Welcome!

Hello, Letdorf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Sceptre 21:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you're "correction". The source is saying that the server is based on later versions of libwww. not later version of the server are based on libwww. mabdul 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the first release of CERN httpd predates the first release of libwww (1991 vs. 1992), so earlier versions of the server (at least up to November 1992, and presumably some time after that, given that the source states it used later versions of libwww) could not have been based on it. Does that make sense? Letdorf (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

CERN HTTPd based on the source code of the WorldWideWeb (Nexus) web browser. The Libwww was created out of the same code! --> so both applications based on the same code, server later change to the api of the libwww. could give you all the resources, will also integrate them in near feature (as you can see in my contributions that I'm a active expander of old web browser article and internet history.) mabdul 17:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the server and the library are closely related, both being developed initially by TBL, but since the library did not exist in the form of libwww until November 1992, (according to this) then it is misleading to imply that the server has always used libwww, hence my edit. Letdorf (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

ok, I will add the development history in near feature to the article and explaining that the two applications based on the same code, but go independent in the beginning and so on. as I said: i will add this but not this week. mabdul 18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THX that you look after libwww and make really good copyedits! mabdul 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you deleted information about the history of EPCC. Can you tell me why please? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelawhill (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summary, the material you added appeared to me to be a verbatim copy of text from the EPCC website, and hence a copyright violation. All Wikipedia contributions need to be released under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licences. If content from another website is not explicitly published under those licences then it cannot be used verbatim in WP. See WP:COPYPASTE for more information. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the speedy answer. I amended the 'history of EPCC' text for Wikipedia (it's not a cut & paste). It looks similar to what's on the EPCC site because it's a basic account of EPCC's history and so rather hard to rewrite. Can you suggest how I might get around this? I'm sure this situation must have arisen before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelawhill (talk • contribs) 11:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing to do is rewrite your source(s) in your own words as much as possible. See WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:PLAG. Obviously this is easier if you have more than one source - the only other one I can find off-hand on the web is also on the EPCC website [1]. Letdorf (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hullo.

You're right, I misunderstood. I've added a rationale to the file page. a_man_alone (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Letdorf, you need to tweak your signature a bit as it is not displaying your name and talk page after you signed ~~~~, please take note. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I may have signed with 5 tildes instead of 4 by mistake - that give the datestamp only. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Best not to use Daily Telegraph figures, their source of information is unknown and various online new sites give all sorts of guessed numbers.

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20100317/writtenanswers/part005.html

Hansard figures for Jan 2010.

The whole Harrier fleet cannot consist of just 45 harriers. After all there are 5 active squadrons of Harriers. 4 front-line squadrons with 9 aircraft in each (36 harriers) and 1 training squadron with 6-8 harriers. Thats a total of at-least 42 Harriers in active squadrons ready to fly (with a few extra harriers on standby in case of losses or failure etc). Now as-well as the Harriers available in the active squadrons, there are more Harriers in service (being repaired, upgraded etc) and more harriers in storage which are often rotated around into the active fleet.

I.e. when the harriers currently in the active squadrons need to be serviced harriers from storage will re-join active squadrons and the cycle continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.167.177 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20(R) Squadron disbanded in March 2010 with OCU duties being transferred to 4(R) Squadron [2]. The Naval Strike Wing also reverted to the identity of 800 NAS in April 2010 [3]. So I make that three nominal Harrier squadrons now: 1 Squadron, 4(R) Squadron (OCU) and 800 NAS. At the same time all remaining GR7s were retired [4]. I know newspaper sources should be treated with caution, but 45 sounds reasonable given those recent events. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edits on Digital Equipment Corporation where you said in your edit summary that paragraphs are good: WP:LEAD clearly states the following:

While my reformatting the sentences to form four paragraphs without any changes in substance is a simplistic fix, at least is complies with WP:MOS.Supertouch (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need in this article is a smaller, more concise lead section. Reformatting the lead to conform to the letter (rather than the spirit) of the guideline, at the expense of readability, doesn't really address the problem, IMHO. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Your rewrite make it seem as if WW owns all of Audi (i.e. removing 99.55%) which seems hard to believe if it is a listed company?--Alcea setosa (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the latest list of holdings gives Volkswagen AG's ownership of Audi AG as 99.55%. I was attempting to simplify the paragraph and thought this was close enough to "wholly owned" to omit this level of detail. However, if you think this is misleading, I can put it back in. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merry Xmas to you too, Bzuk! Letdorf (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

According to "Farewell to the Phantom", the Royal Air Force Yearbook 1992, No. 56 Squadron retained their Phantom FGR2s at RAF Wattisham until 1 July 1992, while No. 74 Squadron kept their FGR2s until 1 January 1993, No. 111 Squadron kept their FG1s while transitioning to the Tornado, sending on the Phantoms on 31 January 1990, while the Phantom Training Flight kept FGR2s until 1 January 1991 (flying them only for 12 months). FWiW, Note the RAF has removed the "dot", thereby no FG.1.Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is true (although I think 74 actually disbanded in October 1992), but all these squadrons were air defence fighter squadrons. IMHO, it's more germane to the TSR-2 article to talk about the Phantom in RAF service in the tactical strike/reconnaissance role, a role which had been relinquished to the Jaguar by 1976. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Right you are, 74 was only due to disbanded earlier, and actually operated the Training Flight, concentrating on air combat training, whatever the heck that entails. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, good work on VW/Tatra influence article. I am sorry I hadn't time to address you but merely reverted the original changes you made. Just wanted to apologize for that. Have a nice day.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Letdorf. I have come in search of information to help a page you recently created, it has been requested that a direct citation to Wood's "Project Cancelled: The Disaster of Britain's Abandoned Aircraft Projects", however I do not own this book (a pity, as it sounds like a fascinating read), I thought I should contact you to shed light on the page number from which the specifications were derived from. If you do know, just reply back with the number or insert it into the relevant space on the article (I've tagged it, and got the rest of the cite ready), and then it can be passed presumably. Thanks, 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there I wondered if you could take moment to weigh in on a discussion were having here regarding the color of a military aircraft insignia Thank you Jetijonez (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really like what you did to the Audi timeline. I was going to do something similar myself but was to engrossed in the Toyota Tercel (and my wife's birthday). I am glad that we seem to be removing ourself from the often arbitrary B2/B3/B4 etceteras to the actual modelcodes. Best regards and full support should anyone wish to change things for the worse.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]