User talk:BilCat/archive2

Chattanooga
Bill, I added some information to the CHATTANOOGA page since I have lived in this city my whole life. You removed it as biased information with no source. How can you and I discuss this? If you could send me an e-mail I will reply. This wikipedia manner of "talk" is so confusing to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to edit someone else's page as a manner of sending a message to them and then looking at your own page to see the reply. Is their a better way to communicate or could we just go to the email idea? I'm lost! axelrose1Axelrose1 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Axel, you are doing just fine. I can answer here. You have provided no source at all, and with the kind of information you posted, you have to have one. It is my opinion that your info is biased, especially since it makes conclusions as to what others are thinking, and does not present a balanced view of the issue. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. What goes in to an article must also be notable, and I don't thibk this issue is. Again, that's my opinion, but it is up to you to provide verifiable sources, and to prove its notability. I hope this helps. I don't give out my email to Wikipedia members until I know someone really well. Just safer that way. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to revert your sweet cheeks BillCJ Qmax 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, not QUITE sure what that's supposed to mean. I assume you saw what I reverted, but am not sure on that either! - BillCJ 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE
Have you ever considered using an automated vandalism reversion/warning script like WP:TWINKLE? When viewing a diff, or when looking at the list of a user's contributions, there's a quick "revert vandalism" link available to you. It also automatically opens the user's talk page, and provided a menu that automatically adds your chosen level of vandalism warning. This way it takes you only about 30 seconds to complete a reversion/warning. I've talked to you before about vandalism warnings, so I know that you doubt the usefulness of this system and feel that it is a waste of your time. However, you don't have to be the one to notice the vandalism four times. Incremental warnings from several editors, rather than a single editor devoting his or her time to watching a specific vandal, are what often lead to a user/IP block. I've also noticed that many vandals stop after a single warning. Just knowing that their vandalism will not be tolerated is enough to deter non-driven vandals. Sancho (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Mark Levin (again...)
We have a rather strident editor insisting that labelling the subject as "ultra-right wing" and "not interested in free-exchange of ideas..." is not inherantly POV. Seems pretty cut and dried if it goes 3RR, but could use some help in reverting.

Links: ,, , ,

NYCTommy


 * FWIW, I've warned him, but he is continuing to add nonsense. NYCTommy 13:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * His user page has been deleted, and his other name (something like trustworthiness4000, what a joke!) had been blocked indefinelty as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Evidently this wasn't the only page he was disrupting. Hopefully the edits are over. I did take note of Eleemosynary's silence during your discusion with the sockpuppets, while at the same time he was commenting on other things (I don't think he is involved in anyway with the sock, except that he share's his views). WHile up to know I have accepted him as attempting to be fair with his edits, I will take a stronger stand against him from this point on, as I do beleive he oversteps the line enforcing his views. The whole Nobel Peace prize thing shows that. It was in the general news, so I believe that makes it noteworthy. - BillCJ 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bell Medium
Good work getting the UH-1 / 205 page spilt up. Meggar 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm condidering taking out the UH-Ds and Hs later on. Any thoughts? I'll probably put that one up for discussion on the talk page. But first, I'll work on the articles on my userpsace, so I can see if it will be worth it or not to split them, and to have something to show for the discussion. - BillCJ 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Westland Sea King
Thanks for the note - yes I did appreciate why you had done it, but I had the thought that somebody else would try and add other countries to the link. Not sure what the answer is about stupid people who cant tell the difference between Sikorsky and Westland!, I dont think some people read the talk pages. Perhaps we should just keep an eye on the article. MilborneOne 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Prison Break Plane
I don't mean to be offensive, but an independent website with discussions isn't exactly going to mention what type of plane was used are they?...So please give me an example of how to find an appropriate independent source for the subject in question!

Thank You for your time Brylcreem2 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * THe inability to find a quote is a good sign that the appearence is non-notable, and thus does not belong in the article. If the Beech plane were a major plot point in the series, not just one episode, then it might be notable. COmpare Kitt (a Pontiac TransAm) in "Knight Rider", Airwolf (a Bell 222) in "Airwolf", or the General Lee (a DOdge Charger?) in "THe DUkes of Hazard". Hope this helps. - BillCJ 18:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

S-64 pics
thumb|right|S-64E Bill, here's a recent shot of a locally based S-64E, a 1968 Sikorsky-built aircraft. I have some detail shots (cockpit, etc) that I need to find. Akradecki 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Warrant Officer (United States)‎
Just read the Warrant Officer (United States)‎ page, and it looks good. I do have one question: I was under the impression that the Army (I won't say U.S. here since the post already says it ;) ) also used Warrant Officers as helicopter pilots, but nowhere in the Army section is this mentioned. Am I mistaken, or is this not so anymore? - BillCJ 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a Warrant Officer helicopter pilot in the Army. I wrote the Army section to minimize it becoming Aviation-centric, since the pilots only make up about 44%, but we seem to be the most visible group of the quiet professionals. --Born2flie 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've assumed that's what you were (a WO), esp given your focus on writing the article and accuracy in it. I understand you're not wanting it to be aviation-centric, but you could mention the pilots last. 44% is too large a group to be left out completely. If you don't feel right writing it yourself, just send me a good source, and I'll try to work up something. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, I just posted for some help on the WPMILHIST's United States Task Force page with the article FlieGerFaUstMe262 keeps reorganizing the sections with nothing but an expressed preference for seeing it that way. Makes it contrary to even how it was setup as a section of the Warrant Officer article I split it from. The best reference would be to look at the links to the recruiting website (GoArmy.com) or the USAREC website (usarec.army.mil). --Born2flie 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

CF-18 vs CF-5
Hey, thanks for taking notice of my change. I had been told in a history class (Canadian Military History at the Royal Military College) that it was the 5 that replaced the 104, not the 18.

I have to look into this more.

(Psyklek 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Fanboyism in F-105 article
I find that clearly enumerated specific reasons for reversal and references to Wikipedia policy are the most effective means of dealing with fanboys. It also makes it easier to get them blocked for disruptive editing if they persist. This particular IP is flying off the handle with made-up conclusions from shitty sources. - Emt147 Burninate!  01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind. If you can't tell, I'm getting very frustrated with his crap, and as I'm still fairly new, I really don't know how to handle it effectively, esp since this guy doesn;t appear to be that bright. I do appreciate the comments, and I will try to implement them in the future with him. - BillCJ 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you noticed, I'm not contributing that much anymore, mostly because all of my limited Wikipedia time is spent keeping crap out of articles I like. - Emt147 Burninate!  03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Civilian CH-54s
Hi Bill, re: above, sometimes when I get frustrated like that, I'll walk away from my watchlist for a little while and concentrate on one of the article projects on the sandbox. Just a thought. And while you're thinking about that, you might want to ponder how you want to handle CH-54s (as opposed to S-64s) in civilian service. For instance, I dug out those pics I promised. They are of a Heavylift crane that landed at MHV a few years ago, and I got to get up-close-and-personal. Turns out it's a surplus CH-54A put into service in the civilian world.


 * Image:Heavylift-UH54A-N44094-030912-30.jpg|Nice panel...amazingly clean for a firebird.
 * Image:Heavylift-UH54A-N44094-030912-17.jpg|The business end of the water tanks.

Image:Heavylift-UH54A-N44094-030912-02.jpg
 * Image:Heavylift-UH54A-N44094-030912-03.jpg|Note bubble window for vertical-reference flying.
 * Image:Heavylift-UH54A-N44094-030912-26.jpg|Lifting off, heading for home at Victorville

Akradecki 05:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, and the pics. I think the best way to handle ex-military models in civil service is the same way we are doing with the Bell 204/205s and 212s: Though the primary text in on the civil versions, I've been focusing the pics and operators sections on civil service than on exclusively civil models. Most of Erickson's conversions/rebuilds have been of ex-military CH-54s, including of the 54Bs to S-64F standard. Sikorsky's only civil model what the A-based S-64E.


