User talk:Piotr Mikołajski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of empty redirects

[edit] WWII era ships

  • HMS Jastrzab
  • ORP Jastrzab
  • ORP JastrzÄ…b

[edit] WWII era planes

  • PZL P7
  • PZL P.7a
  • PZL-19
  • PZL 23
  • PZL P.23 Karas
  • PZL 37
  • PZL-37 Los
  • PZL P.37B
  • PZL-38 Wilk
  • PZL-43 Karas
  • PZL-46 Sum
  • PZL P.46
  • PZL P-50 Jastrzab
  • Focke-Wulf 200

[edit] Post-WWII era planes

  • PZL Iskra
  • PZL W-3A SOKOL


[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Piotr Mikołajski! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Hel

Thank you, I did not notice those other two articles. capitulation is simply another way of saying victory for one side. As you have probably noticed, there are many nationalistic editors here on wikipedia, and some have tried to make it seem like somehow Poland wasn't conquered, and had won the "Polish Defensive War". I was simply changing the article box to the standard commonly used, either "victory" or "defeat".

--Jadger 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

capitulation means that they were defeated and surrendered because they had no other choice really, as they couldn't retreat. I fail to see how the results can be described as anything but a Polish defeat, as they where overwhelmed and surrendered.
--Jadger 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you just said. could you please rephrase it. we are not talking about Courland here, we are talking about the battle of Hel. the Germans assaulted the position and the garrison capitulated (surrendered) I fail to see how this was not a German victory.

--Jadger 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

how is capitulation any different than defeat? sometimes there are pyhric victories, but we are not referring to one here.
--Jadger 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UH-1N

THanks SO much for your work on the new UH-1N Twin Huey page. You are fast! I was planning on asking you to format the Operators list for me anyway! ANd thanks for adding the pics. I spent some time on it last night, but I must not have saved the final version. You saved me alot of do-over work. Thanks again! - BillCJ 19:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 204/205

Thanks for finding the new Bell 204/205 article. You ARE fast, as you're finding these soon after create the pages! One think I want to be sure about: Are the operators you've listed military or civil users? This page primarily covers non-military usage of the 204 and 205, while military usage is still on the UH-1 Iroquois page. I realize the difference is in some ways superficial, as some militaries actually bought the civil versions from Bell or Agusta. In addtions, many ex-military models are used in the civilain world today. At least that's what I had in mind in creating the page. The civil usage of the 204 and 205 was hardly mentioned at all on the UH-1 page, which covered mostly military history and usage. So instead of adding more info to the already-very long UH-1 page, I decided on a new one for the civil models. But, if this doesn't work, I'm OK with changing it too. Anyway, thanks for the good work on those Operators lists! - BillCJ 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea about adding a header about the military and civil versions at the top; I'll see what I can come up with. THanks for working on the civil operators list - it's awesome! I was surprised with how long it is already! Good work! - BillCJ 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operators sources

I don't know how what your sources for your lists are, but especially if you are using just a few primary sources, it might be good to note them under the "Operators" heading. We did have some problems with users removing and adding operators on the AH-1 Cobra, with no idea what the sources where. (I don't know who added the ones we had problems with). If you do have one or two major sources you use, if you could list them, it would be very helpful. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiwings Award

Wikiwings 2.0 Wikiwings
For making sure that we have all the correct operators for each aircraft!! --Born2flie 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MiG-21 edit

Piotr, by removing the past operators of the aircraft as you have done, we loose some valuable historical information. It's not just important who is operating the aircraft today, but who has operated it in the past, as well. Can I get you to reconsider? Akradecki 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies...I should have scrolled down and looked closer. The diff as displayed in Netscape can sometimes be deceiving! Akradecki 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of the MiG-21, I have on my to-do list an article about an Indian MiG-21 crash, and in my research I've found that the IAF has an especially bad safety record with the MiG-21. I've been debating whether to put a one-paragraph summary of the problem, with refs, into the MiG article, but I'm not sure if it should go under the India section of Operation History, or in a seperate "Notable accidents and incidents" section, which some articles have. Thoughts? Akradecki 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JAS 39 Gripen

Just noticed this does not have an operators list. It would be small, but take your time. - BillCJ 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beechcraft King Air

On another subject, I just split the Beechcraft King Air article by creating a Beechcraft Super King Air page. I copied the operators list whole, as it did not indicate which models were in service. It's a long list, so it may take awhile to do. If you would be able to do it, it would be appreciated, but again, I'm in no hurry on this one, and it's OK if you cannot do it. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Please, don't cite websites which allow user contributions - generally, they don't comply with WP:RS, unless you are talking about the site itself. Wikisource isn't reliable for discussing spitfires.Garrie 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes the list of article was where I saw the link to Wikisource. When I see issues like that on articles which have only been worked on by one person (excluding tagging / categories etc), I'd rather make sure they are aware of the relevant policies than go fixing ariticles. I have been going through Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), and from putting comments on user pages for people who show up there I've gotten articles improved far more than if I had just fixed what I saw, when I saw it. Because generally, I don't know anything about the subject - I just know what's wrong stylistically / mechanically with the article. And hopefully - once I've pointed an issue out to someone (like, don't link to myspace in the external links section because it's in breach of WP:EL) - they won't do it in the future either.

Thanks for removing the reference to Wikisource. Sorry for being too tangential - I'm sure you work on quite a few articles. Garrie 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spad S.VII

I believe I have found a temporary solution to the non-displaying Ukraine flag. M Van Houten 18:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percival Prince

Apologies over my confusion about Borneo/Brunei, the reference I used had the term Borneo which was probably a British colonial term for Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei.MilborneOne 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E1 Tracer

Thanks for helping refine the article! I appreciate it. 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Raryel

[edit] RLM sequence

I accept your point that designations such as Do 200 were assigned by the Luftwaffe and not the RLM - and should be removed. However, missile designations most certainly were (Heinz & Nowarra Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945 pp 20-23) and should be left as they are.

