legitimate one? Some joker stuck bicycle handlebars in the turf before taking the picture that's there now, and it's been bugging me for a long time. I'm afraid I don't know how to add pictures myself, and don't like to just delete this one. Just a thought, though. Awien (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a photo that is usable? Uploading photos is easy if you know the copyright details. The handlebars bug me too, but I couldn't find a free image on the web. At least they are not very visible! TheLongTone (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I don't have a photo, and am on the wrong side of the Atlantic in terms of popping out and taking one. Oh well, thanks anyway. Looks as if we're stuck with those handlebars for a while. Cheers, Awien (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Short No.1 biplane

Orlady (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Gunther

Sorry, but I don't understand what's the matter of the article. It will be deleted ? No ? I try to understand what did you want talk me about, but I didn't manage. If you have visited my UP (User page) or PP (personal page) you would have seen I did't english, so I have still difficulties to understand.

Thank. --Bobybarman34 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later : I understand better than before, now. Sorry. --Bobybarman34 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had explained what I have created this article, as you said me ! --Bobybarman34 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarwedging

I changed the csd cat to hoax when I deleted it. As an alleged activity, it's not suitable for A7 - that's for people (plus named animals and web content). OK, it takes a person to put the jar in the freezer, but that doesn't count. With rubbish like that, Google it. If there are any relevant ghits, check if it is really notable despite appearances or is just down to bored kids at it again. If not notable, but there are signs that more than one person is actually doing it, prod it. If there aren't any (like this one), try hoax. Peridon (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is dificult to tell. It didn't seem implausible enough for db-hoax, & there's no db-silly category.TheLongTone (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was. If something is excessively silly, use vandalism. Otherwise, do a Google, as I said. I wish there was a category for things made up one day (i.e. kids getting bored, students getting drunk - or vice versa - and so on). Have to prod most of them. If these two really do it, I think they ought to get out a bit more. More boring than planking. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: John Sciortino

Hello TheLongTone. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Sciortino, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is a split from the main article, not a duplicate. He may not be individually notable, but that is something for WP:AFD to decide. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risky Business (Joel Goodson)

You just placed the speedy delition tag there and you deleted the article in few seconds. This is not fair, you should know the reasons for the article, there was no fault in the article. There are many articles of character out there, so why did you delete only this ? --Napsync (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete it: I placed a tag on it. An admin deleted it, presumably for the reason I put a tag on it: the topic can be covered in the article on the film. I'm surprised they simply deleted it, though: I would have though that changing it to a redirect would have ben better. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ani

TomTower took up your suggestion to post at WP:ANI. Nobody Ent 13:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacee Jaxx

The artcle is not that needless as you think, don't be offense but I saw some great content on the web that's why i created the article. You're my superior, you know better than I do, you can guide me in these matters, do as your wish .... I thought people were interested in this article. Thank You !! --Napsync (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Fine !--Napsync (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Duke the Dog

Hello TheLongTone. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Duke the Dog, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is a toy, not a real animal, so A7 doesn't apply. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...could not find the appropriate tag. Surely non notable?
(edit conflict) there isn't a speedy for this sort of thing. Consider PROD or AfD, but a quick Google (for "Duke the dog" + Kenner, because there are a lot of dogs called Duke) suggests there might be sources for notability. I'll tell the article author they are needed, maybe give him a day or two. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion

I removed the speedy deletion tag from Traditional mining, the page is distinctly different from anything in the main article you compared it to (mining), plus the article has a lot of potential for expansion. I would recommend when you see an article created by a user with almost 40,000 edits over six years, you give the article a little over two hours before nominating it for speedy deletion. Or not, it's your decision. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed to me that the article's subject matter was covered by the history sections in Mining. For it to work it needs a lot of expansion.TheLongTone (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the content covered in the history section, but maybe I missed it. Having said that, requirement for expansion is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelbase in Bicycle and Motorcycle Dynamics

