User talk:BilCat/archive1

Hi!

Hi Bill How are you. I see you are doing a lot of edits to aircraft articles. Thats great. What kind of articles are you most intrested in? If you look closer, you will see many large edits were done by me and I am very involved with wikipedia. However, I am open to suggestions and can work with you to make it better. If you go back and look, most articles were a mess. At Wikiproject Aircraft we decided to work on synchronizing and standardizing the articles. I have been concentrating on the aviation side while others do military and general aviation aircraft. If you look at Airbus and Boeing, most articles are standardized now. Only 737, A320 and A380 remain the old way. 737 is currently changing. Look at all my edits and you will see. So continue on your work and if you have any questions or advice drop me a line. My current projects are 737 and 787 for the next while. Take care --Bangabalunga 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Project

I saw you were editing the L1011. Would you like to conform it to the new layout? You can make it look like the Boeing_747SP or Boeing_757. Same table of contents and so on. I will research delivery schedule and edit as well along the way. I am not making you do this. Only do it if you like. I would appreciate it. Thanks.--Bangabalunga 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Here is a good source. I have read it several time. It is very accurate and extensive. We can take lots of info from here. http://flytristar.tripod.com/page/history.html

Take care! --Bangabalunga 00:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

X planes

You reverted the addition of the XC-142 to Template:X-planes using the edit summary "XC-142 is not an X-plane". Huh? The X means eXpiremental, and that's exactly what the XC-142 was. It was testing technology that is now being employed in the V-22 Osprey. --rogerd 03:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your last reversion said "see talk page", yet I see nothing from you on Template talk:X-planes --rogerd 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get time to write it? It only took about 5 minutes!! --BillCJ 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FN Charles de Gaulle

Looks like the discussion is running in circles. My primary concern is that the article gets 'locked-up' while we wait for Wikipedia's rules and policies on content submission to be enforced.

Hey, to answer your inquiry in the talk page, yes the Journal of Electronic defense is an independent and very prestigious publication that comments on the joint Franco-American operation in its August 2002 article, "It Takes Two to Interoperate."UberCryxic 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi BillCJ, I removed your comment to Elaragirl on hte straw-poll section because I could not keep the counter working otherwise. Can you place your text elsewhere please. Sorry for editing you. :-) Natobxl 00:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to clarify something. Right now you have a vote under Keep and Neutral. Is there any particular stance that you prefer over the other? It might not be a good precedent to have votes under two different categories, though I'm not implying that it's against a strawpoll's rules or something. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.UberCryxic 01:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey great idea! I like your compromise.UberCryxic 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey again, I don't want to feel like I'm chasing red herrings and make an idiot out of myself, so I decided to bring this up with you personally. I found another source. See this:

This fits with recent Pakistani reports [emphasis mine] that during June, French Rafale fighters and airborne control stations maintained combat air patrols across the probable path of fighters flying between Karachi and Mumbai – probably to stop surprise attacks on Indian nuclear facilities near Mumbai.

The Bharat Rakshak Monitor was "the first online journal dedicated to Indian military and strategic affairs." (see here)

Let me know what you think. Thanks.UberCryxic 02:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the source is good? And do you think the source satisfies some outstanding criteria? Once again, thank you.UberCryxic 02:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I appreciate your interest in the source, but I just wanted to clarify something: are you reading the whole thing? I just don't feel like that is necessary. That's the only part that refers to Rafales and the incident in question. I mean you're more than welcome to read the whole thing - maybe you'll pick up something I left out - but it seems the article overall is about Pakistani nuclear posturing post-Kargil, not this event per se.UberCryxic 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sizing necessary

According to Manual of Style, after In most cases the size of images should not be hardcoded., it then states:

The current image markup language is more or less this:

The example it gives shows sizing as allowable.

[[Image:picture.jpg|120px|right|thumb|Insert caption here]]

Removing the sizing makes the pics too small to see the aircraft planely, er, plainly, at least on the old computer/small monitor/IE browser that I use. If the pics cannot be seen, what's the point placing them there? Yes, one can enlarge it, but it's not necessary if the size is decent to begin with (200-300 for most pics). I usually only enlarge if I want to see details, like th tail number, etc. Almost every article I have worked on in the past 2 months uses sizing. Should all the pic sizing on Wiki be removed? That's quite a job, with nearly 1,500,000 articles so far!