But there is no "Dornier sequence" within the RLM numbers. Please do not invent something that simply does not exist. If you are aware of the internal numbering used by Dornier, then you should certainly feel free to add it - it would be a really valuable addition. There are many aircraft within Wikipedia where more than one designation sequence is legitimately used - see some of the Tupolev articles as a good example. --Rlandmann 13:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll freely admit that I made a mistake with the Zlin 212 - I simply didn't check my facts. I have now added Category:Dornier aircraft that will hopefully fulfil the function that you were hoping to achieve with your "Dornier sequence". --Rlandmann 13:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The "simple solution" may be "excellent" to you, but I disagree. Why does it matter that wartime and post-war aircraft share the same category? These are all Dornier aircraft. For that matter, consider that a non-specialist might easily believe that your (fictional) "Dornier sequence" may have some greater significance than it really has. It would be easy to believe that these really do make up some kind of sequence. On the other hand, we have quite a few manufacturers now covered under Category:Aircraft by manufacturer.

But please do whatever you like - I'm not really interested in arguing with you any further. If and when I come across any similar "sequences", I will remove them. There is no precedent for anything like this anywhere else in Wikipedia. There's nothing special about this particular aircraft so that it should be treated any differently --Rlandmann 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Country data Ottoman Empire

Can I ask why you changed flag in this template? According to Ottoman flag article you've messed up because that flag was used between 1793 and 1844, later it was changed to current Turkey flag. Please note that 1793-1844 era flag is still available via {{flag|Ottoman Empire|1793}} code. I think that {{flag|Ottoman Empire}} code should refer to 1844 flag. Piotr Mikołajski 08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is going on for centuries :)) . The flag of Turkey as it is presented in wikipedia is defined (established) after the establishment of the new state and "on purpose" made the exact shape of the (placement, size, etc) signs (star, crescent, color etc) different than the flag of Ottoman Empire. However, for most of the people, the red has no tones, crsent has no dimension and the placement of star does not make any difference. Yes it is true that there was a crescent and a star in the late ottoman empire flag, but that does not qualify the argument that both flags are same. It can only be claimed that these flags contain the same symbols. There is a difference between these states and flags are symbols of these differences and also non-differences. The late ottoman flag is the most accurate version avalable and is prefered against using Turkey's flag which is different. Thanks. --OttomanReference 09:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Mikołajski says use completely wrong flag. What?? If the only only goal to match it slightly than use Pakistan's flag. It has the same crescent and star! Or what about Mauritania! Also crescent and star is not the Ottoman Sultan's flag but the "ottoman governments" flag. What about that discusiion???? It is questionable if ottoman government was the real ottoman Empire?? Even the last day of the empire sultan used many flags to represent many titles he has, such as ottoman caliphate flag. Ottoman Empire was gone in 1922 but Sultan continued to use the caliphate flag. Ottoman Empire was not a nation (national) empire. It was an empire of millet (Ottoman Empire). It had many flags (as it was not a nation united under a single form; nationalism) that was used in indifferent situations. Remember the ideology of nationalism broke that state into pieces, 39 different nations exactly. If you look serious sources, they do not even use a national flag. Use the coat of arms, that might make the things more complicated. With Turks this argument is a century old argument. Sorry by if you are not Turkish, your background would make this exchange very difficult. Turkey is ottoman Empire but really how close???? This Is a very old coffee table discussion. Flag of Turkey is not flag of Ottoman Empire, just read the name of the flag. At the end, the current flag was the flag of Ottoman Empire. Thanks...--OttomanReference 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAAF Userboxes

Hi Piotr, I admire your work. However, the Roundel may need to be substituted in RAAFhv for an image that is not tagged with qualifies as fair use. I created userboxes for the defence force, the logos for the Army and Airforce were promptly removed as per WP:FUC#FUC9 which states fair use images can only be used in articles, not in the userspace.

Anyway, you might like to add your userboxes to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Military. RP Bravo 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Something I've just thought of, you might like to add a feature I've used. If you add <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedian military people|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> to the userbox code, people that use the userbox are automatically placed in Category:Wikipedian military people. RP Bravo 07:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement

Copied from my talk page: "Hi Bzuk, I'm in doubt. Do I understand correctly that standard says there is no images put between {{Infobox Aircraft}} and first sections' heading? I couldn't find any reference for that, but from my point of view it's logical - it's easier to edit one section than whole article. If I'm right, could you be judge in Sopwith Dolphin article? I don't want to revert someone's revert. Regards and TIA, Piotr Mikołajski 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"
Good question. I know when I saw that note on the Sopwith Dolphin article's edit history, I wasn't sure what the "standard" is and made a mental note to check back later. I will do that now and get back to you. BTW, fantastic work on the aircraft articles you have been editing. Bzuk 11:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sorry about the image moves

Thought I was doing the right thing. While I agree with you and wiki-policy states I am wrong, I think that it looks a whole lot better my way. Hopefully they will fix that in the next update of the software. BQZip01 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

If possible, please provide citations when you are updating/expanding aircraft articles. Ideally, every paragraph (possibly with the exception of the lead) should have at least one reference. Thanks for your contributions! - Emt147 Burninate! 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aero L-39

I saw that you reverted my edit in the Aero L-39 article. Are you sure that the civil operators section is correct? Aero L-39 was the standard jet trainer in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries in the 1970s. I believe the civil operator header is in the wrong place, that it refers to the second part of the paragraph, i.e. the aircraft in the United States. --MoRsE 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fw 61 / Fa 223

“ You've put Fa 223 as related to Fw 61's development. From visual point of view you are right but from technical point of view it seems to be wrong. In recent book "Rotorcraft of the Third Reich" published month ago by Mushroom Model Publications there is note: The idea of building a utility helicopter, based on experience of flying the experimental Fw 61, was put forward in Germany in 1937. Two projects were considered. One was the civil 6-seat Fa 266 (...) the other was a two-seat training helicopter, the Fa 224 Libelle (Draonfly) (...). The training helicopter was going to be a slightly enlarged version of the Fw 61 (...). In 1938 it was decided, however, that instead of the two civil helicopters only one would be developed, for the air force. The new machine was designated the Fa 223. From my point of view it was new design, not straight development of the Fw 61. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ”

The related development section is for those aircraft that are related by the nature of their development. Please refer to the page content guidelines under WikiProject Aircraft as quoted below:

“ Related development: are those that this aircraft were developed from, or which were developed from it. Many aircraft will be stand-alone developments with no relatives, in which case this line should not be used.

