User talk:Surcouf

I've answered you at Talk:France. By the way, it's obvious English isn't your first language. It would probably be better for you to edit the Wikipedia of your language. Evercat 22:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Surcouf - I see that sadly no-one has properly welcomed you here :(, so hello!

Thanks for the very interesting article on the SEA IV. It seems that aviation is an interest of yours, and you can see that Wikipedia needs a lot more work on French aircraft. If you'd like to help out with these, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, the informal attempt to co-ordinate these efforts. You might also like to look at the current standard for aircraft articles - I noticed that you'd copied an obsolete format for the SEA IV.

Finally, I would like to disagree with Evercat's comment above - I think it's great that we have contibutors from all over the world on English Wikipedia, and your English is much better than my French! :)

Again, welcome --Rlandmann 23:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the best course of action now is to merge the information between MB 80-81 into the existing Bloch MB-81 article.

Just a couple of thoughts about naming to help in the future -

aircraft articles almost always begin with the name of the manufacturer, in this case Bloch.
the title of an aircraft article should contain only one designation, so rather than MB 80-81, it would have been better to create Bloch MB.81 (since that was the designation of the production versions) and then create Bloch MB.80 as a "redirect" to the MB.81.

It also seems very strange to say that the MB.81 was a product of Dassault Aviation, when that company would not exist yet for many years. Bloch aircraft should be described as Bloch, and we will eventually need an article on that company (explaining, of course, that after the war it would be re-created as Dassault).

Cheers --Rlandmann 22:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you look carely at SEA IV page you could see that I named it "Bloch SEA IV" because at that time "Bloch" (pron. "Blosh") was the official name

Actually, the Marcel Bloch company did not exist at the time that the SEA IV was built - the company that designed this aircraft and built the prototype was SEA (not Bloch, nor Dassault, nor Potez for that matter - those companies were all in the future).

but for the MB-80 "MB" stands for "Marcel Bloch" as producer name and the name of the aircraft was in reality only "80" so I made the choice to that naming rule.

I know it's a little redundant, but it's a convention followed in most aircraft reference books, and English Wikipedia is following this convention. It's the same for Junkers Ju 87, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15, de Havilland DH.88 etc.

Then I inserted the Bloch and "MB" series under the dassault page first because I think that those aircraft were produced under too much different names (Bloch, MB, Dassault-Breguet, Marcel Dassault, Dassault-Aviation...) to make different main pages instead of redirections, and second because for ecample in 1952, at the beginnings of "Dassault" official factory name, there were aicrafts in production line still with the old name "MB" (like the MD 453) while at the same time also the newer "Dassault" marked aircrafts (like the Mystère series) were in production. Do you agreed with me?

This is a little tricky and there are no hard-and-fast rules. The basic rule of thumb to follow is to name the article after whatever the most familiar name is in English, but for obscure aircraft there might not even be a familiar name... Generally though, aircraft are listed under the original manufacturer, so in this case, the most conventional name for the article would be (for example) Bloch MB.123, with a redirect at Dassault MB.123 pointing to the same article.

Second point, how I can modify the main name of an article? (the designation of "Mirage V" name is wrong, "Mirage 5" should be more appropriated) thanks again! :-) Surcouf 08:19 CET 7/09/2004

Usually, you can rename an article by clicking on the "move" tab near the top of the page, but this won't work if there's already a redirect at the name you want to move to. In that case, you need to ask an admin to take care of it. Some people make the mistake of copying-and-pasting the article over the redirect notice, but this is bad practice because it scrambles the edit history of the article. I'll take care of the Mirage 5 for you.

Hope all of this makes sense and is of some help! Looking forward to some more French planes here! :) --Rlandmann 06:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mirage V - at the moment, both Mirage V and Mirage 5 exist as redirects to Mirage III. If you want to write a separate article about the Mirage 5, then you can do it [[1]], and later edit the Mirage V redirect to point there instead of to Mirage III (we should keep "Mirage V" as a redirect, since it is often (incorrectly) used to refer to the Mirage 5... --Rlandmann 06:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course you can add your name as a WP:A participant if you like! It's purely an informal way for different users to say that they're interested in this subject area... --Rlandmann 13:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Standards etc

Hi again - If you don't mind, please work a little bit more closely to the standard layout for aircraft articles - remember that the aim of this project is to produce an encyclopedia, and therefore a uniform approach to how information is presented is a Good Thing.

