User talk:BilCat/archive3

=June=

Bell 429
I just added some info...hope I didn't conflict with your editing. AKRadecki  17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry :( That the old version. The new one is on User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 429. I'm trying to and specs to it now, then it'll be ready. I'll try to copy over your additions. - BillCJ 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. When I saw the edit activity on my watchlist, I thought you'd gone live with it. AKRadecki  17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I was just cutting the 429 stuff out of the 427 page, and fixing some redirects. You should know by now that I do a better layout than the "person" who did that one! ;) I've copied over your additions to the sandbox. Sorry, I do things backwards sometimes! - BillCJ 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref problem 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash
Hey Bill, you might want to recheck that URL...I just tried to check out that ref you used, and it comes up as a page-not-found error.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten about as far as I'm gonna get today...that link is still sitting there waiting for a fix, and the whole thing could probably use a good copyedit.  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

F-20 Tigershark and
I noticed your mod to F-20 Tigershark, putting in to replace the bare tag. I have no problem with your mod and frankly don't care which is used, but seeing your edit makes me want to ask: Why do you prefer one to the other? Footnotes says it's up to the editor to choose and mentions the smaller size. Is that the only reason for your preference?

Basically, I'm trying to decide if I want to make a point of doing the same on the pages I come across.

Thanks.

--KNHaw (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, I prefer for simplicity and the small size. It also allows the use of columns, ie. , but this feauture only works with browsers such as Firefox, but not IE, which is what I use. Most of the editors within WP:AIR use it and convert to this style when we come across the other. - BillCJ 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll make a point of doing it for all WP:AIR articles I come across.  I'll probably do the same for others unless the specific project guidelines request otherwise.  --KNHaw (talk)  03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell 429
Bill, your reversion looks good...I've left a note on the IP's talk page.  AK Radecki Speaketh  04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * THanks. - BillCJ 05:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Units in Concorde
Bill, I started watching this article and am wondering if there's some reason Imperial/US units are listed first throughout. I would think it being a European design, Metric units should be first. It seems odd that it uses British spelling but US units are first. Maybe I'm missing something. Any idea? Thanks. -Jeff/ Fnlayson 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, shhhhhhhhh! ;) From this diff, it looks like they used the imp-specs template when they converted it from a list. Up to now, no one else has caught it, and that surprises me, given how sentivtve the metric-proponents are! If you want to convert it over, go ahead, but as far as I'm concerned, just leave it be till someone else catches it. It might even be fun to watch! - BillCJ 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's that way in the text as well, which seemed more odd. I might start on it when I'm bored or something.  No big deal.  Later. :)  -Fnlayson 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is odd that it has stayed that way for so long, esp. given the noise they make everytime someones changes a word to US spelling! - BillCJ 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eurofighter
Hi BillCJ, in case you didn't see it already, but I put the recent "similar aircraft" changes up to discussion on the Eurofighter talk page. Cheers, 80.139.23.116 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC) - Ups, forgot to log in. :-) MikeZ 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Falcon 900
Sorry if I got in the way of your edit to the Dassault Falcon 900, just trying to help. MilborneOne 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't. I just put the inuse tag up to make sure we didn't have a problem. Thanks for the help, really! I was in the middle of adding infoboxes and aircontent templates to all the Falcon pages, when we had a thunderstorm, so I had to shut down the comp. I've just about got all of them finished now. I'm trying to have a deleted version of the Dassault Falcon 2000 page retrieved so I don't have to recreate it from scratch, but for the time being am starting it as a sandbox at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Dassault Falcon 2000; right now its a straight copy of the 900. If you have some info at your fingertips you want to add, feel free. And thanks again! - BillCJ 23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The copyvio page was crap, but I've got a stub with a couple of pics in the mainspace now at Dassault Falcon 2000. Feel free to twaek there, as I'm done for now. - BillCJ 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More writing?
I realize you're swamped with all the project stuff, but if you get a bit of time that you wouldn't mind helping with a non-aviation article, let me know. I have a gal who got herself into a bit of a bind with copyvio and COI, and I have suggested to her that she have someone else write the article, but I've asked her to provide a list of refs to work with. She's a complete newbie, and having a bit of a hard time getting adjusted to how we do things. If you're interested, once she comes up with the refs, let me know?  AK Radecki Speaketh  01:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that depends on if she's single or not! ;) But seriously, let me have a look at the page, and if I think it's something I can work on easily, I'll do it. I've done enoguh project work today anyway that a break would be good. Rewriting copy is probably my least favorite part of the work, but I'll do what I can. I do much better just copyediting and tweaking, but writing all those Bell pages has at least proved I can do it, given enough time! - BillCJ 02:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No pressure, of course...if it's something you'd rather not do, that's fine. Anyway, I'd speedied the page for copyvio, spam and COI. The text is here...you'll see what I mean by the spammyness! The organization appears to be notable enough, though. There's a couple threads on my talk page about it if you want some background. The gal who's doing it is Maya, User talk:Nspwiki. Feel free to introduce yourself, or I'd be happy to if you prefer. My last message to her was to suggest she come up with the refs. We'll see.  AK Radecki Speaketh  02:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, let me know if/when she comes up with the refs. If they're online refs, then that's something I can use. I can't get out much, so going to a library to do research isn't a good option for me. In the meantime I'll look at the sandbox, and try to see if that's something I can work on. I'll try to contact here if I'm interested after I see the refs. (And congrats on beating the hag-bot!) - BillCJ 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello Bill!