--WP:AIR/PC

 ”

The Fa 223 is a descendant of the Fw 61. Since the Fa 223 immediately followed the Fw 61 and since it utilized many similar design features, particularly the transverse mounted rotors, and lessons learned from building the Fw 61, then it is certainly related. --Born2flie 18:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some technical issues

Copied from my talk page. Hello Bzuk. What do you think about clearing some issues which appeared in aircraft articles? I mean:

  1. Flag templates should be used only in Operators section, not in Infobox Aircraft area. We are doing that right now but there is no clear rule.
  2. Flag templates should use the historical war flags in military aircraft, if available / different. I mean for example using Flag of Japan for WWII Japanese aircraft, not Flag of Japan. The same for Hungarian aircraft - Flag of Hungary, not Flag of Hungary etc. There is no strict rule for that and from time to time we can see smaller edit wars.
  3. Images of aircraft in foreign users markings should be placed in Operators section, if available. This can help illustrate different camouflage and markings, sometimes quite different from original operator's ones.
  4. Images should be placed under section header only, not directly above it. This rule can make life of editors easier because to fix image we can edit only one section, not whole article.
  5. No images should be placed between Infobox Aircraft and first section header. This rule can make life of editors easier because to fix image we can edit only one section, not whole article.
  6. No galleries should be allowed. Instead proper images should be placed for sections of article and all available images in Commons should be gathered in one page and this page should be linked in Related content section. With this rule sections of article are better illustrated and we can get some order in Commons.

What do you think about such rules? I would like to tweak all a little and post it in proper Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft talk page. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 09:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotr, fellow Pole here, Canajan version. First of all, let me say how much I am impressed with the edits and submissions you have made to the Wikipedia aircraft articles that you have edited. The authoritative and insightful way that you have contributed to the discourse that inevitably arises is also exemplary. However, back to the request at hand, which deals with a favourite subject of yours, the flag graphics. Yes there is a consensus already established about limiting the infobox information and moving flag symbols to "Operators" sections (although like in everything Wikipedian, there is no "hard-and-fast" rule). As to the other issues you have raised, all of them make sense in terms of format standarization and I have seen them in practice being utilized in that manner. I would suggest the next action, as you have already proposed, would be to post these standards as a request for implementation in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft forum and ask for advice and consensus. I believe you will have no problems in finding that your commonsense and straightforward suggestions will be validated by the majority of active editors in this Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft group. I will certainly "second" your recommendations immediately. Bzuk 12:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Just came to your talk page to ask about format for operators - as you kindly update my attempts!. Just read you dialogue above and would support your ideas when you take them to the aircraft project. I think we need a good example on the page content project page so that we can try and be consistent. MilborneOne 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:World War II revisited

Hi again Piotr,
Just spotted that you've been watching over the above diligently; in an attempt to reduce the number of more or less well-meant emendations, do you think it might be worth including brief explanatory comments in the code beside e.g. the Japanese and Free India entries...?  Yours, David (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award time

The Working Man's Barnstar
for your tireless maintenance of aircraft-related articles and more, I, Emoscopes Talk, hereby present you with this barnstar in recognition of your diligence
    • I second this recognition!!! LanceBarber 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Template:World War II

Hi again Piotr,

Hi David, I'm giving up editing this template... Noone talks on talk page first, just entering his changes, mostly useless ... I have enough now.

I see what you mean... If noone else, I appreciate the good intentions you've brought to the template; maybe it's simply time to leave it alone for a week or two, then see what state it's in and if anyone else has tried to restore or rebuild its content. I think this is what I'll do. Thanks again for your contributions, David (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
PS Maybe it might be worth drawing the template to the attention of the Military History WikiProject...?

[edit] New Sikorsky S-61R article

Piotr, I'm working up a new article on the Sikorsky S-61R varitiants of the Sea King at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3. It still needs a lot of history and development text, so it may be a few weeks before it's ready. In the meantime, if you could look at it, and see what you can do re: flags, and anything else you'd like to do there. I'm not in a big hurry, so take your time. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Template:Country data Japan

Hi again Piotr,

...Template:Country data Japan is edited by User:Saburny and he is removing part of it - such edits make several dozens of articles broken. He was informed by me about this effects two weeks ago but he didn't answered. Instead he made such edit once again today...

I see User:Saburny's most recent edit there has been undone by User:Denniss – i.e. by someone other than yourself – so, seeing that more than one person disagrees with his/her editing, perhaps s/he might try to discuss the issue next time.
...However, having now just seen that User:Saburny claims difficulty with English on his/her userpage, perhaps not... If problems continue, it might be worth trying a simple message translated by e.g. http://babelfish.altavista.com/ on their talkpage. Yours, David (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RWD-8

Czy mógłbyś rozwinąć o tych palestyńskich terrorystach używających RWD-8?... Pibwl ←« 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: Manual of Style

I have noticed that you have been active on the military aircraft articles, you have referenced your reasoning for doing what you have by linking the WP:MOS. I have reviewed this article, specifically the Images. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#Images and the second bullet states:

  • When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left (Example: Timpani).

