User talk:Rlandmann/archive4

Image:Merlin engine.jpg[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Merlin engine.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 18:18, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Could you also do the same for Image:Messerschmitt.png? Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 06:54, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

MiG-35[edit]

Thanks for your edits to 'Mikoyan MiG-35'. I didn't log in and see your message and I actually spent the time to revert everything back to the old style. But, now everything is back to the new format, with a little extra info. Thanks for your work! --Tin_soldier | Talk NO SOUP FOR YOU!, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Dobrovolsky.jpg[edit]

Hi Rlandmann, could you help me with a Copyright-notice for this image? I would like to use it for the German Wikipedia, and we are quite paranoic ;-) with image license stuff. If it is PD oder GNU, we could use it, but we do not use Images under "Fair use". Thanks for your help, --elya

MiG-35[edit]

Hey, tin here again. Thanks for your work on the MiG article. We seem to be the only guys interested.

I noticed you put the 'MFI' in Cyrillic. Im wondering if you could do that for 'PAK FA' as well (I don't speak Russian, or know of anything that can do the conversion.)

Thanks for the kind words. This article is as much mine as it is yours. I completely understand and support the uniformity of the articles.

AM.3 picture[edit]

Unfortunately, I don't have a source for the Bosbok pic, I found it online on a website which also didn't appear to know where it came from. I'll do some hunting to see if I can pic up any source info on it, but I'm doubtful of my chances. In the meantime, I'll contact the SAAF Museum for any pics, just in case. I'm also trying to verify source info for the picture I uploaded of the Hawk Mk.120, though I'm pretty sure it's a SAAF pic and therefore fair use as far as copyright goes. All the other pics I've uploaded (Cheetah C, Transall C.160 and Mirage IIICZ), are compliant in terms of the copyright limitations, as I have permission to use the former and took the latter two myself.

Thanks for pointing it out to me, I had forgotten about the AM.3's copyright status. I'll get cracking at the Bosbok pic right away. Impi 14:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your welcome... bu I have some trouble now... I made a Mistake, I edited the MB 80-81 page and after I checked how a page Bloch MB-81 was yet built... what I can do? I should revert my edits on MB 80-81 and replace it with the Bloch MB-81 (updating it to the new format standard) or merging both? (but under wich name?) thnx again Surcouf 21:36 CET 6/09/2004

If you look carely at SEA IV page you could see that I named it "Bloch SEA IV" because at that time "Bloch" (pron. "Blosh") was the official name but for the MB-80 "MB" stands for "Marcel Bloch" as producer name and the name of the aircraft was in reality only "80" so I made the choice to that naming rule. Then I inserted the Bloch and "MB" series under the dassault page first because I think that those aircraft were produced under too much different names (Bloch, MB, Dassault-Breguet, Marcel Dassault, Dassault-Aviation...) and second because when "Dassault" became official factory name there were still in study the MB-303 with the official old "MB" name while other aircrafts were using the new "MD" appellation. Do you agreed with me? Second point, how I can modify the main name of an article? (the designation of "Mirage V" name is wrong, "Mirage 5" should be more appropriated) thanks again! :-) Surcouf 08:19 CET 7/09/2004

So... wait for a very lot of French planes and planes technology...
PS: Should I add myself to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft contributor list or it is too soon to do it? :-p Surcouf 12:29 CET 7/09/2004

Blohm + Voss[edit]

Trying to find evidence for the earliest usage of the + nomenclature. I did find a B+V history page, but I'm not sure that counts: [1] -Joseph 03:13, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to get a lot of the links updated from 'Blohm and Voss' or 'Blohm und Voss' to 'Blohm & Voss' as the hidden portion of the link...to keep things cleaner. I can always go back and change the + nomenclature. -Joseph 03:22, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

I have an inquiry in with B+V to find this out. -Joseph 03:33, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

about the copyright problem on MB.17x[edit]

I only added "A LINE AND HALF" with a curious consideration from that site I found interesting and some specifications for armaments, but I don't think that is possible having any copyright for a list of weapons mounted by an aircraft I'll rewrite that line (and half) about the "consideration" ok? :-p User:Surcouf 19:54 12/09/2004

Of course that you're not a nuisance!