Where in the southern United States do you live? I know Jeff is in Alabama, didn't know where you live. Get better soon, Marcus--Bangabalunga 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. I'm near Chattanooga, TN. And you? - BillCJ 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Im in Vancouver Canada as my user page says. I asked you this because Airbus and Boeing both held a huge conference here last week which I attended. I met John Leahy and Mike Bair and Carson and a bunch of other people. As you may know I used to work in the Aviation field before. Anyways to cut this short, I am going to South Carolina to visit family in August. While I was talking to Boeing people, I asked if its ok to go to Vought in Charleston and see the 787 being built. They said yes. They gave me pass clearance. I dont want to go by myself and I didn't know what part of the south you lived in. I thought we could meet up there and go together and take lots of pics and do lots of research for our 787 article. My goal was to make it a Featured article by the rollout date but thats not gonna happen. I am hoping by May 19th 2008 when the plane enters service we can have the article become a featured piece. Anyways, thats all. Marcus--Bangabalunga 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I've read it on your page before, but just forgot. My folks are from the other Vancouver (in WA). I've flown through Seattle, tho we never got off the plane, but never visited there or Vancouver BC. I'm about a 4-5 hour drive each way from Charleston, and were I able to drive long distances right now, I'd certainly take you up on the offer! Have you asked Jeff about it? Depending on where he is in AL and his schedule, it might be something he'd be able to do. Anyway, thanks much for asking, and enjoy! - BillCJ 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll ask Jeff.--Bangabalunga 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

B-44, B-50, et al
Thanks! I got really tired of watching fools debate the same old thing, even though I originally cited this same ref back in September 2006, yet it slowly got edited away until we have completely ungermaine refs to the Douglas DC-series... So, I just went back into the year old version of these articles, and pulled my original reference...  Sheesh!

Mark Sublette 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what was left didn't have a fact tag when the user added his material. His item wasn't very encyclopedic, so I reverted it, and added the tag. Evidently the user doesn't know what those tags mean, or doesn't care! I've not been watching the article for very long, so I didn't realize there had been a source originally. Thanks again for finding it. Hopefully the source will stay this time! I'll certainly do my best to make sure it does. - BillCJ 06:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey - I was raised a Southern Christian (not necessarily hard Baptist) and I believe you exhibit your ethics through your actions, not on your sleeve. I went to Clemson University, and we have a saying there: A Clemson Man Needs No Introduction.

Mark Sublette 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I WAS raised hard Baptist! But I've learned that right actions are necessary if you ever expect anyone to listen to your words. I don't always handle situations on Wiki the right way, esp in the "heat of battle", but I do try. I've also learned no one's perfect, and everyone knows it! It's how you handle your mistakes when they know who you are that matters in the end. That's partly why I have a Christian userbox on my page, as it certainly helps to keep me accountable! Anyway, thanks for your comments and reminders. Btw, I would have thought your were a Tar Heel! ;) - BillCJ 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bite yer tongue, Son! I marched in Tiger Band for six years, and my blood runs Orange!