 * I was going to add some info on this to the text today, but computer problems intervened. One of my hard drives died this week, so I had to buy a new one. It arrived today, so I've spent most of my time formatting and setting it up. Hopefully I can get back to finishing up the S-64 page by this weekend. THanks again for the pics, esp of the rear-facing cockpit. I'm thinking of puttting that one in both articles. - BillCJ 05:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A-6 in Popular Culture
Hi Bill. I'm curious about your characterization of the added material as "unsourced, non-notable". As far as notability, it's notable enough to be covered in the article on the book Clear and Present Danger, and I'd say the appearance in the book is at least as notable as a half second of screen time in the opening credits of The West Wing. And the source is listed in the text itself - the book & the movie. We aren't expecting appearances in pop culture to be documented somewhere else, are we? CruiserBob 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Once scene is hardly notable. West WIng credits ran every week. It's not so much the appearances that need to be documented as the notability. If it helps, I'll remove the West WIng mention too. - BillCJ 04:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help to remove the West Wing mention - I'm disagreeing with your characterization as one scene being non-notable. The whole point of listing appearances of things in pop culture is to document the such appearances.  If the article were on something like the Empire State Building, I could see not listing every single time it shows up in a skyline shot of New York.  But for something like the A-6, where it doesn't show up in books & movies, it's worth noting in the article that an A-6 was the aircraft that dropped the (very plot significant) bomb in Clear and Present Danger, and that it's the aircraft seen in the opening credits to West Wing.  If you're going to drop these appearances from the article, you might as well just cut the Popular Culture section entirely (and no, I'm not arguing that the Popular Culture section should be removed).  And while we're talking about notability, why do you feel Air Force One's appearance in the opening episode of NCIS to be non-notable, since the whole plot of the show is based on a crime aboard AF1? CruiserBob 04:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, except for the Flight of the Intruder, in which the plane is the title character. - BillCJ 06:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As to AF1, see the history of the pop-culture page and the Air FOrce One article also, as this reference has been removed several times, both by myself and other users. In addition, the AF1 pop culture page has been up for deletion once, and adding more non-notable apperances won;t help the next time someone nominates it for deletion. And they will, because there are lots of people on Wiki who view any pop culture sections as trivial and non-encyclopedic, especially without sources attesting to there notability. So while I may seem harsh to you, having seen 2 other pop culture articles on individual helicopters deleted, I am doing what is necessary to keep the AF1 article alive. - BillCJ 06:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On the pop-culture page, the reference has been removed once, by you. What happened to it when it was part of the AF1 article is irrelevant to the pop-culture page - as part of the AF1 article, pop culture can only merit a paragraph or two, whereas if its separated into its own article, appearances which don't merit inclusion on the AF1 page will certainly merit inclusion on the pop culture page.  If the AF1 pop culture page isn't going to be more than a few one line paragraphs that could easily be compressed into a single paragraph in the main article, then I can see why someone called for the article's deletion.  In its current incarnation, the AF1 pop culture page is little more than a stub, and doesn't have any information that couldn't easily be rolled back into the main AF1 article without significantly increasing the length of that article.  If the article is talking about pop culture appearances, the episode of NCIS is significant, because the fact that there is a death aboard AF1 is a major plot point in the episode.  Either the article should be encyclopedic (and thus include significant references like the NCIS episode) or it should be deleted. With regard to AF1 being 'featured' on West Wing, there aren't any episodes in which AF1 plays a role other than that of a set - there are no plots that are driven by the presence or absence of AF1 - in other words, the West Wing appearance is far less significant than the NCIS appearance.

Boeing 747
Just wondering why it keeps getting changed i thought we can change what we like as long as its not copyright infringement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparrowman980 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC). sparrowman980


 * You can, but that doesn't mean you should. The JAL pic at the top is a good, dramatic aerial shot. I see no reason to substitute one of a 747 on the ground, especially when the article already has a Quantas pic further down on the page. - BillCJ 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if i were to find a nice Qantas air shot would you accept it?


 * There is a good Quatas pic in the article at Boeing 747. But that's not the point. Why do we have to have a Qantas pic at the top? The top pic should be the best pic available to use that shows the aircraft from the best angle, and a dramatic shot helps. The exitsting Qantas pic is not bad, and I beleive it was at the top for awhile. But there is nothing wrong with the current pic. I appreciate your enthusiam for Qantas, but arbitrarily changing the pic is not the best thing to do. Don't worry, I was new once too, and we tend to be enthusiastic about our first edits. But many people edit on the major airliner pages.


 * If you'd like to change the pic to the flying Qantas one, ask on the talk page, and see if you can get some other editors to support you. If more agree than disagree, the you have a consesnus, and the regular editors, including me, will respect that. - BillCJ 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But infact Qantas does have 56 747s if you look at the Qantas website and you read the fact sheet it states it has 56 (if all 747s were added together)


 * Oops, sorry. I guess the Qantas article is wrong. - BillCJ 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

umm not the one from the Wikipedia one it is right but the actual WEBSITE of Qantas states their that they infact have 56 747s thats why korean air should be below Qantas thats all i am saying!


 * You misunderstood me. I agree that the wiki article is mistaken in saying that Qantas has 35 747s. - BillCJ 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

O okay sry then maybe someone could fix that then because Qantas should be ahead of Korean Air either you or someone could fix it other wise i will do it because that is wrong.


 * Truthfully, it really doesn't mater. The Infobox is just meant to be a summary of the article, not a detailed list in anyway. The only guideline is that there should be no more than 3 in the "more users" line. What users are listed is just a matter of consensus among each article's editors. I'll try and change it for you, but be aware other editors may not agree. - BillCJ 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then just change it and we will see what happens!


 * I've been following this thread, and given the revert someone just did on the listing of Qantas with 56 aircraft, I went and checked their website myself, and lo, they only have 35 747s, 5x -300, 24x -400 and 6x -400ER...and here in Mojave, those numbers only add up to 35. Where'd the 56 number come from? Akradecki 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been looking on the Qantas site myself, and hadn't found any numbers at all, so was about to ask for his link. Given that your's shows only 35, we definitely need a source for 56 now. Thanks Alan. - BillCJ 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that, I've posted a request over on his page, since he might not be watching yours closely. Akradecki 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

___________

Fixed width again
Bill, User:M Van Houten (his talk) didn't understood my comment about removing fixed width in images and started revert war in Albatros D.III and Pfalz D.XII articles - look at comments in history of these articles. Maybe you will be able to explain him why his editions are senseless? Thanks in advance, Piotr Mikołajski 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill, don't know if you've been following the thread on this between my talk page and User talk:M Van Houten, but you might want to check his latest reply on mine...might give you a chuckle...even our other friends didn't thumb their noses this badly! Akradecki 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks! ChrisK has just stepped in, so hopefully that will help him calm down. If no, the short-term block he's headed for may be followed by a longer one. I hope not, because he's actually turning in to a decent editor otherwise. - BillCJ 22:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image question
BillCJ, it isn't explicitly written, but every Wikipedia guide is done this way unless they are specifying how to do it inline. It was an implicit reference. BQZip01 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the guideline (not policy) for pics only says that if you are going to left align the pic, it should be placed before the subsection heading to keep the heading aligned with the text. IMO, if you are right aligning the pic, the pic should come after the heading to be contained within the section/subsection. This will also help against image stacking with images that are contained in the previous section. This particularly becomes noticeable with images that precede the first section of an aircraft article becoming stacked below the infobox. --Born2flie 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More Aussie Rhinos