Although the guideline states that also, "Generally, right-alignment is preferred..." this is not always the case. -Signaleer 08:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing aircraft

Hi Piotr. Please do not add entries to the missing aircraft lists, as you recently did. These are lists of types covered in Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation published in the 1980s, and are intended as a checklist to compare Wikipedia's coverage to theirs. There are plenty of aircraft that this book misses out as well (for example, the LWS-1 and -4), but that's not the issue here. --Rlandmann 07:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

These lists were all hand-typed, so there are bound to be mistakes in them. If there's a typo (like Sokker for Fokker) please just edit the list to correct it. If there's an alternative (even maybe inaccurate) designation, like PZL.5 instead of PZL P.5, please make a redirect (because if Jane's used that name, perhaps other sources will too) Cheers --Rlandmann 07:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooops! forgot - please add lists of new aircraft to the List of aircraft. If maybe you have an encyclopedia of Polish aircraft (for example), you might want to type out its table of contents and create a new checklist as a new Missing encyclopedic articles entry (see under "Specialised encyc.") --Rlandmann 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Piotr, just curious as to why you removed the EA-18G photo from the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet page's EA-18G section, as you didn't explain why in the edit summary. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's a reasonable explanation. I won't revert it back, but someone else might. - BillCJ 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AgustaWestland EH101

Piotr, could you look at AgustaWestland EH101? Someone tried to "clean up" the operators section, but took out all the 3-letter flag teplates you use. I've been meaning to separate out the operators fromn the indivdual users' history for awhile, so I did that today. However, I'm still not that familar with your standards for the Operators section, so could you double-check that for me? Thanks. - BillCJ 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF

Hello, Piotr Mikołajski. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF) was found at the following location: User:Piotr Mikołajski/Operators flags. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LeO.451 designer

Hi,

Thanks helping us improve the LeO.451 article. Why did you remove the designer's name? Pierre Mercier was very personally involved in the design, which uses several of his patents, for instance the engine cowlings and wing structure. PpPachy 12:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of template calls in section headers

Re List of B-29 operators, While not linking as such - it is suggested to avoid special characters GraemeLeggett 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIR Rotorcraft task force

Given that one of the goals of the WP:AIR Rotorcraft task force is to improve the quality of Rotorcraft articles, and gien all your recent contributions and improvements to rotorcraft articles, I'd like to invite you to join the Task force. Most of us in the project so far (5 members) have other aviation interests beyond just rotorcraft, so even if helicopters are not one of your priorities, I still feel you could be valuable to the group. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RAAF-Roundel.svg

Hello Piotr Mikołajski, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:RAAF-Roundel.svg) was found at the following location: User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFhv. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rnzaf roundel.svg

Hello Piotr Mikołajski, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Rnzaf roundel.svg) was found at the following location: User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RNZAFhv. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF

Hello Piotr Mikołajski, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF) was found at the following location: User:Piotr Mikołajski/Operators flags. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF

Hello Piotr Mikołajski, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Egyptian Revolutiony Flag.GIF) was found at the following location: User:Piotr Mikołajski/Operators flags. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-29 stuff

Piotr, Been reading refs on 29's this morning, finding some good stuff. But in the mean time Davegnz has deleted the Survivors section again and created another Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors article. Other editors and administrators have jumped in and has nominated the recreated article for Deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors for your vote. I've tried to give Dave some help in editing his Boeing B-47 Stratojet Survivors article, but he didn't learn. And now, a senior editor and 2 administrators have jumped in and nominated the article for deletion. What a mess. Under WikiProjectAircraft there will be future guidelines for notable/survivor aircrafts. It wouldn't sooooo bad if Dave have transferred the history of the 10 notables from the main aritcle over to the new List, added correct lead in sentence, double bracketed all the internal links, used refs for each of the a/c, added categories, etc. I was hoping he was doing this in his personal sandbox or off-line, and then recreate the article with a very well done and complete article, but he didn't. I have a number of large off-line project articles in the mill, but not going to create them until I am done and tested them in a archive/sandbox page. Dave hasn't 'bought' his clue yet. I've been on-line for over six hours now, need a rest, lunch, and 2 beers. Be back on later. Hope to have the USAAF Wings referenced in a couple of days. I have the following references for us

  • F. Johnsen's The B-29 Book,
  • old Squadron's B-29 In Action,
  • Squadrons/Birdsall's Superfortress, and
  • Maj. Gurney's B-29 Story, formerly Journey of the Giants .... LanceBarber 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Piotr, Well, finally getting back on updating B-29 stuff... Will be looking back into the B-29 wings and squadrons. Noticed in the Variants aritcles the references to the WPAFB links are broken and need to be researched to the new www.nationalmuseum.af.mil website. Have started in checking all the sub-section ref/sources and using correct style. Hope you are having a good summer, I am. More later, Lance ....LanceBarber 08:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do 26

Piotr, many thanks for your excellent, constructive edits to this new article. Tracey TraceyR 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestons at Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

I implemented your suggestions at Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors, however Davengx disagrees strongly. Please provide input at WT:AIRCRAFT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint filed

I have filed a complaint in the Requests for arbitration section for you actions and discregard of wikipedia policy regarding lists and the vandalism (ie destroying the original intent and purpose of) my article Boeing B-29 Superfortress SurvivorsDavegnz 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI since the initiating party omitted it, the link to the arbitration case page is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responce

<<snip>>Before you do something stupid, like filling complaints against me, please look who and what performed.<<snip>>

Sounds like a treat to me - maybe I will have you banned for making treats against used.Davegnz 17:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I. Chrislk02, awared you this Brilliant Idea Barnstar for your great idea on a compromise to fix up the aircraft survivors list! Thanks for your great work and your excellent solution to this problem. Keep up the great work! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LWS-6 Żubr

Informacja o używaniu Żubrów przez Luftwaffe pochodzi z tego samego źródła, co reszta artykułu (Glass...), więc nie wiem, czy powinniśmy ją dodatkowo oznaczać przypisem. Jeśli tak, to pewnie powinien być co drugie zdanie przypis... Zresztą przypis mógłby się przydać do nazwy LWS-6, bo Glassie, z którego korzystałem jest jeszcze LWS-4. Pibwl ←« 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MiG-29, Variant part, Discuss?