Mark Sublette 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could have been worse - I could have called you a Gamecock! :) Anyway, my blood runs orange too - UTK orange, that is! Just a fan though - I went to one of them thar hard-Baptist colleges! - BillCJ 07:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 07:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuse me of being a follower of the University of Stupid Chickens, and Ah'll have to slap you into the middle of next week!

Sub*

Mark Sublette 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"I don't always handle situations on Wiki the right way, esp in the "heat of battle", but I do try."

Here are two philosophies that I learned from band directors at Clemson, that have served me well: 1. Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig. 2. Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it!

And then, when I went to work for Amtrak in 1990, a wizened ex-Vietnam G.I., a black man named Collin Mason, the chef I worked alongside for two years, told me, when a bunch of old-time railroaders who resented a new-hire who knew more about the history of their job than they did after a career on the railroad and were giving me the blues - Mason said to me, "Mark - WHY are you renting them space in your head?" And he was absolutely right. This is the single best piece of advice I have received in my entire life.

Mark Sublette 08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests
Hi Bill - I'm coming up on a couple of helicopters in my journey through the missing aircraft and was wondering whether you'd like to tackle Bell 48 and Bell 61? --Rlandmann 06:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I just ran across them this week while looking for some other Bells (the 400/440 primarily), though I really don't know much about them yet. I've got a couple of helicopter books coming this week, and they're supposed to have some good coverage of rare models. I'll see what I can come up with in the next few weeks. It'd be nice if we can find some usable pics in the meantime too. I'll post my sandbox links to your talk page when I get them set up. Btw, could you take a look at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Bell 400? Thanks. - BillCJ 07:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill! 400 looks good to me. Couple of adds if I may: Airlife's Helicopters and Rotorcraft gives first flight date as 30 June 1984 (p.59), total production as 4 airframes (p. 47) and programme cancellation as 1989 (p.43). World Aircraft Information Files (File 890 Sheet 23) also gives a first flight date of 30 June 1984, and says that certification was originally scheduled for August 1986. Hope that helps! --Rlandmann 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note that the Bell 48 and 61 have just been done - it's the quick and the dead around here! :) Please cast your eye over them if you have a minute --Rlandmann 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon Tables
Bill, what was wrong with the tables I added to the F-16 Fighting Falcon page? I thought it made it look cleaner and easier to read. I won't re-edit them in, but take a look at the history and see which you prefer. Furthermore I would like to create tables that replace a countries flag with the countries Air Force Roundel. Any thoughts? Thanks, from north of the iron curtain.-- Rob NS  22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Grumman F-11 Tiger
Nope, and now you've uncovered the truth; I have no idea what the format or accepted conventions are (in true confession, I never did). I simply blunder around and wait till someone tells me what I have done wrong. Thanks and on to my next blunder... {:0} Bzuk 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC).


 * If you really want to know, try Naming conventions (aircraft). :) - BillCJ 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and again, in the words of Tennessee Williams, "I've always depended on the kindness of strangers..." Bzuk 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, I've been called strange all my life, so I guess that fits! ;) - BillCJ 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, "stranger" not "strange" but I will take your word for it. Bzuk 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Could use your help
Any chance you could assist in helping me with this discussion? I can't seem to convince the editors of the page to go to standard sizing for images. — BQZip01 — talk 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Police Helicopters
Bill,

I have attempted to add photos of the two most common U.S. police helicopters. This is my third and last attempt. From your comments it appears that you don't believe that it adds anything to the article, but I beg to differ. If it was my article I would want to represent the most common helicopters in police service. If you feel different, delete to your hearts content. I had intended to contribute more photos and text but I will forego future contributions as they seem to be unwelcome.

