text:
User talk:Pibwl

Hi
Hi Pibwl - I've noticed that at present, Wikipedia is using a mixture of styles for Polish aircraft designations, sometimes even in the same article! Can you suggest whether PZL.37 is better than PZL-37 or vice versa? I think we should pick just one of these alternatives and stick to it. Cheers --Rlandmann 22:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * If PZL.37 was more correct at the time the aircraft was built, I agree this would be better, and maybe we can standardise on that? You're probably in a better position than me to investigate this - please let me know what you find out. Cheers --Rlandmann 23:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I've also added a few more PZL aircraft in the PZL article - could you please check my work? It's important that we get this list right so that we get the "Designation series" links right in the footers (by convention, three aircraft back and three forward) --Rlandmann 00:06, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RWD
Hi again Pibwl - could you please check what I wrote at RWD (aircraft manufacturer) and make any corrections that you can see? I thought it was time we disambiguated from rear wheel drive! --Rlandmann 23:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Polishsymbol
Czy mógłbyś rzucić okiem na Template:Polishsymbol? Nie jestem pewien czy dobrze przetłumaczyłem polski odpowiednik. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:55, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Dzięki serdeczne! Ja jestem tym mniej pewien bo na prawie znam się jak kura na pieprzu, ale przypuszczam że tak ten przepis można zinterpretować, w końcu wszelkie decyzje tak rządu rządu jaki i jego delegatur rejonowych podeń podlegają. A skoro tak, to także chyba herby i godła sankcjonowane decyzjami urzędów miejskich i rad miasta. Stąd to "assumed". Dzięki jeszcze raz. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:24, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Bark
Przy odpowiednim pomniejszeniu wygląda nieźle - jako ikonka. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:26, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to 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, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Helikoptery
Czesc, widzalem ze stworzylec artykul o PZL SW-4. Moze Cie zainteresuje pozwolenie ktore otrzymalem, do uzywania wszelkiego materialu jaki sie znajduje na http://www.pzl.swidnik.pl/.

Sa tam broszury w jezyku angielskim, np. http://www.pzl.swidnik.pl/AN2000/01_SOKOL/2101_p_smiglowce.htm

W razie potrzeby dalszych informacji lub zdjec, mam sie do nich zglosic.

Pozdrawiam--Emax 12:53, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Otrzymalem taka odpowiedz na prosbe:

Szanowny Panie, ''Nie widzę przeszkód w wykorzystaniu materiałów ze strony www.pzl.swidnik.pl do wzbogacenia kreowanego przez Pana serwisu. W przypadku gdyby materiały na naszej stronie okazały się niewystarczające proszę o kontakt.'' Pozdrawiam

Karol Błaszczyk

Zdjecia najlepiej wladowac jako fairuse.

--Emax 17:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wiesz, to w zasadzie juz ich problem ;) W prosbie napisalem ze to niekomercyjna encyklopedia i ze potrzebne sa w celach edukacyjnych, a przy okazji - by ich zachecic - mieli by darmowa reklame swojego sprzetu - wiec sadzac po pozytywnej odpowiedzi, nie maja nic przeciwko :)

Co do wielkosci zdjec, moglbym je powiekszyc, juz mialem przygotowany folder i powiekszone, ale wywalilem caly - wiec jak cos moge za jakis czas wstawic wieksze, lub napisac prosbe o wieksze zdjecia.--Emax 17:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

IFD nomination - Hosho
Hi Pibwl. You nominated Image:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.hosho.jpg for deletion at WP:IFD. When you do that, please put ifd at the image description page. Also, note that the version you put at the Commons, Commons:Image:716px-Japanese.aircraft.carrier.hosho.jpg, has a different file name. Since the version you nominated isn't an orphan, it can't be deleted. Finally, I'm curious why you thumbnailed the image at the Commons to a width of only 716 pixels. I've uploaded the higher resolution version over top of it. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 02:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing my attention at it. I was really wondering, from where I took 716px image of Japanese.aircraft.carrier.hosho.jpg - and finally found, that I've downloaded it from English Wikipedia in a thumbnailed version, instead of full size one. I must be aware of it in the future. Well, I guess, the best would be to upload it to commons with correct filename (without 716px) and quickly delete it from commons? (seems, that as for now, only Polish wiki uses it, which I'd change). Pibwl 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and replaced it with Commons:Image:Japanese aircraft carrier Hosho.jpg here and on the Polish Wikipedia. dbenbenn | talk 19:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tupelov Tu-22
Pibwl,

You said:

"Hello. How reliable are numbers of aircraft built, that you've given? I was basing before on Н.В.Якубович - Бомбардировщик Ту-22. And, would it be only 15-20 original Tu-22B to be exported?.. No more?.. Pibwl 22:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

The original Tu-22B was discontinued very early, BUT the Tu-22R retained conventional bombing capability (the recce pack could be removed from the weapons bay). The modern (post-Cold War) sources I've seen indicate that the exported Tu-22s were Tu-22Rs without the reconnaissance package (functionally Tu-22Bs, but incorporating the various incremental changes made to later-production aircraft). Given the relatively small numbers that were exported, that makes sense, since the VVS and AVMF were not operating Tu-22Bs and the early production aircraft were apparently bug-ridden (even for a very flawed design) -- they exported versions of the current production aircraft with sensitive systems deleted.

-- ArgentLA 14:47, 26 April 2005

WikiWings April 2005
Hi again Pibwl. I'd like to give you the WikiWings award for February 2005 for your Lublin R-XIII article. While the award is meant to recognise excellence in a particular aircraft article, I'd also like to express my appreciation for your long-term tireless work on Polish aircraft here. Many thanks! --Rlandmann 02:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * A tak z ciekawości: dlaczego ponownie przeniosłeś 300 dywizjon pod adres "300 eskadra"? Ta jednostka miała swoją polską nazwę oraz nazwę w nomenklaturze RAF, która jednak nijak się nie miała do nazwy właściwej i oryginalnej. Zwróć uwagę, że polski dywizjon tłumaczy się na angielski właśnie jako command. Squadron to albo szwadron w kawalerii albo eskadra w lotnictwie. To że RAF używa innej nomenklatury jeszcze nie znaczy że polskie siły zbrojne też się na taką przestawiły... Halibutt 16:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Poza tym, ta jednostka była częścią polskich sił zbrojnych a nie armii brytyjskiej, choć podlegała pod nią organizacyjnie. Jeśli iść za Twym przykładem, to artykuł o Polish 1st Armoured Division należałoby przenieść albo do British 1st Armoured Division (Polish), albo nawet Canadian 1st Armoured Division (Polish), co jest oczywistym absurdem. Halibutt 16:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Dywizjon można tłumaczyć, w zależności od chęci, jako command, unit albo detachment. A co do nazw - squadron zaiste został przyjęty już w czasie wojny, tyle że nie przez Polaków, a przez Angoli, którzy po prostu znormalizowali nomenklaturę. Ostatecznie można polską jednostkę nazwać błędną, choć przyjętą w literaturze nazwą. Ja osobiście optowałbym za No. 300 "Land of Masovia" Polish Bomber Squadron albo No. 300 Polish Bomber Squadron, jeśli już musi być szwadron. Natomiast nazywanie tego polskim dywizjonem RAF jest jakimś nieporozumieniem - patrz przykład 1 pancernej, albo dowolnej innej jednostki polskiego wojska z tamtych czasów. Podobnie w zasadzie Armię Krajową można by nazwać British Home Army (Polish) albo polską MW nazwać Royal Navy (Polish). Na temat dywizjonu (nie szwadronu!) 303 toczyłem kiedyś ożywioną dyskusję z PBSem i efekt był taki, żeby na razie tego nie ruszać, póki 303 był jedynym dywizjonem opisanym. Jednak teraz już tak nie jest i nie widzę powodu by promować ten błąd. Halibutt 22:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, nie tak do końca. To u nich się toto nazywa nie po bożemu i to nie od Angoliśmy przejęli ten system. Patrz francuska Groupe (odpowiednik dywizjonu) dzieląca się na escadrille (czyli eskadry właśnie). To u Angoli te eskadry się skurczyły do pięciu samolotów (patrz choćby początkowy podział 303 na dwie eskadry po 5 maszyn), a za nimi poszły i dywizjony. Ale to detal.