Hi, my name is Chowhui. Recently I am working on the topic but I also found it is getting too long. I agreed they should be split (which you already did). However, there is technical problem to prevent me and previous editors to do so. I suggest you should join our discussion and work out something before you MASS deleting? Regards ChowHui 06:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, is better to finish your work before you delete it. And, give an explanation in the discussion so that it will not go into an edit war. Regards ChowHui 07:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just to drop by to ask are you done with MiG-33? If so, I wanted to add back some missing info. BTW, Fulcrum page looks more tidy, great effort!ChowHui 12:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Piotr, sorry to nose in here, but it might be helpful to use the {{inuse}} header while making big changes to an article to avoid others interferring while you work. I use it for that reason, and it is helpful. - BillCJ 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, not sure are you done with the variants on MiG-29. I am gathering info for MiG-33, but I found that rather to make the "MiG-33" as the title, the aircraft should name MiG-29M, and MiG-33 should be a topic under "development". What do you think?

[edit] B-29 and USSR

Piotr, I think the general consensus in WP:AIR is that we only list aircraft captured/acquired as operated by "enemy" forces if they were actually used in an operationl role somehow. Some captured German aircraft wereoperated as transports by Britain, and vice versa. TO my knowledge, the 3 B-29s acquired by the USSR crashed or emergency-landed, and then were examined to be copied as the Tu-4. THey may have flown test flights, but were'nt used operationally in any way. It is with that understnading that I have removed the USSR from the operators list. If I am mistaken, please let me know. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PZL.43

Na jakiej podstawie PZL.43 Karaś? Pibwl ←« 22:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

...Ale wciąż mam wtpliwości, czy to oficjalna nazwa. Zresztą, nieistotne. Zastanowiła mnie informacja u Kopańskiego, że prędkość Karasia B 319 km/h była właściwie ograniczona administracyjnie, a mógł osiągać 365 km/h, lecz występowały "nieprawidłowości pilotażowe". To tyle samo, co PZL.43! Ciekawe, czy PZL.43 przy tej prędkości nie miał "nieprawidłowości". Pibwl ←« 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Muszę spytać o dość dziwne liczby w PZL.43 - według wszystkich dostępnych dla mnie źródeł, czyli cytowanego artykułu Glassa, książki Kopańskiego "PZL-23 Karaś.." z 2004 i serii artykułów Cynka w SP z 2005, do Bułgarii nie dostarczono 6 samolotów, z tego jedynie dwa były użyte przez 41. Eskadrę (i rozbite), 2 zniszczone w fabryce i jedynie 2 dostarczone przez Niemców. Bułgaria zamówiła 42, a 36+9=45. Czy masz jakieś inne, nowsze źródła??.. Pibwl ←« 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Tak, jak pisałem - w tych trzech pozycjach jest 6 pozostałych PZL.43, z czego dostarczono tylko 2. Należy założyć, że książka tego samego autora z 2004 jest bardziej aktualna, od książki z 199x. Mam skany książki i artykułów Cynka (jeśli byś chciał, napisz na priv). Pibwl ←« 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No to jeszcze zostaje artykuł Glassa i Mazura z 1999. Właśnie czytam tamn, że wg relacji pracownika PZL Z. Kossakiewicza w PZL pozostało 9 samolotów, z których kilka było w skrzyniach, ale według dokumentów bułgarskich 36 PZL.43 dostarczyli Polacy. Dalej autorzy ci rozpisują numery wszystkich PZL.43. Artykuł jest obszerniejszy w kwestii PZL.43 od Kopańskiego, który z kolei dokładniej podaje losy w 1939. Myślę, że powinniśmy lepiej wrócić do poprzedniej wersji. Pibwl ←« 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Osobiście jestem ostrożny w przyjmowaniu różnych relacji za źródło. Jest też przypis, że na Bielanach były 4, z tego 2 zbombardowane (zresztą, Malnik pisze, że mechanicy mu mówili o 5, a nie pisze, czy sam liczył). Według mnie nie powinniśmy kombinować na siłę i szukać w starszej literaturze, tylko oprzeć się na dominującej w nowych źródłach i najlepiej chyba udokumentowanej wersji, gdzie są podane konkretne numery dwóch samolotów przekazanych w 1940. Inaczej w konsekwencji przyjmiemy, że Bułgarzy zamówili 45 samolotów, a nie 42? Tak swoją drogą: czy Kopański w tej książce pisze jeszcze o PZL.43B? Nowsze źródła są chyba jednak lepsze - z autopsji wiem, ile nowych rzeczy o sprzęcie z 1939 wyszło dopiero w ciągu ostatnich 10 lat. Pibwl ←« 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obrazki

Po co się upierać przy takich malutkich obrazkach, na których niewiele widać? Manual of Style mówi: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended" (a nie zabronione), ale "However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article". Według mnie, dokładnie z takimi przypadkami mamy na ogół do czynienia, jeśli zdjęcie pokazuje samolot na długość. 250px to wcale nie jest dużo. Pibwl ←« 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC) PS - uważam, że zdjęcie Po-2 z bombami powinno być przy opisie zastosowania bombowca, zwłaszcza, że mamy tam sporą sekcję bez zdjęć.