Which part of

A factor that influences the directional stability of a bike is wheelbase, the horizontal distance between the ground contact points of the front and rear wheels. For a given displacement of the front wheel, due to some disturbance, the angle of the resulting path from the original is inversely proportional to wheelbase.[1] Also, the radius of curvature for a given steer angle and lean angle is proportional to the wheelbase.[1] Finally, the wheelbase increases when the bike is leaned and steered. In the extreme, when the lean angle is 90 , and the bike is steered in the direction of that lean, the wheelbase is increased by the radius of the front and rear wheels.[2]

is not clear? I restored the missing degree symbol after the example lean angle. Was that it? I genuinely would like to improve the article and intend no sarcasm in my question. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how leaning a bike over has any great effect on the wheelbase. What's there suggests that the wheelbase when leant over at 90 degrees is equivalent to the distance between the front of the front & rear of the rear wheels. It seems to me that if the forks are centered there is no difference in wheelbase whatever the angle of lean:
That is correct. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if the forks are not centered leaning the bike will result in a miniscule increase.
An example worked out in Cossalter's book, Motorcycle Dynamics, calculates a 5% increase in a 1.4 meter wheelbase at a steering angle of 20º and a camber angle of 30º degrees. He considers is significant enough to show on a graph. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't get it, and I'm a bike rider with a good understanding of 3-D geometry. I do realise that these things are very difficult to communicate clearly without diagrams.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do these details help? -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above makes sense...thats not an increase of the combined radiii of the wheels. TheLongTone (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I saw that you were patroling new pages. Use of WP:TWINKLE can be helpful. It can help you keep a record of the pages you tagged and can tell that how much is your success. Your are doing good. Happy editing ! Yasht101 07:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been using Twinkle, but for some reason its disppeared from the menu bar todayTheLongTone (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Strong Capital Management

Hello TheLongTone. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Strong Capital Management, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Jurby

Good Evening

I am currently attempting to remove a substantial amount of blatant copyright from the RAF Jurby article and as you are also editing i am repeatedly getting edit conflicts and having to start again over and over again.

If you want to remove "dead wood" as you put please edit the RAF Andreas article, the same editor who has edited this article edited that one as well.

Thank you

Gavbadger (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, sorry for any inconvenience.TheLongTone (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, Thank you
Thanks for your help LongTone ... I have sat staring at the Jurby article for long long minutes so many times intending to get started on wikifying it ... then gave up and made a cup of coffee instead because it was such a mammoth and daunting undertaking. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Creeper

Thanks, I was hoping someone could find out about the Creeper and redirect it. GoShow(......) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.69.59 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Curtiss

Hi LT, two different sources have noted that Curtiss received the French License #2 as an award for his winning the Gordon Bennett, do you have any sources that dispute that? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

[1] looks pretty conclusive to me, (and is not the only source for the Jan 09 date, altho I can't find aything in print at the moment)... there are web sources which give 1910 as the date, but the are obviously wrong since Ferber (died 22 Sept 09) got a license. Seems to confirms what I said in the post on your talk page: if the license was awarded in Jan 09 it cannot have been anything to do with the Gordon Bennett race which took place in August 09.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the article appears to be very authoritative and contradicts the popularly-held notion that the victory by Glenn Curtiss at the Gordon Bennett Meet was being recognized. FWiW, I'll make the correction. Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses. I've just read that article fully, & it gives a date for the first licenses as Dec 09. (only noticed the 'o9 firsttime) So I now have three conflicting dates: but I'm certain about the date of Ferbe's death & him bein #5b, & hav seen a photo of the license wit his signture. Is anything certain?TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[2] looks good to be, clearly dated 7 Jan 1909. How Getty get to own th copyright on this is beyond me,I really need a free image for the Ferber article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reading this article more thoroughly, Ferber's may have been issued earlier but the first three French licenses seem to be a special honour that were issued much later; that corresponds to the statements made by the biographers of Glenn Curtiss. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think what the article is saying is that the first three licenses should have gone to Santos-Dumont & the Wright Brothers, but that they evaded the issue bygiving the first batch in alpha order. Hence Bleriot, Curtiss, Delagrange, Esnault P, Farman, issuing No 6 & oops, we've forgotten Ferber. This is one of those infuriating things you know you've read but can't find, but I'm certain that the first fifteen were a single batch, and the alpha order fits in with this. If 1-3 were special honours Farman would be up there because of the 1km closed-cicuit flight, I think. The big question, as far as the Curtiss question goes, is when they were issued. The flight article says 4 dec 09, but I don't see how that squares with a signed and dated license from Jan O9. [3] (scroll down & ignore the Santos-D guff) shows a bunch of licenses, & they all look like Jan 09 to me.TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of leaves this to the only verifiable sources at hand, and the licenses, notwithstanding, do not really represent anything as the 1 January 1909 date may not at all mean the date they were issued, but the date in which they went into effect. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Agree. It is very curious, though.Thosearly licns are cetainly Jan 09 & I don't see a dead man signing a license. All trawling Flight has got me is a reference to Alfred Leblanc getting his brevet in Dec 09: I know (whatever that means) he was #17, which would lead one to suppose that they only started issuing them shortly before then. TheLongTone (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your RoomSurge.com deletion

hello, the discussion for the deletion is going on here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roomsurge.com

please allow for all parties to finish discussing first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilytisch (talk • contribs) 15:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Rahma el-Dennaoui

