User talk:Logawi

Welcome!

Hello, and

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also
  Wikipedia:Topical index
  .

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mausoleum of Augustus, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Airships category

The correct form according to the wikipedia style is Airships of the United Kingdom. If you don't change it, someone will likely flag it up for deletion or renaming. GraemeLeggett 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Maritime Museum of San Diego, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi Willy! Whenever you see an article that complete nonsense, like Count poopula was, just {{csd}} it. That code will alert Wikipedia sysops that the article is chopping block material, and we can do away with it. Chow! -- user:zanimum

Are you an Arthur Miller enthusiast or is your name really William Logan. Also, what year are you in your ME degree? BA, MA, PHd? Also, where do you attend school?--Gephart 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Medea (yacht), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. If there is any area that you feel you can improve on, feel free. Of particular emphasis at the moment is History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, if you happen to know much about it. Happy wikiediting! MyNameIsNotBob 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put that there. The reason I didn't add others is because I didn't know of others. I am certainly not saying that this is the most important museum that has a P-59, in fact, I intended for the list to be expanded by other editors. If you know of other locations, please add them. There aren't that many aerospace museums around that you couldn't just list all of them that have a P-59. That way if someone reads this article, they might find a place nearby where they can see one. --Rogerd 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll add a few others I've encountered or heard about. Logawi 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have been working very hard of late on the Adventist Church article and as such have posted it for peer review here Wikipedia:Peer review/Seventh-day Adventist Church/archive2. One of the problems with the article that has been raised is the lack of flow in the Outsider Criticisms section. Unfortunately this is something that I am not particularly good at editing. Would you be able to lend a hand on this? Please let us know your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 21:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I converted it to inline because that's the

I wasn't aware of the discussion at

WP:Air. You actually left out more specifications than just fuel capacities (including prop rpm and stalling speed). Some of those would be of interest to the average reader (although I agree that fuel capacities may not). Logawi 18:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Hm, yeah, I'd forgotten about those. Prop RPM is not particularly relevant (it's not as if someone's going to go up and fly these aircraft, so they don't need to know them), nor is stall speed. We debated back and forth on stall speed for a while, and I felt it was sometimes worthy of inclusion, but I only see the benefit of listing them during discussion of STOL-type aircraft. I'm not watching this page, so maybe drop me a brief notice when you reply next. ericg ✈ 01:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please relicense this image, or it will be deleted soon --Admrboltz (T | C) 06:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thankyou for nominating it. Raven4x4x 03:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating it. I was hoping for it to be featured picture one way or another (it failed the nomination at the Commons), and thanks to you it now is. --65.95.201.142 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. Logawi 04:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Alexander Aircraft Company, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kc-97 engines.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Logawi 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the ol' List of Lockheed aircraft, the XP-49 is listed twice, once as the L-522 (also stated in the article) and again as the L-23. Was L-23 chosen as the production designator, while L-522 was the prototype? That's consistent with some other aircraft, but I'm not about to make an uncertain edit like that. ericg ✈ 18:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The USAF Museum lists the XP-49 as the L-222. This is a nightmare! And of course, where does the XP-58 fit in all of this? ericg ✈ 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I have conflicting sources, too.

• Lockheed, by Bill Yenne: The XP-49 was Model 522.

• Beyond the Horizons: The Lockheed Story, by Walter J. Boyne: The XP-49 was Model 23. I think it's reasonable to assume what you said above: the Model 23 was the production version (which, of course, never occurred); the Model 522 was the prototype. I guess I'll keep the XP-49 at 552 and add a see Model 522 above note for Model 23.

• The Royal Air Force Museum Aircraft Thesaurus puts the XP-49 as Model 522, as well.

• The XP-49 was most certainly not Model 222. The P-38 production versions through P-38G were designated Model 222 (according to Bill Yenne's Lockheed). The USAFM must have gotten its facts wrong. (Is it possible?)

Now, the XP-58 is another matter entirely.

• Beyond the Horizons places it under Model 22.

• Lockheed says the XP-58 was Model 20. Beyond the Horizons says that Model 20 was, like Model 19, an unbuilt derivative of the
  Model 14
  .