 * Co do nazwy No. 300 Polish Bomber Squadron - może być. Może lepiej by było 300th Polish Bomber Squadron? No. jest skrótowcem, który równie dobrze można rozwinąć... Halibutt 23:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board
zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Operacja Zima
Battle of Daugavpils -- --

Czy można? :)

Pozdrawiam, Halibutt 14:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Föhn
If you read the Wind article more closely, you will see that your concern is addressed in the Modern wind names section of the article. There is a link to Foehn (an acceptable alternate spelling) there. I hope you will find this suitable. Denni ☯ 00:50, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

We need to get our heads together
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Port_Arthur&diff=0&oldid=15512534 You changed information from cited references. Please provide your sources and I'll dig out mine and recheck the data I entered. I stand corrected on whether they were repaired for later segments, that was an inference from information that some naval guns were landed and added to the harbor defenses. Other refs made it clear they were later in service, but our lists of ships definitely need reconciled. Also, I didn't yet add a battle source ref. to this article, only Theodore Rex which deals with background. Thanks, User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 23:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Speedy References Response
Re: Reference requests for Battle of Port Arthur Best Wishes, FrankB
 * Thanks for the quick reply-- I'm chuckling as I'm 3/4 Polish myself genetically with 1/4 Lithuanian as well — though you might not be able to tell after what chauvenistic 'Civil Servants' did to our surname back when grandfather came through Ellis Island (immigrant processing center) at NYC. Your info does match mine, but those two episodes are considered part of the same battle in English and American Histories. I only had one reference when I first visited the battle, and hadn't quite gotten back to visiting it to expand, as I'm planning. Thanks for the on line references as well, I need to learn to search out more of those. The good ones are worth it, but many are so much junk. I still tend to go to printed texts. Let's stay in touch! Gotta get up and go this morning is moving fast, but it's better than yesterday if there's Wiki in it — I was going through some severe withdrawal by last evening (with the software upgrades) to the English Language Wiki).
 * User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 11:29 (UTC)

Piloci
Swietnie ze zakladasz nowe artykuly o polskich lotnikach - podrzucam Ci cos do rozwiniecia Stanisław Wigura ;)--Witkacy 3 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

Moglbys dac glos na zostawienie - Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism dzieki--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

Polish Army
And again we have a lengthy voting on name issues - this time at Talk:Wojsko Polskie. Please join. Halibutt July 5, 2005 05:58 (UTC)

 * Zdjecia znalazlem na stronie ktora cala swoja tresc nie podala jako objeta prawami autorskimi - druga sprawa, to zdjecia robione przez wojsko podlegaja public domain - zdjecie ma okolo 80 lat, moim zdaniem mozna uzywac je smialo jako public domain - w 100% niczego nie jestem pewien ;)--Witkacy 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

 * A tak na marginesie, kojarzy mi sie ze stworzyles kiedys artykul o Stanislawie Skalskim - ktory znikl, chyba ze tylko cos mi sie skojarzylo :)--Witkacy 7 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

 * Masz racje, z tymi prawami jest niezly galimatjas - przypuszczam ze nikt juz nawet nie pamieta kto robil te zdjeci Indziaka, i zakladam ze posiada je jakies panstwowe archiwum, rowniez jest w ich posiadaniu. Czesto w ksiazkach sie spotykam z tym samym zdjeciem ktore raz ma podpis "prywatne archiwum XXX" a raz "archiwum muzeum XXX" - niech sie nad tym zastanowi adwokat ktory w razie potrzeby poda do sadu wikipedie, co jest raczej malo realne ;)

 * Co do Skalskiego - co autor to inna liczba, ale zawsze mozna podac liczbe XXX lub XXX--Witkacy 7 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Ludwik Idzikowski
Hi! I think the recent changes really help out the formatting and readability (the photos and links). I suppose it could use some headings to break up the text into summarized sections. What do you think of section headers like Military Career and Transatlantic Flights? Those may not be right, but I'm thinking it would be helpful to the reader to have it broken into sections.Tobycat 7 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Looking for Some Language Skills like Yours
Still poking around the Russo-Japanese War era...
 * Have you got any sources on
 * 1) when the Russians moved into Port Arthur and started upgrading it's harbor, port, town, etc. (which seems to have been well before (2-3 years?) the actual lease Kwantung Leased Territory of 1898).
 * 2) when they actually started building a railway South from Harbin, and North from Port Arthur?
 * re: "Construction of the CER started in July 1897 along the line Tarskaya - Hilar - Harbin - Nikolsk-Ussuriski. ", Translations or Checks of what those redlinked city names were and are today in China Far East Railway Article, which along with Manchukuo Article seems to need some fact checking. The later at least misstates which country built the branch line south from Harbin to Port Arthur.
 * 1) Also whether and hence when they 'actually (ever) leased' the region of the mainline 'Manchurian Railroad' (CER) through Harbin (Chita to Vladovostok), and whether that has a treaty specific name such as the Kwangtung...
 * In sum, I'm trying to verify and reconcile dates of treaties and leases, et al between all the 'See Also' links at the bottom of the Manchurian Railway. These of course are also all relevant and important to the whole series of Russo-Japanese War articles, and later Second Sino-Japanese Wars, so I figured I'd take you up on your offer to help of a few weeks back.  Pinning this kind of detail down can be important, so I welcome the help of someone with your language skills.
 * Still User:Fabartus with new Signature: Fra  nkB  9 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Port Arthur etc

 * In the interest of neatness and brevity, See: Talk:Timeline_of_the_Russo-Japanese_War, where I took the former post and the new one! Cheers!  Fra  nkB  05:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications survey
Hi Pibwl! I would really appreciate your input in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of WikiProject Aircraft's standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Czołem! Zastanawiam się jak dalece można pociągnąć Twój pomysł na tłumaczenie nazw własnych polskiego sprzętu na angielski. Na razie przygotowuję się do przeniesienia wszystkich samolotów RWD do, na przykład, Rogalski Wigura Drzewiecki Mark 14 "Heron" (RWD-14 Czapla) i przeniesienia/zamiany PZL.37 Łoś na albo SAW Mark 37 "Elk", albo po prostu Mark 37 Medium Bomber. Masz jakiś pomysł co jeszcze można zmienić? Halibutt 15:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Jak najbardziej serio. Patrz dyskusja przy okazji wymyślania nazwy na karabin Ur. Halibutt 10:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Talk:Anti-tank rifle wz.35

 * Primo: w czym oryginalna nazwa jest gorsza od tej, którą raczyłeś wymyślić?
 * Secundo: dlaczego polski sprzęt wojskowy jako jedyny ma być tłumaczony?
 * Tertio: Dlaczego przeniosłeś artykuł poza procedurą?
 * Halibutt 05:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specs policy
Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo   talk 06:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Prawo autorskie
Czołem! Kiedyś wgrałeś to zdjęcie na polską wiki, a ja przegrałem je tutaj. Piotrus zwrócił mi uwagę, że sprawa ustawy z 1926 (i jej późniejszego brzmienia z 1935) wymaga nieco bardziej szczegółowego potraktowania, na przykład za pomocą stworzenia szablonu podobnego do PD-Poland. Czy masz może na podorędziu treść tych ustaw lub znasz kogoś, kto ma do nich dostęp? Halibutt 21:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wybacz, zapomniałem dać Ci znać że Piotrus już znalazł co trzeba. Ciągle nie miałem jeszcze czasu przysiąść nad tym kolosem i opracować co trzeba, ale postaram się w najbliższej przyszłości - chyba że Ty masz chwilę. A co do szablonu - najśmieszniejsze jest w nim to, że (oczywiście) został już raz czy dwa razy skasowany. Jako divisive :)  // Halibutt 21:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Battles of Narvik
Hello Pibwl! I am trying to raise some attention about Battles of Narvik at WikiProject Military history/Collaboration to see if that might help make it better. Inge 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Giulio Cesare
Thanks for your contribuition to the Giulio Cesare page ! I don't find small your modification, because I find that they clarify much the career in Russian service. I see that you're more active in aviation and Poland military history, and you make a good work (BTW, I find interesting the history of the wars immediately after WWI, especially that against Russia and Ukraine, I like non-trench warfare in WWI and interwar period, esp. when armoured cars are involved) dott.Piergiorgio 22:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply; I have looked a bit the site you point out; it's excellent, near par to bron pancerna (my benchmark for Polish military history sites in english) and very pleasant as choice of layout & colours, and I have happily added it to my bookmarks. I can point this site to the Italian NG of Military History ? dott.Piergiorgio 14:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

E1 Tracer photo
Yes that was one I took so thanks for the heads up. I've made sure I'm credited and asked the uploader to properly follow the GFDL and credit the author in future. David Newton 21:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:MD450 Ouragon 1.jpg and other
Hi Pibwl, i took the images in the brussel military museum. There may always be restrictions if you took a picture of goods which are not your own and you did not create. Its just a reminder. -- Stahlkocher 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I put in the source. It was my mistake. Thank you! -- Stahlkocher 16:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Marinesko
Hi, Pibwl. A while back, you have called for a clarification on Marinesko's ethnicity. I have left a comment on Talk:Alexander Marinesko, and I would like to hear your opinion. Dziękuję. Dahn 21:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Hello Piwl,