Steve


 * My problem isn't with you or the helicopter types, but the fact that the article text is so small at this point. In addition, I don't think we don't need three American helicopters in the article, especially when two of the pics are somewhat dark and the aircraft are stationary. If you check the history of the article, you'll see that I've removed other pics because there were too many European helicopters. I don't own the article, and I'm not trying to be a dictator here. I'm just trying to do what I think is best for the article. I think the best solution for the time being would be to put the pics on the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Police_helicopters page. There aren't any 500s or 206s on that page as yet, so they would be good additions there. However, the pics will have to be uploaded to the Commons site first, but the proceedures are about the same as uploding on Wikipedia. If you need any help with that, just ask, and I'll do what I can. I do think the Police helicopter article has room for growth (see Air ambulance), and as it expands, we can add more pics. But right now there's not even room for a gallery without creating large blank spaces.


 * One other thing: I've noticed that you've been adding the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department link to several pages, including the Helicopter article. I don't feel that it's relevant there, and another editor removed it the last time you added it, so it's not just me who thinks that. I'f you're just trying to give a link to the pics, then I think the Commons would be the best way to go. - BillCJ 08:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bill
My dear Bill, I had no actual reason, other than trying to gift a smile to a good and kind person like you... and seeing I succeeded in the modest task has made my day :) May you have a beautiful day, my friend! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Schweizer 333
Hi Bill - nothing I can add on this one, but I have made contact with someone who says he'l be happy to contribute a photo when he gets back from holidays in a couple of weeks. I agree that 333 is the better name, and for the same reason that you suggest - the out-of-production model would have to be the overwhelmingly more common/familiar name to trump a machine currently in production... --Rlandmann 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, many thanks! - BillCJ 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back
Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. I know you are into the aircraft and such, but any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 08:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin X-33
Hey Bill, Please look at Lockheed Martin X-33 when you get a chance. On reference 1, a user has changed a NASA link to Wikisource link which is just a direct copy of the same NASA page. I changed it back but the user reverted my change saying Wikisource is preferred like Commons. That's a new one on me. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in, but the wikisource one is preferred, because NASA does occasionally move things around and even deletes older pages (sometimes) from their site, so by putting the PD text at wikisource, it's a more permanent reference.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. The wikisource page didn't seem to fit cite requirements without references/biography.  Good enough.. -Fnlayson 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref
Actually i was trying to make a template just for notes so i could convert the references but it didn't work so i reverted it plz look at the edit history i didn't use the ref converter at all on the article

--Java7837 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. Sorry. - BillCJ 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-25
Hi Bill, I have some big plans with the Su-25 article (my final objective is to make it an FA until August), and I need somebody to give me advices and do some copyediting and other things like that. I started editing this article because I found a very good source, which can cover almost the entire article. I completely overhauled the "Operators" and "Combat service" sections, and I like to hear your opinion regarding them (because I think you are a truelly expert on the subject). Are you interested to help? Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliments. The only expertise I have is accumulated from 25 years of reading aviation books, particulary those by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick (starting at age 13). I am a half-way decent copy editor, so I'd be happy to take a look at it, tell you what I think. I do have plenty of experience redoing and creating aircraft artilces, but I am not usually aiming for any particular status. SO for FA status, I might not be of that much use to you, but I will help where I can.