Hi, about that article. I moved it to a new page from, "abduction" to "disappearance". The article has been here for years, I didn't write it. It was even nominated at AfD once. [4] However if you feel that it is non-notable, nobody is stopping you to re-nominate it for deletion. Till I Go Home talk edits 08:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you going to nominate it for deletion? I could do it on behalf for you. Till I Go Home talk edits 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I thought if it had survied one Afd it would probably pass another, didn't realsie it wasn't a nw article when I tagge it.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green engines and their use

This might be up your street. The Green Engine Co article lists the use of their engines in early aircraft. There's a number of redlinks eg Cody No.IIC which I feel probably ought to redirect to somewhere. Could you aid? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go, I'm afraid to say I've written an article on the Edwards Rhomboidal but from memory it had a Humber engine. I certainly can sort the Cody stuff, although there still is no artcle for one of his machines... I started it, but its sort of fallen by the wayside. the article lists several, but they are all the same machine. I think. The Short machine would be the No.2 biplane, which is another one on the stocks, yet another awkward technical description.TheLongTone (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair number of pretty non-notable arcraft there, I'm afraid. The Martin-Handasyde deserves an article, as does the only Green-powered Sopwith I can find, a seaplane built for the 1913 Circuit of Britain. The Sopwith-Wright is a re-engine of a Wright aircraft: the Short S.68 was built for the 1913 Circuit but had engine problems and seems to have hardly been flown. TheLongTone (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. Just had a glance at Edwards Rhomboidal - unusual looking craft to put it mildly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing on the Seddon Mayfly!. I've just had a look at my draft of the Cody Circuit of Britain & think it's ready to go, I'll polish up the references later.

Wishing You Congrats! for starting Jules Védrines article

  • Thanks to you for starting this article and to fellow contributors for it's expansion. An article on Jules already existed on FrenchWikipedia. But I don't speak French which sort of delayed me from doing an article on Jules myself. I hope my article on Robert Loraine came in handy. Cheers. Koplimek (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My French isn't that good, but I don't think there's much there I've missed, other than something abut dropping flowers on some parade. Shame, as I'm sure contemporary French newspaers have quite a bit about him. Colourful character, as is Loraine.TheLongTone (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion?

I'm wondering why you nominated Pink Gorilla for speedy deletion? I made a deliberate effort to source every statement that might be even remotely questionable, and I added a mainstream media reference to the lead. It indicates the importance of the retailer as "Seattle's best." CaseyPenk (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because its interest is only local.TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:The Patch Design of The Bull Brahmas Motorcycle Club.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:The Patch Design of The Bull Brahmas Motorcycle Club.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Monty845 05:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surewhy you're telling me this, not my image. The image is still there, but certainly should be blown away, it was for an article that I nominated for deletion as a hoax. Which got deleted.TheLongTone (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe

What is wrong with that article? You tell me whats wrong and I'll fix it by tommorrow because Im leaving now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im a mob guy (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: United States declaration of war upon Mexico

Hello TheLongTone, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of United States declaration of war upon Mexico, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This looks like a daughter article of Mexican-American War, rather than a duplicate. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kauper

No problem! Looks like a great new article :). It looks like one of the last inline citations was missing a > and turning the rest of the article into a citation (which was why it claimed there was no reflist, and why some sections weren't displaying). If you get that sort of error again, the trick is to look for the last bit of text that does display, open the edit window, hunt it down and look immediately after that for whatever the problematic citation is. Ironholds (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD nomination

Hi. I decided to revoke your speedy deletion nomination of PECO Pallet. I think "national leader in pallet pooling services" et al. is sufficient to avoid A7 deletion. No prejudice against nominating it via PROD or AfD if you think it is necessary. Have a good one. NTox · talk 21:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Humphreys aircraft

Hi, knowing your interest in the period, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Humphreys_aircraft with images of Humphreys aircraft and their links to articles at Polish WP. PeterWD (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sydney Ernest Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sir George White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VSSI Speedy Deletion

Hi there. It was about a few minutes after I made the page that I had to delete the page I created. I did contest the speedy deletion, but nothing happened for hours, and I wanted to tell you that I made this page for my dad since he is the owner of the company.Habishua (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Hustle: The Game