Nie chodzi o mnie, ale o default users, którzy zmuszeni są do wypatrywania samolotów na zdjęciach wielkości znaczkow pocztowych. A ponieważ uważam, że image subject calls for a specific image width to enhance the readability, wybacz, ale będę to zmieniał tam, gdzie zdjęcie prezentujące widok bardziej z boku będzie nieczytelne, pozostając w zgodzie z wyjątkiem w MOS. Innego zdjęcia Po-2 z bombami nie mamy, więc aż się prosi o umieszczenie go w sekcji o bombowcach. Do "foreign users" możnaby dać jakiś CSS-13. Pibwl ←« 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC) PS - Bies nie był używany przez Aeroklub Polski, bo czegoś takiego wtedy nie było.
Zauważ, że artykuł nazywa się Polish Aero Club, nie Aeroklub Polski. Czy jest jakieś uzasadnienie forsowania na siłę nazwy po polsku? Nie upieram się przy "Polish civilian aviation" i w sumie nie będę się wymądrzał, bo sekcja Operators to nie mój pomysł i nie wiem dokładnie, jaki miała mieć sens - ale wydaje mi się, że powinno się na pierwszym poziomie odróżnić lotnictwo wojskowe od wszystkiego innego, a na drugim uszczegóławiać, a nie stawiać na równi Air Force i aeroklubu jako użytkowników. Nota bene, umieściłeś czerowny link do Polish Air Ambulance Service (piszę z pamięci), ale która konkretnie służba lotnictwa sanitarnego to ma być? Ja pisałem w znaczeniu ogólnym, bo było i jest ich kilka. Przechodząc do zdjęć, chodzi mi jednak o to, żeby default users bez potrzeby powiększania widzieli szczegóły zdjęcia. Zasady dotyczące miniaturek są tutaj określone od dawna i wszyscy się ich trzymają, więc szkoda Twojego i mojego czasu na takie zabawy - Też tak uważam. Czy naprawdę uważasz, że zdjęcia 180px wyglądają lepiej, niż 250 px?.. Jeśli nie jesteś przekonany o wyższości 180px, proszę, zostaw tak jak jest, bo będę to zmieniał tam gdzie trzeba, a jeśli ktoś inny się przyczepi, spróbuję wyjaśnić tę kwestię także z nim. Przypominam, że uzasadnione wyjątki są w zgodzie z MOS. Chciałbym zobaczyć, który z default userów, a nie autorów Wikipedii, zmienia ustawienia użytkownika... Pozdrawiam. Pibwl ←« 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Na szybko: Aeroklub Polski to owszem nazwa własna, ale po pierwsze primo: wtedy był APRL, a AP pojawił się dopiero w 1990, więc nie można pisać "Aeroklub Polski" dla starych samolotów bo to niedopuszczalne wprowadzanie w błąd; po drugie primo: skoro mamy Polish Air Force i LOT Polish Airlines, to dlaczego akurat nie tłumaczyć aeroklubu? Skoro Polish Aero Club jest z dużych liter, to raczej nie może być rozumiany jako "jakiśtam aeroklub w Polsce" - zresztą, to akurat mały problem, a kliknięcie na link i tak wyjaśniłoby wątpiącym tę kwestię. Mam alergię na próby przekonania czytelników anglojęzycznych, że jedynym właściwym tytułem dla Polish Anti-tank Rifle wz.35 jest "karabin przeciwpancerny wzór 35", jak to kiedyś jeden z kolegów forsował na en-wiki... lepiej być zrozumiałym niż udowadniać na siłę, że mamy własny język i niech wszyscy się go uczą. Co do Polish Air Ambulance Service - obecnie być może mamy tylko Lotnicze Pogotowie Ratunkowe, chociaż nie jestem pewien, ale wcześniej były Zespoły Lotnictwa Sanitarnego. Trzebaby podrążyć temat. Obrazki: nie czarujmy się, że default users, dla których tworzymy encykopedię mają co innego, niż 180 px. Skoro się upierasz, że 180 px jest dobre, zaprezentuj mi stanowisko "osób zarządzających projektem", a może będą bardziej otwarci na argumenty... Albo chociaż nie rzucaj, proszę, kłód pod nogi, w konstruktywnej działalności opisywania polskich samolotów i znajdywania do nich zdjęć... Pibwl ←« 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) BTW: jeśli dalej jesteś zdecydowany na zmienianie aeroklubu, niezgodne ze stanem faktycznym, zgłoś komuś tam editwar, jeśli chcesz, bo ja nie mam czasu na szukanie procedur - cały wolny czas zajmuje mi pisanie artykułów i, ostatnio, śledzenie "poprawek". Pozdrawiam.
OK, częściowo przyjmuję do wiadomości (lubię argumentację merytoryczną). Niemniej jednak, uważam, że niedopuszczalne jest pisanie o AP odnośnie samolotów z lat 50. - to tak, jakby pisać Rzeczpospolita Polska także o PRL uznając, że tylko nazwa się zmieniła. Żeby uniknąć koniecznosci wymieniania dwóch ARP i APRL lub APRL i AP, a także, żeby nazwa była zrozumiała, postuluję jednak angielską. Jeśli nazwa AP pochodzi od przymiotnika polski (skąd taka informacja?) to faktycznie wypadałoby zmienić artykuł na Aero Club of Poland (ale nie "the Poland" ;-) ). Owszem, są pewne nazwy obcojęzyczne, które są szerzej znane lub wypromowane jako trademark, niemniej jednak wiele innych wolałbym widzieć przetłumaczone, a nie pisane w mniej znanych językach. Analogia do Polish Air Force jest wg mnie trafiona, bo Polish Aero Club też jest pewnego rodzaju disambigiem. Zresztą w artykule jest kolejny błąd, bo Aeroklub Polski pod różnymi nazwami to jedna i ta sama instytucja, a nie jakieś kolejno powstające i upadające twory. - {{topopraw}}. Niestety, na stronie oficjalnej AP nie ma historii, a ja też byłem ciekaw na jakich zasadach prawnych to funkcjonowało na początku i po 1945, ale ponieważ nikt się jakoś nie garnął do wypełnienia tego czerwonego linku, ktoś to musiał zrobić bazując na Pl-Wiki... Jeszcze kończąc o obrazkach - powtarzam, jeśli Tobie te 250px nie sterczą solą w oku, to nie zmieniaj, a jeśli ktoś inny się przyczepi (a najpierw jeśli znajdzie), to zobaczymy... Niemniej jednak, będę tego używał oszczędnie. Pibwl ←« 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Z innej beczki: czy mógłbyś sprawdzić, czy Messerschmitt Bf 108A był dwumiejscowy, jak w tym artykule?? Według dostępnych polskich, ale niepewnych źródeł, nie. Pibwl ←« 00:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. Ale o ile to wersja A startowała w Challenge (jak podaje ksiażka Mariana Krzyżana), to MUSIAŁA być czteromiejscowa, bo inaczej byłaby na szarym końcu w ocenie technicznej, bez 116 pkt za dodatkowe miejsca... Pibwl ←« 06:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A jednak Aeroklub polski (przymiotnik) - tak odmieniają na stronie oficjalnej Pibwl ←« 22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CH-46 operators list