 * "Combat service" should come before the "Operators" section, and "Former operators" should be a3rd-level heading. THose are extremely minor things, but I thought I mention them to you first rather than just move them, as you may have had a reason for doing it that way. I'll take a look at the page from before you started making changes, which will give me an idea of what you have done. I'm surprised I'd forgotten to watch this page, as it is a type I'm interested in, along with the A-10 and A-9. But it all looks very good at first glance. - BillCJ 22:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll change those. Before I started editing those sections, all the article was completely rubbish and almost completely unreferenced. Still, the developement section is also rubbish and unreferenced (claiming that only 2 Su-25UBs were produced, and other things like that, which are probably vandalism) and needs to be rewritten. I will do that in the next few days, as time permits. Anyway, thanks for your cooperation! --Eurocopter tigre 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, those were minor things. I've got several helicopter projects on the table right now, so I can't do much major work, but I will watch the recent changes, and jusmp in if I feel it's needed. The arcticle talk page will probably be best for most of the content discussion. - BillCJ 22:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BillCJ
Thanks for welcoming my first real attempt at content addition in Wikipedia (your C-27J article). It's a nice article. I'm still getting my wikifeet wet and appreciate your good words and encouragement.--Wikiwackiness 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Just remember, it's not my article per WP:OWN, but it is certainly one of my Wiki-babies! If your interested in aviation/aircraft, take a look at WP:AVIATION and WP:AIR, two Wiki projects that deal with Aviation in genral and AIrcraft in particular respectively. YOu'll fine a lot of good advice and guidelines on contributing to air-related airticles. And welcome! - BillCJ 02:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
I certainly appreciate your perspective. I'm not always the best at following WP:ES, but with the amount of editing I do, sometimes it's just not possible for me to remember every change I make during the course of an edit. I try and tag most of my summaries with some sort of relevant information. You may have remember me doing a series of edits here to help get the article improved, so I'm definitely on your side. :-) I've been blanking my talk page because of a few editors who feel it's their personal yelling page. Be well, there's a LOT more that needs to be done to improve the article. //Tecmobowl 07:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes the blanking totally understandable! Ah yes, I rember the edits, just didn't recall the name, My apologies. I usually edit aircraft-related articles, so I don't spend much time keeping up with other projects. I'm a Braves fan,a nd have been watching the main article for a while, and found this page by following the edits of users in an effort to determine if they had a pattern of vandalism. Regrettably, I didn't do that with you, but that's partly beacuse of time also, as it is late ehre. Thanks for you efforts to improve the page, and let me know if there's any ofther baseball-related articles that could use another editor's eyes. - BillCJ 07:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well lovely, sorry you are now getting dragged into this. Enter at your own peril.  I would love to converse more, but since I'm being tracked on all pages, it appears that can't happen without people like Epeefleche chiming in.  //Tecmobowl 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

N202LF
Care to revisit Articles for deletion/N202LF since there's been a number of changes?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit
Check out Stat Medevac, and the comment about their Bell 430. Maybe a link from the 430 page is in order?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  02:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. There is a blurb on the 430 setting the record on its page, but not which helicopter. If we can find a souce confirming the N-number, then we could link to it. I do notice this article cites no sources either, and it's style isn't quite encyclopedic. - BillCJ 02:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Chipper Jones & other Braves articles
I was spending some time thinking about asking to have something like sprotected2 added to the Chipper Jones article. Have you ever asked? Also, do you know of any other articles of players that are in particularly bad shape? I'm trying to focus mostly on ELs right now, but the more info the merrier. I'll mark your page watched again :-) //Tecmobowl 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually the vandlism has to be many times a day before admins will sprotect it, but I could ask a couple of admins I work with in the WP:AIR project to look at the page history, and see if it's justifiable in this case. I only have one other Braves player on my watchlist (Willie Harris), so I really don't know what's normal for ball players in general, or Braves players in particular. Chipper is a polarizing figure, esp. for Mets fans. I imagine the John Rocker page is worse for that reason, but I haven't checked, as I don't think my blood pressure could handle it! - BillCJ 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was thinking you might watch a particular number of braves related articles. If there are any other pages in the baseball world that you think are in desperate need of attention, let me know. With regards to the vandalism, I think that might be a good thing to explore. I recently had a page tagged. //Tecmobowl 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You might try Braves-Mets rivalry, if aren't watching it already. If you have some time, you can browse the history,a nd see what we're dialing with there. Mostly unsourced comments and speculation, usually anti-Braves, but a few anti-Mets stuff too. - BillCJ 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help on table
Bill, Got a table in Big Bird (satellite) article, KH-9 Series section, that does not fall out under the section, but ends up in the Ref section. I did something to mess it up, and can not see my problem. The table was added during my expansion work back in May, and just now noticed the problem. plz help. thanks, Lance...LanceBarber 06:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lance, I'm not to good with tables, but I'll take a look. Jeff (Fnlayson) does more work with tables; if I can't figure it out, hi might be able to. - BillCJ 06:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I found the problem: there was a hyphen at the end of the table, between the | and the }. Wierd. - BillCJ 06:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly is weid... interesting how a hyphen can make it respond like a ref and/or move the table to the bottom of a page... Only the Shadow Knows!! Thanks, good eyes! Lance   LanceBarber 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a fresh set of eyes helps. I saw the hyphen there at the end, just before I was about to give up. It just looked odd, so I deleted it, and tried the preview, and it worked! Anyway, it might be useful in the future, but I don't know. - BillCJ 07:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