If there is a clearer, pre-existing policy on this forbidding sizing, I'll abide by it. -- BillCJ 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, which contain no restrictions forbidding sizing. - BillCJ 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

thumb sizing

Heh, I didn't even realize that you'd changed the size of that thumbnail in your original edit! I have a lot of stuff on my watchlist, and as stuff gets edited that has hardcoded thumbs I have been removing that sizing in most cases. As you point out, there are times where a given size is appropriate, but I find that those times are far and few between. And you're correct - the MoS doesn't explicitly forbid sizing of thumbnails, but my reading of it is that in most cases it is to be avoided. I'm changing the Tarhe thumbnail back to size-less, as I think we're both in agreement on this one. ericg ✈ 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadair Sabre

Hi BillCJ, you are right that the name change is required and I tried to move the article to Canadair Sabre but that move was halted by an administrator, that is why the Canadair Sabre (CL-13) was the only move that was allowed. Although the official designation is CL-13, Ron Pickler and Larry Milberry in their seminal work, Canadair: the First 50 Yearspointedly refer to the aircraft as the Canadair Sabre. Where there is a direct and continual reference to CL-13 is in RCAF designations. The air force maintains that CL-13 is the correct nomenclature for the Canadair Sabre.

If you can figure out a way to move this article (which I am still editing by the way) to Canadair Sabre, I will certainly support you in this move. Bzuk 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bell 222

Not sure what happened, but with your rv edit, the entire text went missing, replaced by info on a place called "Vanguard School". I've rv'ed it to the previous edit. Akradecki 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinook helicopter crash

Hi. This edit you made [1] broke the working redirect, and made it look like a merge to a nonexistent article. Please be careful. --Guinnog 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lufthansa 747-8 buy

The Lufthansa 747-8 purchase is not a rumor. It's a fact. Look at the table and associated links. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The table contains a press release dated today from Lufthansa regarding the 747-8 order. It was there prior to your edit and the one you reverted. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lufthansa 747-8 buy

The Lufthansa 747-8 purchase is not a rumor. It's a fact. Look at the table and associated links. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The table contains a press release dated today from Lufthansa regarding the 747-8 order. It was there prior to your edit and the one you reverted. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Please, when creating articles, try to cite atleast one reliable source. See wp:cite, Harvard referencing may be the most appropriate for Air Craft as the reader may want to know the immediate source summary. I tend to use footnotes a lot, as it allows sources to be included often without impeding the text flow. Keep up the effort on the co-axial helis, it's an interesting subject.Alan.ca 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

-See further discussion on user_talk:Alan.ca. Alan.ca 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bill, thanks for citing the sources in the article Sikorsky_S-69. I noticed you had made a few syntax errors in the ref tags, so I fixed them up. You can view the changes using the history page. I also included a template that I like to use called template:citeweb for web citations. I hope you find this useful. Happy editing! Alan.ca 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hughes Helicopters

There seems to be a problem with this going on. You'd think they'd never heard of Howard Hughes or the Apache. The same thing happened at some other pages I've been watching. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've left a comment at Talk:Hughes Helicopters. Mark83 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looper took care of the references.

--Born2flie 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He was FAST! And I didn't even ask him for help! :) - BillCJ 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Bolo

Hi. I've had a quick look at the merits of the article and left an opinion at the talk page. I'll look into your concerns about reverting later.

Bill, I don't know how to avoid making this seem conceited - so read the following knowing I don't mean to be: You asked me for help/advice twice in the past 24 hours, I am happy to give it. However with other editors might I sugest a bit of back and fro - e.g thanks for your opinion/I disagree with your opinion etc. It will encourage others to debate with you/help you. Best regards, -- Mark83 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The above message was a suggestion that maybe a "thanks for the previous help" would be appropriate. But as I suggested I did not wish to appear conceited, i.e. I meant in general. As I said also in the 1st sentence I will look into reversion etc. later. Mark83 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't fishing for a "thank you" -- as suggested "I don't know how to avoid making this seem conceited" -- I was speaking in general. But thanks anyway. Sorry again for the confusion. As promised, I will have a look at the general behaviour tomorrow PM. Best regards -- Mark83 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

airlist box?