PS: The Little Prince was published in 1943 so... what do you think if adding some cool artworks (gimp made) of a MB.174 and the Little Prince to put on the MB.17x page?

PPS: but from were r u from? :-)

User:Surcouf 00:16 CET 13/09/2004

Aircraft tree dump[edit]

It's very easy for me to do a dump of a category tree, or a list of articles, though it will be slightly out of date with the current database. I'm starting a dump of Category:Aircraft now. It will be from the Sep. 8 database dump (the lastest available) and it's likely to be rather large. I'll post it in perhaps an hour or so.

If you're moving things around, it does look like the top level and the major branches could use something like Category:Aircraft by country, Category:Civil aircraft by country, etc., just to make it easier to find the interesting non-country entries, no? -- Beland 04:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I see what you mean about category proliferation. Quite the messy problem, so I guess I'll leave it to the subject experts. 8)

Anyway, on to your category dump...I posted it at User_talk:Rlandmann/aircraft-dump.

By my count, there are 238 articles on civil aircraft, 779 for military, and 62 for experimental, not counting repeats. (I did three different dumps, and only checked for repeats internal to each one.) Let me know if there's a more convenient format for you to get this in, or if you need anything else. Thanks! -- Beland 06:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TV Naming conventions.[edit]

At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sports plane vs aerobatics aircraft[edit]

Hi, I noticed you changed a couple of entries for aerobatics aircraft a bit, moving them from the categories: Aerobatics aircraft (as per various nations and timelines), to: Sports planes (also as per various nations and timelines). What is the reason for this change, and do aerobatics aircraft such as the Slick 360/Extra 300/330 etc qualify under this heading? As far as I was always aware, sportsplanes were ultralights, though I'm admittedly not up to date on the latest definitions. Impi 16:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I think you're more knowledgeable in that area than I am, and I think you're most likely correct. So I'm now ok with the name change. Impi 22:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category changes on dutch naval ships[edit]

Would you mind not removing categories when adding a new one on these please? --Martin Wisse 14:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exotic dance[edit]

Oops! I thought that you were "one of the admins looking after the page" :-)

To answer your question, I am just familiar with hundreds (maybe, now thousands) of web sites/pages dedicated to Bharatanatyam and Odissi dance, and so far I have not discovered any photos (let alone the streaming videos) that are up to those I found on Medha Hari's site. True, her web site is a bit lame in terms of design (well, I can't make even such), but who cares if we can use some of its content (like pictures) on Wikipedia?

You wrote, "They (comments) remain in place until the issue is dealt with"

"GFDL allows "invariant" text which cannot be modified or removed"

I guess the issue has already been dealt with, hasn't it?

Hi, this is Santap again! :-)

Thanks for the notes. I am new to Wikipedia, so it is very helpful.

I sent email to the owner (Medha Hari), and received the reply. She writes that all her photos can be used by as long as

these are not altered
the origin of the photos is clearly stated

So, I guess you can remove that noce from "Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images", right?

Hi, this is Santap. Regarding Bharatanatyam pictures. For your information, as the dancer's web site clearly states here, these pictures are free to use for non-commercial purposes. I would like to note that this web site is the only one I found so far that allows for GNU distribution of its photo content.

Before deleting anything, you could try to find any other good but FREE Bharatanatyam pictures and include these to illustrate the articles. Otherwise, it looks like vandalising. Please let us be more constructive.

regarding murphy moose specs[edit]

Just so you're aware, I pulled the Moose specs from the Murphy website - they don't include metric anything there, despite being Canadian. I think north american aviation - in general - tends toward Imperial, whether the country itself does or not. Out of curiosity I checked the Transport Canada site for their regs, and where they do list meters it's secondary. Here's an example that doesn't even mention metric at all.