F-22 comparisons thoughts
Bill: It occurs to me as I watch the changes, edits, and revert regarding the "Similar/Comparable Aircraft" debate on the F-22 article that something should be done to mitigate it all. Subjectivity vs. objectivity, and all that. It's pretty legitimate to ask what "similar" really means. Does the Typhoon have wings, engines, and electronics? Yes. Ok, so they're "similar/comparable ". But when it comes to performance, people are playing "he said, he said" with this one. Why not use a term like "contemporary"? The idea of "generation" could seem, perhaps, to be slightly subjective. It would seem people should be able to agree that the Typhoon and F-22 are contemporaries, based not only in development timing, but in active-use status. And then maybe a step further: classify them as "front-line combat aircraft" or as someone has recently suggested "similar purpose". It moves the problem away from who defines what capabilities are "similar/comparable " to another's. Dunno, just some thoughts.... Cheers--Jonashart 17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL
Thanks! Yeah. Aggies might not be able to read this. I mean we have multisyllabic words, numbers over 21 (the max that male Aggies can count on their appendages...), words with few pictures... Next time, maybe you could add a Support block to the review next time? — BQZip01 — talk 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you'd apreciate that one! Sorry, I've never participated in a review before, so I didn't realize we could support it. Wasn't an intentional snub. Next time around I will next time. - BillCJ 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Contact
Hi Bill, I'd like to send you some Blackbird "stories" directly, rather than in here. Would you please contact me at my email address of dpdemp@comcast.net ? I'll keep your email private, as I have done so with Alan ( who I have sent some things to already ). Thanks, and if you'd rather not, that's OK, just let me know on my talk page. David Dempster 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

SAM 26000 and 27000
Hi BillCJ. I actually thought that combining two plane pages into one was a good idea at first, until I actually got into it. It was too much given the dates of the plane (built 10 years apart), the photo in the infobox (had to choose between one of the planes), and the overall layout just became too complicated. Thus, I decided to seperate them, and, as you can see, I've been working on SAM 27000. I actually have a great book abot the history of Air Force One, Air Force One: The Aircraft that Shaped the modern Presidncy, and so far, I've only taken the citations from that book. Please feel fre to help out with anything, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best, Happyme22 05:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sorry but I'm just working on the history section now. I'll get to the related content eventually. Happyme22 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. The 26000 article I've not really spent a lot of time on, but the 27000 one is taking me a while. Join in whenever...Happyme22 05:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CH-46 issue
Bill, all is fixed. I'm not sure what was source of problem but with current formatting all is working quite well. Piotr Mikołajski 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

SAM 26000 and 27000-coming along
Hey there again. I think SAM 27000's article is about done for now, but SAM 26000 still needs some work. I'm tired out from working on 27000 so feel free to join in, as you already have done. Best, Happyme22 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One last thing-perhaps we could add a capability and features section with some stats about the plane....What do you think? Happyme22 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * SAM 27000 is looking good. SAM 26000 has a good start, and it'll get there. THanks for catching the 27000 pic I added to the 26000 page. It was late and I didn't realize it. - BillCJ 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Monitor Resolution
Hello Bill, Hope you're doing well. I use a 1280 X 1024 resolution while editing on Wikipedia. What is your monitor resolution? Im guessing vast majority use 1024 X 768 and the rest 1280 X 1024. Marcus--Bangabalunga 19:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I use 800x600, and know of a number of users who do also. I have an older machine, a 15-inch monitor, and bad eyes, so 800x600 works best for me. - BillCJ 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sorry to hear that about your eyes. I asked this for two reasons. One, what do you think about the airplane pics I added to 787 orders? And two, since you use 800X600, does it show properly on your monitor? I just changed my resolution to yours and it was different but ok.--Bangabalunga 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's OK, I'm just near-sighted, though I can't see 20/20 with glasses,and can't wear contacts (which I can see 20/20 with) for several reasons. As to the 787 orders page, the pics are listed in a line above the table on my resolution, which I don't think was your intention. A better way might be to put them all in a gallery at the bottom, especially since as copyrighted images they cannot be put on COmmons. - BillCJ 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried the bottom placing but messed things up. I will resize the thumbs to original and that should do the trick for most monitors atleast.--Bangabalunga 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back!
Hi Bill, back from the redwoods...saw your note on Air Methods, I moved it to remove the "corp" as that's contrary to the MOS. Also good to see the Air 2 page. I'll have to post a pic or two from the memorial...it was an absolutely amazing event.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! Dhaluza does amazing work very quickly. Also, do you have a pic of Air 2 itself? - BillCJ 17:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks...yes, I do, I'll have to upload a couple. I knew all 3 of the crew well, all of them had worked shifts at Mercy 14 (my base) and I was a backup/relief mech on Air 2. Oh, and regarding below...I threw a warning on the IP user's page, not that it'll do any good.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