In reply to your message about the picture of the HNLMS Jacob van Heemskerk. I do not remember the exact site where I got it, but it was a site of the Royal Netherlands Navy. The pictures can be used provided the source (Koninklijke Marine) is attributed.Paaskynen 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Museum ships
Thanks for adding these ships (I did some minor tidying up loose ends as well). When I created this as a formal table, I had already noted upon the fact that there weren't enough non-US one's in there. Good work. MadMaxDog 05:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Museum Ships
Thanks... But Belfast definitely was a Light Cruiser :-) Pibwl ←« 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "HMS Belfast, the Royal Navy's heaviest ever cruiser," doesn't quite seem to agree with your statement... MadMaxDog 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether a cruiser is considered a heavy or a light cruiser depends on the calibre of her main battery; 6 inch guns make it a light cruiser. The displacement of the ship is of secondary importance. The County class heavy cruiser of the UK Navy had a displacement of 13 000 tons so the statement of the Belfast being the heaviest is disputable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paaskynen (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Problematic ISBN in Polikarpov I-180 and Polikarpov I-185
Please see my query at Talk:Polikarpov_I-180. Thanks for whatever help you can give. Keesiewonder talk 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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) 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons
Hi Pibwl, did i made a mistake? Normaly i use commonshelper today, but earlier i made it by hand. Please let me now, i will fix it! -- Stahlkocher 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish aircraft requests
Hi again Pibwl! I don't know if you do requests, but I hope I can persude you to contribute the PZL-105 and PZL-126 sometime soon and help fill a couple of gaps in the missing aircraft list. Cheers --Rlandmann 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the PZL-105. You can read about the PZL-126 here if you're interested :). Thanks also for spotting the KZ III - if you ever see something like that on the Missing Aircraft lists, it would be a big favour if you could add a redirect to the article. Cheers --Rlandmann 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

PZL-106 Kruk

 * I am glad to see you writing or expanding articles on aircraft! Keep up the good work. Are you a pilot? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good but I'm wondering why all sorts of coplex categories are being created. I've just seen Czech aicraft for instance and there must be over 5o cateories most of which only have one article in each. It is much more user friendly to have categories more condensed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

E,g why not just use Category:Polish aircraft 1970-1979? If you want to distingiuh types of planes then lists should be created rather than complicated categories. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If there will be enough eventually for the categories of course that will be fine. They should have the expand tag in thwem until they develop ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

LWS-6 Żubr
Problem polega na tym, że o służbie w Luftwaffe mówią wyłącznie polskie źródła. Podają nawet nazwę szkoły pilotażu, która nie wytrzymuje konfrontacji ze źródłami niemieckimi - w Schleiβheim była szkoła pilotów myśliwskich (zresztą stara, jeszcze z czasów "tajnej Luftwaffe"), a Żubr miał być używany w szkole ślepego pilotażu dla pilotów bombowców. Niech sobie prośba o przypis wisi, może ktoś powiesi tam jakieś tajemne zachodnie źródło, które by to potwierdziło. Piotr Mikołajski 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maiden flight
This date was chosen because it is single and unambiguous. There are some aircraft that have careers that spanned many decades; categorising 1939 aircraft into 1930-1939 produces a consistent result - otherwise where do we draw the line? What about aircraft with a maiden flight in December 1938 but used in the 1940s and 1950s? It's an arbitrary rule, but it should be consistent... --Rlandmann 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PZL.43
Na przykład na podstawie monografii Karasia wydanej przez AJ-Press i napisanej przez Tomka Kopańskiego i Krzysztofa Sikorę. PZL.43 był eksportową wersją Karasia, nie kompletnie nową maszyną. De facto Bułgarzy w 1936 roku zakupili "PZL.23 série pour l'etranger", a nie "PZL.43". Już większy problem byłby z PZL.42, który początkowo był przebudowanym Karasiem, dopiero później otrzymał oznaczenie PZL.42 i w tym przypadku nie mam pewności, czy miał zachowaną nazwę Karaś. Być może coś w tej materii wyjaśni drugi tom Polskich Konstrukcji Lotniczych Andrzeja Glassa. Piotr Mikołajski 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Z oficjalnymi nazwami możemy nie dojść do ładu nigdy, bo i przed wojną specjalnego porządku w tym wszystkim nie było. Popatrz chociażby na stateczniki Karasi - niedługo przed wojną remontowane maszyny A i B zaczęły mieć nanoszone nowe oznaczenia, odpowiednio "Karaś I" i "Karaś II". Teraz pytanie za 100 punktów - czy PZL.23B nazywał się Karaś, czy może jednak Karaś II? Jeśli to drugie, to jak rozumieć oznaczenie "LWS-7 Mewa II" czy "PZL.53 Jastrząb II"? No i czemu w przypadku Karasia utrzymano oznaczenie PZL.23, a w przypadku Jastrzębia nadano nowy numer? Bez pół litra chyba się nie da...
 * Jeśli chodzi o PZL.43, to według Kopańskiego do Bułgarii dostarczono 5 samolotów - cztery po kampanii wrześniowej i piąty w październiku 1940 po badaniach w Rechlinie. Chyba w artykule napisałem coś nie do końca klarownie. Zasadniczo książka z 2004 roku wydana przez Stratusa jest nowym wydaniem monografii AJ-Pressu, więc jeśli w obu tych pozycjach są rozbieżności, to sam nie wiem która jest prawidłowa. Jeśli chodzi o nowe źródła, z utęsknieniem czekam na Stratusa, aż wydadzą II tom książki Glassa. Mam z nimi kontakt i to będzie dzieło naprawdę epokowe, więc zakładam że będziemy mieć wyjaśnionych sporo kwestii związanych z maszynami PZL. Piotr Mikołajski 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * W teorii nowsza książka tego samego autora powinna być bardziej aktualna, ale w praktyce być nie musi i w Polsce często nie jest. Musiałbym znaleźć czas i porównać oba wydania, żeby sprawdzić aktualizację danych. Jeśli dobrze kojarzę, to ta nowsza książka o Karasiu jest identyczna z wersją anglojęzyczną wydaną przez Mushroom Model Publications - tę gdzieś powinienem mieć i jak mi się ją uda wygrzebać, to posprawdzam dane. Z kolei mimo mojego wielkiego szacunku do Cynka, to jego publikacje są w środowisku autorów lotniczych krytykowane za brak nowych badań i powielanie starszych informacji. Piotr Mikołajski 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tylko że w tym samym artykule Glassa i Mazura masz kolejne potwierdzenie obecnej edycji - relację Czesława Maliniaka. Pisze on o 3 maszynach, które na jego oczach zostały uszkodzone/zniszczone podczas bombardowania, oraz o kolejnych 5 stojących na Bielanach, które przejęli. W przypisie jest informacja, że w PZL były w tym czasie 2 samoloty, ale nie ma korekty dotyczącej 5 maszyn z Bielan. Dawałoby to 7-8 samolotów, a nie 6. Tak naprawdę mam wrażenie, że żaden z autorów nie przykłada wagi do takich detali :o/ Piotr Mikołajski 06:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jak się dogrzebię do odpowiedniej książki, to posprawdzam dokładnie. Myślę, że najsensowniej będzie napisać o obu wersjach z zaznaczeniem, które źródło o której wersji wydarzeń mówi. Raz, że nie będzie revertów do jednej edycji lub drugiej. Dwa, że pokażemy problem z danymi. Trzy, że w spokoju doczekamy do książki Glassa, która (mam nadzieję) tego typu zagadki nam powyjaśnia. Piotr Mikołajski 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More missing aircraft requests
Hi again - next week, my trudge through the Missing Aircraft will bring me to the Bartel BM-1 Maryla, BM-2, BM-4, and BM-5. I wonder if you could help out with any of these? (I see that pl.wikipedia already has the BM-4 and BM-5). Cheers --Rlandmann 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I'll skip over these if I get to them before you come back. --Rlandmann 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back - and more photos are always good (I think photos are a big priority for WP:Aircraft) Cheers --Rlandmann 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Obrazki
Jak chcesz mieć większe obrazki, to zmień ustawienia użytkownika. Wklepywanie wymiarów obrazka na sztywno uniemożliwia ich zmianę przez użytkowników, a to godzi w dostępność i użyteczność artykułów. Dyskusji na ten temat było sporo, możesz zresztą podpytać o to któregokolwiek z administratorów zajmujących się projektem. Generalnie przyjęto zasadę, że jeśli ktoś chce sobie obejrzeć większe obrazki, to niech sobie zmieni ustawienia albo niech klika na zdjęcie - IMHO słusznie. Po-2 jest w polskich barwach i jako taki leci do sekcji Operators, gdzie wstawiane są zdjęcia samolotów w barwach obcych użytkowników. Jak znam życie, odpowiednie zdjęcie z bombami jest albo w Commons, albo w lokalnych wersjach, skąd można je do Commons przenieść. Piotr Mikołajski 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No to lecą odpowiedzi:

 * 1) Jak masz fotkę CSS-13, to wrzuć do "Operators", jeśli nie - niech Po-2LNB tam zostanie.
 * 2) Jeśli koniecznie chcesz mieć Aeroklub PRL, to zrób redirect do Aeroklub Polski. Tak naprawdę nie ma to jednak większego sensu, bo przecież nie wpisujemy przecież, że MiG-19 był używany przez WLiOPK, tylko przez Polish Air Force. Informacja, że w latach tych i tych instytucja/formacja była zwana tak i tak, powinna być umieszczona w artykule, nie ma sensu mnożyć bytów ponad potrzeby. Podobnie w sekcji "Operators" wpisujemy konkretnych użytkowników, a nie coś takiego jak "Polish civilian aviation". To ostatnie jest kompletnie nieokreślone i tak naprawdę nic w tej sekcji nie mówi, więc będzie albo kasowane przez innych, albo zmieniane przeze mnie na Aeroklub.
 * 3) Default users mogą sobie kliknąć na miniaturkę zdjęcia, jeśli czegoś nie widzą. W większości przypadków i tak trzeba klikać, bo pełne zdjęcia są dużo lepsze niż wszelkiej wielkości miniaturki. Wstawianie sztywnych wymiarów zdjęć skończy się albo ich usunięciem przeze mnie, albo zgłoszeniem Twoich działań do któregoś z adminów i upomnieniem - w przypadku wyjątkowego uporu: banem. Zasady dotyczące miniaturek są tutaj określone od dawna i wszyscy się ich trzymają, więc szkoda Twojego i mojego czasu na takie zabawy. Pamiętaj też, że wstawiając sztywny rozmiar miniaturek uniemożliwiasz innym ich skalowanie według ustawień użytkownika, a to już działanie wbrew Internautom. Piotr Mikołajski 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * To lecimy dalej:
 * Aeroklub Polski to nazwa własna, "Polish Aero Club" może być zrozumiany jako "jakiśtam aeroklub w Polsce" - to po pierwsze. Po drugie: tak, jak nie tłumaczy się Luftwaffe na German Air Force, nie trzeba też tłumaczyć nazwy Aeroklub Polski w linkach, wystarczy w docelowym artykule. Zresztą IMHO powinien zostać on przeniesiony właśnie pod Aeroklub Polski, a Polish Aero Club powinien być redirectem.
 * Sekcja Operators to m.in. moja działka i w niej stawiamy na równi wszystkich użytkowników. Siły powietrzne nie są ważniejsze od aeroklubów, a wielkie linie lotnicze nie są ważniejsze od lokalnego przewoźnika z dwiema maszynami.
 * Polish Air Ambulance Service - o ile wiem, mamy w Polsce tylko Lotnicze Pogotowie Ratunkowe, tłumaczenie i link spokojnie można zmienić. Przydałby się pewnie artykuł etc., ale na to nie mam czasu.
 * Jeśli chodzi o zdjęcia, to nadal nie rozumiesz podstawowej rzeczy - miniaturki nie mają 180px szerokości, ale mają tyle, ile sobie ustawił użytkownik. Chcesz mieć większe, to sobie zmień, ale nie decyduj za innych, bo Twoje widzimisię nie może kolidować z prywatnym widzimisię poszczególnych użytkowników. Przy ustawieniach defaultowych każdy może sobie ustawić wedle własnego życzenia, wstawiając na sztywno 250px odbierasz wszystkim możliwość ustawienia np. 300px czy 100px, bo mają duże albo małe monitory, albo mają taki kaprys. Oczywiście możesz wstawiać sztywne rozmiary zdjęć, ale musisz liczyć się z tym, że po pierwsze zrobię reverty, po drugie zaraportuję to do adminów. Z żadnym z nich tej kwestii nie wyjaśnisz, bo była wałkowana w projektach lotniczych już szereg razy i skończy się na tym, co mamy teraz. Jeśli mimo dyskusji będziesz wstawiał sztywny wymiar fotek, skończy się banem - IIRC już takie przypadki były. Jedynymi wyjątkami są zdjęcia w infoboksach (co jest zrozumiałe) oraz mapy z krajami użytkowników i rzuty 3D. Chcesz - próbuj to zmienić, ale szanse masz znikome, a przeciwników zdecydowaną większość wśród zarządzających projektem. Piotr Mikołajski 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * No to po kolei:
 * W przypadku LOT Polish Airlines artykuł powinien zostać nazwany Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT, ale ktoś popełnił identyczny błąd, jak Visior z przeniesieniem Aeroklubu pod nazwę angielską. Nb. nazwa angielska jest IMHO pisana z błędem, bo słowo "polski" w nazwie AP nie pochodzi od przymiotnika polski, ale od rzeczownika Polska. W takim wypadku nazwa powinna lecieć mniej więcej The Aero Club of the Poland, przez analogię do używanego dawniej The Aero Club of the Polish Peoples Republic. Last but not least jak sobie spojrzysz na stronie FAI na dane kontaktowe dotyczące Polski, zobaczysz nazwę Aeroklub Polski, a nie tłumaczenie na angielski czy francuski. Nie musimy być świętsi od papieża i dowodem na to niech będzie choćby Aeroméxico, Aeroflot, Det Norske Luftfartselskap, Linjeflyg, L'Avion, Svensk Interkontinental Lufttrafik, Svenska Lufttrafik, Union des Transports Aériens czy Union des Transports Aériens de Guinée, których to nazw nikt nie tłumaczy na angielski, choć większość wyglądałaby doskonale.
 * Polish Air Force jest czymś kompletnie innym, niż artykuł o PLL LOT. Polskie lotnictwo wojskowe miało w ciągu 80 lat istnienia wiele nazw, a przez pewien czas operowało także pod nazwą Polish Air Force. W tym wypadku taki tytuł artykułu jest pewnego rodzaju disambigiem, bo nie da się używać jednej sensownej nazwy polskiej, choćbyśmy nawet bardzo chcieli.
 * Aeroklub Polski istnieje od 1919 roku, a od 1920 roku jest członkiem FAI. Fakt, że od 1921 stosowano nazwę Aeroklub Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, a w latach 1957-1990 Aeroklub Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej niczego tak naprawdę nie zmienia, bo ciągłość AP została zachowana. 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. Nazwa Aeroklub Polski na Wikipedii powinna być stosowana dokładnie na takich samych zasadach, na jakich stosowana jest nazwa Polish Air Force - niezależnie od faktycznej formalnoprawnej nazwy obowiązującej w danym okresie. Pomijam już fakt, że ścisłe trzymanie się nazw stosowanych w danym okresie będzie prowadzić do absurdów. Przy LWD Junak powinieneś wpisać ARP i APRL - Twoje reverty w tym miejscu są błędne, bo APRL nie istniał w 1956 roku, gdy Junaki już w aeroklubach latały. Przy Wildze z kolei powinieneś wpisać APRL i AP, co również jest bez sensu, bo to de facto jedna i ta sama organizacja, tyle że w 1990 roku przemianowana. Konsekwentne stosowanie nazwy Aeroklub Polski pozwoli na uniknięcie tych wszystkich problemów bez wpływu na zawartość merytoryczną haseł.
 * Tłumaczenie wszystkich polskich nazw własnych na angielski mija się kompletnie z celem, jakim jest stworzenie encyklopedii. Mija się też ze zdrowym rozsądkiem, bo wielu nazw nie da się sensownie przetłumaczyć. Nie ma też takiej praktyki - znajdziesz tutaj setki haseł pod oryginalnymi nazwami, jak wspomniane wyżej linie lotnicze czy np. francuska Aviation Navale i nikt ich nie zmienia na siłę na wersje angielskie. Nie twierdzę, że należy absolutnie wszystko zostawiać w języku polskim, ale nie widzę najmniejszego sensu w tworzeniu absurdalnych tłumaczeń na siłę. Weźmy choćby takie LPR - można zrobić te nieszczęsne Polish Air Ambulance Service, ale chyba jednak lepiej zostawić Lotnicze Pogotowie Ratunkowe, które przynajmniej będzie zgodne z napisami na sprzęcie.
 * O obrazkach możesz poczytać np. w tej dyskusji. Ten użytkownik sprawia wiele problemów, bo oprócz niedostrzegania przycisku "podgląd" ma swoją wizję wyglądu artykułów średnio zgodną z wytycznymi projektu. Jego argumentacja jest właściwie identyczna z Twoją, więc sobie spokojnie możesz przeczytać i przetrawić całość dyskusji. Ostatni głos jest głosem administratora, który pojawił się w dyskusji na moją prośbę. Nie chce mi się szukać innych dyskusji tego typu, ta jest doskonałym przykładem, jak Twoje próby przekonywania kogokolwiek mogą wyglądać. Szans na przeforsowanie swojego punktu widzenia praktycznie nie masz, bo nikt z liczących się w projekcie osób tego nie poprze. Wstawianie stałych szerokości na siłę skończy się ich kasowaniem, a w przypadku wstawiania ich na siłę już po takiej dyskusji skończy się krótszym bądź dłuższym banem. Tak to tutaj wygląda i od tej reguły nie ma wyjątków. Opisałem Ci przyszły przebieg wydarzeń, jeśli masz czas na powtarzanie takich dyskusji, to możesz próbować innych przekonywać, chętnie popatrzę. Piotr Mikołajski 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Lecimy
 * W teorii niedopuszczalne jest pisanie "Polska", bo powinniśmy pisać "Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa" albo "Rzeczpospolita Polska", ewentualnie ich angielskie odpowiedniki. Nie piszemy jednak tego z przynajmniej dwóch powodów: dla własnej wygody oraz żeby nie wprowadzać zamieszania wśród mniej zorientowanych. To samo dotyczy Polish Air Force, więc IMHO spokojnie może dotyczyć Aeroklubu. Przy czym zdecydowanie wybieram nazwę polską, bo skoro inne nacje wpisują swoje nazwy narodowe, to dlaczego my koniecznie musimy wpisywać tłumaczenie angielskie? Niech się inni nauczą nazwy "Aeroklub Polski", podobnie jak niech się nauczą nazwy "Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT" czy "Lotnicze Pogotowie Ratunkowe", zwłaszcza że są to nazwy własne i oficjalne, a nie nazwy opisowe.
 * W nazwie Aeroklub Polski drugi wyraz jest wyprowadzony od rzeczownika, nie od przymiotnika - nie "jaki aeroklub" (polski), ale "czyj aeroklub" (Polski). Oczywiście nazwa powinna być bez drugiego the, wklejałem angielską nazwę APRL i przeoczyłem nadmiarowe "the".
 * Artykuł o AP poprawię, jak znajdę wolną chwilę, z czym ostatnio ciężko. Mimo wszystko wolę pracę porządkową, to dla mnie relaks i przerywnik w pracy.
 * Niestety, duże obrazki są mi solą w oku i będę je zmieniał niezależnie od tego, kto je wstawi. Możemy dyskutować o tym, czy dany obrazek powinien być w tym miejscu, czy w innym, ale pod względem wbijania rozmiarów na sztywno przyjmuję pozycję nienegocjowalną. Piotr Mikołajski 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Grafiki
Witam i proszę o pomoc, ładowałem grafiki na commons z licencją "polishpd" która została ostatecznie dopuszczona po dyskusji, w sytuacji gdy w książkach autora zdjęcia nie było umieszczałem napis "unknown". I teraz oznacza mi pewien jegomość te zdjęcia jako do usunięcia (bo nie ma autora) np. , w tym przypadku autor jest nie do ustalenia bo zdjęcia znaleziono u żołnierza nie znanego z nazwiska (a być może to nie on je zrobił). Podobnie to zdjęcie, przekazane przez anonimowego Niemca do Polskiej Misji Wojskowej w Berlinie w 1950 (zatem autor niemożliwy do ustalenia), a więc siłą rzeczy autora tego podać nie mogę. Zatem mam prośbę, czy mógłbyś mi wyjaśnić czy muszę podawać do tego taga autora skoro w źródle go nie ma lub nie można go ustalić ? Czy wogóle jest obowiązek podawania autora do tego konkretnego taga ? A jeszcze ten jegomość oznaczył mi zdjęcia plakatów wywieszonych na ulicy które zrobiłem moim aparacikiem jako "derivetive", czy mógłbyś wyrazić sowją opinię na ten temat ? Przecież to są plakaty informacyjne wywieszone publicznie, a ich autor nie jest wogóle znany. Proszę o pomoc. Pozdrawiam. Spetsedisa 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bf 108
Według monografii Wydawnictwa Militaria wersja A była dwumiejscowa, wersje B, C i D były czteromiejscowe. W zasadzie artykuł przydałoby się poszerzyć, ale zostawiam to sobie na jakiś czas wolny. Przy okazji: w najnowszym numerze "Lotnictwa z Szachownicą" jest świetny artykuł Morgały: Samoloty zdobyczne w lotnictwie polskim po 1945 roku. Będzie na czym się oprzeć m.in. w przypadku tych Bf 108. Piotr Mikołajski 06:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wszędzie wersja A jest podawana jako 2+0, pozostałe jako 2+2, ale... masz rację. Sprawdziłem teraz uważnie tekst, gdzie jest mowa o zgłoszeniu prototypu do Challenge i wyraźnie mówią tam o czterech miejscach. Kolejnym potwierdzeniem jest relacja z przebiegu imprezy, gdzie dla odchudzenia samolotu wymontowano zagłówki i podłokietniki z tylnych foteli. Zdjęcia również wyraźnie pokazują "szklarnię" dużo za długą dla dwumiejscowej maszyny. Najwyraźniej ktoś kiedyś wyszedł z założenia, że w Challenge były samoloty dwumiejscowe, bo leciały nimi dwie osoby. Reszta to powieliła i poszło w świat... Piotr Mikołajski 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Various
Thanks for the help on the Bartels - are you sure that the BM-1 was only on paper? Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation states that a single prototype was built (p. 121), but I can't find anything else in English about this aircraft. If you ever have time, I'd really appreciate it if you could please translate the History section from here for me.