One little language tip - "moteur etoile" is "radial engine" en anglais :) I think English is unique in this case - every other language I can think of calls it a "star engine"

Finally, please be very careful not to load copyrighted pictures into Wikipedia. The black-and-white photos of Bloch aircraft in the 1930s and 40s are probably free of copyright now, but illustrations that people have published since then are probably not. I have listed Image:Bloch211.jpg, Image:Mb131.jpg, and Image:Bloch MB152.jpg as Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you think that the copyright has expired on these pictures, or if you have permission from the copyright holder that we can use them, then please leave a comment on that page.

Thanks again for the good work! --Rlandmann 05:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MB.17x

You're correct - a list of armaments cannot be copyright, but the sentences used to describe them can be copyright. Note that the site you copied this from says:

"Copyright 1999 - 2003, "The Flightline" Aviation Archive - All Rights Reserved. This site is designed and hosted by ViperCon Web Graphic Services. No images or text may be used without the written and/or expressed consent of the Web Author" ([2], my emphasis).

Anyway, a revised version of the article is already at Bloch MB.170/Temp, so no further action needs to be taken. It's not really a big deal, but this action needs to be taken, otherwise infringing material will remain in the article's edit history, and leave Wikipedia vulnerable to any legal action that a copyright holder wants to take in future.

I hope I'm not a nuisance, but a couple more tips that I hope will help:

In English, decimals are written as 17.25 not as 17,25 like in Europe
When talking about aircraft, chasseur always means "fighter". There are no "hunter" aircraft in English :)
Reconnaissance is the same in English as in French - English has stolen this word from you :)

Cheers -Rlandmann 21:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't think that a picture of the Little Prince would add much to the MB.17x article, but go ahead if you like... :)

J'habite en Australie, mais ma famille est d'Autriche, (et de Portugal, et des Pays-Bas... etc!) --Rlandmann 03:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

Please see Talk:Napoleonic Wars#neutrality of this article is disputed Philip Baird Shearer 14:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

German wartime images

You uploaded the following images under the template {{PD-Germany}}. Unfortunately, the wording of this template was inaccurate, and the images are not (yet) in the public domain. However, they may well be usable as fair use. Please consider changing the copyright tag to {{fairuse}}.

Vous avez téléchargé les images suivantes sous la mention {{PD-Germany}}. Malheureusement la rédaction de ce modèle était érronée, et ces images ne sont pas (encore) dans la Domaine publique. Toutefois, il se peut qu'elles soient utilisable sous la doctrine américaine de "fair use" (utilisation justifiée). Je serais reconnaissant si vous pourriez bien vouloir changer le modèle de licence a {{fairuse}}. N'hesitez pas à me contacter si vous avez des questions.

Image:Bloch mb-131.jpg		01:20, 8 Sep 2004 . . Surcouf	Bloch MB.131
Image:Bloch MB 200 front.jpg	Bloch MB 200 on the ground	21:34, 10 Sep 2004 . . Surcouf	Bloch MB.200
Image:Bloch MB210.jpg	Bloch MB.210 in flight	18:15, 11 Sep 2004 . . Surcouf	Bloch MB.210
Image:Bloch MB152 front.jpg		19:18, 11 Sep 2004 . . Surcouf	Bloch MB.150
Image:Bloch MB152 flying.jpg		19:23, 11 Sep 2004 . . Surcouf	Bloch MB.150

Physchim62 12:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Untagged images

Thanks for uploading the images listed below. I notice they currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you created it and wish to release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you.

Thanks so much, Laura Scudder | Talk 22:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately copyright terms are terribly long (70 years after artist's death in the US), but products of many governments's employees are automatically public domain. I've marked the images {{unknown}} for now (meaning someone will eventually come by who knows more about this and will try to track down the copyright status). If you have any source information like a URL, putting that on the image description page would help a lot. --Laura Scudder | Talk 08:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite of USS Hartford Incident

I just completed a major rewrite. Please check it out - you seem to have contributed the original article.

Thanks. Megapixie 15:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of World Tourism Rankings

World Tourism Rankings, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that World Tourism Rankings satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Tourism Rankings and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of World Tourism Rankings during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cruftbane 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bloch 175nazi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bloch 175nazi.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Twinflix levels example.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 15:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Twinflix classic mode.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Twinflix main.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]