Hey Bill, I dont get what you are saying. What airlist box?--Bangabalunga 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why this Golich guy is deleting them. --Bangabalunga 18:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On a different subject, whats happening with the Boeing 737 page? Drastic changes happening there. I thought it was fine before.--Bangabalunga 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

XWB misnomer

It's Boeing PR, but it states the reason why the anonymous person added the comment to Airbus A350: http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/12/out_to_launch.html —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should find an NPoV press article that says the same thing. Looking at the 777/787/A350 specs, you can tell that Randy is right about which models compete against which (eg. Airbus has no direct 787-3 or 787-8 competitor) but that would be original research. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

787

Good job on deleting that guy for 787-3. As I had said in 787 discussion, I visited the Boeing plant in September and learnt most of that stuff. But this guy realy has credibility problems. For one, the 787-3 does not have a larger verticle stabilizer. Secondly, the fuselage is not thinner. Yes weight saving is a priority, but not by thinning the structure. Maybe here and there but he makes it seem like its more than that. And on and on. So I dont know where he gets his info from. Boeing will provide a much more detailed analisys of the 787-3 by May 2007. They will launch a 20 page PDF file on the 787-3 at that time. In 5 months, we will know a lot more about this variant.--Bangabalunga 02:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

image sizing

I was about to revert Boeing 787 following my reply to Leonard G. on his talk page, but you beat me to it! Thanks for backing me up on it, as it shows I'm not just some crazy guy misinterpreting the Manual of Style! :) Happy editing. ericg ✈ 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I sent him the link to my post on your talk page, so hopefully he'll see what the problem is. - BillCJ 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

C-5 article plane sequence

• Why did you removed the C-9 from the sequence in C-5 Galaxy? Because it is retired maybe. I believe there's 1 or 2 more of C-2 to C-8 that has been retired also. No big deal, just wondering. -Fnlayson 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Eurofighter/Al Yamamah etc.

Hi Bill. Thanks for your comments at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon. I had already merged the new article into Al Yamamah (it borrowed a lot of text anyway). I was also unhappy about the unexplained removal of information. The user removed the same paragraph from BAE Systems with no edit summary.

As it now stands Al Yamamah provides both a full account of the detail of the sales and also a full account of criticisms and the SFO inquiry. Thanks again, Mark83 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. When I saw what had been done, I figured you wouldn't be happy about it. Btw, that's certainly the longest article title I've seen on here! I try to "be bold" mayself, but maybe that should be amended to say "Be bold, but don't be stupid!" I have overdone it myself a time or two, but I am trying to learn. Any pointers you have have regarding my interactions with other users that you may have observed would be welcome. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't agree with it all being at Al Yamamah? And I don't see what I can say, I can't fault you for your interactions. I wouldn't worry too much, you usually know when you've done something wrong because someone will call you on it (e.g. I disagree with your edit to.....) etc. Mark83 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree with it all being at Al Yamamah! Having a separate article on the investigation was ridiculous, especially given the minimal different content, the amount of it, and the 10-minute discussion time. I would have done it myself if I had been more familar with the topic, and had I not had so many other things on my plate. The merge looks great. - BillCJ 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Goatchurch has responded at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon and I've explained my thinking a bit more if you're interested. Mark83 18:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Boeing YAL-1

Thanks Bill.

Chris Lawson

What was on my page was not aimed at you Bill, but Chris Lawson. It seems he has pissed off a few people from what I have read. You have been most polite, the opposite of clawson. Anyway, I am quitting this for now!

