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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Electric CFE738

Bill, thought you might want to weigh in on this one. Akradecki 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

787

Hello Bill, Sorry for the tag mix up on Boeing 787. I do agree with you as far as a reference. However, this really is true and its common knowledge and I think that guy erased it 5 edits ago for his own POV. Take care, Jason--70.71.71.138 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem Bill. I live in Olympia Washington close to Boeing. Treust me, there is tons of subsidies for Boeing. $3.5 billion was given to Boeing to keep 787 here in Washington, as if they were going to go anywhere else?? And most of the subsidieries get money from their respective governments as well. Also, the 787 is the plane with the least work done by Americans in Boeing's history. The whole plane is built all over the world and just put together here in Everett. It saddens me. My family has had great ties with Boeing as most people in Washington have. But oh well, its a global world. I cant wait to see it fly this summer! Jason--70.71.71.138 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mirage 5

(Moved from User talk:Petri Krohn)

I've noticed you've been changing the Dassault Mirage 5 links from Dassault Mirage III to Dassault Mirage 5. I'm sure you realize the Dassault Mirage 5 page is a redirect to Dassault Mirage III. As such, I assume you are preparing an article on the 5 for posting soon. However, it's usually best to wait until after one has posted the article to change the redirects, as someone else may change them back if they don't know your plans. - BillCJ 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it says Dassault Mirage 5 it should also link to Dassault Mirage 5. This is a different plane from the Dassault Mirage III, even if it now redirects to the some page. Anyway, I have marked Dassault Mirage 5 with {{R with possibilities}}. I would consider splitting the Mirage 5 section into a separate article and mayby merging it with IAI Nesher. -- Petri Krohn 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If the Dassault Mirage III article also intends to cover the Mirage 5, it should say so, in bold, in the itroduction. -- Petri Krohn 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing

Bill, I could use some help on this one. In the lead paragraph, at least when viewed in my Netscape, the paragraph is squished over to the left, and the image is in the center of the screen, even though I've floated it right. I can't see anything abnormnal in the code. How does it look to you? Akradecki 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

737

Yea normaly I would have just fixed it, but anymore they have so many kids as admins, everybody gets bent when you do something simple like fix it. I have a problem with admin abuse on another project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#State_ship-related_categories a soon as the cfd came off, somebody put it back. They should not be allowed to do that for 6 months, that is abuse. It waste time that could be better spent on other wiki editing. These are good categories, and allow users to learn about history. Ship naming is very important, otherwise we just call them by their hull numbers. If you could lend a Keep, I would be gratful. Thanks --71Demon 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Atlas Cheetah

Thanks for your kind note, my pleasure. :-) Elf-friend 07:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

references

I saw your question regarding references on User talk:N328KF‎. the {{reflist}} is really no different than doing <div class="references-small"><references/></ref> which is now mos treferences sections are done. However, the template makes it easier for inexpereinced editors to create a references section that that is easier to understand. It also makes it easier to help with columns. In short, all the template is is the same as above but linked to through a template. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But if they both work the same, why change from one to the other when the first has already been there for a long time? - BillCJ 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not actually changing it. It is just giving it a new name so that it is easier to use. When it boils down to it, it is the exact same thing as before, just easier to use. Kind of like a nick name. You can see what a template contains by clicking the edit (or in the case of this template, view source) and you can see what it will actually include on the page it is used on! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reflist

Using {{reflist}} essentially accomplishes the same as the following code:

<div class="references-small"> <references/> </div>

This shrinks the font size for compactness (necessary when you have lots of references). In addition, some articles use the {{reflist|2}} syntax, which permits multiple columns. This is for very long lists. See Chuck Yeager#References for an example. Template:Reflist has a longer description. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks. - BillCJ 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

F-100

Hello Bill,

I am the "culprit" who removed some of the info about the F-100 afterburner modification (Dec 21, 2006) without any explanation! Sorry for not giving one! I am quite new in this business, and I just got an account 1 week ago.

I had the pleasure of flying the F-100D/F in The Royal Danish Air Force from 1965 - 1969, and therefore I read the F-100 section with great interest. But I am sorry to say that the info regarding the "old" afterburner is incorrect - I know this old bird very well still! The early afterburner was NOT just an ON/OFF device - although it was not modern compared to for ex. the afterburner on the F-104, which many of my friends flew in the same period. It is correct that it could be a problem for the maintenance people - many moving parts compared with the F-102 type, and from to time you got a hard light up, i.e. the burner ignited before the nozzle was fully open, some times with a compressor stall as result, but in any case you got a loud bang! Not nice!!! As I mentioned the A/B was not an ON/OFF device - you could vary the output of the afterburner approx. 50% of the output, i.e. 2500 lbs. of thrust by moving the throttle in the afterburner range. This was a NECESSETY in formation take-offs.

It was used as follows:

Single ship take-off: You lined the aircraft up, brakes on and gave full dry power( throttle fully forward), checked the engine instruments, released brakes and MOVED THE THROTTLE OUTBOARD and kept it there. At that point the afterburner nozzle opened followed by light up of the injected fuel. We kept the afterburner in to KIAS 275 knots. In this case you got max. afterburner thrust (5000 lbs.).

Formation take-off: The brakes was released at a sign from the formation leader. Throttles management initially as above except that the leader pulled his throttle slightly aft in the afterburner range, so that the other aircraft had a power margin to play with in order to keep their positions in the formation.

Also the RDAF got the F-102 afterburner mod. - but that was after I had left the force to SAS, so I do not know this A/B in details.

OK - that was it!

Thanks for a lot of interesting info!!!

Best regards

Grebllaw123e

Denmark

P.S.: I corrected the number of RDAF F-100D/Fs to 72 a couple of hours ago!

F-100

Hello again Bill,

Just a small info: Of the 72 Danish F-100D/Fs, 38 were lost in accidents (1959 - 1982).(15 pilots killed).

Best rgds

Grebllaw123e

Denmark

P-38s in films

Reply to comment by BillCJ: Hi BillCJ, thanks for your comment. As I had indicated before, there was some value in that the P-38 was treated as an iconic aircraft during the war years and after. The reason for including some of the minor film documentaries is that they had some intrinsic value- a rare film on Richard Bong, the shooting down of Yamamoto's Betty and a look at the P-38 production line "Rosie the Riveters" and an unusual documentary on the P-38 photo Joes. I did not go into "true" pop culture wherein Hartley Earl based the design of the first postwar Cadillac "tailfin" on the P-38's streamlined shape and twin booms. That would be streching it, but irregardless, the P-38 was an important symbol of the US war effort and the contemporary films that featured this striiking aircraft do service a notice (IMHO). Thanks again for your efforts in making the Wikipedia aviation articles accurate and "readable." Bzuk 20:26 7 January (UTC).

trivia

Hello Bill, Why are you adding too much trivia everywhere? 737 I agree, but I see you doing this everywhere. Have a good one, Marcus--Bangabalunga 06:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. I deleted the trivia section on a boeing 757 about 2 years ago and got yelled at for being anti-Boeing (which I am not) and this and that. So i lost the battle. Now the trivia is too large and too irrelevant. I think it should come out as well. But last time it came up on wikiproject airlines, the consensus was to keep it. But Bill this is how wikipedia is. you get brand new guys that show up out of nowhere, think they own wikipedia, make changes, and then disappear after a few months. Like these guys that have showed up with brand new accounts the last month and have tagged up 787 and others. Its hard for a tag to come down once its up. But oh well, I just give up sometimes.Marcus--Bangabalunga 06:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So Bill what are we doing with regards to the trivia section? Marcus--Bangabalunga 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Task force

Born2flie: I am drafting a proposal for a Rotorcraft task force for WP:AIRCRAFT. I know you work on many aircraft, but considering your presence on the rotorcraft pages, particularly the helicopters, I was thinking that you might want to look it over and tell me what you think. Other than yourself and a few from MILHIST, I rarely see any consistent editing on rotorcraft articles from WP:AIRCRAFT members. The goal is to track the progress and promote articles to higher quality article classes, remaining focused on rotorcraft articles. Thanks. --04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: Currently, there aren't any task forces in WP:AIR, and I'm not sure who else would be up for it. So far, I just have the page in my user pages and a reference to it next to my name in the WP:AIR participants list. Hopefully more users will see it and be interested in it. I don't think two people make a task force, but you can watch the page (Rotorcraft task force page) and track the efforts and if we find enough people willing to work towards the goals, then we can propose it to the project as a task force. --01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N221SG

Bill, would appreciate your input into this one. Akradecki 02:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Input/opinion needed

Bill, there's a guy who keeps tagging Learjet 35/36 as "reads like an ad". I disagree, I believe it's a straight-forward listing of facts. Would you mind reading the discussion on the article's talk page and weighing in? I don't really care what side you come down on, I just want an outside opinion. Thanks! Akradecki 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bell

Nmramemphis has violated plenty of other Wikipedia policies. 3RR is the least of them. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave him a note warning him about his articles not conforming to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:3RR. I suggest staying polite, since it will look better if it needs to be brought to an Admin.. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. An admin could tell us by looking at Nmramemphis' IP address. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you have WP:TROLL. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Helicopters

Born2flie: Bill, I had already reverted that edit and gone to the IP talk page. It is a proxy IP for a school. A warning is going to be worthless. A student most likely cut that section to use in a paper or something. Seems that is the most common complaint against the IP. Hasn't resulted in the IP being banned yet. --17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bell 430 images

Bill, you'd asked for 430 images in your list above...I just uploaded 2 to the article. Akradecki 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

That wasn't directed at you personally - I'd been put in a slightly bitter mood a few minutes before and that unfortunatly carried over. I'll try not let my (sometimes hyperactive) emotions carry over into snarky edit summaries in the future. - - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter silhouette

Born2flie: Looking for a helicopter silhouette for modifications of the {{AircraftProject}} template and the WP:Aircraft userbox. I'll sandbox the modifications to the templates until such a time that a task force is actually established. --15:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PH-10171a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PH-10171a.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the 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. 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

BA609

Thanks for your improvements to the Bell/Agusta BA609 article, especially the pic! However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content now recommends using the standard {{Infobox Aircraft}} in all aircraft articles at this time. I will be converting it over shortly, with some minor tweaks, but I promise I will try keep all te other changes you have made. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I disagree with omitting the specs from infobox, but I wasn't part of the original discussion. Since the aircraft isn't in production it seems the standard infobox will be mostly empty. Thanks for the feedback. - Davandron | Talk 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The spotted fish

Thanks for remembering the Speckled Trout merge...I'd totally forgotten it! Akradecki 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

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.

I've noticed you've been making some changes in aircraft articles that are contrary to WP:AIR/Page content guidelines. Yes, they are guideline, but they are there for a reason, and were created by consensus.

First, you have been taking out links to the manufacturers from the Introduction. The page content example of an introduction specifically shows the Manufacture name linked, in bold, with the aircraft name. I have no problem if the name is linked further in the Intro, such as the second or third sentence, but it needs to be linked in the Intro.

Second, the "Pop culture" section is supposed to come after, not before, the Specs. I assume the reason for this is to hide it from the rest of the article, or at least but some distance between it and the main text.

Third, it is more convenient to leave a line above and below the infobox in the code. It makes it easier to see the box within the code on a smaller screen, while not leaving any extra spaces in the text.

I am not seeking a fight, but I will be changing these to conform to the guidelines as I have time. The guidelines were made with consensus of the Project, and to my knowledge no consensus has been reached to change or disregard them. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know you have made other clean-up changes (good ones too!) to the articles, and I am being careful not to revert those at all. - BillCJ 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that a large amount of the WP:Air/PC was created by industrious editors who needed something done, and although it reflects consensus in most of its aspects, some minutiae were the decisions of the editors who created the page, not as a result of any kind of discussion. For example, there was no 'to link or not to link' discussion regarding the manufacturer name, nor was there any kind of discussion regarding the exact location of 'popular culture'—all we discussed there was what to include in it.

Regarding the extra line between {{wpairheader}} and the infobox, I think we discussed this before. Formerly, there would be a blank line at the top of the article when there was a carriage return between the header comment and the infobox. I checked, and it seems that this is no longer the case, probably due to a minor change in the MediaWiki rendering engine. I therefore have no objections to you reverting those edits, though I may continue to do them through sheer force of habit.

One final note: I strongly urge you to leave the pop culture sessions where I moved them. For years, the specifications have always been the second-to-last section, right before the references. It doesn't make much sense to have the pop culture between the specs and the references, considering that every other text-based portion of the article appears above the specs. As I said before, pop culture appears where it does at WP:Air/PC as the result of an historical accident, not of conscious consensus-building.

Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better now. As to the Pop-culture, most of the article I work on have them below the specs, and it seem to work well there. I may try to discuss this and see if I can't get a consensus to have it below. The crufters have no problem finding it, no matter where it is. As to the links, I myself find it useful in the first line, as its right there when the page loads, and I sometimes put in a name of an aircraft whenI'm uncertain of the manufacturer, but want its article. I know its also in the infobox, but often its above or below the screen on a small monitor/small resolution. I won't seek out any articles to "fix", but I may make some changes as I edit for other things. Sorry if I was a bit abrupt, and thanks for your forebearance. - BillCJ 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noticed ont he Grumman F4f/F6F/F8F/F9F pages: they say American before the names. Any idea why? There are hundred of American aricraft articels on Wiki, and these are the only ones I've seen like that. I took one out of the F9FPanther page b/c I thought it was an error, then saw it on the other pages. - BillCJ 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably, the same editor started each article. I don't see much use for that style of phrasing. For most American aircraft, I would probably phrase the opening sentence with something along the lines of "The Grumman F9F Panther is a fighter aircraft developed for the United States Navy by the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation." This conveys the same information, but is a bit less clunky. Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved pop culture on Eurocopter Tiger, but that's the only one I've moved since our discussion. I've posted a note on WT:Air, so hopefully I'll be able to continue tomorrow with the blessing of WP:Air/PC. Karl Dickman ^talk 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion on WT:Air continues the way it will, my moves of the pop culture section will have to be reverted. To make your life easier, User:Karl Dickman/Projects/Aircraft/Updates can be used as a laundry list of reverts: all articles that I have edited are struck out. For my part, I will also undo those changes. Cheers and good luck, Karl Dickman ^talk 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I do have my preference for where the section should be located, but I think the main thing is to be consistent in where we put it, either above or below. Whatever is decided, I'll abide by that. - BillCJ 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft articles

Hi there. It wasn't my intention to start an edit war. I just wanted to improve the information about Pluna on Wikipedia and include the pics in the articles. I thought a Pluna plane might look good as the main image for either Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 (not ATR, that was my mistake), but anyway I don't mind if it's not as long as it is in the article.

Later! --Wesborland 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Osprey undo strangeness

Did you notice that your undo of the heading change; the script/template said the user was 72.230.10.222 but the history shows it as 65.168.235.36 ??? Kinda strange. - Davandron | Talk 15:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Texan II

I don't mind the fact that you didn't want the text in question in the intro, but you rv'ed in all. That is very bad form. I am rv'ing again, I will move it down, however. Maury 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

deleted image

NC image over a year old see Category_talk:Non-commercial_use_only_images#Time_to_clear_this_lot_out.Geni 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cessna Citation

Hi Bill, as promised, the first phase of my major reorganization of the CE Citation articles is now up. If/when you have time, a copy edit would be much appreciated. There's a lot more work to come, will keep you posted. Akradecki 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images by Geni

I noticed that you asked a question about deleted images from this user. He has been very active in removing images that seem to be documented. Bzuk 03:11 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Canadain armed forces images are generaly not in the public domain. Crown copyright perhaps public domain unlikely. In any case they were listed as non comercial use only and thus were deleted.Geni 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was supposed to be some kind of warning given before deleting images, or at least an oppurtunity to contest their removal. - BillCJ 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What b_ll- CF Forces images are provided free of charge to the public and posted on public sites. I have used them in my books as "public domain" images. Bzuk 03:11 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Please carefully read their license conditions availabe here. They are only free for personal, noncommercial use. Any commercial reuse requires permission. --Denniss 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking warning to Nmayor

About the blanking warning you gave to Nmayor, that wasn't really necessary as he blanked the article that he created and you tagged for speedy deletion (I deleted it). It is fairly common for new editors to blank the page after their article gets tagged for deletion. They don't know how to delete it, so they do their best and blank it. If you run across that again, you should re-tag the article with the {{db-blanked}} CSD tag. Thanks for tagging it. =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: Not a problem. =) I have to admit that I didn't notice you tagged it for vandalism. I saw the CSD box and an empty article. I checked the article history and read the previous version to see if it needed deleting. About what you should use, for the articles about non-notable people, the {{db-bio}} tag is the best one to use. There are some specific ones for things like non-notable musicians {{db-band}}, but the {{db-bio}} will cover it just fine. All the available templates are listed at Category:Speedy deletion templates. You have to click on all of them to look at it as there is no single page that shows them all inline. -- Gogo Dodo 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge input requested

Bill, I'm proposing a merge of Adam M-309 CarbonAero into Adam A500. Comments are invited at Talk:Adam A500. Akradecki 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Leopards to Afghanistan

As far as I know the first two tanks (1 Leopard and 1 Taurus) left Edmonton by AN-124 on Sept 29 2006 for Kyzkyzstan. They arrived from Kyzkyzstan to Kandahar by C-17 on October 6th 2006. Hudicourt 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: the C-17 Globemaster III, the your Jan 28 2007 update Hudicourt 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Our favorite P-51 image reverter is back online today...I've already be at it with him over another article...see the history of Women Airforce Service Pilots. Akradecki 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed. I'm surprised he's even discussing it with you like an adult should. But his "it's notable, you look it up!" argument is about as good as his "it's a dark BW pic, it goes in the lead" argument (see the P-47 and P-38!). I going to wait and see if Karl does something about the P-51, as he's an administrator, and he won't like this being reverted again. Good luck! - BillCJ 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

YiA

Yeah, I've noticed that, too, and reverted a bunch this morning. I went and read the background material, and there's been a ton of debate on the issue, but it's very divided, and thus no consensus. MOS allows for it, one of the "help" pages, which isn't posted as either policy or guideline, speaks against it, but with lots of debate. As there's no consensus, I don't see what justification the bot handler has. If you posted on the project, I'll certainly support keeping the YiA links. Akradecki 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More on P-51

It's started, so I've added a vandalism warning to his page. I'm strongly inclined to open an RfC on him, but it needs at least two editors to proceed. Would you support such a move? I've got to go do compressor washes on my helicopter, will be back at next break. Akradecki 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! But I want to see how Karl Dickman handles this first, as it would be good to have an admin involved, even leading whatever action is taken. Also, I do believe he's passed the 3rr of the lead pic. - BillCJ 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. He hasn't done anything since I added the formal warnings to his talk page, but if he does I think I'll also take it to WP:AIV. Akradecki 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. On the P-51, I think you reverted someone else's attempt at some text clean-up, but I haven't gone through it line by line to see if the result is worth putting back in. - BillCJ 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Documenting the evidence

I'm starting to compile info in case we need it later...you might want to review the bottom of User:Akradecki/Sandbox. Akradecki 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

F-104C loss to Chinese

I noted your revert and seem to recall that there was a F-104 that strayed too close to Hainan Island and was gunned by a Chinese fighter:

SYNOPSIS: On September 20, 1965 an American pilot named Capt. Phillip E. Smith was shot down over the Chinese island of Hai Nan Tao. The case of Capt. Smith ultimately became entwined with those of other American pilots lost in North Vietnam the following month. Capt. Smith was flying an Air Force F104C and his loss over Hai Nan island is perplexing.

See: [6]

Still, the edit didn't reference a source. I only knew of instance from reading a book by the pilot years ago. Not sure I still have it. As I recall, he was in and out of clouds and strayed too close and then got tagged.

Cheers, HJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJ32 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

There is also a note on the Air Combat Information Group's database of Chinese Air-to-Air Victories, but I can't find anything to reference it being the first 104 shot down, nor a close range record. -Dawson 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

B-52, http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=83

If you're going to re-add a cn tag for something that's general knowledge, could at least look at the primary source first, and then add that into the article if you think it's necessary. The source was already present in the "External Links" section. - MSTCrow 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See reply in my user talk to your post. - MSTCrow 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check this out

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Signaleer_--_disruptive_editing_and_sockpuppetry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akradecki (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Wow...HagermanBot is fast! (note me signing this time!) Akradecki 06:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on what I posted in reference to the P-51 image. You initiated the sitaution, not me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Signaleer_--_disruptive_editing_and_sockpuppetry

Initial change made: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=P-51_Mustang&diff=103326453&oldid=103321047

And also made the first accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AP-51_Mustang&diff=103519676&oldid=103510194

-Signaleer 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE GROW UP. - BillCJ 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

C-12 Huron

Hi Bill, I was looking through my DoD pub on aircraft and realized that there are a whole lot of C-12 variants that aren't yet included in the article. Including them, and talking about them will involve some restructuring of the overall article, and since you've done a bunch of editing there, I thought I'd check with you to make sure it was ok before I started hacking away.

BTW, our "friend" seems to be on a personal attack campaign, and additionally has blanked his talk page, removing all the warnings. I'm debating whether to approach an admin and ask for a block...advice? Akradecki 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite done, at least for now...a copyedit would be appreciated! Akradecki 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a UAV aricle

I could use help with an issue with a UAV article. There's a new article that's been created on a UAV, Dominator UAV. As I've been working on the UAV section for quite sometime, I tried moving this article to Aeronautics Dominator to conform it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but the article's author, User:Headphonos insisted on moving it back (I get the impression that he's a newbie with attitude), asking for a "vote" before moving. We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV article be an exception? When I asked the author, his response was "Don't care, the issue is the name, which is correct as per many articles under the +cat, pls don't contact me any further on the matter." Actually, when you look at the cat, most other UAV aricles conform to the standard naming convention (the exceptions being the ones we haven't upgraded yet), and I didn't see the need for a "vote" to comply with guidelines, but since that's what he wants, I'll go that route. So, rename to Aeronautics Defender, or leave alone? If you care to weigh in, pleas reply at Talk:Dominator UAV. Thanks! Akradecki 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Every time I look at these Redirect pages that we don't want to use, they seem to mess up, and are only able to be moved there by an admin after that. Anyway, maybe that'll slow him down some. Joseph went ahead and moved it on his own before this. If "the creator" wants it moved now, he'll have to apply to have it moved to Dominator UAV, and I don't think he'll win enough votes to do it. Of course, he may just find another variation of his chosen name, but those might accidently get broke too. - BillCJ 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

Done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

C-12 complaint

An ip user filed a complaint about the Guardrail merge on the C-12's talk page. I've gone into depth in responding, but you might want to take a look and respond there, too. A baseless complaint, in my view, but for the record, needed to be answered and justified anyway. Akradecki 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

King Air article

Bill, sorry for not responding sooner to your question about the military versions of the 90, and the general length of the article. I've been mulling it over, and I'm still not sure what would be best, but I'm wondering about splitting the article into one about the 90/100 series and another about the 200/300 series. That, to me, is where the logical split is, in a number of ways. The 200/300 (including 350), went by "Super King Air", and while there's a lot of commonality between the 90 and 100, there's much less so between the 100 and 200 (the exception would be the 90F which borrowed the 200's tail, but I wouldn't worry about that). Plus, the PT-6A engine comes in two "families", the large PT6A and the small PT6A (# of PT wheels being a big factor). The 90/100 KAs use small PT6s, the 200/300 use large PT6s, so there's a natural split there. If we split the article there, each would have a fairly decent length, and could possibly be split further down the road if they continued to grow. Just some thoughts.... Akradecki 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for the reply. I've put the split tag up, copied our conversation over to the talk page there, and also put a notice on the project talk page. We'll see what happens... (saw a really nice 350 when we flew into Bakersfield today, got a pic to upload in a little bit....). Akradecki 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat

Your revert is exactly right. Comment was not NPOV and smacks of "fanboyism". None of the F/A-18E/F transition aircrews are complaining about their new ride. Tomcat served for a record 35+ years and retired in fine form. HJ 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bell Boeing QTR

First edition of the article is now up at Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor, though I've got an additional source at home I have to mine. Cleanup invited. Akradecki 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Powered Lift

No, I do think that is too much. The FAA has classed it as a powered lift aircraft, not a powered lift, and that still doesn't change it from being a tiltrotor which is much more common and descriptive. --Born2flie 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Growler or Shocker

The debate has been raging on the name for the EA-18G but only within the Prowler community amongst the younger folks who are advocating Shocker and have already produced a logo and patches. As you noted, the official name sometimes gets abandoned by the power of a grassroots alternative. Cheers, HJ 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PS Made comment on Talk Page for Growler

Thanks for your help. That's kinda what I thought. I think the user got mixed up, and assumed Shocker was the official name. As to the Tomcat being the Turkey, I believe its distant relative, the TBF Avenger, was also called the Turkey for similar reasons. And I seem to recall reading that Rhino was sometimes used for the F-4, in its case because it was so ugly. I don't think the Super Hornet quite has that problem. - BillCJ 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All true. The Marines went nuts over calling their RF-4 the Rhino (even had an annual ice sculpture made for Tailhook in their infamous suite at Tailhook with the horn sprouting liquid refreshment). The Navy had to come up with a two syllable name that didn't include Hornet to avoid confusion at the boat for its "Ball call" hence emergence of Rhino. Shocker is the first time I've heard of a name preceding fleet introduction, but it arose after the Prowler community was surveyed last year and objected to Growler. The Super Hornet folks liken their aircraft to being big and gray and powerful like a Rhino so it isn't because they think its ugly at all as you observe. HJ 02:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

YUH-61

Thanks, I didn't look to see who created it or anything, so I wanted to make sure that I hadn't upset you by asking the question, because it certainly comes across differently looking from your perspective. --Born2flie 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I can't remember if they mentioned the CSAR-X going to Boeing Helicopters or Boeing IDS. --Born2flie 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

During the 1980s, after several companywide reorganizations, Boeing Vertol became Boeing Helicopters Company, Boeing Helicopters Division, and finally, Boeing Defense & Space Group, Helicopters Division. Although the name changed, the company continued to perform, teaming with Sikorsky in 1991 to win the developmental competition for the U.S. Army's new armed reconnaissance helicopter, designated the RAH-66 Comanche. Boeing also began production of the MH-47E Special Operations Chinook, delivering the first of 11 aircraft in 1993. 1995 featured the rollout of the Comanche as well as the delivery of the first production V-22 fuselage. A year later, the Comanche conducted its first flight.

After completion of the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, the division was renamed The Boeing Company in Philadelphia, and later Boeing Rotorcraft Systems in Philadelphia with the formation of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems in 2002. In addition to continued aircraft development and production, the turn of the century also brought with it one of the darkest periods in the organization's 65-year history.[7]

I guess here is the answer. --Born2flie 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900

Hi, Bill.

Thank you for your comments on the Beechcraft 1900. I am still a little stumped by the format for references, but I will work on it.

---to one Christ follower from another (very imperfect) one, thanks again---

Mikepurves 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to meet fellow beleivers along the way. As tp the Beechcraft 1900, I'm not that proficient with cites myself. I find the cite templates recommend on the talk page by the user who added the tags to be confusing. In addition, many experienced editors don't like the cite templates. There is another editor who I work with that I will ask to help out on the cites. A lot of good work has been done to the article since its GA reveiw. Hopefully we can keep improving it. - BillCJ 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, cleanup tag removed. Akradecki 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Army Aviation Branch

I would recommend that they lose the section on the "current" AAC since there are no references for the section. It seems to be a highly bastardized version of tracing the roots of aviation from the time of the creation of the USAAF and separation of the USAF as a separate service. That would explain the seeming contradictions since they are more likely misunderstandings of the facts and their sequence. --Born2flie 04:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ATR 42

Hey, would you mind restoring using the ATR article instead of what used to be at ATR 42? I went through and did a bunch of cleanup on the ATR article yesterday and would prefer not to have to do it again ;) --chris.lawson 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Theres not much on the old ATR 42 anyway, I just meant we didn't have to move anything to do it. - BillCJ 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to remove the inuse tag when you're done. I've got some more cleanup that I'm ready to do when you're finished with your editing, but I didn't want to step on you.--chris.lawson 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

C-26

That was totally wierd...I wasn't aware at all of the merger, just happened to be adding some info from a source I just got ahold of...total coincidence! Akradecki 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spectrum jets

Bill, I just came across Spectrum S-33 Independence and Spectrum S-40 Freedom, two articles written by someone from the aircraft mfr (check this diff!), and written like ads. I've started cleaning up the first one, haven't had a chance to get to the second. Have a look if you have time. Akradecki 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OH-58 Reverted edit

Bill, it absolutely was vandalism of the article. Funny thing is, I know the pilot the editor inserted into the article. Too funny! --Born2flie 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WRONG Users for AH-1 Cobra Helicopter Please note that after exhausted research the counties of Egypt, Chile, & Argentina Do not have AH-1 Cobra Helicopters in their inventories. So there’s no vandalism going on here. FYI Egypt is getting AH-64D Apaches, Chile currently uses the MD530F& Argentina uses the A109 helicopter to fulfill their attack helicopter needs. APN. CFI —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANigg (talk • contribs)

AH-1

BillCJ, I appreciate see you engaging User:ANigg on the AH-1 Cobra questions. It is great that the Aircraft WikiProject is keeping these articles accurate and precise. — ERcheck (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Arrow

Hi Mr. BillCJ, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Bill, I've been keeping an eye on the discussions. I've thought of intervening, but given the reception he gave Maury, I don't think anything I say would be accepted either. He is definitely hung up on the General guy, and doesn't seem to accept any view that differs from his. The general is his hero, and heroes don't make mistakes. Guys like this usually beurn out after awhile. I hope someone esle can be of some real help, because I'm usually the one in need OF a mediator! Good luck with him. I do believe your are doing your best to be impartial in the whole issue, as you do with all of the pages I've seen you edit. And thanks for your compliments on the F-84F Thunderstreak split. THe Intro still needs to be reworked for the new page, but the rest is about done. - BillCJ 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be brief. Chain letters belong in Grade school. Sorry that an "author" is upset by real research. Grow up- buffs Opuscalgary 01:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky Piasecki X-49

Thought it said, XH-49. Still, it is unreferenced, even if I got the designation incorrect. I had assumed that the "XH-49" would've been the Piasecki P-16H-1A or whichever model that the Army was evaluating about the time the Cobra came along. --Born2flie 04:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

essay on your user page

Very good essay....I cleaned up some minor spelling errors for you, I hope you don't mind. --rogerd 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, pretty good essay. Sounds somewhat familiar, have i visted that library? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and corrections. I should have run it through a spell-checker before posting it. THanks again. - BillCJ 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation WikiProject Newsletter

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) 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hawker P.1127

Hi BillCJ.

I saw the The Saint episode last evening. It includes a fair amount of colour footage of both the P.1127 and the Kestrel. The P.1127's rather 'wobbly' hover is shown and the Kestrel(s) - or at least the one I remember - are wearing the tri-partite roundels. Towards the end a Kestrel (with both Gaunt and Moore aboard!) is shown doing a night take-off from a forest clearing in 'Bulgaria' and even today it's quite impressive. If it is shown on your local TV station it may be worth taping if you are interested.

I haven't added the 'Trivia' section to the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page as it's not technically a Harrier, but if you want to do it yourself you're welcome.

Regards, Ian Dunster 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again BillCJ.

I've changed the 'Trivia' heading to 'TV Appearance' - that may prevent undue growth!.

I saw the episode a couple of days ago now and I wasn't able to pay an awful lot of attention, but I suspect some of the footage may have been from Hawker Siddeley themselves and just incorporated into the episodes. On the other hand the 'forest clearing' scene looked set-up for the show. There's a nice fast, low, flypast after a VTO at one point, if I remember. Ian Dunster 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Why, when you revert vandalism, do you say, "no useless warnings issued"? Do you mean that you issued warning, but that they weren't useless or do you mean that you don't issue warnings because you believe that they are useless? Sancho (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

kfir

lahiru k is continuously chanfing kfir page and all he want is to prove that LTTE is a terrorist group. Why don't he do that in LTTE? Isn't there any way to stop him?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.220.45 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, sorry for interrupting your quarry. Secondly, I'm not the one who add the term Terrorist to the article[8]. Thirdly, I don't want to prove that the LTTE as a terrorist group, because it was already proved in the Wikipedia[9]. Fourthly, you are not the only one who tried/trying to STOP me!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

777

Why Did you revert my edit on Boeing 777? That graph is not being updated by anyone. The original author has gone AWOL. Dave--154.20.210.192 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out later. SOrry. Go ahed and take it back out. - BillCJ 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-1Y

It was my understanding that the Yankee model was actually developed from the 412, which makes it an additional step away from the N model. I don't have a handy ref for this (it was discussed at Bell in the 412 maint school that I went to though), but will try to find one. Little details show this, as it has a 412's doghouse cowling and the 412's nose. The rotor system is new, though, essentially a "grown-up" version of the 430s. There has been talk, though, of upgrading the 412 to incorporate the new rotor system while keeping the 412's PT6 TwinPac powerplant. Akradecki 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't heard that. We'll keep it as-is for now, unless we get info that contradicts that (not that I expect us to). - BillCJ 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-1N

If you have list of articles which need format of Operators section, feel free to post it on my disscussion page. And my fast editing of UH-1N was just coincidence :o) --Piotr Mikołajski 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

212 pic

Haven't dug out the Kern Co. 205 pic, but came across a Bell 212 pic with better lighting than the infobox one, I've made the change, but if you disagree, I'll understand. Akradecki 03:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me! I always thought the previous one was dark too. - BillCJ 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

205 pics

Here's a selection. Akradecki 04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Water drop during training exercise
• 
  Landing after training exercise
• 
  Departing after visiting our base for our annual B-B-Q!

Bell 204 and 205 pics

Sorry, I don't have any, I only have Bell 47, Bell 206 and RAF Griffin (which is Bell 412). Best - Adrian Pingstone 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob. You have such gret pics, it's always worth asking. Thanks for checking. - BillCJ 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NASA vandalization

It was idiotic, but funny nonetheless after the fact, lol... -Mike Payne 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

By itself, yes, but after a string of other vandalous edits, not so much. Definitely funnier than "poop" :) - BillCJ

Bell 204/205

Bill, now I understand creating separate articles for UH-1 and Bell 204/205 / 212 / 412 family. Maybe we should write directly under title of entry about civilian use with link to UH-1 Iroquois for military operators? It will clean some problems with users operating mix of military and civilian versions like Swedish Air Force, operating Agusta-Bell 204 under designation Hkp3C. As for Bell 204 entry I've cleaned up military operators and added few civilian. --Piotr Mikołajski 08:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Operators sources

Bill, for military operators I'm just adding flags. If someone remove operator and I have source for that info, I'm adding it again with proper source. For civilian operators it's quite easy to find a lot of them via photos on Airliners.net and some other aviation photos sites. Put name of desired craft and you'll get hundreds of photos with a lof of additional info. It's excellent source for searching civilian operators because users of Airliners.net posted ther over one million photos. --Piotr Mikołajski 18:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks. - BillCJ 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadair CL-84 again

BillCJ, still working on this article, but take a look at some recent changes I made. I noted that the CL-84 looks just like the Space Shuttle and Boeing Dreamliner, and... Just kidding LOL Bzuk 20:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

ROFL!!!! Oh, I looked at the CL-84 closely my self, and I think I see a slight resemblence to the CF-105 Arrow! ;) - BillCJ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up after that guy. Not sure why he blanked what he did but based on the edit history, I think one of the anons we've previously run into on aviation articles is behind it.--chris.lawson 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD and Bell 212/205 stuff

Bill, maybe it's time to quietly pull the actually significant stuff off the two AfD's lists and put it on Helicopters in popular culture. (Never mind...looks like Born2flie just took care of this. Time to let the AfD'd articles go...)

I think Born2flie has already done that. - BillCJ 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, unrelated, check out [[10]] and especially the PDF product brochure that has the detailed specs listings. The Eagle S should be included in the articles, I'm just not sure where would be best. The Eagle S is a 212 that's had the 2 PT6s removed and a single T53 put in...so the result is a 205/210 with a beefed up 212 airframe...best of all worlds (unless you're a proponent of twin-engine safety!). Akradecki 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just talked to a buddy of mine who's more familiar with the Eagle S, and he explained that the advantage is that with the PT6s out, you have less engine weight for the same power, so you can lift more, and since the 212 is certified for a higher max gross weight than the 205/210, you have the single-engine simplicity with more useful load and better high altitude hover and HOGE performance than either the 205/210 or the 212. Best of all worlds! Akradecki 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ARH-70

Seen this?[11] --Born2flie 12:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like LOH all over again, only Bell's the one's trouble this time. It's interesting they mention the EC 145/UH-72, as it was not even invovled in the competition. I don't think Boeing/MDH would like that solution at all. I know Bell's been having trouble with backlogs lately, and supposedly that's why the cancelled the 417 (and also to concentrate on the ARH, since it's the same airframe. Is this reaction extreme on the Army's part, are they justified, or are they trying to light a fire under Bell to get things done? And wouldn't switching airframes delay the program just as long or longer than it's been pushed back already? - BillCJ 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Switching aircraft could serve several purposes. It could give the Army an airframe already in production in the same class with an MGW that is even greater than the 407/417 and conceivably even more truly COTS than the 417. It removes distraction from Bell's other military commitments. It allows the Army to field an aircraft with the common sensor suite without contest. And, conceivably, it could open the issue back up for the Boeing/MDHI bid (God, I hope not). If the named airframe in that article is chosen, it solidifies American Eurocopter as a player in the American market for EADS North America. Speaking of which, Eurocopter reportedly did put together an initial proposal for an armed EC 135 variant for the ARH program, but it didn't make the cut for consideration. --Born2flie 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Does the 145 being twin-engined make any real difference to the mission, other than enabling the greater MGW, and the obvious redundancy factor?

As an aside, I take it you weren't impressed with the MELB offered for ARH? Just curious, say as much as you want to say or feel you can say. (A "No" would suffice, but I'd still be currious.) - BillCJ 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are quality of handling issues with the MELB as well as other "features" that I would not find desirable for Armed Reconnaissance.

The two-engine redundancy as well as other survivability features of a modern aircraft would play a desirable role in selection of the 145. The MGW means that a sufficient payload would still remain after adding pilots, sensor package, and armament provisions to carry an adquate amount of fuel and ammo for the mission.

Anyways, the EC 145 thing will probably not happen. Bell has been given 30 days and will most likely come up with a plan that the Army will have to take a look at for 30 more days to determine if it is acceptable. We're looking for at least 60 days before we hear anything substantive on this. --Born2flie 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK.Thanks for explaining it all. I guess we'll see how it goes. Oh, what's your take on the HH-47 CSAR deal? WHat exactly is going on there, from your perspective? I haven't had a chance to delve into it from an aviation perspective as yet, wondered if you had. - BillCJ 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

HH-47? Seems the other companies have a problem with how an HH-47 won the contract. If you look at the history, though, bigger is better for CSAR. The HH-43 Huskie gave way to the HH-3E Jolly Green Giant, which gave way to the HH-53B Super Jolly Green. The keys are speed, range, and high/hot capability. If you look at the competitors (Sikorsky S-92 & AgustaWestland EH101), I'm not sure that anything beats the 47 in all-around performance. --Born2flie 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

City of Everett

This looks like a candidate for a merge. I've no problem with articles on individual aircraft, when warranted, but this seems hardly justified. What thinkest thou? (sorry for the KJ English!) Akradecki 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, though we're supposed to be neutral on Wiki (meaning we can't favor conservative Christians in any way, including presenting their views fairly, but on the other hand we can't call people who blow themseleves up to kill others terrorists. GO figure!). Just say it was Shakespearean! I was raised on the KJV (still use it), and have no problem understanding the KJV dialect. Yea, verily. I ought to find a user box which says I'm fluent in KJ English. Do you know of one?

As to the article, I agree. I beleive the pics are on the 747 commons page already, but I'm not sure. THe text should go onto the main 747 page (most of the text is probably already there in some form

The 367-80 is different case, because it's both a prototype and a separate model from the KC-135 and the 737. I don't know of any other significant Boeing protoytpes. Some of the content which does not fit contextually in the 747 page should go in the Museum of Flight article, which is barely longer than this page, and only has one pic (not of this airplane). THere is a pic of the protoytpe on the 747 page, so I think we could put one of the others on the museum page. That page also only has one line on the plane; it could reasonably go to 3 lines, since it is a significant display (the Concorde has over one line, so we have to balance it out). :) - BillCJ 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My mom read KJV to us, but when I went to Moody Bible Institute I got hooked on NAS. I like the idea of the user box...I'll keep my eyes open. Thanks for the suggstions on the merge targets...I think I'll tag the article for a few days so I don't step on anyone's toes. The one individual aircraft I've been thinking could use its own article is the ex-NASA Convair 990, since it had such a rich flight test history (and, I'm biased...it sits at the entrance to MHV and I see the old gal every morning). Akradecki 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, MBI! We visted there once on my high school senoir trip. We also have a Moody station in our city, so I am very familiar with Moody. Use the NKJV mostly myself, but KJV in church. The merge tag sounds good for a few days. the Museum article could certainly use the expansion of content and pics. - BillCJ 04:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BE-90 image

As luck would have it, I was sitting out on the tug next to the hangar, enjoying the beautiful spring day and waiting for the new Northrop-Grumman radar testbed to take off when a nice-looking E-90 landed and taxiied by. I'll post the pics when I get home.... Akradecki 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, amen. I'll look for it later. WHat's type the NG testbed? DId you get one of it too? - BillCJ 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a highly-modified GII to flight test the radar systems for its BAMS UAV contender. It never did take off, just did engine runs and taxi tests. On my way home now...talk at ya later. Akradecki 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your comments on the two pics on the other WIkis. Looks like we solved the 90 problem. I think it would work on the PT6 page, it's definitely a good shot of the engine. I'll try to get them posted to the English Wiki side today or tomorrow; the licensing is clear, so that should not be an issue in posting the image. - BillCJ 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, as promised:

• 
• 
• 
• 
  A private T-38 that was flying the pattern rather low today!
• 
  The R-44 article doesn't have any good flying pics...what do you think about this one?
• 
  I had to throw this one in...this is my "baby", coming back after a mission this morning (some dude shot a nail gun through his safety goggles and into his eye!)

Akradecki 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW!! Thanks a lot! Nailgun, eye, EWWWW! I bet that hurt! - BillCJ 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, he looked like he wasn't having a very good time when they were loading him up. I heard one of the paramedics say it was a 2 1/2 inch nail at 120 psi!! Anyway, I can't share the pics of the N-G GII yet, don't want to release them to GFDL until a see if AvWeek or FI will pick it up. Akradecki 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob on the NG pic. One question, is there a boneyard thre, or are all those planes (the airliners in the backgound) there for some kind of work? - BillCJ 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good job getting the windows on that BE-90! ;) - BillCJ 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A better place

No, not really. Rather sad, but such is life. Feel free to e-mail me if you have any other questions.--chris.lawson 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I do understand your frustrations, as the essay on my user page should illustrate. I know what just happend to you in brief, and I'm that wasn't easy to take. I have encountered many editors in WP:AIR who act brashly and rude at times, and you were never one of them. When information is your product, and you allow others to damage in continually, your product is going to be weakened.

But, competition is the great equalizer, and sooner or later, someone is going to do Wiki better. When that happens, WIki will have to adapt, or soon they won't have the financial support to keep going. I just hope it happens soon than later. I do know of a more CONSERVAtive wikiPEDIA-type site, but they cater to one small group; if your not in the group, it won't appeal to you. We need one that goes after the world! - BillCJ 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Braves

John Malone may not be a familiar name, but he is the head of Liberty Media and is slated to gain managing interest in the team if his corporation successfully purchases the franchise. Check out [12] to see for yourself.

I did check the Wiki article on him, and I saw where it said he was Interim CEO. I missed the other parts, sorry. THanks for the link. I had not heard his name in what I have read so far on the purchase, which is why I questioned the name's addition. If he is to have the managing intersts, then his name should be listed as Owner. Sorry for the contentiousness, but the Braves page atrracts a lot of sneaky vandalism. If it isn't sourced, or at least has an explanation in the summary, I question it, as Attribution is policy. - BillCJ 05:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

YAL-1

Expanded the article, could use a copy edit if you have time. This has been flying around here lately...looks really cool through the binocs, but hasn't come close enough to get a good clear photo with my 300mm lens. I've got a pic of the plane on the ground at EDW from overhead which I'll post in a bit, and I think I've got one of the nose of the Air India 747 sticking out of the building. Akradecki 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks for your support on the name. - BillCJ 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

AF1 pop culture AFD

Thank you for your kind words. SeizureDog's claim that failure to remove trivial additions to "in popular culture" sections is due to laziness is out of line. Even a cursory check of the edit histories of articles will show that "in popular culture" sections on high-traffic articles are frequently added to, even up to 5 times a day by different users. As you have noted, simply reverting such additions is problematic as it can skirt 3RR and may also discourage new users who edited in good faith (and I believe most such additions are made in good faith). Perhaps a hidden comment of the sort, "please do not add any entries to this section that are unsourced or do not specify the significance of the addition", will deter such additions.

The addition of "in popular culture" trivia is a problem, but so is the hurried nomination of such articles for deletion. I fully agree with you: it could not have caused any harm (and would, in fact, have been courteous) to note the issue on some article talk page or to contact the article's creator, especially since your first edit summary clearly indicates that the article is a split from another. After all, those editors working on Air Force One and Boeing VC-25 are the ones who will have to deal with the result of this article being deleted. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. We actually do have hidden in-text comments in the most cruft-prone articles, some even have two (top and bottom of edit section)! It may help some, but have the time they just delete the notes and add anyway. But at least in those cases, we can refer back to the notes in the edit summaries of the reversions. - BillCJ 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't think of any suggestions for the list for now. I will look for a source on the subject of "AF1 in pop culture/fiction" in the next couple of days. If I find something, I will get back to you or edit the article itself. -- Black Falcon 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BUFF?

Noticed you reverted my edit. This is not trivia. As a former BUFF mechanic, I can tell you that half the maintainers didn't know what a "Stratofortress" was. They were all BUFF's, always had been, always would be. I believe this transcends trivia as it is, indeed, a way of life. I'll cite the article on the A-10 Thunderbolt II which I currently work on. Not a SINGLE person in my 17-year career has EVER used the term "Thunderbolt II" to describe the aircraft. They're always "Hogs" or "Warthogs". The nickname is used there. I can also cite the article UH-1 Iroquois and I'll refrain from the others. Please discuss this in the BUFF article. --Asams10 06:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Habu Stories

Bill, thanks for your comment, re. Blackbird stories. Do you have an email I can reach you at outside of your discussion page here? David Dempster 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

B-52B citation

Bill, you pounced on me pretty darn quickly, within minutes of my entry, for being lazy on my citation. I had a phone call and the ref-format was not at the tip of my brain, and working a ten-hour day working on a F-111 and sundry of other shop duties, one is not 'sharp as a tack', please wait a day before being so critical. For being in Wiki-land for less that 30 days I've learned a lot. As for asking questions, and trying to get help.... I am still waiting for help on another article... and also noticed other editors asking questions (in Talk B-52) and not getting any answers from any one! Please have a little patience, thank you, LanceBarber 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I meant the the citation was lazy, not you in particular. There is one editor in particular who refuses to cite properly, and I am afraid I let that affect my attitude toward you. You are right, I did pounce quickly, and for that I apologize. Refs aren't my strong suit, but I'll be happy to answer the basics. As to the unanswered questions on the B-52 Talk page, I believe most of the recent ones have been dealt with. I don't usually answer questions older than a few months, unless they seem particularly relevant to the article now, at least from the point at which I add an article on my watchlist. One final thing: while it may seem harsh, I have found that reverting tends to get people's attention fairly quickly, and does help to get the issue solved faster. At least, that method seemed to work best when I was new myself, only 7 months ago. I try to be discerning about how I go about that, but I do make misjudgments, as your case is an exampke of. Again, I apologize, and if I can help in any way, do let me know. - BillCJ 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I do have a question... in a few "Reference" sections I've noticed a reflist line, how or why is it there? It is the B-52 Ref section. LanceBarber 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the code that makes the automatic footnotes work. It automatically formats the reference numbers for each individual reference, and also add the little letters every time the same reference is cited. If there are 2 existing references numbered 1 and 2, and a third one is added between the two, it renumbers them properly. the "reflist" just tells the wiki software where to put the list.

Check out Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info on how to use the footnote system. I don't quite understand it all yet myself enough to write a reference from memory, so I usually just copy someone else's reference in the same article (or another one if there aren't any there), and change it to fit my source. If I'm citing a book, I use another book reference, and if it's a web page, I use a web reference. THat at least let's me get by when I do need to add sources, which is not very often right now. - BillCJ 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ...... Thank you. LB

Bill, I always have these handy to refer to: {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}. Use these templates as prescribed from within the <ref> and </ref> tags

e.g. <ref name="name">{{cite web|url=http://www.url.com|title=Web page name}}</ref>

to get your inline references to appear in the references section. If I don't have time, I always at least try to put the external link as a reference

e.g. [http://www.wikipedia.org]

which shows as:[13] --Born2flie 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gripen and King Air

JAS 39 Gripen entry is updated with operators and potential operators lists. Unfortunately I have no exact data about operators of different versions of King Airs. --Piotr Mikołajski 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will check other sources, and see what I can find. - BillCJ 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IAI Kfir

Blackfalcon, could you look at the Talk:IAI Kfir page, and give me your opinion on the LTTE issue discussed there? It was very contensious several weeks ago, but has died down completely sunce just after I requested the page be protected. I proposed a solution 5 days ago, but have received no response whatsoever. Since you have been dealing with the issue in other areas, I would like your opinion on how to keep this as neutral as possible. Then I can request that the page be unprotected, and make the necessary changes. Thanks again. (POsting here to avoid re-escalating the issue by anyone involved in the issue elsewhere who may visit your page.) - BillCJ 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your proposed wording is neutral and also a reasonable compromise. "Rebel" is primarily a descriptive term that doesn't carry as many emotional connotations (in academic literature, it carries no such connotations) as "terrorist". Ideally, I think the section should only address the SLAF's Kfir fleet: e.g., "The SLAF's fleet currently includes # Kfirs" or "The SLAF operates # Kfirs". However, I have been unable to find sources for such precise figures, so your proposed wording is the best alternative. Most importantly, I agree with your point the article should be about the aircraft without reference to the political intricacies of various conflicts. I will reply to your other comment, on the future direction of the AF1 in pop culture article, after I've had some time to consider it. Black Falcon 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam templates

the spam templatse are {{spam}} through {{spam4}}. After a final "spam" warning they can be taken to WP:AIV. Hope that helps, as for the links, i cant view the site from where I currently am so I cannot make that decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

THanks, and no problem. - BillCJ 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CF questions

Bill, I have some questions for you to satisfy my curiosity, not of high importance, so don't research a book-level answer). An off-the-cuff answer is fine, or maybe a point in the right direction for a more detailed answer.

First, it's apparent from photos and literature that the CF was called the "Canadian Armed Forces" when it was formed in 1968. When did the name become "Canadian Forces"? 1975? It's not clear in the Wiki article when this occured or was CAF just an informal name?

Second, I know the unifed CAF used a single Army-style rank and ratings structure from 1968-1975. I know the Navy ranks were restored, but Air Command did not return to RAF style ranks. Do you know why the RAF ranks weren't used? and did the fact that USAF uses Army ranks play any part in this decision?

Just curious. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Still curious. :) - BillCJ 14:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi BillCJ, Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier because I was tied up in the running of an aviation convention in Winnipeg, but here is the background on the Canadian Forces. Prior to 1968, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) was a separate air force utilizing the RAF rank structure: Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman, Leading Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman, Corporal, Sergeant, Flight Sergeant, Warrant Officer 2nd Class, Warrant Officer 1st Class, Flight Cadet, Pilot Officer, Flying Officer, Flight Lieutenant, Squadron Leader, Wing Commander, Group Captain, Air Commodore, Air Vice Marshal, Air Marshal, Air Chief Marshal and Marshal of the RCAF.

On 1 February 1968, the armed forces of Canada were "unified" and all the forces came under the umbrella of the "Canadian Armed Forces" utilizing Army ranks (except for Canada's "senior service" which steadfastly refused to give up their rank structure and continued to use their original ranks surripticiously and continue to do so to this day with only Lieutenant (N) and Captain (N) being differentiated from other ranks by the use of the N designation).

On 1 April 1975, the Canadian Armed Forces became "disarmed" to become the "Canadian Forces" with the air force allowed to retain their original individual identity, although the Army rank structure was maintained, with a slight variance: Private, Master Corporal (a new rank), Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer, Chief Warrant Officer, Officer Cadet, 2nd Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier-General, Major-General, Lieutenant-General and General (no equivalency for Marshal of the RCAF).

Somewhere in 1990s, the term, "Canada's Air Force" began to be used, although unofficially, by members of the air force. Apparently, the Protocol Officer for the Air Command began to use the designation on documents and gradually, the practice caught on. Now, even on the official Canadian Forces web site, Canada's Air Force appears, along with a curious variation, the "Canadian Air Force" (which originated in 1918 and continued in use until 1924). As to why the air force retained Army ranks has a lot to do with the close collaboration of the Canadian air force with the USAF in NATO and especially NORAD combined units. As the influence of the British Commonwealth also began to wane in the 1960s, it was also inevitable that American military conventions would predominate. Anyway, I hope this answers your questions. Bzuk 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. Most of the history I was somewhat aware of, but really hadn't heard an explanation of why there wasn't a return to the Commonwealth-style air force ranks. For the most part, the rest of the NATO air forces also use the army ranks of their respective services, but I agree the USAF was probably the biggest influence. - BillCJ 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

American and British English spelling differences

Bill, thanks so much for the link on Talk:The_A-Team to the article American and British English spelling differences. Not only is it comprehensive, as you stated, it's also well written, well referenced, and damn interesting! I'm always glad to be pointed to an interesting article that will increase my knowledge, so thanks again. The globetrotter 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Since you liked that, be sure to check the articles under the "See also" heading at the bottom or the page. THey cover diferences other than spelling, one on grammar in particular is also intersting. Also, I moved your new additions to the Cultural effects of The A-Team page. It already has info on the reunion special, but I don't think the petion drive is there yet. - BillCJ 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Bill, and for the move too- i'd not spotted the linked page. I did wonder if I was missing something when I didn't spot any reference to the C4 special, because it certainly recieved a fair amount of press coverage in the UK. The petition is just plain odd, but if you cast a glance over the E-petition part of the 10 Downing Street, you'll be amazed at what petitions they have given permission to- it's true democracy in action (and hence there have been many reports suggesting it'll be closed down soon!) The globetrotter 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Navy HH-1N stopped by today....

We had a freak blizzard today at Mojave (actual, real snow, 40+ winds blowing it horizonallty, really cool stuff...of course, it melted as soon as it hit the ground, but hey....), which caught a China Lake VX-11 HH-1N in our pattern, so he landed and hung out at our place till the storm passed...of course, I took the opportunity with the camera. Already added 3 images to the UH-1N article, thought you'd like to see these. Akradecki 05:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• 
  In the pattern as the storm moves in, catching the helo in the last bit of sun
• 
  The HH-1N with our 412 in the background...interesting 212/412 comparison
• 
  The requisite reflection pic
• 
  storm's gone, time to go home

Thanks! THey're great. I stuck the 212/412 pic on the Bell company page, as the other articles are pretty crowded now. Thanks again! - BillCJ 05:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On vacation...need you to watch something for me...

Hi Bill, I'm leaving for a few days vacation with the family, will be taking my laptop, but no guarentee that I'll be able to stop in. A fairly new user, User talk:BQZip01 has added a couple of pics to the CV-22 article and has been insisting on hard-coding the thumb sizes. I've tried explaining the system to him, and have reverted his repeated hard coding (Signaleer all over again!), but he doesn't seem to get it. Can you double check what I wrote on his talk page, to make sure I adequately explained it, and keep an eye out on the article for me while I'm gone? Thanks! Akradecki 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've been watching him, and you've been doing fine. I dealt with him before, so if it continues to be a problem, I'll try to talk to him. I was doing the same thing he is now with the thumbs before it was explained to me why we don't do it. Have a good vacation, and God bless. - BillCJ 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MiG-21 Lancer spelling

Hi Bill, I have some kind of edit war on Romanian Air Force article. User Eurocopter tigre insist on writing name of upgraded Romanian MiG-21 version LanceR not Lancer.

I've checked spelling on official Romanian AF site and they call it Lancer. User Eurocopter tigre claims that MoD official site support his version but didn't provided any links.

Google search shows Lancer much more often than LanceR. Lancer spelling is supported by Federal Aviation Administration, Aerostar S.A. company profile on NATO site, Defense Update online bi-monthly defense magazine published in UK or German large site about MiG-21s. Even my ultimate oracle, Jane's website shows Lancer spelling so I think this is the proper one.

Of course I can revert Eurocopter tigre's edition, but this is "edit war" and I want to avoid it. Can you be judge in this discussion? --Piotr Mikołajski 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see if I can help. I'm usually in the middle of a discussion, not arbitrating one, but if I can help, I will. Would including "LanceR" as an option (ie. the Lancer (sometimes spelled LanceR, is . . . ) be an acceptable soulution to you? If it is, let me know here, and I'll suggest it there, as he may be more accepting of an outsider's soulution. - BillCJ 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, your solution is acceptable, I'm not kind of stubborn donkey :o) --Piotr Mikołajski 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bell 222.jpg

Whoa, I'm so sorry about that. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll be more careful next time. So everything is resolved now? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)