Hello TheLongTone, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hustle: The Game, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G1 only applies to patent nonsense, such as "gbrg56y451521". However, I will re-tag it as an A1. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call "WIP WIP" nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"WIP" stands for "Work in Progress". --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One lives and learns. I see no P has been made on the article, though. If I was posting an article 'live' rather than writing it in userspace I'd at leat get in a semi-literate sentence saying what it was about.TheLongTone (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R101

Hi TLT, I also looked at the recent "flags" and thought they were unnecessary as in most cases they were attached to innocuous statements, and ones that really were covered by previous citations. I decided to leave most of the "citation requested" flags in place, but was really deferring to you and others as more of the experts in this field. If you choose to remove the flags, just make a note on the talk page of the article; the action is certainly justified. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Actually some of the tags were justified as requests for a cite in an unreferencd para (eg the one about the flag in St Mary's, Cardington. But I'll do as advised. One mystery was solved when I looked at my watchlist today...I tend not to be very aware of the current date and so had not realised that yesterday was the anniversary of the disaster: the page being on 'on this day': this explains the flurry of edits. I think I may return to the article & tidy up the end: it just sort of peters out imo. Just as a straw poll, would you say there was any contemporary controversy or debate about the craft's merits? I'd say it was a subject of howling indifference to most, and that any informed opinion would tend towards the view that it is yet another story of too much weight and too little power.TheLongTone (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ball article

i have had a go at the lead to this one, and have removed your "lead too long" template. If you feel my (pruned) lead is still too long (as it may well be) you might like to either re-instate your template, or cut it a bit yourself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Handley Page

What do you think of using one of the higher quality images from the San Diego archive for Frederick Handley Page? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, the present image looks like a screenshot from the Flight International archive.TheLongTone (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...I like the ones of him holding his spectacles very much. Bags of character there, obviously a very shrewd old bird!TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you like early aviators, please help with Early Birds of Aviation. Do you participate in Flickr Commons? The Library of Congress and the San Diego archive have tens of thousands of images with hundreds of early aviators that are labeled but lacking context. You can add in comments and tags like I did for Frederick Handley Page at Flickr. Boston Library has an amazing set too, still lacking context. Here is an example of an article Roger Q. Williams and here is the original at Flickr with my annotations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Early aviation is my thing, I'll look at the sites but there's enough to do here on wikipedia....and I do (sort of) have a life. I only looked at the Handley Page article because I was linking to it, and since there was nothing there had to wade in...I've only got as far as 1919 because I got distracted during the Great War by a woefully inadequate aircraft article. Toss a pebble in the pond....TheLongTone (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, some of the guys will only have a few sentences, and never be able to have a full article. I have access to Ancestry.com with a paid account so I have been able to find missing birth and death dates for some of them. The USA WWI draft registration has been an excellent source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look, thre were a couple of others I could find a line or two about. (I had a look at your userpage & the list of 'biogs of peopleyou've never heard of'....heard of several). But your breath hold I wouldn't.TheLongTone (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a British aviator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willis on Wikipedia

Hi! I understand your speedy deletion tag here as this was in article space, but I've restored it to Wikipedia:Meetup/Willis_on_Wikipedia, where many such editing meetups are generally handled. Please let me know if you've any concerns with this, I hope it's uncontroversial. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 21:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that seems very sensible. Not that I entirely understand what you've done, but it clearly belonged on some kind of bulletin board rather than in article space.TheLongTone (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, yeah. There's a fair bit of work, I'm not too familiar with it myself, organizing editor meetups at and under Wikipedia:Meetup. All I did was grab the article out of the deletion bucket and moved it to more or less the right place over there, out of article space. Thanks for understanding! Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply to you on my talk page

Hi TheLongTone. I try to keep my edits to my own userspace to the barest minimum. This is not done to deliberately annoy other users. But it may well have that effect. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIT Physics Department

Hi! Can we talk about this article? Notability is notoriously subjective, can you elaborate? Subluminal (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that although universities are per se notable, for an individual faculty to merit an article it has to establish notability...looking at the article again I see a couple of Nobels among the alumni & one on the faculty, and in addition the article on the IIT is long enough to justify individual articles to keep the article down to a sensible size. I don't know how many Nobels is 'normal': two seems like a pretty respectable score. I'd mention them in the intro, because the quality of graduates is (imo)the primary reason for an educationl establishmntto be remarkable. You can remove the tag if you've done somthing to establih notability. As you say, notability is subjecive. At least your article is about a proper subject, not some videogame character's haircuts....If it was down to me, I' say that almost no sportspeople are notable, but........TheLongTone (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Cossalter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wilson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).