I can find nothing on a Pallavicino PS-1, but since (as you know) Cesare Pallavicino was a designer for Caproni in 1934, I'm very certain that the Pallavicino PS-1 is the same aircraft that the [Royal Air Force Museum thesaurus] calls the Caproni PS.1. Next time I'm at the library, I will try to confirm this! (I note that in general, Eastern European sources usually tend to emphasise the name of the designer over the name of the firm).

Likewise, I have nothing on the Hollsmidt 222, but will try to find out more at the library.

I'm not sure that links to photos on an external homepage are very useful - Wikipedia is a very long-term project! What we are all working towards is hopefully a resource that will be useful for many, many years to come. This is why in general, Wikipedia discourages external links, especially to "private" websites.

Finally, the guideline about fixed-width image sizes can be found here. It's a strong recommendation, meaning that there should be some very good reason for fixing the size (see examples on the page). Generally, we shouldn't specify sizes just because we think it looks good - because (as I'm sure you know) it will look different on someone else's monitor anyway! At the moment, some editors are working very hard to remove fixed sizes from as many images as possible, and I think it's best to let them have their way - they have a lot of support in this and fighting it would be a waste of time. --Rlandmann 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your help with the BM-1 translation. Based on that, I've created a short article. Unless some other evidence shows up, I think Jane's is wrong about the prototype. When you next have time, could you please write something to go at Ryszard Bartel? (pl has an article). As for the BM-6, it would be very nice to complete the coverage of this designer, but personally, you can see I'm on a mission at the moment, so I'm trying not to be distracted by other interesting aircraft not on the list! (and of course there are lots of these...) Thanks again for all your help --Rlandmann 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AP
Strona oficjalna jak strona oficjalna, niejedną głupotę ludzie potrafią napisać. Okazuje się jednak, że od czasów mojego wstępowania do aeroklubu poczyniono jakieś zmiany w statucie... albo ja miałem do wglądu coś innego niż statut. W obecnym wyraźnie odmieniają to jako nazwę przymiotnikową, co mnie mocno zaskoczyło. Wychodzi zatem, że tłumaczenie jest dobre, o ile oczywiście nie czepiać się detali typu "aero club" kontra "aeroclub", bo sami anglojęzyczni nie doszli z tym do porozumienia. Według Google pierwszego jest 829,000, drugiego 774,000 - czyli jakiejś wybitnej różnicy nie ma. Piotr Mikołajski 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

MD-12 fixed width photo
I don't like this kind of forcing your POV about formatting of articles in WikiProject Aircraft. We use thumbnails here and even license tricks with "no less than 250px" restriction won't help you with using fixed width images. This time photos were exchanged and your license is not broken but think about not posting such images next time more seriously. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the image from the article as it is a non-free image and appears to violate copyright policy both here and at Commons, which states "Publication of derivative work must be allowed" . Derivative works includes reduced-size images, and a size restriction therefore violate the Commons licensing policies. Likewise, images cannot be used on Wikipedia which retain such restricions to their use. Your attempt to force your point of view on others by deliberately disabling User Preferences is not appreciated, and could be seen as downright arrogant. Please refrain from continuing in this, and consider this a formal level 2 warning.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Akradecki appears to be correct hear, especially considering there is a public domain image in existence. There is no need to use a copyrighted image used with explicit conditions when a PD image can do the job. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Akradecki appears to be correct hear, especially considering there is a public domain image in existence. There is no need to use a copyrighted image used with explicit conditions when a PD image can do the job. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

P.24
Taki wpis ("najbardziej popularny") zostanie usunięty, jeśli nie będzie podparty cytatem. Poza tym nie wiem, czy P.24 był najbardziej popularnym myśliwcem, jednak CR.32 był używany dużo dłużej i przez większą liczbę krajów - na pewno do 1939 roku były to Austria, Chiny, Hiszpania, Niemcy (zdobyte maszyny austriackie), Węgry i Włochy. Nie mam pod ręką dat eksportu do pozostałych państw, ale pewnie też parę z nich by doszło. Co do obrazków - ostrzegałem :o) Piotr Mikołajski 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Tak na szybko masz jeszcze Gloster Gladiator z 15 krajami, Bristol Bulldog (10), Hawker Hart (9), Hawker Audax (odmiana Harta, 8 krajów) czy wreszcie Gloster Gauntlet (6 użytkowników). P.24 do czołówki naprawdę sporo brakuje. Piotr Mikołajski 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

PZL P.7 and PZL P.11
As noted, the quote from Joe Baugher is "The best-known version was the P-11" referring to the P.7. Frans Bonne goes further, "Work on the P.7 prototype powered by 1 Å~ Bristol Jupiter radial was underway, and the Polish government contacted P.Z.L. to develop a fighter based on the P.7, but powered with the Bristol Mercury. Redesign of the fighter was started by Zygmunt Pulawski as the P.11." It began as a variant and has to be considered such. I can provide many more quotes if needed. FWIW Bzuk 00:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

 * M. Pibwl, I agree, the development line of the P.11 is somewhat ambiguous although the fact that the aircraft design began as a development is indicated by your own quote: "After designing the P.7, Pulawski started further variants with larger engines, leading eventually to the P.11."Another quote from a Polish source: "The installation of a radial engine in the P.Z.L. P.7 diminished the excellent forward view for the pilot that was achieved in the P.Z.L. P.1 with its narrower V-12 engine, and it was proposed to improve this situation by the introduction of a Bristol Mercury radial engine, which was of smaller diameter than the Jupiter that powered the P.Z.L. P.7a. This version of the fighter was designated P.Z.L. P.11."

 * I was not the original editor who posted that infobox connection but after thinking about it, I agreed that there was a logical development here and that if a note was made in the citation, it would clearly show the phase of development, however, I will tie it in in some other section of the article. Cheers Bzuk 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

 * M.Pibwl, check the alteration I have made in the article, I believe it accurately describes the evolution of the type. FWIW Bzuk 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Potez 25
O Potezie wiem tyle, co nic. W Polsce były z pewnością mocno modyfikowane, ale w jakim stopniu te modyfikacje wprowadzano i na ilu egzemplarzach - nie mam pojęcia. W ogóle Potez zasługuje na porządną monografię, łącznie z tymi zdobytymi i testowanymi/używanymi przez Luftwaffe. Piotr Mikołajski 11:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Blériot-SPAD S.51 and S.61
Hi Pibwl - 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 Piotr 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)

SZD i Mielec
O Mielcu wiem niewiele. Byłem w zakładach w 1997 roku podczas I Światowego Zlotu An-2, ale panował tam taki chaos, że nie szło z nikim pogadać czy czegokolwiek się dowiedzieć. Swoją drogą żałuję, że nie miałem wówczas cyfraka, Irydy stały na "linii produkcyjnej" i mógłbym takie fotki porobić, że aż miło. Jeśli chodzi o szybowce, to jestem za nazwami SZD-xx, jak to zresztą widać po moim [User:User:Piotr Mikołajski#To-Do|To-Do]]. Jest tam chyba kompletny spis wszystkich maszyn i uporządkowana konwencja nazewnicza, łącznie z numerkami poszczególnych wersji. Zunifikowałem też chyba wszystkie literki i dodatkowe oznaczenia, więc w pewnym sensie część pracy masz już zrobionej. Jest to też mój punkt widzenia na nazewnictwo poszczególnych artykułów ;) Piotr Mikołajski 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

French Navy
Hello,

Thank you for you contributions to French Navy. There's some significant overlapping between French Navy and History of the French Navy, don't you think that we might want to add new material to History of the French Navy and actually size down the historical part of French Navy ?

Also, in, you mention "modern battleships: 2 (plus 1 in last stadium of construction and 1 in construction)" ; I think that it's more like "1 (plus 1 in last stadium of construction and 1 in construction)": while the Richelieu was operational, the Jean Bart was not completely operational (though she did give the Allied a hard time at Casablanca. As far as I know, the Clemenceau was about 15% complete when she was scrapped by the Germans, and the keel of the Gascogne was never laid down.

Cheers ! Rama 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:96-25.JPG
Hi. Thank you for a message. Sorry,I can't speak English well. Thia is a photo. This photograph is anti-aircraft gun of battleship "Yamato" of the Japanese Navy. Please see also 九六式二十五粍高角機銃 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.173.102.14 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWM images
Hi. The copyright status of pre-1955 images from the AWM's database has been discussed several times, and the consensus each time was that they're out of copyright and that the AWM's advice was not correct. As the database itself says that the images are out of copyright and the AWM doesn't have an exemption from Australian copyright laws the images seem to be acceptable for use here and in Wikicommons. See: Template_talk:AWM-image for a summary of this issue. --Nick Dowling 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

HMS Jervis (F00)/J, K and N class destroyer
I've just posted some replies to your comments there, and there. Xyl 54 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

re:Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki
No faktycznie jakis troll sie uwzial, dalem semiprotekcje.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Watercolors
Hi. I have already fixed the tags and rationales of the derivative works I uploaded. Thank you.DagosNavy 1:46, 01 March 2008 (UTC)

Sequence
Hi! Great to have you back!

"Sequence" was removed as part of resolving a big problem that WikiProject aircraft was having due to the project's standard page layout not conforming to the general Wikipedia conventions. It was necessary to move the "See also" section higher in the article (after "specifications" and before "references") and to move purely navigational content (ie, the sequences) to a navbox at the end of the article.

This work is still on-going, but we've made some good progress - all of the manufacturers here now have navboxes in place. Apart from conforming better to the rest of Wikipedia, I'm sure you realise the benefits of being able to correct a template and have the sequences corrected in all aircraft by that manufacturer at the same time! :)

If you want to, it would be a big help if you could template some of the Polish manufacturers that you've done so much work on. It's probably easiest to copy-and-paste one of the existing templates to get started, and if you need any help, please ask! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * If you take a look at the existing templates, we've been including all obscure aircraft and even unbuilt designs when there is a known designation. Redlinks are good - they grow the wiki! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stall speed
"Minimum speed" is a less technical way of expressing "stall speed" (or, more specifically, one of the stall speeds for that aircraft - probably VS1). This is the lowest speed at which the aircraft remains controllable. For our articles, it's probably not a relevant detail except for STOL designs. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * No problem: you should just write "Stall speed=57" rather than "<57". Actually, I think that the single- and multiple-engine categories are practically useless; they're hopelessly broad. As you know, each one would eventually contain several thousand entries - how is that supposed to help anyone find anything? Practically no-one in WikiProject:Aircraft uses these - they were set up by someone who classified a few dozen articles and then gave up. Since then, two other editors took up the cause and have classified several hundred more. I suggested deleting these categories a little while ago, but didn't pursue the issue. Sometime soon, I'll be starting a formal deletion process for them. If you can think of some way that they're useful, however, I'd love to hear it! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, that's how these categories seem to have started. From the beginning of the category system, we had categories for some unusual wing and engine types; then somebody started adding categories for very common types. You might have noticed things like Category:High wing aircraft.

 * While I'm here - when you've finished adding a new type, could you please add to the article's talk page? This tags it for the people interested in rating articles. I think it's stupid, myself, but if we remember to tag articles when they're contributed, it saves work for other people later. Also, please remember to add to the new articles list.

 * One more thing that might make your life easier - I created an Excel spreadsheet that easily converts from metric to English units and back. If you'd like a copy of this to help with filling in the specifications section, please email me, and I'll send you a copy. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First air army?
FYI, seeing you're pretty bilingual, we can use your help here:

Any article on WP can be lifted & pasted, no worries; if you can lift & translate from Polish WP, even better. Any help is welcome. And, you can use this userbox on your page, too. =] Trekphiler (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, just spreading the news. Maybe somebody'll see the tag & come over. If you ever get a sec, just paste something you've done here. I'm not doing a lot past that, myself, & it's one less for somebody else to have to find. Have a good day, either way! Trekphiler (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inline references
Your articles are commonly discarded at WP:DYK due to having no inline refs. Perhaps you'd like to address this in your future creations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A good middle way is to reference inline the specific fact that is going to go for DYK hook. I think this little extra effort is worth it as it gives the articles a ~12h main page display.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories
No, but to minimise category clutter, we should always try to minimise categories. In practice, WikiProject Aircraft has always categorised by the original purpose of an aircraft, even if the aircraft was eventually used for many other purposes - de Havilland Mosquito is an excellent example of this; and even Junkers Ju 88 is only under two categories (and I would argue, should only be under one - it was not originally intended as a fighter). Sometimes, of course, an aircraft was designed as multi-role from the very beginning - for example many French military aircraft of the 1920s and 30s that were intended as reconnaissance-bombers.

This principle is even more important for sports and utility types, because practically *every* one of these aircraft was eventually used for civil and/or military training at one time or another... --Rlandmann (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry it's taken so long to respond. The guideline has always been "Most, if not all, aircraft have been used in multiple roles. This classification is based on the primary role they were designed for." The alternative, as I said above, is that most aircraft could be categorised into half-a-dozen categories, creating a big mess. It's important that we try to keep our contributions consistent with established practice. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, it could be changed, if there were consensus to do so. I, for one, would strongly oppose such a move, since it adds too much subjectivity to the categorisation process. To illustrate some of the problems:
 * Practically every light civil aircraft has been used as a trainer, but how would we prove that for a particular aircraft type?
 * If we have some proof that, say, three examples of a particular aircraft were once owned by a flying school (out of perhaps dozens or hundreds built), does it now qualify as a trainer? If three isn't enough, what if there had been 10? Where do we draw the line?
 * If the air force of some country seized some civil light aircraft and used them as bombers (like Israel used the Beech Bonanza and Piper Cub), does this make it a bomber? (Not a trivial use either - the Cubs flew many missions during the 1948 War of Independence and became quite famous for it...)
 * If the air force of some country seized some civil light aircraft and used them as transports, does this make it a military transport? (The United States operated a single Messerschmitt Bf 108 and even gave it a "Cargo" designation - C-44). If just one Bf 108 in USAAF service wouldn't be enough to qualify it as a military transport, then what if there had been 10? Where do we draw the line?
 * The guideline is the way that it is for a reason - the reason being so that editors don't have to make subjective judgments about whether the aircraft qualifies for a category or not. Secondly, it means that all aircraft are classified on exactly the same criteria. I guess this is a little bit like the conversation we had a long time ago about decade of first flight - the date of the first flight is an objective moment in time; just as the role that an aircraft was designed for is a single (or sometimes two- or rarely more) objective point of data. In some senses, it's an arbitrary rule, but in practice, it means a high level of consistency right across the project.
 * And the problem with what you suggest - "is a common sense, whether being a sports plane is an important feature to describe this plane, or not" is that everyone's idea of "common sense" and "important feature" is different. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it is arbitrary; but the original design role is (almost always) the one role we can be certain of. Even "most common role" may not be clear - we usually have no real way of telling what individual aircraft were used for, particularly (but not only) civil aircraft.
 * And to keep going with the example, it wasn't just a case of throwing grenades from the Israeli Pipers and Beeches - these had bomb racks fitted. Are they bombers now? But the extra problem is this - even if it had been just a case of hand-dropping bombs from these aircraft, some "zealous" person is bound to want to add "bomber" as a role if we had a policy of "add any role categories that fit". At what point does a Piper or Beech become a bomber? The same question is important for many World War I reconnaissance types: Is it a bomber if we have solid evidence that grenades were thrown from it? If aerial bombs were hand-dropped from it? If bomb racks were fitted to it? And how do we make sure that another, less famous type is being categorised on the same basis when we simply don't have the information to make such a clear determination.
 * And of course there are instances where common sense insists that we must bend the rules and not be too rigid. The best examples I can think of are cases where an aircraft was designed for one purpose (and maybe even tested for it) and never actually used for that purpose but for something else. --Rlandmann (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bibliographies
Unlike the popular misconception that bibliographical records only refer to actual quoted sections, bibliographies are merely a listing of all reference sources regardless of their use. In this Wickywacky world, there has been a strict following of the "if it isn't a cited reference then, stick them in for further reading." That is entirely contrary to what a bibliography states. If a researcher uses a reference source or considers it of use in providing a background, then it is included. No author simply lists peripheral works in a bibliography, so I find that the "Further Reading" sections absolutely useless. My thought is if you used the source, list it, don't provide a shopping list of "maybe," "might be" sources. FWiW, excuse the diatribe, but I was a reference librarian for 33 years before becoming an author and editor. Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC).
 * The point I am making is that an editor may have obtained a source, read information from it, considered it useful and then added it to the bibliography as a reference source. Although an actual citation was not used, the author/editor may have verified an original fact by "double checking" or found that the new source provided background to understand the topic more fully. If the source is not useful in any manner, then it should be eliminated. A peripheral or secondary source that may have marginal use could be listed in the "For further reading" section as an aid to others who are conducting research. That section is closer to a "See also" section in that it directs the reader to additional material that might not always be pertinent but can provide some information. FWiW, I am not sure of the reasoning behind the addition of the sources in the I-180  article, but if an editor added them in good faith as resources, I would tend to accept them. Bzuk (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
 * If you are firmly convinced that the sources in question are of no value, then please delete them. Since I wasn't sure and have no specific background as to the original intention of submitting these sources, I err on the side of caution. As you can already determine, my understanding of the use of sources that are not specific to the article is that it is a questionable practice. I think that many editors feel more assured that sources are reliable and verifiable if they see quotes and citations (with direct page references), although as for providing background and checking, most authoritative works do provide the reader with a comprehensive list as to reference sources even if some are not directly attributed in the final work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
 * By the way, I see there are some new reference sources used in the article. Do you have the books on hand? An author, title, place (of publishing), publisher and date would fill in the note on the bibliography for each source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Please check Citing sources and Citing sources as well as the edit history of the editor who added the references in the article in question. This editor has been a very solid contributer to the aviation project group and I believe that if he added bibliography notations then he probably used these sources for reference. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

Mikasa
Update: The public domain tag on this excellent picture you took on the Mikasa for the Battle of Tsushima article here: is obsolete and needs to be replaced. Commons Delinker just deleted one picture from the The Battle of Tsushima article for being uncategorized. Not your image, but they might remove the Mikasa someday for not being clearly categorised. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Name changes
Please DO NOT move articles without prior discussion. Koalorka (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, you still don't seem to know what a variant is. Let me try to articulate that in your first language. MAG-08 jest kolejna wersja rozwojowa pistoletu MAG-95, a nie nowym typem. Rozumiesz? Koalorka (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Czechoslovakian civil trainer aircraft 1950-1959
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Czechoslovakian civil trainer aircraft 1950-1959, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Czechoslovakian civil trainer aircraft 1950-1959 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Czechoslovakian civil trainer aircraft 1950-1959, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

K pattern flamethrower
If you could add some inline cites, it would make a good addition to T:TDYK. Also, you may want to consider entering the WikiProject_Military_history/Contest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Midshipman
Hi - just a quick addition to your comment on Michman - I found that term or an equivalent exists in slavic languages, making me curious if its similar to Gardes des marine, or Midshipman or Naval Cadet or Warrant Officer (the dictionary definition). The actual word looks so similar Midshipman I find it odd its was Warrant Officer.

I just can't get anywhere with slavic languages; I've tried to read about the history and figure out the exact evolution of the term, but I think 4 non-english languages are my limit. If you can help, I would like to know the evolution and history of that rank and why it looks like midshipman but isn't - maybe it was back in the apprentice officer days & I thought I read the Russian Navy copied the British Royal Navy when it was created. I'd also like to know what the Imperial Russian and Soviet Navies used for cadet officers.

In writing rank articles I try to answer the following questions: 1. Promotion path - how do you get to the rank, and how do you get promoted to the next rank. 2. Duties 3. Social status: Pre-modern ranks almost always have a class attached; there were ranks for the upper or noble classes vs ranks for the lower classes. 4. If the rank doesn't currently exist in the British Royal Navy and/or United States Navy, which rank is it equiavalent to and why.

Thanks for your help! Kirk (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that translation; the term Midshipman encompasses two roles, officer in training & a job on a ship (which was often done by officers in training). The Tsarist version was the officer in training version, but the modern version seems to be just a job from your translation; a en-ru dictionary translates midshipman to порихтис.  I'll look for a secondary source when I get a chance.
 * Could you help me find an insignia for Russia and Poland's naval cadet rank from a official government website? My usual strategy is to find out what the term is translated to, find an insignia, then double check the definition in the non-engligh language dictionary (this part I can't really do with Polish or Russian).  Kirk (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

303 squadron
Hi. I notice that you inserted into this article the information about the letter of Jerzy Cynk to Skrzydlata Polska 1/2006 magazine, p. 61-62. Do you happen to know where I might find this letter online? Also, do you happen to have access to a copy of the article by J Alcorn to which Mr Cynk is referring? Thanks in advance. Varsovian (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Challenge International de Tourisme 1930
Hello Pibwl, Something in this article is confusing to me. In the text, it is written that the Challenge was held at the Airport in Berlin-Staaken, but the pictures are subtitled Tempelhof Airport. Can you try to find out, what is correct? I know that the picture description could be wrong as a lot of pictures in the Federal Archives are from the GDR Archives, but it also could be that Staaken Airport is wrong. Regards, Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Pibwl, the picture you referred with all the planes shown is definitely made in the zeppelin hall. That's accordimg to my Dad, who is a born Staakener. The camera view is too high for a hangar. Regards Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SHL (motorcycle)
Hello! Your submission of SHL (motorcycle) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SHL (motorcycle)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for PWS-52
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Szybowcowy Zakład Doświadczalny
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PWS-5 and PWS-6
Hi, I have assessed your PWS-5 and PWS-6 articles and left this message for you:- Pibwl I have left this article as is. if you see it before someone else edits/assesses it, you can compare it with your PWS-5 article which I have tidied up for you. A couple of pointers: do not delete any of the spec templat you eventually use (this is so future editors can add more info easily or can copy the template for their own use elsewhere. Although there is nothing stopping you using the Specification template to add a text section, you will find that it will swiftly be editted to leave only the spec template behind, as I have done with the PWS-5 article.Petebutt (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I realise that English is your second language, which makes your efforts very laudable, keep them coming!Petebutt (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The latest Aircraft templates can be found here Template:WPAVIATION creatorPetebutt (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PWS-6
Hi. I've nominated PWS-6, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (nominated on behalf of User:Piotrus)

PWS-5
Hi. I've nominated PWS-5, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (nominated on behalf of User:Piotrus)

DYK nomination of PWS-5
Hello! Your submission of PWS-5 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of PWS-6
Hello! Your submission of PWS-6 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor grammar tweaks and added little extra on the propeller. Dr. Loosmark 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for PWS-5
<b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 06:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for PWS-6
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

PWS-3 et al
Hi, Did you know that it is usual for the author to set-up the talk pages with the wikiproject banners. I keep copies of lots of WP banners and just copy and paste when necessary, annotating the relevant task forces. What is frowned on is assessing your own articles. look at Talk:PWS-3 for an examplePetebutt (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bohatyrewicz

 * Greetings!

 * Why cutting the cathegories?

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Im not insisting on changes, I just ask. Thank You very much for taking time to answer. Only think I would think of is that Katyn was a camp but also of course a prison. Maybe leaving category "Prison" would be correct.

Best regards, Camil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdan (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

PWS-3
Hi. I've nominated PWS-3, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Zbigniew Babiński
Hi. I've nominated Zbigniew Babiński, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for PWS-3
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Zbigniew Babiński
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PWS-4
Hi. I've nominated PWS-4, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for PWS-4
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PZL.50 Jastrząb
This article is very close to B-class. If you could just add the few missing cites, we could upgrade it. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tak jest, o zaznaczone. A potem bedzie mozna nominowac na WP:GAN, mysle, za artykul jest blisko! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dzieki, chyba nie trzeba. Na razie sprawdzam, ktore artykuly o Polsce plasuja sie do B+ klas. Jeszcze mi zostalo kilkaset do sprawdzenia... :> --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

PZL P.11 and PZL Ł.2
They are almost B-class, each of them needs just one para referenced for them to keep the B-class status. Will you have time to look at them? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Challenge International de Tourisme 1930
Hi Pibwl, noticed that you renamed the article from title above to International Touring Competition 1930. However, the articles for the other three years are named in the French style, and that is what is quoted elsewhere in articles, and in contemporary refs such as Flight. I only speak English, and like many of my fellow enthusiasts, I'm perfectly happy to read and understand titles in the common names in various languages, eg for aircraft, museums, airports, etc. I would be most pleased if you will rename the title over the redirect. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your agreement. Just done the move. I agree that Flight uses different names, inconsistently; I hope we can standardize the names for disambiguation. I am mostly just categorizing images and uploading some to add to aircraft articles with no illustrations. Please see my contribs for aircraft types that might benefit from your linking all the Challenge stuff together, especially for non-English WP projects.PeterWD (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Another panzerfaust copy!
Very interesting source. A Polish PC 100 version. Excellent. Pzrfst. "copies" are being identified a lot now. There has already been a Swedish version isolated and recorded. Good spot my friend. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * that would most interesting. I notice you do not wish email however as preference, but mine is enabled, and you are welcome to email me. I obviously do not wish to give my mail on talk. Kind regards Irondome (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian armored cruiser Bayan
I don't read Russian so I'd be very happy if you could add information from the book that I don't already have mentioned. Just be sure to cite them in the same format as the existing cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File:RWD-6.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:RWD-6.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michał Sołowow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masłów ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Micha%C5%82_So%C5%82owow check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Micha%C5%82_So%C5%82owow?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Polish patrol aircraft

A tag has been placed on Category:Polish patrol aircraft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 22:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Partisan Cross for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Partisan Cross is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Partisan Cross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Partisan Cross for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Partisan Cross is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Partisan Cross& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Co do Articles_for_deletion/Partisan_Cross
Re: " I may easily create references to Polish law acts constituting the cross, which are official source". Tylko to nic nie pomoże, bo WP:PRIMARY sources nie udowadniają ENCY czyli tu WP:GNG. Źróła, które ja znalazłem, są o wiele lepsze, jakbyś miał dostęp do nich, do z takich trzeba korzystać. Dziennik Ustaw itp. to są słabe źródła (pod kątem ENCY). Dlatego to zgłoszenie było dobre - hasło trzeba poprawić. Co prawda, zgłaszający powinien zrobić lepszą kwerendę, ale wisieć w tym stanie sprzed lat nastu nie powinno. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Emden
Hey Pibwl, can you confirm if this edit is correct? I think that's what you meant, but wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Polish-Americans in fiction has been nominated for deletion
Category:Polish-Americans in fiction has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pibwl


text:
San Francisco Bowl

The San Francisco Bowl was an annual postseason college football bowl game certified by the NCAA and played in the San Francisco Bay Area. Originally named the Diamond Walnut San Francisco Bowl during its first two editions from 2002 to 2003, it was the Emerald Bowl from 2004 to 2009, the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl from 2010 to 2013, the Foster Farms Bowl from 2014 to 2017, and the Redbox Bowl from 2018 to 2020. San Francisco Bowl naming returned during planning for a 2021 game.

The game had four sellouts—2006 (UCLA vs. Florida State), 2008 (Cal vs. Miami), 2009 (USC vs. Boston College), and 2011 (Nevada vs. Boston College)—and three of the highest rated bowls ever televised on ESPN. It also gained a national reputation for the quality of hospitality provided to the participating teams.

The game was most recently played in December 2019. From 2002 to 2013, it was played at Pacific Bell Park, home of the San Francisco Giants, in San Francisco, California. From 2014 through 2019, it was played at Levi's Stadium, home of the San Francisco 49ers, in Santa Clara, California.

At the end of July 2020, organizers canceled the 2020 edition of the bowl due to the COVID-19 pandemic; at the same time, the 49ers released a statement noting that "the decision has been made to not renew the current agreement to host the game moving forward". On September 10, 2021, the game was again canceled for the 2021–22 bowl season, putting its future in jeopardy.

History
The game was founded by John Marks, president of the San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau, San Francisco Giants executive Pat Gallagher and sports industry veteran Gary Cavalli, former Associate Athletic Director at Stanford University and president of the pioneering American Basketball League, for the purpose of utilizing the Giants' new ballpark, bringing visitors to San Francisco during a traditionally slow time of the year, and rewarding two successful teams with a week in San Francisco. Plans for the inaugural 2002 San Francisco Bowl were established on Dec. 2, 2002, when the Air Force Falcons football program accepted a bid to play against an undetermined team from the Big East Conference. Their initial sponsor was Diamond Foods, a producer of walnuts and other nuts under the Emerald brand name, resulting in the name Diamond Walnut San Francisco Bowl, and later the Emerald Bowl.

In 2010, Kraft Foods became the sponsor of the bowl and announced the new name, which the corporation launched as part of a broader hunger relief program. Mondelēz International continued to support the game and the program related with Feeding America in 2013.

In August 2014, the bowl's official website listed the game's name as the San Francisco Bowl once again. However, on November 11, 2014, it was announced that the San Francisco Bowl Game Association had reached a multi-year naming rights deal with Northern California-based poultry company Foster Farms, resulting in the game being named the Foster Farms Bowl.

On July 12, 2016, the San Francisco 49ers NFL team announced that it had taken over management of the Foster Farms Bowl from the San Francisco Bowl Game Association, and also announced a new, four-year broadcast rights deal with Fox Sports, replacing ESPN.

In September 2018, Redbox (a chain of video rental kiosks) announced it had become the new title sponsor.

Conference tie-ins
The game had a contract to host the Pac-12's sixth-place team during the 2010 through 2013 seasons. There were multiple contracts that determined the opponent. In 2011, the Pac-12 team's opponent was Illinois, replacing Army, which did not achieve bowl eligibility; in 2012, it was Navy; and in 2013, it was BYU. Had these teams not qualified for bowl eligibility, they would have been replaced by teams from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) or the Mid-American Conference (MAC).

Beginning with the 2014 season, teams come from the Pac-12 and Big Ten conferences. With Oregon's appearance in the 2018 edition, Colorado and Washington State are the only Pac-12 members who have not appeared in the game.

Field configuration
Because Pacific Bell Park (as it was named when it first hosted the bowl) is a baseball park and not normally used for football, arrangement of the field required both teams to be on the same sideline (southeast), separated by a barrier at the 50-yard line (in shallow right-center field). The opposite sideline (northwest) ran along the third base line, with an end zone near the first base dugout, and the other near the left field wall. Primary seating was in the third base grandstand, with temporary bleacher seating in right-center field.

Results
Rankings are based on the AP Poll prior to the game being played. Source:

Most appearances
Updated through the December 2019 edition (18 games, 36 total appearances). Won (11): Arizona State, Florida State, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Oregon State, Purdue, Stanford, USC, Virginia Tech, Washington Lost (9): Air Force, Arizona, BYU, Colorado State, Georgia Tech, Indiana, Miami (FL), Michigan State, New Mexico
 * Teams with multiple appearances
 * Teams with a single appearance

Appearances by conference
Updated through the December 2019 edition (18 games, 36 total appearances).
 * Games marked with an asterisk (*) were played in January of the following calendar year.
 * The Pac-12's record includes appearances when the conference was the Pac-10 (3–1).
 * Virginia Tech (2002) and Boston College (2003) appeared as members of the Big East; the American Athletic Conference (The American) retains the Big East's conference charter following the 2013 split of the original Big East along football lines.
 * Independent appearances: Navy (2004, 2012) and BYU (2013).
 * The WAC no longer sponsors FBS-level football.

Media coverage
From 2002 through 2015, the bowl was televised by ESPN or ESPN2; from 2016 to 2019, it was carried by Fox.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: San Francisco Bowl