 * Some Aussies are up in arms about them getting the Super Hornet. An editer added a controversy paragraph to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article today with quotes from retired military leaders.  Just pointing this out. -Fnlayson 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So I noticed! I also noticed you removed the "dog" comments. Good work! It's still a bit long, though, but I'll wait a while to see if any new info shows up, then cut it back. No need to repeat the whole source if the info is already in the source. I find it funny tho that the main quotes says the Rhino is outdated, and then states the F-111 is adequate for another 10 years! - BillCJ 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I caught that about the F-111 earlier. A bit of double talk, I think.. -Fnlayson 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut out more out of that Super Hornet RAAF paragraph. It's been 2 weeks and I though that was a sensational quote more than anything.  Take it easy..  -Fnlayson 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. - BillCJ 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (re: Mojave Spaceport)
Thank-you for helping fix the layout of the images for the Mojave Spaceport article. I knew something wasn't quite "right" the way it was; I appreciate your help getting it to comply with the guidelines for this kind of thing! Sdsds 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem! - BillCJ 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you please give opinions on two articles?
Regarding the issue of see also lists (Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout) I would be very grateful if you would give opinions on the current setup of the see also list on Hinduism which currently has a link to the Hinduism portal as well as a Hinduism navigation template in addition to an extensive see also section. What would you do with that article in particular? It would be helpful if you would comment at Talk:Hinduism where I have been trying to get this issue examined. A less extreme case, in which the repetion of links is the issue, is on Ganesha which is now in peer review. I invite your checking of that article as an independent person from a format point of view. Buddhipriya 01:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. It might be later this weekend tho, but I will try. - BillCJ 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image thumb problem on Air Force One
Hi Bill, saw your rv of my earlier edit with regard to WP:MOS. Can you help me with the thumbnail problem on Air Force One? I altered the image link for Image:Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office, November 1963.jpg because there is a problem displaying the default thumb at 180px. It seems the problem is just with that specific size thumbnail. Thanks Ar-wiki 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ar-wiki, sorry about that. I've been dealing with lots of people adding sizings lately, so I jumped a bit quick that time. Had you explained a little further in the edit summary or on the talk page, I would not have reverted it. Alan (Akredeki) has backed you up on the problem, so I'll leave it as is until we figure out the problem. - BillCJ 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, I definitely should have left a better summary. Akradecki mentioned posting the issue on a system talk page "somewhere", any idea where that might be?  Ar-wiki 04:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for butting in, but I saw this on my watchlist...wow, is that bizzare (and I think I just mis-spelled that...). I tried playing with the image several different ways (with and without the underscoring), and it's really strange...it won't auto thumbnail, but will if a size (I picked 181 px at random) is included in the coding. Me thinks something is definitely wierd here, possibly a coding issue. Might warrant a quesion on a system talk page somewhere, but I'm not sure where that would be most appropriate. Chris, are you on freq? Akradecki 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alan. You always have my permission to butt in! We probably ought to post some of this on the AF1 page so other editors will be aware there is a problem with the pic, and not revert it again. - BillCJ 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Chattanooga History Project
BillCJ, I'm trying to gather competent wikipedians from Tha Nooga together to start a Chattanooga History Project. It may end up just being a task force underneath the Tennessee Wikipedia project. Drop a note on my talk page and let me know what you think. Qmax 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear you're in BillCJ. I Do think the task force is the best way to go, like you said. I joined WP:TN and will get the task force rolling. This is all new to me so any help is massively appreciated. Qmax 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chattanooga Task Force is rocking and rolling! Qmax 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves
Nice job spotting the missing refs. I updated the assessment to B. I was just going by the one reference "rule" for B class articles on WikiProject Baseball/Assessment - Mattingly23 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurocopter Colibri
Thanks for the input. I'm close to the limit of my civility. If creating a Harbin HC-120 article would not have violated the spirit of WP:NPOV, then I would've already done that. --Born2flie 05:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally understand your frustrations. Part of the problems is that most nations have their Wiki in their native language, while Americans must use the English Wiki, which is pretty much shared with the world. I don't have a problem with that in theory, but in practice it means everyone in the world is editing the English articles, and they all want their nations represented too! But they don't often want to follow verifiablility and NPOV, which does make me wonder sometimes what the other Wikis are like! Anyway, we'll get through this. Just hang in there. - BillCJ 05:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm done talking with him. Now, I'm somehow a European showing nationalism. "I know you are, but what am I?" The responses seem to be merely childish and as unsourced as his edits, I'll just end up reverting him once a day, it'll be the only way to maintain my peace of mind. --Born2flie 20:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you catch my massive copyvio edit to HAL Dhruv today? (speaking of other countries and Wiki policy) --Born2flie 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, sure did. - BillCJ 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Question
Bill, I may have gone a bit overboard in my edits. It just bugs me when people do things "wrong" because they don't bother to follow the rules (a conscious decision to break policy is one thing, but laziness BUGS THE HECK OUT OF ME!!!). Sometimes, in an effort to correct problems, I make the mistake of changing things that are correct by mistake. WP:MoS states "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, place the image directly above the heading." I took this to mean all of them, but clearly it doesn't mean ALL headings. BQZip01 07:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done things like that myself. Yes, it doesn't mean all of them. At least you realized it yourself. I didnt' know there were guidelines on this till last week. At least it's not Policy! - BillCJ 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg
Hi. My thinking is why rock the boat? I think it doesn't really matter if it's on aircraft carrier or not - however it really adds to the CVF article. Making an issue over its inclusion on aircraft carrier may cause the user to push for deletion altogether. Now I think a fair use rationale based on it being not replaceable is pretty solid, however I'd prefer not to have the discussion etc. What do you think? Mark83 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the image out to be there too. It it relaceable? Probably not, as it's not like you can walk up to the ship and snap a pic! Not for at least another 5 years. Anyway, it's not that big an issue if a British carrier is shown anyway, is it? ;) - BillCJ 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've uploaded a lower resolution image and provided a fair use rationale which I think is pretty robust. Why not try adding it back - if the user removes it again, ask to discuss it and I'll weigh in as well. Mark83 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aviation archaeology
Bill, I have been updating many articles with new text and refs, internal and external links, and appropriate categories. One such is the Aviation archaeolgy article... I updated some of the text and after researching over 60 external web sites on av-ar, and found 7 of them to have significant resources about av-ar, I added the links. THEN, those new external links got removed:==>> (diff) (hist). . Aviation archaeology‎; 16:29. . (-794) . . 76.210.164.94 (Talk) (Culled links - WP is not a link repository (See WP:NOT)). by a non-logged in editor. THis is the second time hours of my research gets deleted or reverted, as a curator I don't play games. Please warn and or block 76.210.164.94, and allow me to restore my additions. Thank you. LanceBarber 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lance, I'm not an admin, so I can't block anyone. Besides, if I were an admin, they'd revoke my adminship within a week because I'd spend more time actually protecting articles than the IP vandals who disrupt them. Anyway, I have reverted his changes, and asked for discussion. We'll see if that helps any.


 * You might try Chrislk02, an admin who is a WP:AIR member, and try to help out on aviation-related articles. He is offline until Tuesday, but he'll give you good advice on what's best. If he agrees with the IP that the links don't belong, he may have a good alternative for you. - BillCJ 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Understand. Will go to Chris, if need be. I will be adding sections to av-ar to include abondoned army air corp auxilary fields, abandoned missiles silos, old air mail routes, etc. Takes a lot of time.  Side note, will follow up on your recommendation on the F-100, but will get a new/better photo taken, first. Have a great week. Thanks, again. LanceBarber 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bill for assisting the second time, I've dropped a note to Chris on this matter. LanceBarber 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, good. I was about to contact Chris myself when you did. - BillCJ 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Between reverts, admin support, added sections, and fix refs... TEAMWORK at its finest! Thanks. LanceBarber 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you note what I fixed on the refs? I've done it once beofre myself, and someone else spotted the error. I've seen done by others a few times since, so it's something to check first when text starts disapearing, but it's still in the edit screen. Sometimes just a section will disapear if there is a ref later on down the page. - BillCJ 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeppers, I noticed...thanks, almost repeated the same mistake 5 minutes later...ref/refs are pesky little buggers! Beer break! LB

CH-53
I wanted to converse with you about reverting my contrib to the H-53 page. I don't believe what I added was vandalism, nor was it intended as such. If you talk to any member of the Naval Aviation community, they will indeed tell you that the H-53 is referred to as "The Sh**ter" (I use asterisks as not to further offend you). My father was a Naval Aviator in the 70s and 80s and referred to H-53s that way as did his friends, and in a recent conversation with some Marine Corps aviators (yesterday, actually) they, too referred to the H-53 as "Sh**ter". I added that piece as trivia, which it is. Sorry you took offense, but it is common knowledge within that community. I won't bother changing it back though, since I assume you will revert it once again and cite the comments on my talk page from nearly a year ago from a deletist member of wikipedia. Regards, Brian.

I'll see what I can find as far as sources go. I'm glad we're able to understand each other! Bm5481

Copy edit?
I just posted 2002 Jalandhar India MiG-21 crash, which could probably use a copy edit if you have time. Akradecki 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At first glance, it looks good to me. Good job.


 * Oh, you might take a look at this diff on the 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash page. See I didn't check to see if you added this, but if you did, you would know more about it than me., Thanks. - BillCJ 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at ChrisO's wholesale removal of that site from numerous articles, I'm a little bothered. Is everything archived at archive.org a copyvio to, now? This is pushing the bounds of ridiculousness. I'll leave it alone unless he pushes the issue. Thanks for the copyedit, though! Akradecki 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like another editor that's been watching this guy has reverted him. Hopefully he won't do it again. - BillCJ 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked ChrisO out...a) he's an admin (and thus should know better), and b) by his edit history, he's been doing a lot of this. I also checked the main website that the abc news story is archived on, and admittedly I wouldn't be caught dead using one of their own stories as a source...they seem quite POV. I think this might be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. An archived ABC news story that is used as a source for an aircraft's flight altitudes? That's hardly a suspect subject, and not one prone to POV problems! Oh well.... Akradecki 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alan, Born has added another source to the item, this one from the Wash Pest. At leadt that should be a better source if the first one get's removed again. I've never seen Born edit that article page before, so he was probably watching the posts here, and decided to help out. Thanks, Born! - BillCJ 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sneaky that way! :D No, really it's just a way to broaden seeing what happens across Wiki and help out if there are any conflicts. I watch all Talk pages for the Rotorcraft Task Force members in case you guys get conflicts with the editors we run across. If I stick my nose into something and you don't like it, just let me know. You can also watch my page, but nobody talks to me the way they talk with you two, or even Fnlayson. --Born2flie 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's because we're not anti-social Army scout pilots ;) (TOTALLY in jest!) Someone even thought I was an admin! I guess I have that "air of authority". But seriously, I have no problem with you, or anyone, watching my page. I keep most of the talkpages I post on in my watchlist, and look if a topic seems interesting. Born, you're good at pre-emptive actions, so keep it up. It'll help keep the hot-heads like me from getting into too much trouble! - BillCJ 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another new article copyedit request: Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program. Thanks! Akradecki 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

USMC Talk Page
It was actually me who archived the discussion about a critcism sectioon, not User:203.10.224.59. I don't know why it shows the edit as his in the history (all the more odd because, unless his IP adress is randomly assigned, he appears to have a lengthy history of vandalism. My IP is no where near his, so it wasn't me not signed in either--I have no clue how that could have happened, because I distinctly remember archhiving it, but distincty don't remember being User:203.10.224.59). But I did it because Deskana (an admin) deleted the discussion all together. I initially undid his edit, and was quite irked by the fact that he deleted it (and told him soon his talk page), but after seeing how it was just turning into a flaming with only one of the comments actually adressing the relevant issue brought up, I started to see his reasoning, and thought in-line archiving would be a good solution. Also since the relevant issue was being constructively discussed above all the flaming was a bit uneccessary and was threatening to get out of hand. (It would have been OK if, like the initial post, it was flaming mixed with possibly constructive opinions, but it was mostly just turning into a political flame.) Brentt 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not sure what happened with that either. I do think the original poster may have been a troll, as Deskana suggested, as he has not added anything further to the conversation. Go ahead and rearchive it, I won't revert it, just please leave my comments there. I wasn't flaming, but using sarcasm to make a point, as I don't believe the poster was being sincere. THanks for explaining things. - BillCJ 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

F-102 and F-106 articles
Hi BillCJ, I hope you are taking in the slightly amusing edits from a newbie editor in the following: XF-103, Lockheed supersonic airliner, F-102 and F-106 articles. Every-second-word-is-hyphenated which gives me a laugh but nonetheless, the editor seems to have a good grasp of the subject matter but does not have any attribution or citations and injects his own "this editor thinks..." comments into the article. Again, a bit presumptuous but the spelling and typo errors are the most annoying characteristic of the edit submissions. Any suggestions? I have already tried humour, slightly sarcastic comments in the edit history but the edits keep coming unabetted from at least two ids (the same person judging by the exact same over-hyphenated style...oops, I'm starting to do it)Bzuk 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes, I've been watching the F-102 anf F-106 pages. Quite-a-mess, if-I-do-say-so-myself! I think we both need to place warnings on both his talk pages (not vandalism, but uw-npov1, uw-unsourced1, and uw-error1 tags, increasing the numbers if more are necessary). If you want, we can play good editor/bad editor (pick which role you want!), and have one of us try to reason with him, and the other one place the warnings. After that, I'll contact User:Chrislk02, an admin, and see if he can help with blocking or further wanring this guy. - BillCJ 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Watching, too. I can help out by doing some research and improve the paragrahs. Glad to help gentlemen. I added a note and some citation in the Talk, as I work my other articles off-line. LanceBarber 04:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm watching these edits too, replacing fixed width photos with thumbnails from time to time. Piotr Mikołajski 06:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

EF-111A Raven
The move from EF-111A to EF-111 was done back in January as well. At the time I argued that there was no such thing as an EF-111 since all a/c were converted F-111A making the resulting a/c EF-111A. I realize there is a wikiproject naming convention that applies, but EF-111A isn't a variant, its the only version. --Dual Freq 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on how you look at it. I understand your point about it being a conversion of the F-111A, but the type is still the EF-111, whether there was a B, C, etc. or not. THe EA-6A was still an EA-6 before the EA-6B came along. I'm just trying to use the simplest desigantion, but I should have checked the talk page and histroy first. Sorry. I'll gO ahead and move it back. - BillCJ 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't move it, something about double redirects. We'll have to get an admin to move it. Sorry. - BillCJ 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote! We'll settle this thing once and for all. :D --Born2flie 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

E/F RCS
Thanks for entertaining my badgering today. I think the addition of the reference makes a big difference. Cheers,--Jonashart 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. It took me a while to type up the info, but it explains it the best I've ever read, and I felt it addressed all the issues you raised. I'd love to find an online source with similar info, but this will do for now. I hold people's feet to the fire myself on having sources, so I can't fault you for that. Truth and verifiability are two different things, and the standard for WIki is Verifiability! - BillCJ 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, good point there. Well, I certainly appreciate your effort. It's exactly what was needed in this case. Thanks again.--Jonashart 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris
What a sad day, eh? It's moved me off my duff to resume admin coaching...Chris has left too big of a hole in the project. A sad day, indeed. Akradecki 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, sure is. But it's going to keep happening, I'm afraid, unless the Wiki leadership makes changes, or undergoes some changes itself. When you forgot what the real product is, things like this will happen. Wikipedia has a low public opinion for a reason, and things like this will never help to improve that. Wikipedia may be the top dog now, but someday someone is going to do it better, with a better focus on the product itself rather than protecting "human evolution", users' egos, or friends of powerful admins/commitee members. MS's IE was unbeatable for years, but now Firefox and the like have made great strides in undercutting it. It took awhile there, and it may take awhile here, but if Wikipedia does not reform, something new will take its place.


 * Good luck on the admin coaching. There are a few other admins in WP:AIR, but no one that are consistently available the way Chris was, at least that I know of. I'll have to check my talk page and history to see if there's another admin who's helped me on project issues that we might be able to call on. User:Natalie Erin‎ is an admin who is very tough on vandals, and can probably help out with those kinds of problems, but I don't think she has any aviation knowledge or interest. I'll let you know, anyway. - BillCJ 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lecture series?
WTF? :-) — BQZip01 —  talk 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, was just a snide comment aimed at User talk:Hughstew, who has been leaving all those really-long posts on the Viet Nam War on your page. I thought you would get it, but I forgot you were an Aggie ;) - BillCJ 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Boeing template
Hi Bill, sorry it took so long to get back to you on the Boeing military aircraft template. Looks like you got all the issues ironed out, though...it looks quite good! Akradecki 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No prob, and thanks for looking them over. Might be a good thing you weren't involved, as I'd hate to see someone accuse you of being in a clique ;) - BillCJ 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

F6F Hellcat
You know, for a middle-school student, that wasn't too bad. IMHO Bzuk 1:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Aviation articles formatting talk
I've prepared some proposals for page content and started discussion at WikiProject Aircraft talk. I'll be happy to hear your comments. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

YF-17 Cobra's origins
BillCJ, picture this scenario, the P-51H wing design is used as the basis of the Ryan/North American Navion as well as the F-82 and FJ Fury wings. Sure there wasn't many parts of the P-51 in the eventual P-86 straight-wing prototype but it was in a direct lineage. In contrast, the YF-17 has no clear direct lineage as the Northrop design studies in 1970 that were the progenitor of the P-530 proposal proposed as the company's submission to the LWF competition that had also been contested by the Lockheed CL-1200. There are superficial similarities in the P-530 design to the F-5, the family of the P-610 (twin-engine derivative of the follow-up P-600 design). The P-610 actually spawned the later Model 401 (YF-17) and one of the contributing factors to its loss in the General Dynamimcs Model 401 (later YF-16)/Northrop Model 401 (YF-17) face-off was that the gestation of the Northrop entry was prolonged due to the "somewhat greater complexity" ( Miller 1986, p. 3.) of the design, belying the belief that the F-5 was used as a model. No parts from the F-5 ever emerged in the P-530 or ultimately in the YF-17 which BYW was never known as the "Cobra" that name was given to the P-530 design study. I think I would like to write a small article on the P-530 as it is of some interest to me. By-the-bye, I love (maybe that's too strong) like our exchanges. :-} IMHO Bzuk 3:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I understand your point on the P-51/F-86, and am aware of the lineage. THe T-2 Buckeye is aslo based on the FJ-1 Fury to some extent, and the T-28 Trojan also shares some basic structures (including wing) with the Mustang.


 * As to the F-5/YF-17, the designs originated as improvements to the F-5E, enlarging the wing, LERXes, engines, in several stages that lead directly to the YF-17. THe relationship is there, even if there are know interchangable parts (Other than the pilot). Is it one step? NO, but I believe it's close enough to list under "developed from". And I have plenty of sources to back up the relationship as direct besides the one listed. Anyway, it's not worth an edit war over, and it is in the "related " field under Related content. I just like to state my case in full.


 * As to the "Cobra" name, I agree with you that it only applied to the P-530. However, there is a source with the YF-17 name, and so we'd need a better one to the contrary to change it, and I don't have one. "Cobra" whould not have been an official name for a production F-17 anyway as there already was a Cobra (the AH-1 family) in service at that time.


 * Btw, I love a good argument (someitmes the bad ones too!), esp one that can remain somewhat civil. I was raised in Jamaica, so I'm used to having LOUD arguments. It's definitley been interesting, but we seem to have a good working relationship. I ever needed your assistance on a matter, I trust you enough to ask, esp if it had to do with Canada. - BillCJ 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Boeing Vertol template
I don't know if you've seen the recent news item about Columbia Helicopters buying the TC for the Boeing-Vertol 234 and 107, but they've announced that they'll be applying for a production certificate as well. I'll be adding this info to the articles shortly, as well as starting one on CH, but even though Boeing won't be the mfr of these two models, I'm wondering if we should still include them in the template since currently they are mentioned in the CH-46 and -47 articles, and since Boeing was the developer and original mfr. Thoughts? Akradecki 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd include them, as the template is covering all the related Piaseki/Vertol/BV/BH models. Feel free to add them. I didn't leave out the civil numvbers on purpose, just forgot them! - BillCJ 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

against Wiki guidelines?
Hi BillCJ, would you please direct me to the Wiki guidelines concerning your recent deletion? Regards Necessary Evil 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was a revert, not deletion.
 * Anyhoo, try:
 * Manual of Style: For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, Hubble’s constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1). For other articles, Imperial, U.S. customary, or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement.
 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers): For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
 * WikiProject Aircraft/page content guidelines specifically allows for either imperial- or metric-first measurements in the Specifications templates.


 * In summary, as articles on US aircraft are not scientific articles, therefore they can use US measurements first. Hope that clears up the issue for you. If you disagree with the WP:MOS guidelines, please take up the issue there. Article pages are not the place to push metric-first/-only agendas. - BillCJ 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced. US laws: "Metric Conversion Act of 1975", "Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988" , "Savings in Construction Act of 1996" , and "Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004" stated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce and directed federal agencies to convert to the metric system. Ronald Reagan didn't felt comfortable with the metric system, so he advocated keeping inches, yards, feet, miles, and pounds. A lot of old people didn't felt comfortable with new things like computers monitoring aircraft, patients etc. but it's only a transition. United States is converting to the metric system, so why are you fighting it? The longer it takes to convert, more accidents will occur; (Air Canada Flight 143 & Mars Climate Orbiter). Let the new generations grow up in a world without two sets of measurements. The US automobile industry, US aircraft industry and other are already metric.
 * When I was an air mechanic, I repaired Anglo-French Lynx helicopters. The airframe had mm nuts and the Rolls-Royce engines had inch nuts. The interface, between the engine and airframe was a mix, so I should carry two sets of tools. It was like if Britain introduced right hand driving tomorrow, but in the beginning only for trucks, later also for small cars!!
 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers): For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first. Very local US issues can stick to gallons and lbs., but the F-15 is all over the (metric) world, and the Israeli fighter was probably measured with a cm-ruler.
 * WikiProject Aircraft/page content: either imperial- or metric-first, I don't mind changing the whole F-15 article!
 * So the Wiki guidelines isn't steadfast inch-first. Your revert was an interpretation, like my contribution. Your revert, wasn't more correct then mine. I think that your revert was a waist of wikiresources. I rest my case Necessary Evil 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * May I butt in Bill? The subject is a US aircraft. US aircraft use US measurements. You can quote all the idealistic laws that you want, but the efforts to take the US to the metric system failed miserably. The US, in general, is not converting. What's more, the US system is still the international aviation standard (when's the last time you saw an altimeter in meters, or an airspeed indicator in kilometers??). Boeing is not building aircraft with metric system fasteners, ect. Bottom line, is that it's a US aircraft, with US measurements in all its publications, and US measurements are the most appropriate for an article on such an aircraft. Akradecki 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. I've worked in Aerospace for over 10 years.  All flight & ground hardware drawings I've dealt with has been in US Customary units.  We use US version of ASME dimensioning and tolerancing standard.  Metric fasteners are more expensive than US ones, btw.  Oh, I did use Spacelab pallet drawings done by BAe that were metric.  I'd like to see the US start moving to a dual system. -Fnlayson 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And the consensus of WP:Aircraft is summed up by ericg on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, "The primary units are always those which the manufacturer used. In the case of European aircraft like Airbus products, metric comes first." --Born2flie 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Crane pic
Bill, here's another one that I'd totally forgotten about. It's a brand new crane on display at the 2005 HAI HeliExpo. The long boom in the front is a water canon, specifically designed to fight high-rise fires. Akradecki 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alan. Any idea who the operator was/is? Spanish military, government, or private? - BillCJ 00:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On closer look, those look like Italian roundels on the fuselage. The pod underneath is in Italian, looks like "Corpo Forestale Dello Stato", which Google translates as "State Forestry Corps". The text of the S-64 page states it's being used by the Italian Forest Service, so that's probably on of theirs. - BillCJ 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Gotta run for a while. Will pop in when I can. Watch Helicopter, Svetovid will probably be in there to give the Slovak inventor credit for everything in the whole article. --Born2flie 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BillCJ! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Alright. Let me just please ask that you leave me to my own edit summaries. Of course, I will always try to avoid controversial edit summaries if possible and elaborate on my edits in as much depth as I possibly can. However, due to the restricted space we are given for the edit summaries, I can't guarantee any more than that. --Ksy92003 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depecitions of the A-Team
Thanks for your comments. You said " I usually spend most of my editing trying to keep pop-culture items OUT of articles" and this is exactly the reason for these kinds of entries. Some editors loath in popular culture sections, some love them and most are indifferent. I have been through a lot of other entries (Robert E. Howard, Houdini, Lovercraft, etc.) suggesting similar entries because there nearly almost always some kind of crisis point reached where the section is too big for the entry so people try and trim them back, others remove them altogether, others add them back in and expand them and the whole thing devolves into a messy edit war. As they are often worthy of mention the solution is extracting the lot to a separate entry. The important thing is to have a consensus on the standrd of proof and to keep an eye on things. It should go swimmingly from there ;) (Emperor 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Notability is a difficult one. What I try and stick to is {{WP:V]] which can be applied more strictly here. Some people throw in a book and it isn't clear from the mention or the entry what the link is. I also remove things like books which are not just redlinks but so are the authors. This isn't really making a commentary on their notability or not but that we just can't prove anything. While a lot of the entries I edit concern the person as a fictional character there can be other cultureal references that sail close to the wind. A passing mention in an episode of some TV series seems so minor as to not be worthy of inclusion - the good thing is that usually applying WP:V makes this difficult to sneak through. Quite a few of these basically need to be sorted out through aggreement by the various editors. If there are removals I'd say people put it on the talk page so if it is more important than it first seems it can be updated and added back. This also works for other entries (List of steampunk works can be tricky as people's definitions vary and sometimes and entry doesn't clarify matters but you can usually work through things on the talk page).


 * A working group might be a way forward. We've tended to thrash out ways of doing things that work for all but the most sceptical editors and having them clearly laid out would alay people's concerns and help editors new to the area. The important thing is to have a general consensus which is in accord with general guidelines which the majority of editors stick to. (Emperor 16:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

In case you don't know
They nominated International airings of The A-Team for deletion as well. See Articles for deletion/International airings of The A-Team. Needless to say I'm pulling for both this and "Cultural effects..." to be kept. Right there with ya. → Ed Gl  20:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your reprimand regarding my correction of American spelling of certain words. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was an international website and concluded that therefore surely the Queens English should be the default spelling for the entire site. This is the spelling used by the majority of the English speaking World, of which the Americas is only a small part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TristanTzara (talk • contribs)

Continued debate regarding spelling
I think it a pity that you feel forced to issue me with a threat. I am doing what I feel is the right thing to do by attempting to make the spelling on this site more democratic. I am saddened by this blatant show of American imperialism. I think you seriously need to review your policy and open your minds to other possibilities. In the meantime I should be grateful if you would enlighten me as to exactly what "action" might be taken against me should I persevere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TristanTzara (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Finding the "source" language for spelling
What you are advocating (using different spellings from different parts of the World depending on the nature of the article) can only lead to chaos. What I am suggesting, and I would refer you here to an earlier message of mine, is the use of one spelling throughout. This, I believe, should be the "source" spelling. In the case of English this is The Queens English. If we were dealing with Arabic, which has many variations throughout the Middle East and North Africa, I would suggest using the Classical Arabic as found in the Koran. Likewise if this was a discussion on German I would suggest we use the Hoch Deutch or High German. I'm sure my point is clear. This approach leads, in the end, to greater democracy because everyone knows where they stand. I understand that you do not influence directly the policies of this site and so I do expect you to act on my suggestions in any way, but as you did raise the subject with me in the first place I thought it right that we discuss it. It also seems to me to be an interesting topic for debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TristanTzara (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

CH-46
I've expanded this page as part of adding material on Columbia's usage, which will also include an article on CH. A look-over would be appreciated! Akradecki 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Been watching it, and it looks good so far. There was another editor talking about making an article for CH, but I don't remeber who right off. I'll try to check around. MIght be about time to get one created for it, esp given the acquisition of the 107 and 234 types certificates. - BillCJ 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got a copy of the rather extensive history that Vertical did, so will start building over in one of my Sandboxes. Akradecki 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail from Erickson
Good day Sir, as you know we've had quite the interesting day in regards to the Erickson Aircrane Article. When I got home from work I had the following e-mail in my home account:

Hello! Thank you so much for referencing Elvis to "Swordfish". He was definitely used in the film for static ground shots, as the bottom picture of our press release shows, but it is N154AC (Georgia Peach) that was filmed in the air and is the aircrane you see in all the aerial shots -- you can see the flying crane is an E-model (single-wheeled landing gear), and Elvis is an F-model (double-wheeled), so while both can be credited in the movie, Georgia Peach should get top billing since she did all the heavy lifting. ^_~ We are currently crafting a press release we will add to our site that details our fleet and each crane's notable accomplishments so we will have proper references to link to soon. I just wanted to let you know that once that is up, I will be adding back Georgia Peach's contribution to "Swordfish". Thank you again for your efforts to make sure Erickson's Wikipedia entry is accurate. Best Regards,Deborah Grieves Media Services Erickson Air-Crane

I am curious of your thoughts an any advice you may have to give on it. It just kind of seemed weird on the timing. The e-mail was sent at 1753 in the afternoon here in Oregon which was quite a bit after our discussion with Dennis. Thanks, Jeff --Trashbag 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I might add it was sent via Wikipedia e-mail --Trashbag 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK. Sounds like Dennis had a talk with Deborah, and she's being rpoactive on the issue. I've recommended a couple of times that they list their aircraft on their own site, which is not only appropriate, but good marketing for them. It seems they are going to do this now. I think they were kinda using Wiki as a place for info on their aircraft rather than making their own page on their site, but their own site is a much better way to do it, WP:COI and WP:ATTR isues aside. Now they can add pics, info, whatever to their stisfaction. I think we may have lit a fire under someone at Erickson due to some of the employee complaints today. I suspect someone there has probably wanted to do a page on the copters for awhile, but someone aboce them said No. So now that they see a reason to post there own info, they are going to do it. I don't foresee a problem linking to that kind of page, as we often link to manufacturer and operator pages. Boeing has quite an extensive site on their airliners, and we link to those.


 * As long as the information they give is verifiable in outside sources, we can use it here. For example, we have sources that the S-64E has one wheel on each main gear, while the S-64F has two. It can probably be confirmed from pics and film footage that Elvis is an E-model, and Georgia Peach an F. Hence that info is accurate. If we can find a verifiable source that the 2 copters were in the movie, such as IMDB, then I would have no problem using that info from their email. - BillCJ 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of envious...I wish Northrop-Grumman would be as accommodating to Wikipedian's needs! Here's a question I'd like to bring up here first to test the waters...is there really a need for a separate article on Elvis the helicopter? Akradecki 12:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ALso, I've been thinking we might add some info on Erickson's helicopters in films to the S-64 page in a "Popular culture" section, with sources of cource. In addition, the info on the the CN tower and Freedom statue could be put on the Elvis helicopter page for the time being. - BillCJ 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, works for me. I just didn't know what Wikipedia's standards are (I'm relatively new here) if Erickson published things just for Wikipedia's purposes. I think a pop culture field would be great. --Trashbag 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actully, they'd be publishing things for themsleves. THey have their own site, and they should use it to promote themselves. Up iuntil now, the Wiki article has been used to post the list of Erickson helicopters, which is contrary to WP:COI. We're not telling them what to do, just suggesting that their own site is more appropriate, as Wikipedia is only for verifiable, outside sources. - BillCJ 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Boeing RC-135
I just reverted a highly speculative, potentially very controversial conspiracy theory addition to this article, and it probably won't be the last we hear from this IP. I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for most of the day for some FAA paperwork trainging (groan!), so would you mind keeping an eye open there? Thanks! Akradecki 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One last thing before I go...in regards to this as well, would you mind having a look at Korean Air Flight 007 and comment on my split idea at the bottom of its talk page? Thanks. Akradecki 12:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Aircraft
Hi there. You recently reverted my edit to the above mentioned infobox, when my edit was actually reverting edits that had broken the infobox on all the pages that use it. I'm sure it wasn't intentional but your edit actually changed it back to the wrong broken version. Ben W Bell  talk  18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry, noticed that you've also noticed. Ignore me. Ben W Bell   talk  18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I didn't pay attention when I refreshed the page, and revertd your reversion by mistake. Sorry! - BillCJ 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Core Values" section on United States Air Force
Hello. If you have any opinion, would you please leave some feedback on my comment at Talk:United States Air Force? Thank you. johnpseudo 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WZ-10
hi Bill,

Understand that you removed one paragraph from the WZ-10 article on the China Medium Helicopter program. I inserted the para there because it was reported in JDW as well as the reference Janes Helicopter and Aviation Week.

JDW Reference:
 * Robert Hewson, "China’s Z-10 helicopter built on Western expertise", Jane’s Defence Weekly, date posted 6 April 2005.

Janes Helicopter Market & Systems
 * http://images.qianlong.com/mmsource/images/2006/07/28/674853221.jpg

If this provide sufficient reference, do let me know before I revert the changes.

Koxinga CDF 05:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as you incluse your sources in the material, I don't have a problem with it being there. But it must have sources to be included, especially when it contains that much speculation. I do understand that due to the secrecy of the PRC government, we don't have much concrete information on the helicopter, and that's why it's even more importnat that the material be attributable to a verifiable source. If you aren't sure how to properly cite/footnote the material, just add everything you have there with the item, and I or someone else can format it it for you. - BillCJ 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I understand where you are coming from.

Koxinga CDF 12:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bombardier_Canadair_Regional_Jet
I have answered in User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard 07:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Communication
I am not sure if this is the way to contact you. I want to discuss posting photos etc., and than k you for your kind comments. W. T. Larkins 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Yes, this is the best way to contact me. I can answer here or on your page, whichever is easiest for you, bit you don't have to answer on both pages. I'm not an expert on posting photos, but I will try to help you as best as I can. If I don't have the answer, I can probably find someone who can aswer it. - BillCJ 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

HH-60G ref fix
Bill, Thank you for fixing the AF Almanac reference. I see how you did that, and is much cleaner than the standard referencing... learn something new every day. For those article sections that do not use the template, how does one do the same method? LanceBarber 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the Ref field in the Specs template is nice. To my knowledge, there's not a way to cite whole sections. We just have to cite at the end of the sentence of first mention. You might scan through WP:CITE and see if they have something else there. - BillCJ 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out my new subsection, created my own sectional ref line, do in a pinch. LanceBarber 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That'll work for now. THere are other places where that would work too, but I can't remember where they are! Oh well, when I do find them, I'll forget where this one is! - BillCJ 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I created a few section refs, I remember where, and I'll fix them. The WP:CITE uses a "detail|abc123" template that can be used with a little mod I think. I'll sandbox it.  (Got some new articles started off-line, but then get side tracked on changes and fixes fron one Watchlist... it certainly snowballs.)  Hope all is well with you, I'll get back to you later, thanks. LanceBarber 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Related content (B-47)
BillCJ, I'm assuming that you're not familiar with the page guidelines for WikiProject Aircraft, which state:

Related development: are those that this aircraft were developed from, or which were developed from it. Many aircraft will be stand-alone developments with no relatives, in which case this line should not be used. eg - For the P-51 Mustang, "Related development" would include at least the F-82 Twin Mustang, CAC Kangaroo, Cavalier Mustang and Piper Enforcer.

Cheers --Rlandmann 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm very familiar with the guidelines. But as I said in the edit summary, we now interpret those guidelines very loosely to reflect any connection at all. These include grandaughter and great-grandaughter designs, and designs utilizing only certian features, such as swept wings and podded engines. You may disagree with that practice, but alot has happened while you were gone. I think you'll find that hundreds of articles now follow that pattern. For example, check out Boeing 2707 listed under B-1 Lancer because of its shared swept-wing heritage (a bit a of stretch, I admit, but I already tried deleting it! See the talk page). Also as I said, now that we have the "developed from" and "variants" fields in the Infobox, we show more leeway in the Releted contents field. Maybe it's time we proposed modifying the guidelines to reflect the consensus by usage of the Project, rather than engaging in revert wars article by article to conform to the letter of the guidelines.


 * IMHO, "Related development" in and of itself, is vague. We're not talking C-130 and MC-130 here, we are talking about related development. As such, it casts a wide net and the aforementioned topics SHOULD be included. see my comments on the B-47 talk page — BQZip01 —  talk 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Grand-daughter and great-granddaughter designs were always OK - consider the relationships in the P-51 example; or the Me-163 article that was suggested as a model at the time.


 * It's never good practice to justify ignoring a guideline just because you've seen some other article(s) ignore it as well. If you really believe that the guideline no longer reflects consensus, then build consensus and change it.


 * FWIW, I don't see "hundreds" of articles that use this line in the way that you're suggesting; I've seen a few. Furthermore, I think that adding aircraft here with no shared design heritage suggests a stronger relationship than really exists, since the "related content" field is quite prominent, relative to the body text of an article. If the B-47's podded engines were a feature that proved influential on later designs, then the article should say so (and it does). --Rlandmann 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) PS - please don't patronise me with "alot has happened while you were gone". I find that really condescending.


 * Don't worry, we will be building a consensus to change to the guidelines to reflect current practices, and I have no doubt that it will pass. If it does not change, however, I will abide by the consensus from that point on. I'm sorry if you feel my remarks were patronizing and condescending, but not for saying them. Based on my observations of your behavior since your return, they are accurrate. - BillCJ 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, as an active WP:AIR editor since Sept. '06 with nearly 10,000 edits under his belt, who also stated WP:AIR is only that strict with the infobox's "developed from" and "variants" fields; we show much more leeway in Related content section now (showing a complete awareness of the guidelines), I certainly find the comment I'm assuming that you're not familiar with the page guidelines for WikiProject Aircraft to also be patronizing and condescending. As you probably disagree with my assessment, maybe we can get on the real issues here, and stop worrying about hurt feelings. - BillCJ 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm aware of your activity and was only assuming good faith. I'm also aware that the relevant section of the guidelines is buried a fair way down, and I really couldn't be sure that you were familiar with it (the quote you reference above is far from definitive on that point). From my own experience, I know that I'm regularly surprised as hell by various precedents and guidelines that I see people citing on a range of subjects here. The body of lore/law on Wikipedia is vast and not always obvious or easily accessed. So honestly, there was no malice or sarcasm intended.

I'm not here to trade blows with you, BillCJ - I just wanted you to see that what I understood from your remarks was an opinion that I couldn't possibly be disagreeing for any intelligent reason but only because I was somehow incapable of adapting to the changes over the last two years. It may surprise you to learn how genuinely happy and excited I am about the progress of WikiProject Aircraft in that time (the reason I returned in fact).

And likewise, have no fear, if consensus builds that a guideline no longer reflects current practice, then I'm all for changing it. In my experience, this is the only effective way to implement policy on Wikipedia (which is why I believe that the raft of proposals currently being discussed would be doomed to failure if they ever were adopted - guidelines only work if they're descriptive of what's already happening, not prescriptive as to what an editor or group of editors thinks should be the case). The only concern is that what people cite as "common practice" really is that; we're all human and we all have blindspots and make observational selections.

Anyway, I've rambled on quite enough. I think that we both know that you and I share a common purpose here, even if our understanding of that may vary at times! --Rlandmann 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC) BTW - love where you're going with the Hughes 300, but, as you know, I'm a "splitter".


 * Points take, and my apologies for being contentious.


 * As to the Hughes 300, that's the page I had originally set up back in Dec while working on the MD 500 and MD Helicopters pages. At that time, the Schweizer 300 page had only scant coverage of the Hughes 269/300 history, so I created the Hughes 300 page to cover that. Born2flie convinced me to merge the info into the Schweizer page after long negotiations, the result of which was the unorthodox Schweizer (Hughes) 300 page name. However, I don't think the 269C/300C are different enough to be separate from the Schweizers, whic I determined today trying to set up the page. I'm consider retooling it to cover the TH-55 only, and the 269A/B models, probably at TH-55 Osage, while leaving the 269C/300Cs on the Schweizer page. While need an admin to move tho ;)


 * On a side point, I placed the 330/333 models on the 300 page at that time because we really didn't have enough content to sustain a separate page, but I wanted to see those models get some coverage anyway. I don't know if we have any usable pics as yet, but we may have enough info to sustain a separate article for the 330/300 now. I am impressed by your work on the Dauphin 1 page coverage, and will be supporting keeping it separate at this point. I'm also in the process of splitting off the S-61R models from the H-3 Sea King page, with the valued help of a couple of other editors, at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3. So I guess some might call me a "spltter" too! - BillCJ 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on the Dauphin "1". I had noted that out of the various parties who had commented on the proposed merge that you were the only one who bothered following up. The irony of it all is that it's a type that I'm not really even interested in; but I believe that a separate article fits better with the general schema for how Wikipedia's aircraft content is covered and I wanted to make sure that if it was going to be merged back, it wasn't going to be because of those who simply felt that there wasn't enough material to justify a separate article (an argument that I strongly disagree with in a not-paper encyclopedia; when I click on an entry in the List of aircraft or in a category, that's the aircraft I want to know about and I don't want to have to pick the information out of an article that lumps several types together... but I digress!)

FWIW, as far as the Hughes 300 family goes, I'd agree with the breakdown of the material that I think you're suggesting: one page for the 269/TH-55, another for the 269C/300, and a third for the 330/333. One day soon when I'm feeling energetic, I'll be looking to split the Agusta A109 from the A119, since (as you've pointed out elsewhere) there's certainly enough of a difference there to warrant it and because I think that's a better fit as well. --Rlandmann 08:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When I joined Wiki in Aug, there was little coverage of lesser-known helicopter types, with some manufacturers ignored altogether. Born2flie has put together the Rotorcraft Task Force to try to address those deficiencies. For my part, I started a number of articles on helicpteres, and even put together the MD Helicopters article, to try to broaden the coverage. I placed the A 119 with the A 109 as a temporary measure, just as I did with 330/333.


 * Just a note on Born2flie's philosophy on articles: He usally loooks at them with a mind to achieving Featured article status, another goal of the Task Force. Smaller articles with skimpy coverage have less of a chance of achieving FA status, and this is what's behind his keeping some models together on one page. My threshold is usually content, but I don't mind creating a stub for a aircraft with no relatives. Part of that is my perfectionist tendencies, as I don't like creating stubby articles with hadly any content (one reason I keep putting of making the Boeing-Vertol XCH-62). Anyway, I'm doing more splitting than merging now, but I'm always aware of wht I call the "deletionist-/AFD-nazis", who spend all them time ridding WIki of what they consider non-notable articles. Anyway, enough of MY rambling. I look forward to working with you here to improve Wiki aircraft coverage. - BillCJ 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm wary of the AFD-nazis as well, especially because I spend so much of my time contributing off-the-beaten track types. There's bound to come a day (maybe not far off) when one of them is going to list an obscure aircraft as "not notable" and WP:AIR will need to come up with a formal notability guideline for aircraft. --Rlandmann 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Bill, I've removed photo because there is very little text in that section. This image exceeded line generated by the next header very strong. Piotr Mikołajski 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted the same explanation on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet talk page. Piotr Mikołajski 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AgustaWestland EH101
Great job in cleaning up the AgustaWestland EH101 page. I tried a bit a few minutes before you did, but you did a much better job. Cheers!-- Rob NS  01:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've been meaning to separate out the history and operators sections, and your edits reminded me of that. I was't sure how you'd take it, so I'm glad you like it! - BillCJ 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, I've made serious cleanup and copied some info from "Operational history" to "Operators" section where it fits better. Could you make some cleanup and copy edit redundant information? Thanks, Piotr Mikołajski 07:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

F-16 Viper
Hello, I was the one who said F-16 was not refered to as "Viper". I saw your change to the USAF page and did a search. Sure enough, its called a Viper. I spent lots of years on F-16's and never heard of this term. My bad. Guess pilots call it "Viper" and mechanics call it "Lawn Dart". Hopefully you know why we call it that... the single engine, poops out and it hits the ground like a lawn dart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.53.130.219 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Talk:Panavia Tornado edit
As well as your many substantive contributions and vandalism reverts, thanks for providing me with a laugh! Mark83 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! When I saw your summary, I was afraid I was in for a rebuke! Sometimes I go too far in my attempts to be funny, so I'm glad you liked it. - BillCJ 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AgustaWestland AW119
Hi Bill - I split this article off today, then realised when I looked at "What links here" that I may have inadvertently stolen your thunder. If so - sorry! Could you please cast your eye over it in any case? Most of my print references are too old to include anything really useful on this type. Cheers --Rlandmann 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Naw, you just saved me alot of legwork finding text and references! I found the new page just before you posted you message (like about 3 minutes! It looks good so far, and if there's anything I can add from my sandbox page, I will. I assume the AW119Ke specs are enough, but I have the original if we want to add them. (Yes, I know the guidelines say only one set of specs per article, but esp. when we double up models - not the case here, but in A109 before split - we bend the guidelines just a bit now!) :) (Actually, Ididn't have the A119 specs. Oops!) - BillCJ 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Orbitalcraft I and removal of AfD tags by the creator, I'm not trying to trod on your perview as an admin, just trying to back you up so they know you aren't the only one on their case on this. I'll back off if you ask me too. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Commander toad
It looks like you were right about User:Commander toad being the same as User:Sirhan Kennedy... mere moments after you'd left me the message about checking for a pattern, I saw that this user had attempted to recreate the Orbitalcraft I article. I blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (and protected the article), so I assume that any unblock will be met with a checkuser to confirm this. The contributions seem to speak for themselves though... but we'll see. -- Kinu t /c  05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

B-29 article
The previous deletion was because the author had blanked the article -- that wouldn't apply to the new one. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just put some notes onto Nawlin's Talk page about Dave. LanceBarber 18:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OUCH! Chris just put the formal nomination for deletion in on new recreated Survivors page!! LanceBarber 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good! I'm stepping back from most of the Dave stuff for the sake of my sanity, but glad to see others stepping in. - BillCJ 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dave hasn't gotten the clue yet, I even did an initial cleaned up his B-47 Survivors page, to show him how to lead-in an article, back direct to main article, footnote/refs, add cateogories, etc. Ya think he'd learn and recreate the 29 survivors with the necessary details... including keeping the already referenced history on 10 29's, notable or not. None of us like seeing our tedious work go to waste. You've seen me learn, make mistakes, fix, back-off, move-ahead, and take charge. New editors are now communicating with me, like I did initially with you.   There is a lot of learning, value, and hard work maintaining articles, and personal satisfaction, too... regardless of pain-in-the-necks and vandalism.  Hopefully, we (you, me, Piotr, others) along with Chris and Nawlin, can come up with some WikiAv/Hist guidelines for survivors, variants, and operators break-out articles from the main one. (Listening now to F-16s circling above my house and doing touch and go's at Buckley!!  Sounds effects are great, B-29s would be awesome!!!) LanceBarber 19:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, have you seen his disclaimer [here? Total lack of understanding of what citing sources is all about. He has added links on placenames, and calls that sourcing!


 * Guidelines for breakout articles would be good. We might want to include the ever-controversial pop-culture spin-offs too. I could do without any pop-culture references at all, but as long as they are allowed, long sections should be allowed to be spu-off without the AfD nazis jumping on them for merely existing. the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture‎ services the four Harriar variants, and I live in fear of it being discovered by the AfD nazis. Most of what is there is notable. I delete "Solid metal gear #" just about every day now, and other non-notables too. Anyway, it would be worht considering anyway. - BillCJ 19:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Deep Sea 129/EC-121
Cool. I wrote that late last night (I work all night) and admittedly got a little pressed for time. You did a very nice job reorganiziung the information I added--usually my specialty! I will be finishing the Air Force section tonight and at that point the article goes into the polishing stage. Thanx for the assistance and the kind words.--Buckboard 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. - BillCJ 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Team - fiction header
No offense, but "no clear distinction"? It says so right there in the first sentence of the article. Kusonaga 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then obviously I'm not talking about the first sentence, but the rest of the article. Not all of the articles are a problem, but some sections do need work. I suggest you read Manual of Style (writing about fiction) carefully, as it may have some pointer you can apply. - BillCJ 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New helos today
Just spotted these - want to do some cleanup? Robinson R66 and Boeing-Vertol XCH-62 --Rlandmann 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Defineitly, thanks. I have a sandbox on the XCH-62, so I'll see what I can move over. THe R-66 may be a bit premature, but oh well, I thinbk it can stay for now. At least they got the names right, so we know there not sockpuppets of a certain over-aggressive user ;) - BillCJ 22:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm someone beat me to the R66. What isn't mentioned, and what I'll be adding when I have time, is that the RR300 is being specifically designed for use in the R-66, although now Enstrom is talking about building a helo around it as well. The R-66 was announced with a lot of fanfare at Heliexpo, and has received a lot of press coverage in the latest issues of the various industry mags.  AK Radecki  22:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How does the 300 compare to the 250? Is it a replacement or complement? Any idea? - BillCJ 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Visually, it looks like it is an evolution in design. I have an article on it at work, will try to find more.  AK Radecki  23:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. - BillCJ 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Renamed Robinson R-66 to Robinson R66 per Robinson's pattern on the R22 and R44 on their web site. - BillCJ 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee Titans
The consensus among NFL team pages has been to leave all the "fansite" links off the pages, as they are simply endless and no more than advertisements. Pats1 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware the Titans Radio Network was a fansite. I don't know about the other one. Please remember, most vandals don't leave edit summaries, so it's helpful if legitimate edits use them, makes life easier for ediots editors who watch pages for vandalism. - BillCJ 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as the Redskins go, I have yet to do the NFC - I only did the AFC yesterday. As far as leaving edit summaries, I was making multiple edits on a mass scale (16 articles), so I had to leave them out in the interest of time. As far as the Titans Radio Network goes, I'll have to look into that specific site. Pats1 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Redskins' links for you (I was going to do them today already), and added the appropriate template (Template:Linkfarm) to the links section - the same template that was on the Broncos' (or Steelers, forgot) and Redskins page, mind you. Also take a look at the See Also section for that template's page. Pats1 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The TItans Radio Network is the official site for the network, not a fan site. Most of the NFL teams' radio networks don't seem to have sites (I know the Falcons don't). - BillCJ 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then that's fine. Just remove all of the other fansite ones and then remove the linkfarm template. Pats1 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Scout.com is a bit sketchy, too. Most of them are independently operated and maintained. Pats1 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

RAF Sentry Names
Noticed that you have asked for a citation in relation to the RAF aircraft being named. Just thought I would mention that this may be difficult to prove with a citation. Each aircraft has a cartoon on the wall as you enter the aircraft. The inside of the aircraft is classified so photographs are not allowed! but I have found which shows one of the cartoons. MilborneOne 09:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * THen the item should be removed per Wiki's verifiability policies. I also question whether such nicknames are really notable. - BillCJ 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with you the information is not notable or verifiable.MilborneOne 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet B-29s
As far as I know all three B-29s entered Soviet service and had red stars applied. For me painting of national markings is enough to call such aircraft "used by" particular operator. Current WP:AIR consensus about captured aircraft is not well thought. Bf 190, Ju 88, Fw 190 or He 177 (as well as several others) captured by RAF and tested in RAE had British roundels applied and had British serials. It's hard to tell that these planes were not in RAF inventory but certainly were not used operationally in combat. BTW - thanks for info about inuse template, I thought about it today but had no time to find it. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think one soulution on this is to add a brief sentence or 2 on how they were used. The RAAF only used 2 Washington B.1s for test purposes, but they did have RAAF serial numbers, and were assigned to a squadron. I'm going to try to add some info on them from a book I have in the next few days. - BillCJ 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft author Jenkins
Bill, have you read any of Dennis Jenkins's books? Looks like he's written several. I'm ordering his F/A-18 Hornet: A Navy Success Story book. Looks like it'll be pretty good. Strange though, it's a 2000 book and out of print, at least for now. I ordered a used one instead. Just wondered what you thought of Jenkins. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, as far as I know, I haven't read any of his books. Let me know what you think of the F-18 book. I'm not able to work because of an extended illness, so books aren't something I'm able to get very often. I'm saving up to by Corky Meyer's book about being a test pilot at Grumman. If you like the F-18 book, I might try for that one next. - BillCJ 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Check out on the A129I 3-view added today. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll let you know what I think about the F-18 book. I have some books you could borrow (listed on my user page) if you want.  I agree about the A129 image.  Looks straight out of a brochure or mag. -Fnlayson 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look at the list and let you know. THanks for offering. I poted to Alan on the image, and he seems to agree too. He's going to check for the correct tag to place on the image later today. - BillCJ 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I got the F/A-18 book yesterday and started reading it. It has couple sections on the F-18L that the F/A-18 article is largely based on.  Some parts of the article seem almost word for word.  But I'll have to check to make sure.  Anyway, take it easy.. -Fnlayson 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A350
Thanks for concurring. I am also thinking of moving A350 orders to a new page. I did the same for the 787 last year. With the A350 enterring service 6 years from now, a lot of orders and rumors of orders will occur. It will take away from the article. Good? Marcus--Bangabalunga 05:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)