V-22
<<Removed ignorance masquerading as knowledge added by 81.235.232.14 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)>> - BillCJ 00:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill, it may interest you to know that the above IP just garnered himself a block for vandalizing my user page.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Air 2 pic
Image:Mercy-air2-N410MA-ridgecrest-050224-04-adj.jpg

Bill, this is probably my favorite Air 2 image. They had gotten stuck at the Ridgecrest hospital pad for a transmission chip light, so since that hospital is closer to my base than to Victorville, I was asked to drive out and check it out. It turned out to be minor contamination and after I cleaned it, I released it to service. It had taken me about an hour to get there, so when I walked up, I got a couple big hugs from the med crew who were very glad to see me. The nurse that night was also the nurse that was killed in the crash. When they finally got ready to lift and head home, I crouched down and shot this, hand held, at a 1 second exposure...despite the blast of rotor wash, I can't believe I was able to hold the camera that steady. The image was later used at the memorial service.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll see what I can do. Btw, what's the full name and location of the hospital? - BillCJ 23:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridgecrest Community Hospital, Ridgecrest, California.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  23:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. - BillCJ 23:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I just noticed another mistake. The info box pic is not the accident aircraft. That was N410MA. The pic is of N401MA, my current aircraft.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  23:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have/Can you get a daytime image of Air 2? - BillCJ 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, here are a few to choose from.


 * Image:Mercy-412-N410MA-050228-02cr.jpg
 * Image:Mercy-412-N410MA-050228-03cr.jpg
 * Image:Mercy-412-N410MA-rialto-050223-01.jpg

As for the "bribe" issue, I don't have any handy sources, and probably shouldn't get into it. It was a baseless accusation made by someone in a different county who was involved with a competitor of ours, and who was trying to stir up the pot. He was later removed from his post in his local fire department, and evidence of previous conviction of fraud was found, but none of that got picked up by the local papers, so only one side of the story got told.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I figured as much. I may move that section to the Air Method s page for now, as it's not really relevant to the crash. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for the pics. - BillCJ 00:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the AMC article eventually covers the various subsidiaries, then it probably would be more relevant over there. There are some legit concerns in SB county, and one of the way's Mercy is addressing it is by a recently opened additional base, Mercy Air 22 at Hesperia. I'll see if I can find more press info.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

CRJ
I went ahead and added the specs to both the pages I started, thanks for your suppor. Planes&amp;mustangs510 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thinks its best to keep the table format from the main page, and user:Fnlayson is working on that for us. - BillCJ 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, finally a chance to prove that my obsession with planes is in fact useful! Planes&amp;mustangs510 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadair CL-217
Copyedit from my page: "Bill, I notice redlinks to the Canadair CL-217 in the CL-215 and -415 articles, but I haven't been able to find anything through Google except Wiki sites and mirrors with the same dead links. Do you know what the CL-217 was? Thanks. - BillCJ 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)" The CL-217 was a Canadair cable car proposal for Hydro Quebec c. 1965 that may not have proceeded further than a "paper study" although engines were specified in the draft proposal. I am wondering if the original author/editor may have confused the CL-217 with the CL-227 (easy enough to do as a typo) which was the "Sentinel" UAV surveillance drone that actually was built and tested. FWIW Bzuk 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC).


