User talk:Willy Logan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mausoleum of Augustus, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Airships category

The correct form according to the wikipedia style is Airships of the United Kingdom. If you don't change it, someone will likely flag it up for deletion or renaming. GraemeLeggett 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Maritime Museum of San Diego, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Your comment on vandalism

Hi Willy! Whenever you see an article that complete nonsense, like Count poopula was, just {{csd}} it. That code will alert Wikipedia sysops that the article is chopping block material, and we can do away with it. Chow! -- user:zanimum


[edit] Arthur Miller

Are you an Arthur Miller enthusiast or is your name really William Logan. Also, what year are you in your ME degree? BA, MA, PHd? Also, where do you attend school?--Gephart 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Arthur Miller connection is a new one to me: my full name at birth was William Logan (well, William Alexander Tramblie Logan). The "William" was actually an homage to Sir William Edmund Logan (who doesn't seem to have an article on Wikipedia; my father found him in Brittanica). I'm in my second year for a BS degree at Walla Walla College.--Willy Logan 07:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Medea (yacht), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Welcome to the SDA Project

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. If there is any area that you feel you can improve on, feel free. Of particular emphasis at the moment is History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, if you happen to know much about it. Happy wikiediting! MyNameIsNotBob 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] response to your comment about Surviving P-59's

I put that there. The reason I didn't add others is because I didn't know of others. I am certainly not saying that this is the most important museum that has a P-59, in fact, I intended for the list to be expanded by other editors. If you know of other locations, please add them. There aren't that many aerospace museums around that you couldn't just list all of them that have a P-59. That way if someone reads this article, they might find a place nearby where they can see one. --Rogerd 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll add a few others I've encountered or heard about. Willy Logan 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seventh-day Adventist Church

Hi! I have been working very hard of late on the Adventist Church article and as such have posted it for peer review here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church. One of the problems with the article that has been raised is the lack of flow in the Outsider Criticisms section. Unfortunately this is something that I am not particularly good at editing. Would you be able to lend a hand on this? Please let us know your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 21:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Inline text specifications

I converted it to inline because that's the WP:Air standard and has been for almost a year now. All that's been left out is the fuel capacities, which aren't exactly relevant to the average reader and are somewhat redundant next to range anyway. There are a half-dozen or more reasons why infoboxes are undesirable, both in terms of editability and reader accessibility, not to mention support for mobile devices or screenreaders. Sorry if it was a shock to see a pet article altered like that, but we're trying to standardize. ericg ✈ 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the discussion at WP:Air. You actually left out more specifications than just fuel capacities (including prop rpm and stalling speed). Some of those would be of interest to the average reader (although I agree that fuel capacities may not). Willy Logan 18:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, I'd forgotten about those. Prop RPM is not particularly relevant (it's not as if someone's going to go up and fly these aircraft, so they don't need to know them), nor is stall speed. We debated back and forth on stall speed for a while, and I felt it was sometimes worthy of inclusion, but I only see the benefit of listing them during discussion of STOL-type aircraft. I'm not watching this page, so maybe drop me a brief notice when you reply next. ericg ✈ 01:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Willy-luscombe-small.jpg

Please relicense this image, or it will be deleted soon --Admrboltz (T | C) 06:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thankyou for nominating it. Raven4x4x 03:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it. I was hoping for it to be featured picture one way or another (it failed the nomination at the Commons), and thanks to you it now is. --65.95.201.142 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. Willy Logan 04:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Alexander Aircraft Company, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Kc-97 engines.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kc-97 engines.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Willy Logan 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lockheed XP-49 model number

In the ol' List of Lockheed aircraft, the XP-49 is listed twice, once as the L-522 (also stated in the article) and again as the L-23. Was L-23 chosen as the production designator, while L-522 was the prototype? That's consistent with some other aircraft, but I'm not about to make an uncertain edit like that. ericg ✈ 18:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The USAF Museum lists the XP-49 as the L-222. This is a nightmare! And of course, where does the XP-58 fit in all of this? ericg ✈ 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I have conflicting sources, too.
  • Lockheed, by Bill Yenne: The XP-49 was Model 522.
  • Beyond the Horizons: The Lockheed Story, by Walter J. Boyne: The XP-49 was Model 23. I think it's reasonable to assume what you said above: the Model 23 was the production version (which, of course, never occurred); the Model 522 was the prototype. I guess I'll keep the XP-49 at 552 and add a see Model 522 above note for Model 23.
  • The XP-49 was most certainly not Model 222. The P-38 production versions through P-38G were designated Model 222 (according to Bill Yenne's Lockheed). The USAFM must have gotten its facts wrong. (Is it possible?)
Now, the XP-58 is another matter entirely.
  • Beyond the Horizons places it under Model 22.
  • Lockheed says the XP-58 was Model 20. Beyond the Horizons says that Model 20 was, like Model 19, an unbuilt derivative of the Model 14.
I'm going to put the XP-58 on the list as Model 22 (italicized), until we can figure out what number actually belonged to it. Willy Logan 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. The only reference I've got with me at school is Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, a modern combination of the wartime Jane's editions. It's lacking specifics on a lot of things, and just plain missing aircraft in other cases, so it's not a particularly useful book for this type of list. ericg ✈ 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Graham Maxwell

Hi! I am enlisting your help as one of the people listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church. The Seventh-day Adventist Church page has recently come under a protection order after an edit war to do with the theology of Graham Maxwell. As an upshot of this war, two users have been blocked. I personally do not understand the issue relating to Graham Maxwell, and as such would like your comments, regardless of whether you know much about the issue or not, on Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church. I apologise for the mess of the talk page, it has been a very involved debate. Thanking you in advance, -Fermion 06:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P-80 specs

First of, I apologize about nixing your table. Yes, the move to the template is an effort to standardize the look across all aircraft pages. Not surprisingly, any effort at standardization will be thwarted by one-offs. The general consensus on aircraft specs is that the main page should present specs for the most common or the most representative version (P-80A in this case). The differences between variants should be delineated in the description of the variants. In situations where the variants were dramatically different (e.g. Allison vs Merlin-engined Mustangs or Merlin vs Griffon-engined Spitfires, or XP-80 vs P-80 in this case), your best bet is to create a separate page, like Comparison of P-80 variants where you can present the tables and describe the variants in all the gory detail. The logic behind this is that the main page should give an overview of the aircraft (e.g. someone unfamiliar with the Spitfire would see the specs for a "typical" Spitfire, like Mk Vb). The reader seeking more in-depth information can go into the subpages. Another advantage of this is that it permits to present exhaustive information (e.g. all units using the aircraft, detailed description of the variants, etc.) without creating a monstrously big page. As always, these are only suggestions. You are encouraged to use the same formatting and wikilinks as the specs template output but I doubt that there will ever be a strong drive to standardize the sub-pages since their whole purpose is to expand beyond the standard framework. :) Let me know if you have other questions! - Emt147 Burninate! 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make another page. Willy Logan 02:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks great! Thanks for being understanding. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/User_talk%7EWilly_Logan_9984.html"