Piotr, could you take a look at the CH-46 Sea Knight page? I am having trouble with the list for Japan coming out oas all-bold, as below:

KV-107II-1 ： Utility transport version. (CT58-110-1）
KV-107II-2 ： Commercial airline version. (CT58-110-1）
KV-107IIA-2 
Improved version of the KV-107/II-2. (CT58-140-1)

Oddly, the third item is normal. Any idea why this is happening? Thanks. - BillCJ 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you so much! :)

Thank you for all that you have done!
How much love resides therein!
All one's gifts are never gone:
Not seen, perhaps, but stored within.
Kindness is an inner sun.

Your unspent heart a message sends
Of grace and sacrifice hard-won
Upon which happiness depends!

Thank you so much, dear Piotr! :)

Love,
Phaedriel
08:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of linked years and Easter Eggs

Hi. I noticed you undid my edit here, with the edit summary "Don't remove linking to "year in aviation" articles". In fact links of the form [[1 January]] [[1901 in aviation|1901]] are specifically discouraged as they break the date formatting feature of the media software. The better use of these links is as a "See also [[xxxx in aviation]]". Hope this explains my edit. --John 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry you didn't understand me. Maybe if I demonstrate: look at these two dates.
January 1 1970
January 1, 1970
They look the same, don't they? This is called an easter egg link. It helps no-one. Dates are linked mainly to ensure readers' date preferences work. If there is a useful link it makes more sense to flag it up, for example See also 1970 in aviation. This lets people see the link and click on it if they are interested. Best wishes --John 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your further reply. You said "Use of 1980 in aviation is current standard in WikiProject Aircraft" and suggested I bring it up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. I will be happy to do so, but I cannot see the consensus to confirm your statement. Can you please point me to the consensus supporting what you say is the status quo? Thanks in advance. --John 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks. That makes sense as it seems that if this use is prevalent that it contradicts the manual of style as well as common sense and usability. I will raise it at the project talk. Best wishes,--John 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forum shopping

Please never ask a familiar admin to protect the "right" version, so as to ram through some inflammatory statements. This may lead to actions against both of you. We have a separate noticeboard for such requests. Please respect the process. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P.24

Zaryzykowałbym tezę w artykule, że P.24 był najpopularniejszym myśliwcem w Europie pod koniec lat 30. obok Fiata CR-32 (oba po 4 państwa) - co o tym sądzisz? (czy były jakieś inne?). Pibwl ←« 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC) PS: I guess that he wanted to check how strict are our rules.. - good guess, ale poza tym: skarżypyta :-P ;-)

Nie najpopularniejszym, ale najpopularniejszym OBOK CR.32, co wynika z prostego policzenia użytkowników europejskich. Fakt, że nie uwzględniłem Niemiec, w związku z czym CR.32 ma jednak więcej (pomijając fakt, że Niemcy za dużego użytku z nich nie zrobili..). Nie wiesz, czy były jakieś inne równie popularne samoloty w Europie w tym okresie? (jakieś Hawkery lub coś w tym stylu?) Pibwl ←« 20:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Cały czas chodzi mi o tylko europejskich użytkowników, ale faktycznie, Gladiator wyleciał mi zupełnie z głowy, a reszty nie znałem na tyle - dzięki za namiary. Pibwl ←« 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surviors

Piotr, I'm with you on this one. It is a catch-all title but it does serve to identify all the examples of an aircraft type that exist. Whenever there are no surviving airframes and only replicas or reproductions are made then I believe the text gives that background. FWIW Bzuk 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Potez 25

Nie wiesz przypadkiem, czy polskie Potezy otrzymały sloty, czy tylko jeden? Poza tym, nie sądzisz, że te informacje o "fighter bomber" kwalifikują się raczej do usunięcia? Pibwl ←« 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:World War II

Poruszyłem problem ZSRR 1939-1941, niewiele to dało. Ale sam nie zmienisz nic w Template, zaraz usuną. Poza tym większość ludzi na Zachodzie uważa, że zła Polska zmusiła ZSRR do współpracy z Hitlerem.Xx236 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PZL Bielsko

Czy nie sądzisz, że polskie szybowce powinny być nazwane po prostu SZD-xx, a nie PZL Bielsko SZD-xx? Nie mogłem znaleźć pewnych informacji, ale chyba wytwórnia PZL-Bielsko pojawiła się dopiero w latach 90., na fali przekształceń SZD? (Przy okazji: czy wiesz może, czy WSK-Mielec oficjalnie zmieniła nazwę na WSK "PZL-Mielec" i kiedy to było?). Pibwl ←« 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blériot-SPAD S.51 and S.61

Hi Piotr - I've just written up these two French fighters; I know that they were used in significant numbers by Poland, but not much more than that. I'm asking you and Pibwl if you can add anything more, especially about the S.61 that was also licence-built in Poland. Cheers --Rlandmann 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P-1 Hawk

I heavily edited the P-1 Hawk page, I merged the P-1 and P-3 into it and I'm trying to fix the references. Do you think you could find the reference to the trans-contenental flight that you added in? It is a nice operational fact that would be great to keep. --Colputt 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That was supposed to say P-2 and P-3. --Colputt 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ROC