I'm going to put the XP-58 on the list as Model 22 (italicized), until we can figure out what number actually belonged to it. Logawi 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. The only reference I've got with me at school is Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II, a modern combination of the wartime Jane's editions. It's lacking specifics on a lot of things, and just plain missing aircraft in other cases, so it's not a particularly useful book for this type of list. ericg ✈ 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am enlisting your help as one of the people listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church. The Seventh-day Adventist Church page has recently come under a protection order after an edit war to do with the theology of Graham Maxwell. As an upshot of this war, two users have been blocked. I personally do not understand the issue relating to Graham Maxwell, and as such would like your comments, regardless of whether you know much about the issue or not, on Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church. I apologise for the mess of the talk page, it has been a very involved debate. Thanking you in advance, -Fermion 06:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of, I apologize about nixing your table. Yes, the move to the template is an effort to standardize the look across all aircraft pages. Not surprisingly, any effort at standardization will be thwarted by one-offs. The general consensus on aircraft specs is that the main page should present specs for the most common or the most representative version (P-80A in this case). The differences between variants should be delineated in the description of the variants. In situations where the variants were dramatically different (e.g. Allison vs Merlin-engined Mustangs or Merlin vs Griffon-engined Spitfires, or XP-80 vs P-80 in this case), your best bet is to create a separate page, like Comparison of P-80 variants where you can present the tables and describe the variants in all the gory detail. The logic behind this is that the main page should give an overview of the aircraft (e.g. someone unfamiliar with the Spitfire would see the specs for a "typical" Spitfire, like Mk Vb). The reader seeking more in-depth information can go into the subpages. Another advantage of this is that it permits to present exhaustive information (e.g. all units using the aircraft, detailed description of the variants, etc.) without creating a monstrously big page. As always, these are only suggestions. You are encouraged to use the same formatting and wikilinks as the specs template output but I doubt that there will ever be a strong drive to standardize the sub-pages since their whole purpose is to expand beyond the standard framework. :) Let me know if you have other questions! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll make another page. Logawi 02:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! Thanks for being understanding. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

gr 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Zeppelin Museum renaming

I renamed the article to be Zeppelin Museum Friedrichshafen because there is more than one Zeppelin Museum. Frankyboy5 05:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. (Do you know anything about the Zeppelin Museums in Meersburg and Zeppelinheim?) Logawi 15:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On http://www.neu-isenburg.de and on http://www.zeppelin-museum-zeppelinheim.de you can find informations about the Zeppelinmuseum in Zeppelinheim/Neu-Isenburg. If you want, you can also write an article about this museum for the german wikipedia. If you don't want to, I can do it also. --NetCuRLi 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind tunnel article re-write

I'm planning a fairly major re-write of the Wind tunnel article. Since you've also expressed interest in editing that article, please look over my outline in the talk section and let me know what you think of the proposed structure. Thanks! Jeff220 12:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder

Jimbo Herndan here. I am interested in starting a Wiki-Project on Boulder, and was wondering if you would like to add your name to the list of interested users. It is [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Boulder.2C_Colorado] Thanks- --Jimbo Herndan 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed bribery scandals

Per your comments on the original

BillCJ 03:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Much better. Good work. Logawi 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Journal-of-a-novel cover-small.jpg

Thanks for uploading

image description page

indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Oklahoma Newsletter October 07

The WikiOkie Reporter WikiProject Oklahoma 's Newsletter Issue 2 - October 2007 Edit this newsletter Discuss this newsletter	Your second or third stop for WikiProject Oklahoma News Sign up to receive this newsletter Oklahoma Portal Current article statistics Past issues of this newsletter
Modest boost in assessed articles during September WikiProject Oklahoma's massive assessed by bots and editors. Assessments made on August 31 bring the total to 62 assessed articles over the 31-day period. On September 15, BetacommandBot assessed 40 articles from no-class to stub and start class. This bot automatically updates the talk pages of articles included in more than one WikiProject if at least one WikiProject has already assessed the material, bringing each interested WikiProject's ratings into compliance with the assessment. No B-class or higher quality assessments were given out over September, and only a small handful of importance assessments were granted. On August 31, one Low, Mid, and High importance rating was given to three separate articles. Leroy McGuirk was given the lone high-importance rating. Oklahoma categories receive help from Texan TexasAndroid, an administrator, assisted WikiProject Oklahoma by categorizing nearly 100 Oklahoma-related pages on September 24. The additions were made mainly to Tulsa-related pages. "I've done the major cities in Texas in the past, and was thinking about what to do next, and decided to stay relatively close to home for now. Thus OK's big cities got done," TexasAndroid wrote on his user page. Shortcut WP:TULSA Meet WikiProject Oklahoma's "sub-project" sign up much like a stand-alone WikiProject.
This month's task: Get out of your routine. Make some edits! • Edit next month's newsletter
The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list .

This newsletter was delivered to you by Okiefromokla. This is a one-time delivery as to all Wikiproject Oklahoma members to boost interest in the newsletter. In the future, if you would like to receive this newsletter in your talk page, please insert your name in the sign-up list. Thanks!

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Journal-of-a-novel cover-small.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Omniplex-logo.png)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wings-over-the-rockies logo.gif

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

CfD nomination of Category:Photographs by User:Willy Logan

renaming. 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.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Casablanca Electra-nose.jpg)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:37, 8 July 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 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Kelly-Johnson U-2.jpg

talk) 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

WIKIPROJECT OKLAHOMA

Here. By following the instructions there.

--Steam Iron 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply