User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 6

'Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks! Akradecki 23:41, 12 September 2006 (CST)'

Extraordinary rendition
Hello Akradecki! I quite agree with your recent revert on the article, which makes me again think that the best way to proceed, at least for the intro, is too keep to factual description of the process, without entering rhetorics and politico-ideological debates. I wonder what you thought about the draft I submitted, of if you saw any problems in it. We should really keep debates and commentaries, such as calling the term "torture by proxy", in a subsection (which could be divised into "supporters" and "critics"). However, I really think, although it is sometimes difficult to do, that first dividing facts & commentaries is a very important thing to do here, and that, at the end, the importance of facts largely precede commentaries (although clearly justifications of ER as well as critics are also historical facts which must be inserted, but maybe not in the intro). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 10:19, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Warning: You are in viloation of Three-revert rule:    --Philip Baird Shearer 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for warning me...I've reported myself to an admin. However, I would caution you back that the proper procedure is to not readd material until consensus is reached. It doesn't matter that you added it in 2005. The current text was achieved by consensus, and it is wrong of you to change it while discussion is underway. Akradecki 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that the WP:3RR violation was inadvertant. I cant see blocking for something done on accident, and being the 1st reversion was so far back in the 24 hour period, it seems like a plausible mistake.  I reccomend working out or I will kindly protect the page until it gets works out. (Unfortunatly, that is sometimes the only way to stop edit warring and force discourse). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no need for you to have done that, (I am an administrator) however if it was a mistake, as Chris Kreider believes it to be, I would expect you to revert you last revert as an act of good faith. -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He does have a valid point here. As a gesture of good faith here I would reccomend reverting the last revert you made.  (Just a friendly reccomendation). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Yes, I understand consensus changes, and it's perfectly valid to bring an issue back up. But when you're informed that the current state of things was based on a lot of work to build a consensus, I would expect that you would respect that, especially as an admin, and follow the correct path of discussing first before repeatedly insisting on your way. Akradecki 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When do you think this consensus was built and reachd? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you might want to read WP:Consensus for that answer. The way it worked last time the lead paragraph was hashed out, a proposal was made, discussed, changes suggested, and eventually it got to the point that everyone involved, while they might not have been perfectly happy, could say "I can live with that". It certainly isn't reached when an editor comes along, ignores Wikipedia guidelines on the subject, insists that his wording is the only acceptable version, won't discuss, won't accept compromise, and continually tries to re-add material in violation of the guideline, which clearly says it should be discussed first. Read through the earlier consensus-building thread, and you will find that it worked smoothly, because everyone involved expressed respect, though not always agreement. The main problem here is that by so tenaciously insisting on re-adding your material, you show bad faith and a distinct lack of respect for the other editors. It is, unfortunately, very difficult then to build consensus in that respect-lacking environment. But, as an admin, I would have expected you to know that. (Oh, and to answer your actual question more specifically, there was extensive discussion which resulted in this dif which was agreed upon at the time by all actively involved, and as evidenced by the stability the lead paragraph enjoyed in the immediate thereafter).Akradecki 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to the "extensive discussion" you mention that took place on and around the 22 February "which was agreed upon at the time by all actively involved". I am a little confused how you thought that there was a consensus as I made this edit to the article and this edit to the talk page both on the the 22 February, (that was between the first (Tazmaniacs 23:11, 21 February) and the second (Kaisershatner 17:02, 22 February 2007) proposed drafts). BTW the term "torture by proxy" has been discussed several times before (see the talk archives) and I had specifically mentioned the issue in this section Talk:Extraordinary_rendition/archive1, so it is not as if this term was sprung on you by surprise.  --Philip Baird Shearer 09:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject_Space reorganisation
Hi, it has been suggested here that the project WikiProject Mars spacecraft is to be depreciated. It's proposed that its duties be split between WikiProject Mars, and WikiProject Space Exploration, in order to increase the critical mass. If you have an opinion concering this, could you leave on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Reorganisation page, thanks, sbandrews 12:25, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Metroliner
Alan, thanks for following up on the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner. Based on our mergers of the Gulfstream military models with the civil versions, I figured it be OK to merge in C-26 page, which was pretty pitiful by itself. Thanks again for the clean-up. - BillCJ 23:28, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Powered lift
Can you take a look at the Powered lift article. I'm about to taks an axe to it, especially the summaries on the Harrier, V-22, and BA-609 (they are summaries now!). We don't list descriptions of every type on the Helicopter page, so I don't think this is needed here. However, I don't know much about the FAA category (Born2flie confirmed to me that this category does exist), so I'm really not sure what should be here. Thanks! (Even if you found the page on your own this time too. :) ) - BillCJ 11:57, 28 February 2007 (CST)

assessment template
The problem was that it should be used without the quotation marks : Aircraft-project=yes. I fixed it, so you can take a look at it now to see the result. Perhaps I should remove the quotation marks from the instructions? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:12, 28 February 2007 (CST)
 * Oh, wait. I see the problem is that when no class is entered it doesn't put it in the project's unassessed category. I'll try to fix that now. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs)
 * Ok, it should be working now. "Category:Unassessed (PROJECT) article" now shows up. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:20, 28 February 2007 (CST)
 * Yup, it should be doing that as well now too. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:20, 1 March 2007 (CST)

TU-144
You added a note to someone on my welcome page. :)  Jo  e  I  23:51, 2 March 2007 (CST)

T-6 Texan II
Thanks for helping out on the T-6 Texan II merge. I found the CT-156 page from a link on the Canadian Forces Air Commamnd navbox. It's amazing the orphaned pages that are Wiki. I did alot of work on the T-6 II several weeks ago, and had no clue the CT-156 page even existed! Sounds a lot like the RC-12 situation we ran into a few weeks back. Maybe we should suggest something on WP:AIR to find orphaned and neglected articles. I'm not sure the best way to find them, but we could use a list somewhere of the ones that are found, so the project members can know where they are, and give them some attention.

On another subject, I've tagged the Air FOrce One article for a split to make a Boeing VC-15 page for the aircraft themselves. the Navy one and Marine one pages both deal with the name and its usage only, with coverage of the aircraft on other pages. (Marine Onne does cover the helicopters in some detail, but not AF1 on the VC-25.) I have a test page for the VC-25 up at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3, but not for the AF1 as yet. I plan to keep the history of all the planes as they are for now on AF1, but take out those details relating specifically to the VC-25s, like the Infobox, specs, etc.

On the test page, the Intro needs alot of work, as right now its basically the Intro from the AF1 stuck under the Intro from the Boeing C-32. I don't foresee any major ojections to the split, but so far have gotten no comments either way. Thanks for whatever you can do; I'm not in a hurry. - BillCJ 14:50, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Doug Shane
Sigh. I don't really have the time or inclination to get involved in administrator action, but I'm definately frustrated by this too. Including the infobox isn't consistent with the discussion on Astronaut like Rillian claims, but it is consistent with the Astronaut article itself, as Rillian has it worded currently. Personally, I've never thought of people who haven't flown in space and aren't trained by a government space flight program to be astronauts, and I don't think most people do either, but I can't find a good source to back that up. It just seems to be common sense that this guy isn't an astronaut – but Rillian can be tough to convince. My editing philosophy is usually to cede disputes about things that aren't terribly important, and put my time to use on other articles. — Swpb talk contribs 22:04, 3 March 2007 (CST)


 * Sounds good - your argument is very cogent, and Rillian is definately in the wrong on this one. — Swpb talk contribs 10:39, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * Not sure what you're referring to re: "Unsourced content". I'm adding an infobox, not content. This same infobox is present on all other people listed on List of astronauts by selection. Why would Shane and Siebold be different? Regards, Rillian 11:26, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * Still unsure what you're referring to re: "Unsourced content". I'm adding an infobox, not content. This same infobox is present on all other people listed on List of astronauts by selection. Why would Shane and Siebold be different? Regards, Rillian 11:26, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * So they can be listed as "Astronauts" on SpaceShipOne, they can be included in the List of astronauts by selection, but based on your personal opinion, they can't have the same infobox as everyone else in those categories? Intriguing. Best regards, Rillian 09:29, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * Wahkeenah put it best on the Astronaut Talk page "Unless there is an authoritative body that has official authority to define what the word "astronaut" precisely means, and can be cited, then the broadest possible definition would seem to be required. Wahkeenah 22:18, 7 February 2007 (CST)" Cheers, Rillian 09:36, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * You're taking his comment out of context. He also said, "An astronaut is a space-traveler. (So is a cosmonaut). Unless there is some Astronauts Union that claims some legal status that one can't be called "astronaut" unless one is a professional astronaut." In context, he was talking about professional verses passengers in terms of who gets called an astronaut. Doug Shane didn't even fly SS1! He's a great test pilot and a classy, honorable man. He'd be horrified to know that he's being given a title that's not his. Akradecki 10:52, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Avro Arrow
Hi Mr. Akradecki, 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).
 * Alan, that you for your note. Yes, I am extremely reluctant to actually quote from my own books. The one article where that has been an issue on Wikipedia is the Avrocar (aircraft) article where there are very few authoritatitive references sources on an obsure topic. I have done my best to support the article from other sources but since the majority of the original edit came from another editor, it was difficult at times not to refer to the material that was found in my books. BTW, thanks for your support in the awkward situation I have encountered in the Avro CF-105 article. Bzuk 10:38 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Alan:

If a rewrite of the CF 105 article is done,the thesis  http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm

Gives original sourcing,& is "accurate"as a guide.

If we do not rewrite,I would suggest that we cut the "Political & Black Friday" sections right out of the Article. These two sections are embarrassing to wikipedia. Mr. Campania, as a source, is "special" at best.

Heck, Arthur Haileys' "in High Places" Novel, fictionalizing the Arrow  cancellation, is a 'published work,' too. }:-')

I believe Bill & I have "truced".

regards

Opuscalgary 16:46, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * Hi, In regards to your question about UAVs, I actually just chose a random Aircraft Stub to work on. Thank you for offering to help me find a topic though. Currently I'm just starting off here at wikipedia and was looking for a page to start off on.

California Sublettes
I have a brother in Rancho Cucamonga who created the Nuclear Weapons FAQ page on the the web, but I'm not directly related to the gentleman you met. However all Sublette/Sublett/Soublet, et al, are kin in one family tree...

Mark Sublette 13:38, 5 March 2007 (CST)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 13:38, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Your Request
Sorry to take so long to get to your request. I had a busy weekend and was out sick monday. I am looking into things now. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 07:42, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks Chris, I see he's done it again this morning, and also removed the unsourced warning I posted to his talk page (I've put it back). Isn't removal of warnings frowned upon? Akradecki 09:18, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * yea, it is. If they archive it isent as much frowned upon.  I will have a "talk" with them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 09:19, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Redlinks
Good day, you recently reverted a red link out of the CH-46 Sea Knight site and only stated "don't create redlinks." May I ask why and by what means do you believe that? There is already precedence of red links in this article in addition to many other articles. --Trashbag 17:03, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Airliners Link
Ok, so now why delete the link to photos on Airliners.net from the Chinook site? Again, you are not being consistent as the other pages that you have removed red link (and not all of them mind you). Did you feel the link did not work appropriately? Signed: Lost in the Whirlwind of Deletions... --Trashbag 17:31, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * If I deleted a legit link, I apologize. Akradecki 21:17, 6 March 2007 (CST)

User:76.20.34.20
I noticed you reverted User:76.20.34.20's additions on the Talk:B-52 Stratofortress as vandalism. I've been observing this guy for a few weeks, and he edits mostly Vietnam-era US warplane articiles. He has been inserting a lot of info lately, primarily from a book by Hobson (what he inserted that you thought was vandalism) on US activities in the war.

His major problem is that he seems to have no interest in learning how to use Wiki's proceedures to cite his additions properly. I do believe he has registered (I forget what name), but has gone back to his IP for the last few days. Other editors have posted links on how to cite on his IP userpage, but he has eitehr not bothered to read them, or otherwise ignored them. Since diplomacy is not my strong suit, I haven't directly approached him on the issue beyond my usual edit-summary mini-lectures. Just wanted to let you know what was up with him. - BillCJ 18:04, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Hi Bill, thanks for the heads-up - I thought he was just inserting a grafitti name. As far as I'm concerned, though, the usefulness of such a "citation" is next to nothing. Akradecki 21:21, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Incidentally, the Chris Hobson source is THE complete listing of fixed-wing attrition during the war in SEA...

Mark Sublette 12:45, 7 March 2007 (CST)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 12:45, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Sounds like a good resource, it's just improper formatting, I guess. Do you have it? Can you add a properly formatted ref for it? Akradecki 12:53, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Yea, I own a copy - although right now it is on loan to RMGillespie who has been working on the Rolling Thunder wiki article...

Mark Sublette 13:24, 7 March 2007 (CST)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 13:24, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Roundels
Unfortunately, I don't know about availability of roundels. Most articles just use national flags (see UH-60 Black Hawk for example}. You might want to drop the question on the Aircraft Project talk page, though. Unrelated to that...is your father in the Southern California area? I was introduced to an elderly Sublette (can't remember first name or rank) by some friends at the Mojave Airport a few years back, during a Veteran's Day celebration. Just thought it might be a small world. Akradecki 08:57, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Two thoughts - there were two Sublette families bumping around the USAF when my Dad was in - we ran into them, usually responding at the base pharmacy for "prescriptions for Sublette"! The last time I remember encountering them was circa 1971-72 at the Norton Air Force Base dispensary in San Bernardino, California... That may be the Sublette you encountered...

Also - in regard to roundels - the Hercules has been used in both civil and military operation - I am using flagicons for the civilian registered aircraft, and roundels for the military.

Mark Sublette 01:51, 8 March 2007 (CST)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:51, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 09:51, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Suggest
Thanks for previous help with Chilwell School. However I think your recent revert was a bit over enthusiastic - I was showing budding wikipedians how to help with "the task". I think you might have left it 24 hours as it wasnt vandalism. Congrats on 8000 edits and your recent barnstar Victuallers 09:54, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Extra space
I removed the extra space between the last two paragraphs of Passengers on RMS Titanic. You reverted it back. But why? Is there a reason for the extra space? It doesn't look very neat, it looks like someone just stuck an extra space there. 72.16.224.150 13:44, 12 March 2007 (CST)

Thanx
Thanks for the welcome in my talk page =) Chofo1979 14:50, 12 March 2007 (CST)

EC-18 ARIA
There seems to have some confusion regarding the EC-18B ARIA. It was origianlly part of the "ARIA" page, but most of the page dealt with the EC-135N/E aircraft used for that mission. We merged the ARIA page into the EC-135 article, and and now the links in the C-137 Stratoliner for the EC-18B end up in the EC-135 article. Some changed the EC-18 link today to Boeing 707. Since there is no text in the EC-135 page describing the EC-18, I think maybe we should find a blurb on it (and the C-18 too), and put thatg in the C-137 article for now, with the C-18/EC-18 links redirecting there. THoughts? - BillCJ 17:30, 12 March 2007 (CST)
 * Ah, I knew there was a link I'd missed a while back. I've redirected it to Boeing_707, where all the C-18 variants are currently listed. I did this mainly to make them all consistent; I have no objection to putting the info on the C-137 page and make that one the central repository for the military 707 variants. Akradecki 19:07, 12 March 2007 (CST)

Bell 204/205
Do you have any pics of Bell 204s or 205s in civilian colors? You can place them on User:BillCJ/Test Article 3‎ if you have any. I'm not in any hurry, since I'll probably have to write text for the civil models. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:49, 15 March 2007 (CST)
 * Does County Fire Dept colors count as civilian? I think Kern Co.'s gorgeous ship is a 205...will double check. Akradecki 08:47, 15 March 2007 (CST) Never mind...just found out that it's an old H model. Akradecki 08:49, 15 March 2007 (CST)

By civilian, I mean non-military. I think we could include former military models in civilian service in the article, at least a brief text mention, at least enough to justify a few pretty pics. - BillCJ 11:38, 15 March 2007 (CST)
 * Sounds good. It is definitely a pretty helicopter! Helitack 408 was, afterall, rebuilt to 205 standards. Also, you might want to consider including the B210 in the article. If you're not familiar with it, it's the current "production" civilian version. Essentially, Bell is taking old H-model airframes, completely disassemblying them and rebuilding them as "new" FAA-certificated aircraft. The main difference between the 205 and 210 is that the 210 uses the 212 rotor system. Akradecki 12:22, 15 March 2007 (CST)

OK, good. I've heard of the 210 briefly; it looks odd being mentioned on the UH-1 page, so I think this will be a better fit, esp as we want to cover civilian use/conversion of former military models. Thanks for the siggestion! - BillCJ 12:39, 15 March 2007 (CST)

I see you noticed I put the Bell 205 water-dropping pic on the Aerial firefighting page. I was going to put it in the 204/205 test page, but I noticed the link to the fire page, so I checked it out. It didn't have a pic of a copter dropping water (just the Squirrel playing in a pool!), so ego! I couldn't really make up my my mind which of your three pics to use, so that helped me decide. Any suggestions on your preferences would be fine. Thanks again. - BillCJ 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No prefs...I hadn't even thought of that page, so thanks! Akradecki 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I absolutely love that Kern pic in the lead of the 204/205 article. I just get goose bumbs everytime the page loads - It's awesome! All we need now is the noise! - BillCJ 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Patrick and the crew over at Helitack 408 are good friends, and I think they'll be tickled as well. That's also about the cleanest, most highly polished 205 I've ever been around. We keep our 412 really clean, but 408 puts it to shame!. Akradecki 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaccaro and IP address edits
In all honesty, I'm not sure if I'll keep monitoring things over the next few days, but he's spamming a lot of articles; you could probably get the admins involved. I reverted spam edits advertising his book on Long Island and Hofstra University, for example. Judging from the page histories, this appears to be what he's editing under: 147.4.193.62, 24.47.38.240, 24.45.138.245, 24.45.139.62, 12.26.69.43, CRV338, 147.4.141.113, and 147.4.160.58. He's also twice tried to upload images; one got zapped according to his talk page, and the other appears to be a bad upload. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 13:03, 15 March 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I work well with an admin, and I've already asked him to take a look. I'll watchlist those other pages. Thanks! Akradecki 13:04, 15 March 2007 (CST)
 * I will also watch those pages (as an admin). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine you've probably figured this out already, but if you've not, a brief stopover at Hofstra's employee directory and student e-mail search has indicated Hofstra's not hiring anyone by the name of "Mike Petrocelli." And, of course, the Contribution history of the posting IP is a little telling, too.  This is getting a bit funny. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 20:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Twin Hueys
Alan, I've also been working on the UH-1N Twin Huey and UH-1Y Venom articles. As explained on their talk pages, I am trying out a merged article on User:BillCJ/Test Article 4. Can you take a look and let me know what you think works best? Thanks. - BillCJ 18:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the UH-1N: when you state "since it's a popular aircraft under this name in the civilian world)", do you mean that the Ns are often called 212s in the civilian world? We do have the 212 page for the civilain variant, so I just want to be sure I undersatnd what you mean. - BillCJ 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dang, I'd forgotten about the 212 page. Yes, Ns brought into the civilian world sometimes are referred to as 212s. For example, the one that lives 2 hangars down, a retired Canadian CUH-1N/CH-135, operated by NTPS, is FAA-registered as a 212. If we're gonna have separate articles (which I certainly don't object to!), maybe to avoid confusion, in the N article, the designation "212" shouldn't be generally used in the text (as it is in the opening paragraph), to avoid confusion.Akradecki 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you might have forgotten, but was giving you the benefit of the doubt. THe text is from the 212 page, so it still needs tweaking in that regard. THe development part of the text is the same on both pages too, but different when it starts referring to models. I'll be trying to work on adding some text to both pages, but I have printed sources, so it may take awhile. - BillCJ 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the UH-1Y, I had read somewhere, back when they were going to do rebuilds of the N, that they had decided to keep the old N/212 nose. THe pics I've seen of the UH-1Y look like the old nose to me. Now that most Y's will be rebuilds, things may have changed tho. - BillCJ 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right on the nose. The 412's is a little longer, to accomodate more avionics. Can't really tell from the pics. FWIW, the Y also has a number of other differences from the 212/412 that I've noticed: The landing gear crosstubes are different, obviously it has a different T/R (and on the opposite side), and the elevators have been moved quite a bit. Akradecki 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Found out I was wrong about the nose difference. Our 412s have an extended nose to accomodate radar, but it's not standard. The standard 212 and 412 noses are the same. Akradecki 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for your wellcome :-) Taeedxy 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Making your own doors
You can't put your own doors on airplanes??? Wow!!! Hilarious! And keeps edit summaries from being such a bore too. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Only convertable tops ;P Akradecki 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwings Award
(moved to my userpage Akradecki 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC))


 * No sweat. You've been working hard and deserve to be recognized. It was my pleasure! --Born2flie 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

767
I know. It cannot be added later. I never agreed with that. I just confirmed that guys statement that the plane can have 290 seats.--Bangabalunga 15:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky template
When you have time, could you look at Template:Sikorsky Aircraft? I don't mind doing the heavy formatting work, but just wany some ideas on layout. You can reply on Template talk:Sikorsky Aircraft, as the discussion might be useful to other editors.