Reply re. Hughes helicopters

Please see your reply here - Adrian Pingstone 12:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll put all five pics here then you can transfer them (or some of them) to articles as you wish. However my wife expects me to do some Christmas preparations today (what a cheek!) so it could be a day or so before they appear. No need to keep checking, I'll let you know when they are up - Adrian Pingstone 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines

Wikipedia really needs to improve the Delta Air Lines article. I truely apologize for my editing for Delta Air Lines article. I was trying to improve the US Airways buyout section due to the same person with the IP number 68.210.212.131 who has been adding the info that you have been reverting. We need to give the user a warning. Anyways I got some of that info from Delta's Plan for Reorganization which came out a few days ago which includes Delta rejected to the buyout. I've read it, maybe you should too. Spongefan, 20:24 22 December, 2006

Delta Air Lines E.I.S.

Last time I checked, it is proper American grammar for abbreviations such as E.I.S. (Entry Into Service) to be capitalized. I would also like an explanation why you suppose this is vandalism.--Golich17 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

MD Helicopters MD 500

The pics are ready on the Talk Page of the link above. Best wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Multi-line sequences

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

You mentioned a discussion that has occurred on this subject. I've been looking over the WP:AIR page content talkpage, but I couldn't find anything that discussed it. Nor does the discussion seem to have occurred on WT:AIR. Would you be so kind as to send me a link?

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember having seen such discussions when I first started on Wiki in Aug/Sept of this year. I'll see what I can find. I posted a comment on the main WP:AIR talk page, so we should get some replies soon. If we don't get any, I'll back off the issue. - BillCJ 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite agreeing to back off, I think that I should briefly explain why I consider multi-line sequences useful. In general, they should be used where a designation sequence 'forks'. A classic example is the end of the bomber sequence: after B-68, the bomber sequence and missile sequence were split apart. Another example is the Boeing 345, a designation that refers to four different slots in the bomber sequence, two of which (the B-29 and B-50) are very important aircraft.

Fortunately, the use of {{split sequence}} should make adding such sequences far more intuitive for editors; previously, I had to code tables using HTML, which is bound to be immensely confusing to new editors. Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

After reading your revert comments, I have to say that it's nice to meet another person who thinks Wikipedians are a bunch of vandal-huggers. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

T-39 Sabreliner

Thanks for adjustment! Merry Christmas! -- Stahlkocher 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding myself

Thank you for your "kind" input regarding my changes to pages. I do not make changes to create arguments, I make changes because they need to be made. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, like I've said many times, has its flaws, and I intend to voice my opinions. I have been putting the brakes on most of my usual changes, and I have been abiding by the policies put in place, but I've been making changes since last year. Where have you been all this time?--Golich17 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply re. Hughes helicopters

Please see your reply here - Adrian Pingstone 12:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll put all five pics here then you can transfer them (or some of them) to articles as you wish. However my wife expects me to do some Christmas preparations today (what a cheek!) so it could be a day or so before they appear. No need to keep checking, I'll let you know when they are up - Adrian Pingstone 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines

Wikipedia really needs to improve the Delta Air Lines article. I truely apologize for my editing for Delta Air Lines article. I was trying to improve the US Airways buyout section due to the same person with the IP number 68.210.212.131 who has been adding the info that you have been reverting. We need to give the user a warning. Anyways I got some of that info from Delta's Plan for Reorganization which came out a few days ago which includes Delta rejected to the buyout. I've read it, maybe you should too. Spongefan, 20:24 22 December, 2006

Delta Air Lines E.I.S.

Last time I checked, it is proper American grammar for abbreviations such as E.I.S. (Entry Into Service) to be capitalized. I would also like an explanation why you suppose this is vandalism.--Golich17 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

MD Helicopters MD 500

The pics are ready on the Talk Page of the link above. Best wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Multi-line sequences

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

You mentioned a discussion that has occurred on this subject. I've been looking over the WP:AIR page content talkpage, but I couldn't find anything that discussed it. Nor does the discussion seem to have occurred on WT:AIR. Would you be so kind as to send me a link?

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember having seen such discussions when I first started on Wiki in Aug/Sept of this year. I'll see what I can find. I posted a comment on the main WP:AIR talk page, so we should get some replies soon. If we don't get any, I'll back off the issue. - BillCJ 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite agreeing to back off, I think that I should briefly explain why I consider multi-line sequences useful. In general, they should be used where a designation sequence 'forks'. A classic example is the end of the bomber sequence: after B-68, the bomber sequence and missile sequence were split apart. Another example is the Boeing 345, a designation that refers to four different slots in the bomber sequence, two of which (the B-29 and B-50) are very important aircraft.