So, while I understand the use of metric for European aircraft, I do question its use as primary in specs for Canadian-built planes. Not that it really matters - I'm not going to change it - but I felt it was worth bringing up.

About passing last month's new article count: glad I could help! :] eric 05:03, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

That certainly is an interesting canadian foulup. I've actually always been under the impression that Imperial is used for aviation pretty much internationally, although I've never flown in a cockpit anywhere outside the US. As I've been made to understand, for aviation use (altitude, runway length, etc) the metric system isn't precise enough when using meters - but I have the feeling I've got that wrong.

Either way, the aviation community, at least in america, isn't particularly uniform with anything - statute miles for visibility but nautical miles for anything else... celsius for weather reports and fahrenheit in some handbooks... it's all over the place. I've actually kind of wondered about our (in the pedia rather) use of mph for airspeeds, when most modern aircraft seem to indicate with knots. There's another, i guess.

-eric 05:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

New articles (aircraft)[edit]

Sorry, I counted 128 lines in September with 3 variants so I assumed that meant there were 125 aircraft. Geoff/Gsl 23:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. One of the lines was wrapping when I pasted it into a file to count. 127 lines is correct. Though the count must have gone awry somewhere because it was at 124+3 when I added the Sopwith 1½ Strutter so I assumed that took it to 125+3. Geoff/Gsl 23:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice quick edits on the H-92! Krupo 04:47, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Long-EZ[edit]

You're right. I moved it back. -Joseph (Talk) 23:14, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered about that too. I saw you moved the Quickie and a few other Rutan designs to the full RAF name as well. Cool to see Rutan getting the attention he deserves, though, both from us and the world!

-eric 02:26, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Your uploaded image[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nikolayev.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know whether it's released under the GFDL, whether fair use is claimed, or what? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:26, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft templates[edit]

I worked hours on the Bell X-14 article and had it looking good. I think it looks much better with the template. Then you come along and change it all without even the courtesy of letting me know why. Why should I bother? If this is what is going to happen, maybe I shouldn't waste my time. Reubenbarton 22:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

French Aircraft[edit]

You've done some lovely work on the Bloch planes. I'm just curious, however. You used a radically different template than the one I was using (which in turn was the standard at the time for aircraft pages). Do your pages reflect a new standard? I really don't want to have to redo all my old pages.

Also, you did a great Bloch 150 page, but I also wanted to make individual pages for the Bloch 151-157 using my original format. Just wanted to combine heads. You can e-mail me at fagin@earthlink.net or AIM me at Dryden of Gaia. I'd love to chat. S'long.

Aero-Cam[edit]

Hmm, that's rather unusual, there's just about no online info available about them. Well, I'll see what I can get, and get back to you on this company. Impi 14:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ISRO[edit]

Hi Rlandmann, how long will Indian Space Research Organisation be under lockdown? We have a new article started in /temp.

Duk 22:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

X-20 image[edit]

It was mentioned that Tables were causing trouble with certain browers. I thought the table in picture format would not cause the same trouble. The X-20 is a long dead program and it's numbers probably will not change. If they did, based on new info, a new picture table could be created. Error 404 18:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Latvian legions[edit]

I don't know anything about the book except that the initial article said it was from the book. Rick K 05:07, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yuri Artyukhin pic[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Artyukhin.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:33, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Image:MiG-1.jpg[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:MiG-1.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 19:09, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Most wanted articles[edit]

Someone appears to have swooped in and updated Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Lucky you! 8) -- Beland 19:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HMS thunderer[edit]

Thank you for spotting and fixing my typo. But you could have merged as well as redirected. Anyway, done now. Gdr 12:38, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Image:Avia S-199.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Avia S-199.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:41, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Also Image:Cc2.jpg

Sikorsky Ilya Muromets and more[edit]

