User talk:DonFB

Hello, please feel free to comment on it.

My Help Question: The "My Watchlist" link at the top of the page has suddenly stopped working. I get a "not found" error page. This happens even though I am logged in. The other links all work: Talk, Preferences, Contributions (User Page not started). -- Don

I'm getting a 500 Error as well for my watchlist. It looks like there's some kind of internal server problem, and I'd expect it to be back up in a short time. Hoof Hearted 17:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, it's back up an running now. Let me know if you're still having a problem. Hoof Hearted 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit history, you don't appear to be given to vandalism, but I'm puzzled by your recent deletion of six paragraphs of the Wright brothers article, with an edit summary that fails to explain. Would you care to offer an explanation, or was this done in error? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake. Thanks for fixing. - Don

No problem-- I've done the same sort of thing more than once. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Wright Flying School, do you think we should list the people from the exhibition team at that article also? Do you have a comprehensive list of people from the school? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure if all the Team members were actually "enrolled" in the school. Perhaps the article could just mention their training, with a Wiki-link to the Team article. I have never seen a comprehensive list of Flight School trainees, but one of the books I've read says Orville compiled a list of about 115 people who trained there. It might require some "original research" to find that list. Below is a paragraph I've been planning to add to the Wright Brothers article. It could be used in the School article, maybe with a few wording changes just for variety:

Between 1910 and 1916 the Wright Company flying school, with instruction almost exclusively by Orville, trained 115 pilots, several of whom became famous, including Henry "Hap" Arnold, who rose to Five-Star General and commanded U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II and later served as first head of the newly-created U.S. Air Force; Calbaith Perry Rogers, who made the first coast-to-coast flight in 1911 (with many stops and crashes) in a Wright Model EX named the "Vin Fiz" after the sponsor's soft drink; and Eddie Stinson, founder of Stinson Aircraft. DonFB 20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its "original research" because it would be reproducable, it would be "research from a primary source". Wikipedia uses tertiary sources. I prefer primary and secondary sources. I love using the US Census to get info on parents and siblings as a primary source, except people keep deleting the census images I upload. I also love making the bibliographies from the New York Times and the Washington Post with the free first paragraph you get in the archive. I dont post them anymore to Wikipedia since people tend to delete them too, Now I add them to pages.google.com and add a link: http://richard.arthur.norton.googlepages.com/bertacostabibliography. Have you also looked through Corbis? Lots of great images there on early aviators.

Do you know anything about the Wright Flyer Model B? There is no entry for it, and now there are 5 references to it.

The Model B was their follow-on to the original canard design. The elevator was in the tail, and the plane had wheels. I recall reading it was their most "popular" plane. They began making them in mid-1910. I followed a link, possibly from the Beachey article (I'm not sure anymore) and found two items of interest: beautiful color images of an advertisement for the Model B, with specs; and the list of 100-plus aviators who trained at the Wright School. The website is: EarlyAviators.com. The Model B ad is at http://www.earlyaviators.com/ewrico02.htm The list of Flight School trainees is at http://www.earlyaviators.com/ewbfplak.htm The website is quite good; plenty more browsing to do.

The table does have useful information, but it is not directly relevant to the Wright Brothers. That's why I moved it to the Wright Glider article, as it is directly applicable there. The WB article is very long, and need to be more focused. Dhaluza 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't favor cutting content. If you can cut out useless words without changing the meaning, fine. Otherwise, try to find a home for the content in a shorter related article. Please remove the table as it is now redundant. Dhaluza 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I moved the table to the Wright Glider article, but now I see it's not there. Anyway, that is where it belongs. The WB article is a biographical, so the quantitative aspects of their work is really not relevant. It's enough to say the 1902 glider had longer wings than the 1901, it does not matter exactly how much--that can be covered in detail in the the WG article, which really needs expansion. So I suggest moving the table there.Dhaluza 02:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don, I see no reason to delete the novels simply because they are not available online. Printed versions are available. I will revert your edit. Wugo 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I see the duplication. I've deleted paper books from the "online" Novels section. Thank you for the contribution Wugo 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Don, in the early days many of the pioneers had their own control arrangements. Didnt mean one system was better than the other. Actually the Curtiss was more cumbersome than the Wrights as the pilot had to fight with his shoulders the roll control. But there were many variants. Two others I can think of are the Antoinette and the Hanriot. But rewording of article is okay as it keeps the basic gist of what I was explaining about the two brothers separate control arrangements. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_flying_machines. Discuss this on the discussion page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_flying_machines. See you there. (Roger J.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.39 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don, Thank you for the "heads-up" note. Some of the wiki-bots are are a real pain. I updated the image summary page, and museum Talk page. Thank you, Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update... my aol webpage has been updated with appropriate terminology, email sent to Wikimedia and a wiki administrator, and the admin. has cleared the problem. DONE. Chrislk02 happened to be on line and cleared it up. Thanks again. Lance..... LanceBarber (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, notes like that should go on the user talk, not the user page, but it's appreciated anyway! Katharineamy (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi Don, you're exactly right. I thought I would condense info to keep article down to a bare minimum. But you're correct, historical accuracy should come first even if the article is a little longer. The subject of the Wrights and what they accomplished is important. Happy Writings. Koplimek (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I notice you've recently edited Alberto Santos-Dumont. I've requested a community GA reassessment and thought you might like to comment. Cheers.

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alberto Santos-Dumont/1

APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 13:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Don, I too for years always believed the photos came from 1905 as I had read in some Time-Life book or other. But upon closer examination on the Wilbur and Orville Wright Timeline the identical facsimilies are posted in late 1903 newspapers dating these photos at their earliest from 1903 but certainly earlier than 1905. The Library of Congress is a great source for old photos but quite often they are in error on dates. The LOC will scratch onto the side of a photo that has litte reference, the date the Library receives the photo, not the actual date or year the photo was taken. With the Wrights the story is two-fold as they were secretive at this time and these were posed portraits that they themselves felt comfortable to release to the press. The two photos personally are incredible in the oblique reference they imply. The photos look like passport photos and in way 'they are'. The brothers in 1903 are about to embark on a historical journey to success at Kitty Hawk. Koplimek (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently searching for the book I read this from for a citation. Tried Google Books to see if info has been excerpted. Will make trip to Library. Im sure it's in one of the recent biographies or the 1980 series of Time-Life Aviation books. Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don, actually it was Madame Bollee who was pregnant that summer of 1908. I had right info, wrong person. In 1920 Madame Bollee and her daughter Elizabeth paid a visit to Orville in Dayton to give him a sort memorial package & tribute to Wilbur. Both Wilbur and her husband were deceased by 1920. Some of this memorial of pictures, writings and Madame Bollee's own talks with Orville are in a newer publication by the Smithsonian's National Air & Space Museum. But Harry Combs delivered the gist of it in his 1979 book Kill Devil Hills. Elizabeth Bollee's possessed an inscription Wilbur wrote to her on it: To Elizabeth, the little girl whose bright eyes opened upon this grand world when my flights in France had their beginning. Koplimek (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make a definition for the public what is the difference between Hop and Flight. Are you telling me that Traian Vuia jumped with one leg 20 meters in the air one meter carrying some strange stuff in his back? I tough that Mike Powell (athlete)( by the way I'm not sure any longer if I should thrust this source, I mean Wikipedia) had the world record with only 8.95 meters. How could he beat Traian Vuia's record? --Lsorin (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the talk page I see I have at times treated you less well than Wikipedia's guidelines recommend. I'll try to be more polite to you in future.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check List of fatalities from aviation accidents and make sure I have it right, I forgot about Johnstone, even though I started his article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supplying a third opinion on the BBC Introducing content. However, you've misunderstood the issue. There is no dispute about the content on the dispute between the BBC and Amazing Tunes. What is in dispute is the following paragraph which has nothing to do with Amazing Tunes. Here, it is my view, an IP editor is conducting their own synthesis to highlight what they believe is a key point of "BBC Introducing" licensing terms that everyone should know about (and they personally have a problem with). That is why you were unclear about its relevance. It has no relevance to anything. It has been cherry-picked out of three separate cites, combined and highlighted to suit the point the editor is making. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me also. I've added further comments to the BBC Introducing discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.115.205 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a user of the Italian Wikipedia. We're working hard on our own Wright Flyer article, and I wondered if you could help us by providing the source of the following quotation by Wilbur Wright, which you reported in the discussion page of the Flyer article: "While the new machine lifts at a speed of about 23 miles [per hour], it is only after the speed reaches 27 or 28 miles that the resistance falls below the thrust. We have found it practically impossible to reach a higher speed than about 24 miles on a track of available length...."

Thanks a lot, and sorry for any mistakes in my English --MLWatts (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (Wait, this is my actual signature: MLWatts (msg). I guess it's better if you reply on the Italian talk page, even if in English of course. Thanks again)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'm sure this is going to help us considerably. Best regards, --MLWatts (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the Gustave Whitehead article:

DonFB: You refer to two documents as sources for your statement that the article in Bridgeport Herald lacked a byline. But it is mentioned nowhere in any of these documents that the article was "unsigned" or "lacked a byline"

http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Whitehead_Articles.htm#herald

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=c2wmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wf8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6334,3463341&dq=gustave+whitehead&hl=en

Please remove these statements, as you have no source for your statements, only your own original research, and you know that that is not allowed in wikipedia.Roger491127 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the formulation: "Some source documents mention the article in the Bridgeport Herald of 18 August 1901 without naming the author, some source documents say that the author was (Richard) Dick Howell." to the section Witnesses. I hope this will be accepted as a replacement for the formulations "unsigned" "The article lacked a byline" and "Widely attributed to Dick Howell". This formulation does not require any original research and is based on a large number of source documents. I know that you as well as I have read many source documents and you know that this statement is true. If you like we can add 10 source documents as references to this statement. Roger491127 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for help at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Gustave_Whitehead Roger491127 (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section heading written by Roger491127 on this page. It's mistaken and violates Wikipedia guidelines against including a user name in Talk page headings. DonFB (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from this noticeboard:

But now, when Binksternet has given DonFB a source document he can use, there is no meaning in discussing this issue further, so I withdraw this request for help. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustave_Whitehead#Original_Research for more details. Roger491127 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DonFB. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

never mind, missed that John was suggesting same thing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don, I read somewhere that Wilbur's Indiana High School , over a hundred years later, presented him posthumously with the diploma he earned. In honor of the school's most famous attendee. So in the long run he DID get his diploma. Koplimek (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur was awarded the diploma on April 16, 1994, his 127th birthday.(Wayne County Indiana Community Network)

waynenet.org(scroll down to Wilbur Wright)

In 1995 the Richmond High School , school board, named Wilbur a distinguished alumnus posthumously

"The Wright Way to Lead" article (in PDF) . Koplimek (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deborah Hersman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President Bush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd found it here under her "Biographical Information" section. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB, your constant revisions of the History by Contract page show in some cases that you are not reporting facts (as with the exact format of the Wright label), and in other cases attempting, by rewriting things in an insidious and negative manner without citations from factual sources, seemingly to subvert the current information being presented. For instance, you remove facts and substitute innuendo. I ask that you refrain from doing so. I have reported this to Wikipedia to look into. AviationHist1 (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB, the neutral ground is that Jane's has accepted Whitehead as first to fly. The Contract exists as it is. Petulant revisions regarding why you think Jane's accepted Whitehead are not appropriate. I think you need to read the link that shows WHY Jane's accepted Whitehead and leave it at that. Editorializing is not appropriate. AviationHist1 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DonFB. I'd be happy to check this news article for you. While I can't add a full translation of two paragraphs to Wikipedia because that would be a massive copyright infringement, I can skim the content of that news piece for any valuable additions to our Wikipedia articles. So please let me know the news url and which Wikipedia article you'd like to improve with that. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page for a replies to your statement. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DonFB. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EarwigBot operator / talk 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

The sources clearly state that there is no documentary evidence. Even the L'Aerophile article makes this clear. Furthermore the first footnote in the article clearly states that SOME accounts credit this flight, but does not itself credit it. This is not consistent with saying that such a flight definitely happened. Saying later that it definitely happened is contradictory.

Even if you haven't read the sources that make clear that the claim in question is based on no documentary evidence, that is no excuse for saying it definitely happened in contradiction of a reliable source saying that only some sources make this claim. Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

==Your reversions at the vuia page. == 

That the vuia 1 never flew is accepted by aviation historians. It only made a few short hops. You know that, so why did you delete the truth? That other planes achieved longer hops before vuia is accepted by aviation historians. You also know that, so why did you delete the truth? That the article from the 1909 flight journal credits him with no flights before Oct 8 is also true. You can read the reference by clicking on it, so unless you refuse to read it you will see that it is also true. So why are you systematically deleting the truth?

The article NOW says that he was the first man to ever make a hop with a wheeled aircraft. You know this to be untrue, but will probably leave it there because for some reason you want to propagate this fiction about vuia. I will, of course, change all these things back because this is supposed to be about reliable sources, not your own personal need to perpetrate a fictional account of history.Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly WHY do you only revert my edits, and not the other edits on the page you disagree with? I know you're watching that page, but when Binksternet or Longtone revert the statements that only some sources credit him with a march 18th flight, you leave it there. In fact, it says that right now. Just what the hell is your problem?Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alberto Santos-Dumont may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In his homeland, Brazil, Santos-Dumont is a national hero, having his name written in [[Pantheon of Fatherland and Freedom, Tancredo Neves|Brazilian Hero Panthéon]. He is credited in
• Airships'']. London, G. Richards, 1904 hos / Follow Your Dreams: The Story of Alberto Santos Dumont)'', (bilingual, Portuguese/English). Rio de Janeiro: Prometheus Press, 2005. ISBN 978-85-99240-02-1.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Wright (born 25 February 1870 Dayton, Ohio, died 9 March 1870 Dayton, Ohio) Ida Wright (born 25 February 1870 Dayton, Ohio, died 14 March 1870 Dayton, Ohio)

In 1871, the family moved to Dayton, Ohio, where Susan gave birth to her fourth and fifth children, twins Otis and Ida, who died soon after birth.

twins born in 1870 in Dayton, THEN the family moved to Dayton in 1871 ??? is this correct?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.93.16 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, fixed; thanks for noticing. DonFB (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see it corrected. I found some more information - According to the book "The Bishops Boys" page #45 (reference #5 on the Milton Wright wikipedia page) "The wright family came to Dayton in June 1869, immediately after Milton's election as editor of the Religious Telescope. They rented a house on Third Street until November of that year,...." ---the way the book reads, I suspect that this info came right out of Milton Wright's diary. The way you corrected the page, I don't think any changes are necessary - I just thought you might like to know. Thanks

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correction on Everest (2015 film). When I reverted the edit, the bogus wikilink Oded sofer was showing on my screen as the version that I was reverting from. I am not sure what was happening, but I am glad you caught it. Peaceray (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made that edit in response to an editor who removed any mention of Brazil...I thought that Brazilians should be mentioned. Your edit effectively restored the status quo. Cheers.TheLongTone (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that heading title. DonFB (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eritrea. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diego Maradona. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DonFB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Traian Vuia's flight described ad "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2016. 

The request for formal mediation concerning Traian Vuia's flight described ad "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by Florinbaiduc on Romanian aviation history. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for adding the WLOB logo to the infobox, Don. But that leaves me with three questions...

--How did you get past the copyright deletion? --How did you crop only part of a webpage's logo and size it correctly for the infobox? --Why didn't it take you an hour to figure out how to get the logo from the webpage to the infobox?

I suppose there are logical answers to all these questions. But it would take a long time to explain it all to me. And you'd probably say to yourself these are things I have to learn on my own, through trial and error, trying to make sense of the Wikipedia tutorials.

Steve1reg (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks alot for the info and the well wishes, DonFB. I'm new at this, so... hopefully this star helps you out a bit. :) Sincerely, Mike Beerley Mike Beerley (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help me polish the Czech Chemical Society and Association of Czech Chemical Societies pages to meet the wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R Liboska (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've red that guidelines and I am still sure, that the page of the Czech Chemical Society should not be deleted. It is the same category as e.g. Hungarian or Duch or any other Chemical Society which have Wikipedia pages. R Liboska (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, finally the page was deleted -for no reason (G11 ??? wtf). Will never donate a dime to Wikipedia. No help, just an arrogance. R Liboska (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philip J. Cohen. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have proposed this change.

They need different pages. Industry standard is to have a separate page for discography. They do not need to merge.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew II of Hungary. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Winston E. Willis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neutral Point of View. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winnipeg. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of elevation extremes by country. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Whataboutism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iyoki Station. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mausoleum of Abu Huraira. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB, Greetings. The NavSource site is going to be correcting this Battle credits issue in the immediate future. I submit my correspondence with their Webmaster below. They based their Battle Credits assessment on the 1953 version of the NAVPERS publication on the topic. But there are occasional and understandable errors in that. The Samuel Eliot Morison's 15 Volume "History of U.S. Naval Operations in WWII" would support this correction, as would the most definitive work on the U.S. Asiatic Fleet at the beginning of WWII: "The Fleet The Gods Forgot".

If you prefer waiting for NavSource's correction, that is fine. I was just doing this because I noticed it, and was just moving on. One of those "Do it while you're thinking about it" sort of things. If you care to take the initiative from here and make the actual correction on the USS Langley's page, then please feel free. I am still a newby at making any serious corrections such as graphics. Doubtless an image of the Pacific Theater Ribbon with two bronze stars can be found on NavSource for another ship, and maybe just copied over. At some point this will have to be done anyway.

But I thank you for noticing, and for your diligence for sourced accuracy. Accuracy here is my goal as well, even if it means starting by correcting a source error. Anyone who pays ANY attention to these mostly forgotten ships and men is appreciated. Here's my correspondence with NavSource:

• On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Matt Underwood <[email protected]> wrote:

Greetings, It has occurred to me that your page on the USS Langley (CV-1 / AV-3) has an omission. The Langley earned two battle stars on its Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Streamer. One for the Philippine Islands Operation December 8, 1941 - May 6, 1942; and one for Netherlands East Indies Engagements January 23 - February 27, 1942. Thanks you for correcting this as soon as possible. The battle record of our very first Fleet Carrier was short and bitter, but she did the best she could under the circumstances, and must be remembered as well as we can. Thanks again. Matt Underwood

• From: Fabio Peña <[email protected]>

To: Matt Underwood <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:19 AM Subject: Re: USS Langley (CV-1 / AV-3) Matt, Thank you very much for contacting NavSource. The official Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual (NAVPERS 15,790, Rev. 1953) does not list Langley (AV-3), but it seems reasonable that she should have been awarded both stars. I'll update the page as soon as possible. Thanks again. Fair winds & following seas, Fabio Peña Manager, Aircraft Carrier & Escort Carrier Archives NavSource (http://www.navsource.org)

• On Thurs, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Matt Underwood <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks, Fabio. I had assumed it was an official source screw-up. All Asiatic Fleet ships from 8 Dec 1941 onward would automatically qualify for the Philippine Islands Operations star; and those who survived long enough to be part of ABDAFLOAT or be operating alone in NEI waters---perhaps making their way to Australia under orders but separated and with crippled communications ability---would have automatically qualified for the NEI Engagements star. Even the loner ships and surviving VP squadron planes were in a continual fight as they headed south, as vividly told in such first-hand works like "The Fleet The Gods Forgot" and so forth. I wonder how many more omissions there are in NAVPERS printed sources? I know the Army's DA PAM 672-1, 1961, has omissions---some of which are explained, and others which were errors. Given the billions of words of data these historians had to work through, these are easy errors to forgive, but sometimes not as easy to rectify. I believe your site provides a tremendous resource, and also serves to intervene in setting the record straight in some instances such as this. I have no doubt that the last surviving veterans of these harsh and now obscure campaigns would thank you for vindicating these two stars on their PTO campaign ribbons that they have worn with honor these 75 years. I believe their shipmates who are still on duty would also thank you. And I believe that all members of NAVPERS would thank you as well. I know I am grateful. Thanks again! Matt Underwood

Mluklu7 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continent. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DonFB. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Balkans. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of France. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Island and Hunter Island. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WFDD radio logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of English monarchs. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatolia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alaska. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Żegota. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 1947 martial law in Mandatory Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DonFB, I'm so sorry if this is not the right way to ask but I seen you make some edits i the Tham Luang cave rescue article, you seem like you know what you are doing.

I'm having trouble with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tham_Luang_cave_rescue&diff=850040372&oldid=850040248

I put the source "washingtonpost" in my edit details but I cant figure out how to put it in the article, so it has that little number next to it with the link. Any help? I tried it in preview and broke the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1966 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got it working now. It's good information, but needs a little bit of editing for brevity and to fix "abandon-->abandoned". DonFB (talk)