Attention: Unless otherwise requested I will answer messages here on my talk page to keep conversations together in one block, it is my hope this will make it easier for others to read them.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, I like what you have done to the place. Cheers! --maveric149

wickelrumph is kind of hard to explain without a picture. basically, it used long strips or bands of plywood that were glued together side by side. then, another layer of strips were glued on top in a different direction.

my source says it's actually strips of plywood. see Pfalz Aircraft of World War I (Great War Aircraft in Profile, Volume 4) by Jack Herris, at pages 30 and 32. that said, after looking around some more, i think it might actually be thin veneer strips. From what i understand, Deperdussin used veneer strips of tulipwood. i guess i'll change the article.

thanks. also, i thought your article on the Mercedes D.III was excellent.

thanks for the kind words, and for writing such excellent articles on the Mercedes D.III (i added a picture) and the Siemens-Schuckert D series.

If its all right with you, I'd like to delete the references in the Pfalz D.III article to the shape of the rudder and vertical fin. That was actually a pretty common shape in German planes. See the Roland D.XV, D.XVII, Halberstadt C.V, CL.IV, CLS.I, Pfalz D.XV, LVG CIV, C.V, C.VI, and Gotha G.I. If it was something really different, like the Hannover's biplane tail, it would certainly be worth mentioning. But the D.III, I kind of don't see it.

Hi Maury, I got your note about the XPLANE article. It has been deleted by an admin. Do you know where deleted articles go? I intend to propose it for deletion review but have no idea where to find it or how to reference it.

Maury, the article seems to be better wrtiten but I still think there should be a proper notes and reference section rather than the "more reading and viewing" section that is presently there. What do you think? Other editors have left the section in place but the idea of POV is present. Bzuk 14:41 3 January 2007 (UTC). BTW Happy New Year.

Maury, please look over the article again- I've made some changes based on a recent review. BTW thanks for your support on another issue, specifically, the de Havilland Comet research. Bzuk 17:43 17 February 2007 (UTC).

WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, PLEASE REMOVE THE 'SILLIPUTTY' FROM MY OPUSCALGARY SITE. You may want to consult with someone who understands ip addressing.

I think I have found the reason of the claim that KwK 40 was incapable of penetrating Sherman's frontal armor at combat ranges. The former wikist was refering to M4A3 with 64mm hull front and 103mm turret. That would make a lot of sense. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Our mutal Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.

Toronto Meetup Next: Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon March 23, 2019 at Art Gallery of Ontario 2018: Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon March 24, 2018 at Art Gallery of Ontario This box: view ‧ talk ‧

Hello! Your submission of Ford ACT 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! Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of headway 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! The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, there are still some issues with this nomination. Please comment at the nom page. Thanks!

On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ford ACT, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Headway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are a Wikipedia Admin (according to your user page). I would like to know (to have in writing if you will) if the "advice" you left on my talk page are some sort of orders, if there are any specific WP policies you might link to, to give some sort of basis to them.

I'd particularly like to know, given the tone of language that you used on my talk page, if you believe that I shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. You seemed (again, simply by the language you used on my talk page) that I was damaging Wikipedia in some way. As an Admin, I believe you should be held to a higher standard than the average user (i.e. me!) so I would appreciate a considered response (bearing in mind such things as WP:CIVIL), thank you. Alastairward (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed with the reply I received on my talk page. I would repeat my call for clarification re: the above, else I may have to renominate the article for deletion. I have, in good faith, searched for references and examined those that are left. I can only assume now however that there is an ownership issue over this article.

In addition, the article did not survive the Afd process intact, it was supposed to be merged to another article after all. So, it is clear that notability has not been supplied. Alastairward (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, could you please clarify just one thing, is there any reason why I actually have to do as you order on my talk page. There is to me a clear difference between friendly advice with reasoning supplied, and the demands you have made on my talk page.

Also, can you tell me what you mean by consenus with regards the deletion of Trek73? On the last AfD (which I hope you remember, you voted on) it was decided that this game was a minor variation of another, and so could be merged. So you agreed then that it was not notable enough to have it's own article, two other users agreed. I, as nominator of the AfD, sought its deletion. It was previously PRODded, the tag was removed not because the article was notable, but because the editor disagreed with the wording of the PROD.

Consensus would seem then to be that the article did not qualify to stand on it's own. Since the tag was placed for this reason, what is your counter? Do you still declare that a one word mention in a book suffices for notability? Alastairward (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more considered response, but no real answer to the problem of notability. Are you more concerned with going through the motions? There are three trivial mentions of the game in the references, can you explain why you feel they promote notability (with reference to WP:NOTABILITY). While the book they feature in may very well be widely read, although that is only your assertation, the game merits from what I can see a one word mention. All we can say is that it's been heard of and was played in a university in the US. Alastairward (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trek73, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trek73 (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alastairward (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]