Hi, Rlandmann! Could you please take a look at my article on the Russian Ilya Muromets bomber and categorize it? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! KNewman 16:03, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, Rlandmann! I wrote an article on Sikorsky Alexander Nevsky bomber, but I'm not sure if my technical English is any good. And there's a lot of stuff missing regarding its specifications. Could you please check it out? I'm working on two other Russian airplanes now - Svyatogor and Russky Vityaz. Thanks a lot! KNewman 16:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- And one more question. Do you think it's accurate to link Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation to the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets or any other airplane designed by Sikorsky, while he was a Russian citizen, still? Just curious and wonder what admins think. Thanks! KNewman 18:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Rlandmann! I'm done with the Sikorsky Russky Vityaz. I would really appreciate it if you could check my technical English, add a few things and categorize it. I couldn't find any reference to whether it was conceived as a bomber or civil aircraft. Thanks! KNewman 16:01, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

navy squadrons[edit]

Hey, thank you so much for your suggestions!! As you can see I am quite new so still learning my way around, but I have jumped in with both feet (no other way to go as far as I'm concerned). I finished the bulk of that Tophatters entry late late last night and decided to just save my current progress and clean it up later, but I see you've already done that for me! I skimmed your suggestions but I think I'll probably have to try to apply them the next time around to fully absorb everything. The categories in particular seem to give me problems, for some reason. I'm going to be really busy with work today and probably through the weekend so I doubt I'll have time to add any more entries, but hopefully next week I can get back to working on them. It's a personal interest of mine and I get great pleasure from the fact that nobody has done it yet! Kathy (Katefan0 16:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC))

Article Licensing[edit]

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 21:49, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Walter Dornberger.jpg[edit]

public-domain ??

Sollog article[edit]

Dude, good job with the Sollog article. It was hopeless in its original form, but now, I think it should stay. The problem will be if Sollog tries to NPOV it.... A2Kafir 02:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More good work on the associated talk page -- thank you very much! I skimread the ordure you later removed with a horrified and, yes, occasionally amused fascination, but it's scary to think that at least one person somewhere actually seems to take it seriously. What a waste of anybody's time. And just look at this list of "controversial groups, some called 'cults'" to see how many more wingnut groups might become wind themselves up into paroxysms of editing and deleting fury in Wikipedia. Urghhh. -- Hoary 13:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion: If an article survives VfD, isn't the VfD discussion supposed to be copied into or linked from the article's talk page? I can't see where the Sollog VfD discussion went. JamesMLane 18:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AT-9[edit]

Hi,

I decideded to move the Curtiss AT-9 page to AT(, and noticed you moved it again. Let me give my justification.

Almost all of the planes in the catagories are listed by their military designation - T-9, T-1, F-22. It seems best to list it that way. Let me know what you think Mikeb 04:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AT-9 Again[edit]

Thank for the hello. I had been looking at that page, and saw "Guidelines for certain specific groups of aircraft: US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt Where there is no name, or where the name is not in general use, use the manufacturer and number instead: Lockheed U-2, Convair B-36, General Dynamics F-111." So I thought it would be best listed as and AT-9. No big deal though. I just need to go back and switch my pages I linked to AT-9 so they are linked correctly.

See you around! Mikeb 05:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll take care of the photo. I'll see if there is another one on the Altus AFB website or another site. Thanks!

Mikeb

What about this photo: [2] Photos on public USAF sites are fine correct?

Mikeb 05:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At-9 Fixed! (I think)[edit]

Tell me what you think! Not bad to start with. Do photo's take a bit to refresh? It still shows the old photo, but if I click on it it brings me to the correct one. Thanks for the help!

Mikeb 06:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

squadrons[edit]

Just wanted to let you know (belatedly) that I got your note, and see your point, so have stopped doing the piping. Best! Katefan0 17:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

BMW801.jpg[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading BMW801.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! Schissel 23:56, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Image copywrites[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Oskar Ursinus.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwinstearns 17:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)