Piotr, you might want to check out the discussion on Template talk:ROC. Some users keep deleting the "(Taiwan)" from the {{ROC}} template, which will affect our operators lists. THere is a {{ROC-TW}} that we can use, but it'd be a pain to have to change them all. Thanks. - BillCJ 08:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotr, would it be permissable for WP:AVIATION/WP:AIR to set up our own flag templates os this kind of disruption doesn't affect our pages? Perhaps we copuld come up with a reason for them to be slightly different in some way that would work better for the project. - BillCJ 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It also seems like someone have changed the code for the Italian flag. the {{flagicon|Italy|1861}} [[Italy]] currently displays only Flag of Italy Italy, while you have to write {{flagicon|Italy|1861-state}} [[Italy]] in order to display the result Flag of Italy Italy. A lot of aircraft articles are affected by this at the moment. I have tried to correct some, but as I am having some troubles with my bot I can't find them all. --MoRsE 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breguet Type III

Hi again Piotr - I'm a little concerned by what you did under the Operators section for this aircraft. In 1913, none of the French, Italian, or Swedish Air Forces existed yet. In each case, it was probably the Army that operated these machines; but remember that many European Navies have operated land-based aircraft as well, and I can't be certain that this wasn't the case for France or Italy. Please be careful! :) --Rlandmann 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying; if in doubt, I guess you could always link to the more general articles such as Military of Italy? Just a suggestion. --Rlandmann 09:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain, but you did it again here at Bristol Boarhound - in this case, adding the RAF as an operator when in fact the type was rejected for RAF service (as the article itself states...) Piotr, we both know that you and I have very opposite views on how the Operators section should be formatted; but this isn't about that - it's about adding in false information about things that never existed (just like my mistake months ago with captured aircraft on the GL/C list!) Again, please be careful! :) --Rlandmann 23:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 09:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ka-50/Ka-52

Piotr, would you take a look at the Kamov Ka-50 and Kamov Ka-52 pages for me? Born2flie and I have tried to merge them before, but there was no consensus. As I understand it, the primary difference is the cockpit size, and some avionics differences. You are a bit closer to Russia, and probably more familiar with the aircraft, so I trust your judgement. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RCAF userboxes

Hey Piotr, I like the design of the RCAF userboxes you place on Talk:Royal Canadian Air Force. The roundels, however, are not RCAF roundels; they are roundels used by the modern Canadian Forces Air Command which came into existence in Feb. 1968 and replaced the RCAF. The roundels use by the RCAF (1924-1968) used more natural-looking leaves. As an aside, the RCAF never used low-visiblity roundels of any kind. Can you adjust the roundels? The userboxes are perfect for editors of the Air Command page, however.--BC 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no other roundels uploaded into Commons and I'm unable to make another variant of the userboxes. I can use only this roundel for variants of Commonwealth AF. BTW - I've corrected low visibility variant with This user edits articles related to Canadian Forces Air Command sentence. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a big deal. The high-vis variant will still work well for the RCAF. BTW, the high visibility variant can also be used for Canadian Forces Air Command since this is an Air Command roundel.--BC 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
From [1]:". . . in 1965 the eleven point, stylized maple leaf of the new national flag became the centre-piece of Canada's roundel". This means that the high-vis roundel was used for a period of three years with the RCAF. Which means that your original userbox design using the hi-vis Royal Canadian Air Force roundel was correct all along.--BC 23:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] CH-53E operators

thanx for the helpANigg 09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

I want to merge the Northrop YA-13, Northrop XA-16 and Northrop A-33 into the Northrop A-17 article. At the same time I plan to update it with at least two other sources. And I plan to leave redirects in the old article's places. I fully expect the final article to meet B-class criteria. Please give a pro or con on the talk page. Thanks --Colputt 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Kq-logo-dal.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Kq-logo-dal.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biafran forces operated B-26, not B-25

In doing research for the B-25 survivors section I found that yes, the Biafran AF did accquire some B-25's (3 or 4 depending on who you ask) - just some info for your use Davegnz (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From Aero Vintage news Aug 1999: " Over the past two years there's been correspondence back and forth with Michael Robson, a British writer who is preparing a book which will include details of two B-25s used in the Biafran War back in the late 1960s. He's been making a concerted effort to identify the pair of airplanes that were evidently quietly exported out of the U.S. in 1967. Due to the nature of their operation and eventual fate, their identity has long eluded researchers but all indications now point to the B-25s being 44-29919 (ex-N9868C) and 44-31491 (ex-RCAF 5345, N8013). Both B-25s disappeared off the U.S. civil register in 1967 into no-mans land and their fate was always unknown. The B-25s used by the rebel Biafran Air Force during their war for independence were the last known combat usage of the type. Any one have anything to add to the story of these two B-25s? " - during my research on the B-25 survivors, I also found an interesting web page (now lost) regarding combat action with one of these aircraft if I can refind it I will send to youDavegnz (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kyriakos (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hey, it's good to see you active again. Hope all is well. - BillCJ (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. I have fixed the problem (the original article history is now at List of F-4 Phantom II operators) but though I should let you know for future reference. Good luck with your editing. Kind regards, nancy (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It should not have been moved without some discussion in the first place. There are 2 articles on F-4 operators (US and non-US). Also the article is not really a list. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Piotr, a few weeks ago, we decided to consolidate 3 (maybe 4) separate Phantom II operators articles (some of which overlapped) into two. As one article, we felt it would be far too long for one page, so we went by US and non-US operators. I appreciate you're willingness to Be Bold and make improvements, but this is one case where the consensus already exists for 2 article. I'd enjoy seeing you join the discussion, however, since you genrally have good reasons for your actions, and they would be worth adding to the discussion. Perhaps you have a solution that would make having all the operators on one page worthwhile. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of UH-1 ops

Thanks - No problem - I was just trying to save you a revert !! MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I like the new compact TOC saves a bit of page space. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian 1918 flag

Hi Piotr: I studied the issue of Ukrainian People's Republic flag, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no indication that the yellow-blue flag was the official flag of the republic. Existing documents only indicate the decision on blue-yellow flag with COA to be used as a naval flag. Please don't insert {{flag|UKR|1918}} as UPR flag until the issue is finally resolved. If you have any information about UPR flags, or aware of any good sources, please contribute at Talk:Flag of Ukraine. Thanks, Greggerr (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)