I want to list all the company "S" numbers, even for military models; then I would list the military designations in the next section. It'll be a little different layout than the other comanies (byt type, or civil and military models), but I think it'll work. - BillCJ 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think having both the S and the military listings are a good idea, as it helps folks navigate better. Other than that, layout looks straight-forward Akradecki 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. I think I got all the Bells out, but you might want to double check. The only redlink I have is the "S-60". I think this is a piston-engine crane based on the H-37, and formed the basis for the CH-54. THere's no text anywhere on it that I could find, so I'm leaving it blank for now. If it's just a modified H-37, then I may place something there under variants. - BillCJ 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the crane. Check out this link and image of it! I'll hop over now and take a look.... Akradecki 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
(moved). Wow...Chris, that was a big encouragement (to keep following the rules, that is!!). Akradecki 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Antelope Valley
Thanks for adding the reflist to this page. I was just trying to figure out how to do that, and when I returned from the Help page you'd already done it for me. Please forgive my learning curve. Also, I'll leave the section header as just plain "geography", but the problem is that most people don't understand that that means people as well as place. I agree about keeping headers simple and in line with typical wiki format. Meanwhile I'll continue to work on expanding the content in an accurate, descriptive way.Nelsonalyssa 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

King Air/Super King Air
Alan, I just ran in the the Beechcraft King Air article again with its merge tag. There hasn't been a vote since Feb. 17. THe tally is 2 yeses (you and me), a qualified yes, and a qualified no. Both qualifications have suggestions on how towo split if if do it, and I see no problems implementing those, as we also mentioned them to each other. Do you want to go ahead and split it now, or tak the tag off, and wait until the article expands some more? - BillCJ 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for it, if you have the time. From the heated battle I've been in over at Extraordinary Rendtion, I've learned that, according to Consensus, "silence equals consent" as the ulitmate test of consensus...so, sounds good to me. By the way, if you get a chance, the new Boeing NC-135 article I started could probably use a proofread. Akradecki 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I've learned this week that if you believe an article is an indiscriminate liste, you aren't obligated to exercise basic courtesy in anyway to communicate with the article's editors, and can go straight to the AFD process.

I've seen the Boeing NC-135 article. do you have any pics slated for there yet? Other tnan that, I haven't looked at in detail, but I will. - BillCJ 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On the King Air (90 and 100), I can find only 3 pics, 2 of military modles. DO you know of any more on Wiki somewhere else? I didn't see any others on the King Air commons page. - BillCJ 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't off-hand, but I'm sure I can come up with some.... Akradecki 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've got the split completed, but the Intro/Lead still needs some rewriting. Also, the operators section in both articles still covers both KA and SKA. I might contact Piotr, the resident Operators guru, and see if he can help sort them out. Copy throught the text may still need tweaking to refer to the right modles, and the part on production covers both. Everything else looks pretty good. - BillCJ 05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I found two fairly nice pics on other language Wikis. The Japanese site has a nice pic of a C90 at ja:画像:JMSDF LC90 YokotaAB.jpg. The Polish version has a striking B200 at pl:Grafika:Beechcraft Super King Air B200 vr.jpg. One is PD, and the other is GNU. See what you think. - BillCJ 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely like the 200, and I think the 90 is a dramatic angle and striking in its own way, but what turns me off about it is the lack of view of the cabin windows. Might be a great one for the PT6A page, and I can see it being used on the KA page until a better one is found. Akradecki 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Washington, DC Climate
I'm sorry, I don't see what is redundant or confusing about the edits I made. If anything, I believe I corrected wording that was redundant and confusing. —Gintar77 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the majority of your sentence had just been stated, and in this country (as reflected in the preceding sentence), they're called "hurricanes". If you say "tropical cyclone", most American's won't have a clue as to what you're talking about. If your point was that it's inland and that's what protects the city, just add a phrase to the existing sentence to that effect. Akradecki 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you pay attention to the changes I actually made vice the ones of my predecessor. Please, be more careful when reverting edits.
 * As far as the term "tropical cyclone" goes, when referring to my edits, I chose "tropical cyclones" over "hurricanes" because a hurricane is a type of tropical cyclone, along with tropical storms and tropical depressions. (This is the definition by the US National Hurricane Center (see here). The hurricane page after all redirects to tropical cyclone. —Gintar77 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I reset the page to your edit. When I saw it, only part of your edit showed up...if I'd seen what the diff shows now, I wouldn't have done that. Akradecki 04:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

MD 500
I just saw the new pics you added there. Thanks! I don't have chilren, you know, I have Wiki articles! - BillCJ 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've got kids and wikiarticles! That 500 was the Kern Co. Sheriff's, which stopped by for lunch the other day. Akradecki 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

MiG-21 edit
Alan, I didn't removed past operators, just split operators to current and former. I've removed North Vietnam entry only, but it was doubled with Vietnam so no data was lost. --Piotr Mikołajski 14:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. In fact when I saw over 900 bytes removed I thought that I removed sth important but it were "no longer in service" phrases only. --Piotr Mikołajski 15:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO it should be posted into Foreign versions - India. There is some info about bad reputation of IAF MiGs and you can put few words and references there. --Piotr Mikołajski 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For catching and fixing my mistake - quite embarrassing given that I routinely admonish everyone else about it. I inadvertently dropped the link when I pasted the wording from the article. Thanks again, Crum375 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. I don't know if you work in aviation, but I do, and we always watch each other's back.... Akradecki 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's say I work 'with' aviation, and I do appreciate the help. Crum375 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nominee
I just saw that 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash has been nominated for a Good Article review. You did great work on putting that together, so congratulations! - BillCJ 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was taken aback a little when I saw that...of course, that was probably one of the most fascinating ones to write. We'll see how it goes. Akradecki 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! It has made Good Article! Anyway, it was fascinating to watch you put it together, and is a great read on a interesting though sobering topic. Good job, and the GA is well deserved. - BillCJ 17:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1989 and other '80s articles
I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but I'd be willing to help you with sprotecting those other articles.

Which years are the ones with the heaviest amount of reverts and vandals?

Bkissin 00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation dab - your "Take it ti the talk page" edit summary
I thought you had already removed my entry again and so did not reply immediately to your comments on my Talk page. I have other things going on in life and didn't know I was on your timer. I'll leave the entry out; I've run out of energy for wikilawyering trivial issues. I still think all those Cessna entries belong in the Cessna Citation article, I haven't seen any similar model-number enumerating dabs elsewhere. --CliffC 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

CV-22 Images
Akradecki, why make these images smaller? The detail shown at the level I intentionally put them at allows for detail not otherwise visible (i.e. the two in formation, you cannot now see the back one's windows at all. Nothing in Extended image syntax explicitly states that it MUST be in the THUMB format. If it must be, then all of the aircraft pages need to be redone since almost all use the Infobox Aircraft layout and those pictures are too large. I am reverting your changes accordingly. BQZip01 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the max resolution available, so size is the issue here. While the picture size can be controlled by adjusting your preferences, the default is 180px. By increasing the size, it will increase the picture quality for almost everyone unless their settings are higher (most people don't adjust this setting). Please leave it as-is. BQZip01 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved this discussion to the V-22 discussion page so everyone can have input on this.BQZip01 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was nice to get away with the family for a while. Hope all has been quite.... Akradecki 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki world got a little crazy april fools. But aside from that, all iw well.  I did get a good april fools on BillCJ, when i "retired" as part of an april fools joke.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

S-64
Could you check out the CH-54 Tarhe, S-64 Skycrane, and Erickson Air-Crane‎ pages for me? I have full, dulicate explanations on each article's talk page. Just do whatever you think is necessary, clean-up, expansion, copy-edits, whatever you see needs to be done. If you see anything major that needs fixing and really don't want to do it yourself, just let me know. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill, a quick note b/c I didn't want your request to go ignored...I've been a bit swamped since getting back...(9.5 hours of track-and-balance on the 412 yesterday also took its toll!), will try to take a look at them this afternoon. Akradecki 15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem! - BillCJ 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)