Fortunately, the use of {{split sequence}} should make adding such sequences far more intuitive for editors; previously, I had to code tables using HTML, which is bound to be immensely confusing to new editors. Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

After reading your revert comments, I have to say that it's nice to meet another person who thinks Wikipedians are a bunch of vandal-huggers. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

T-39 Sabreliner

Thanks for adjustment! Merry Christmas! -- Stahlkocher 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Chatanooga, Tennessee rename

Hi Bill. I presume I am one of the people referred to in your comment on Talk:Chattanooga, Tennessee. You sound bitter about the outcome, using words like "...concerted opposition from non-editors of this page, who game the system to ensure their will is followed, and efforts to leave regular editors unaware of the process". I feel offended by the comment that I (and others) have "gamed the system", and have certainly not made any effort to "leave regular editors unaware of the process", but attempt to make as many as possible aware of conventions, and discussions about them. What process do you feel you had not been made aware of, and how should you have been made aware of it, so that you would not have felt as you do with the outcome? I would like to ensure that neither you nor other editors like you feel that way again. To be honest, I'm surprised that there appear to have been no support votes at all. It may well be that some of the people who commented were unnecessarily abrupt to you, as we found it from a brief mention on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) after a lllloooonnnngggg discussion about attempting to change the US cities naming convention, including the use of the recent Philadelphia and Chicago moves as evidence that the current convention is generally not followed. You may have been unfairly bitten by those who believe the current convention is helpful if you honestly had not been aware of that discussion. Sorry to have appeared to come down hard on your proposal. Please make any suggestions to help avoid the same problem in future--Scott Davis ^Talk 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you followed the appropriate procedures for posting a move request. Prior to your deletion of the move request from WP:RM, you did everything you were supposed to do as far as notifying fellow editors that you wanted to move the article. You added the notification to WP:RM[2] and placed the move request template and a survey/discussion section on Chattanooga's talk page.[3] Arthur Rubin's comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) were made after you deleted the move request, so he probably just didn't see it while it was there. Sorry about initiating a WP:BITE session on you. --Bobblehead 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

F-35

Hi. I hope "As you know I removed it" didn't sound rude (I didn't mean it to come across as "you know very well who removed it" etc!) I just wanted to make it clear to other readers that it was me before making any further comments. Thanks for adding it to the talk page - that's the way I should have gone about it. Mark83 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat

Bill --- You have disabled email so resorted to posting here....I am curious as why you thought this was "highly speculative" as this is summary of Navy programmatic decison making...all of which is a matter of public record. The current article leaps to the rather emotional Super Hornet issue (hardly a NPOV...and smacks of bias toward Tomcat...even though I flew it for 2 decades, I see it in a NPOV in context of history....it served ont he first string for 30+ years which is a record) and ignores the entire A-6 vs F-14 issue that precluded it and resulted in reduction by half of the Tomcat squadrons and ultimately resulted in acceptance of the two place F model Super Hornet that was never a done deal prior to Tomcat proving it could perform the precision strike role, NONE of this is speculation. HJ32

Vandals

After reading your revert comments, I have to say that it's nice to meet another person who thinks Wikipedians are a bunch of vandal-huggers. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

T-39 Sabreliner

Thanks for adjustment! Merry Christmas! -- Stahlkocher 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Chatanooga, Tennessee rename

