User talk:Uhu219
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wikiproject aircraft
Welcome to wikiproject aircraft! If you need help with anything related to this project, or with wikipedia in general, please do not hesitate to ask me on mt talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I put an assessment on those articles. I also submitted your expanded article on the Henschel Hs 123 to be listed on the main page in the Did You Know Section. The nomination can be seen here under the date December 20th and commented on. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling
Thank you for your contributions to the WP:Air articles. Please proof-read your edits, you are leaving behind a lot of spelling errors. I recommend using Firefox 2 or another web browser with a built-in spellchecker. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your article, Henschel Hs 123, was selected for DYK!
 |
On December 22, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henschel Hs 123, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! VERY nice expansion. I rated it a B class in milhist but that was just a guess... ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hs 123
The problem with the summary statement is that it violates WP:NPOV. The article presents no facts or figures about Hs 123 combat performance (number of missions flown, number of targets destroyed, notable missions, etc.), but keeps talking about how great the airplane was. Show some numbers and then you can talk about significance. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There was nothing "wrong" with the Hs 123, it was really an issue of there being much better performance within reach. As your article notes, it was built solely as a stop-gap before the Ju's arrived. The 123 was barely able to get out of its own way, and while the 129 was piggish in its own right, it was nevertheless about twice as fast. Additionally the 123 lacked both firepower and armor -- although they were reasonable enough for 1933, they simply weren't up to snuff for 1939. Perhaps my wording in the 129 article is not the best.
BTW, the 123 article states that they remained in front-line service until 1944. I was under the impression that they were removed from combat service starting in 1939 after the invasion of poland, and were completely gone by BoB. 1944? Are you sure? Maury 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Endurance is not necessarily a measure of success. After all, Fairey Battle wasn't retired until 1949 and I doubt anyone would call it successful. Based on the facts you presented, it would be appropriate to say "despite being designed as a stop-gap measure, Hs 123 remained in front-line service until 1944." It would not be appropriate to use words like "successful," "remarkable," etc. (these words by and large result in WP:NPOV violations). Notability is always questionable and subjective, and the best tribute you can make to a favorite aircraft is to write a comprehensive, neutral, and properly referenced article about it. Using empty accolades will only get your edits reverted. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Halifax bomber variants
I can see where you are going with the revisions to this section but nearly every note was "chock full" of spelling, grammar and sentence structure errors. If you wish to edit the article, continue to do that and I will "tweak" the edits. BTW- check out the Henschel Hs 123 article for an example of how the "tweaking" can help your original submission. Bzuk 16:10 6 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Avro Arrow
Hi Uhu219, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks M. Uhu219, your comments on my talk page were very useful and in fact, underscore the main thread of the controvery surrounding the Avro Arrow. As you have surmissed, there is still a layer of POV in the article that has remained. As in all controversial and emotional issues, there are also different sides to the debate and proponents to support various opinions. I believe that the one editor who has emerged with a revisionist approach has actually forced the article's editors to re-examine the issues surrounding the cancellation. The suggestion that the controversies frame a future sub-article may be the best solution of all, although that is what the talk page is for, yet the emotions are still raw even after 60 years have passed. Thanks for your contribution to the discourse. Bzuk 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).]
Thanks Uhu. Given the controversy, if another editor can be found to properly re write the political side of the Arrow debate by July 2007, I'll stay completely out of the project. Was it a GREAT PLANE? yES. WAS IT A COST PLUS CONTRACT, NON COMPETITIVE FINANCIAL BLUNDER- I say yes, & one does not negate the other.
Opuscalgary 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