Hi Bill. I presume I am one of the people referred to in your comment on Talk:Chattanooga, Tennessee. You sound bitter about the outcome, using words like "...concerted opposition from non-editors of this page, who game the system to ensure their will is followed, and efforts to leave regular editors unaware of the process". I feel offended by the comment that I (and others) have "gamed the system", and have certainly not made any effort to "leave regular editors unaware of the process", but attempt to make as many as possible aware of conventions, and discussions about them. What process do you feel you had not been made aware of, and how should you have been made aware of it, so that you would not have felt as you do with the outcome? I would like to ensure that neither you nor other editors like you feel that way again. To be honest, I'm surprised that there appear to have been no support votes at all. It may well be that some of the people who commented were unnecessarily abrupt to you, as we found it from a brief mention on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) after a lllloooonnnngggg discussion about attempting to change the US cities naming convention, including the use of the recent Philadelphia and Chicago moves as evidence that the current convention is generally not followed. You may have been unfairly bitten by those who believe the current convention is helpful if you honestly had not been aware of that discussion. Sorry to have appeared to come down hard on your proposal. Please make any suggestions to help avoid the same problem in future--Scott Davis ^Talk 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you followed the appropriate procedures for posting a move request. Prior to your deletion of the move request from WP:RM, you did everything you were supposed to do as far as notifying fellow editors that you wanted to move the article. You added the notification to WP:RM[4] and placed the move request template and a survey/discussion section on Chattanooga's talk page.[5] Arthur Rubin's comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) were made after you deleted the move request, so he probably just didn't see it while it was there. Sorry about initiating a WP:BITE session on you. --Bobblehead 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

F-35

Hi. I hope "As you know I removed it" didn't sound rude (I didn't mean it to come across as "you know very well who removed it" etc!) I just wanted to make it clear to other readers that it was me before making any further comments. Thanks for adding it to the talk page - that's the way I should have gone about it. Mark83 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat

Bill --- You have disabled email so resorted to posting here....I am curious as why you thought this was "highly speculative" as this is summary of Navy programmatic decison making...all of which is a matter of public record. The current article leaps to the rather emotional Super Hornet issue (hardly a NPOV...and smacks of bias toward Tomcat...even though I flew it for 2 decades, I see it in a NPOV in context of history....it served on the first string for 30+ years which is a record) and ignores the entire A-6 vs F-14 issue that precluded it and resulted in reduction by half of the Tomcat squadrons and ultimately resulted in acceptance of the two place F model Super Hornet that was never a done deal prior to Tomcat proving it could perform the precision strike role, NONE of this is speculation. HJ32

HJ response --- No offense taken and I did review Wiki policy, which is entirely reasonable. I'll add sources I find reliable. As a published author and editor, I do original research all the time otherwise errors tend to repeat themselves or subtle (or even glaring omissions) end up manifesting themselves. The Tomcat article skips all over the place and has/had some of those weaknesses. Getting sources is not difficult, just learning how to use the Wiki tools/formats or I would have already done it.

The only weakness I see in policy is tendancy to use published sources that repeat errors. If there are knowledge gaps or errors not addressed by a published source, Wikipedia cannot claim to be truly current as editor would have to wait for a published source to address same, which may or may not happen. Interesting dilemma.

HJ response to BillCJ

Fair enough...there is quite a bit of new info out there with Tony Holmes doing a lot of detailed writing for his Osprey series as well as lots of articles being published on the Tomcat due to its Sunset recently occuring. I led the writing team for two books on the the Tomcat published this year (Hildebrandt-Snodgrass-Parsons and Parsons-Hall-Lawson))and run the Tomcat-Sunset.org website, which has a detailed "living" history section that will be published in a year or so as well. I'll continue to work up a detailed history (still sorting interviews and notes from Tomcat Sunset and Panel Symposium that had six hours of dialogue featuring 18 notable individuals who participated in key Tomcat events). I'll be more than happy to help evolve the Wiki article IAW Wiki guidelines while helping improve the published legacy of the Tomcat. Cheers, HJ

Bell 201/207

I understand you point on the article, and somewhat agree. However, I talked with User talk:Akradecki, and he would like to try putting together something on both models. I have a source coming this week that I might be able to use also. If, however, we aren't able to get beyond the stub point, I have no problem with merging the info into the Bell 47 and AH-1 articles. Thanks.

— BillCJ 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: Yeah, Akradecki suggested that I put an article together based on the sources I put out there on the Talk:AH-1 Cobra page after I had already voiced my opinion that it remain a part of the AH-1 Cobra article, since there is only one instance of the aircraft (which I've personally seen at the U.S. Army Aviation Museum; it looks brittle.) and its creation led, IMO, directly to the AH-1. That's what the history supports, as well. --21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)