 * OK, thanks. I think we can take it out of the list, since it's primarily for aircraft. - BillCJ 05:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mercy Air 2
Sorry about the wrong pic. I thought I checked the N-number twice, but I must be dyslexic! Dhaluza 09:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * THat's OK. - BillCJ 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, did you see Brownout (aviation) yet? I've nominated it for DYK, so feel free to contribute. Dhaluza 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another excellent article, Dhaluza! I'm thinking there should also be a tie-in with Foreign object damage, just not sure at the moment how to do it. Brownouts are something we also deal with on a daily basis in the Mojave Desert, and I have to deal with cleaning all the sand and pebbles out of the places where they shouldn't be! Besides the crashes due to spatial disorientation, sand migration into moving parts is a big longer-term factor of brownouts. We have issues with bearing longevity because of the sand intrusion, which costs a lot ($20,000 for a swashplate bearing for a 222!). IIRC, during Desert Storm, sand ingestion during brownouts was a huge issue with a major impact on fleet readiness. Anyway, nice job on the article.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that also a factor in the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran? Dhaluza 10:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm
Did you notice this edit?  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After checking the recent history on his talk page, it's probably the best for all of us. I haven't had any porblems with him for a long time, and when our paths have crossed recently, he seemed pretty civil. Judging by the recent block for incivility, that wasn't a permanent thing. He could do good work, but that wasn't all he did! - BillCJ 01:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

BA 609
Hey there, I'm rather failing to see where the other 609 images are on Commons, considering there are three in the article and three at the link provided. Just curious as to your reasoning for keeping the Commons link. -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought there were more. Anyway, I see no problem keeping the link, as it makes it easy for others to find the commons page, and to add more pics if they have them. I'm sure there were more people at the Paris Show that took pics of the 609, and we will probably see some more pics added in the next few weeks. - BillCJ 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, though in my experience, it is exceedingly rare to find a standard editor who will take the time to actually go to Commons to drop off their images... "But it's just easier to put it on this site." Oi.  It's most of what I do anymore: citations and moving images from en.wiki to Commons, lol. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 16:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NFL Europa
The edit may have been premature, but it definitely wasn't vandalism. The league is as good as dead:  Chris Nelson 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the source, though it is from a blog. Next time, you should include a source when you add such material. In addtion, you edited the text to say the NFL disbanded the league at the end of the 2006 season, when they just finished the 2007 season. That, plus that fact the NFL has not realsed naything official as yet, nor have the major sports outlets or news service published stories (not blogs) about it, led me to conclude the the edits were not in good faith.
 * Lastly, please note that I said "possible vandalism", not plain "vandalism". However, I stand by the reversion at this time. It would probably be best to wait until the official news is reales to start changing the article. I see no problem posting the blog link on the talk page, as it could give other editors a heads-up to prepare changes. Remember, Wikipedia is not a breaking news source, nor do we make eidits based on rumors and unverifiable source. - BillCJ 06:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No argument here.Chris Nelson 12:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Argentine Aviation
Thank you! .- Jor70 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Behind the making of the 787
Hello Bill, James wallace of the Seattlepi wrote an article yesterday that is interesting. The part about the Sonic Cruiser is the best! http://seattlepi.com/business/321719_dreamliner29.html take care, marcus--Bangabalunga 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900
Hi, Bill. I chatted with you once before.

Thanks for your recent edits on the Beechcraft 1900 page. I have made a lot of edits to it, and appreciate others' input. (Altho it initially killed me when you cut the detailed history of the type, I think you are right.)

I am scaling back my efforts on that page; am flying a different aircraft now and I am trying to focus on learning the new plane. However, I still check in sometimes and try to clean up and see what others are doing. I am always open to ideas to improve the page.

Mikepurves 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have "killed" you! I know how it is when you make major edits on a page, it becomes your "baby", and it hurts when others mangle it! However, I'd suggest you take a look at those other pages, and see if some of the history you added can be placed on those pages. This is where having the article history comes in handy, and cut-and-paste makes it ! I'd do it myself, but I've got so many other new pages I'm working on right now, it'd be awhile before I got to it. Anyway, good luck with the new plane! - BillCJ 17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

=July=

Bell 47
Bill, Thank you for the sectional link, works like a charm... nice trick, I can use that again.... now trying to remember where I had that need before. is my next thought process... lol. Thx. LanceBarber 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Su-30MKK & J-11 info source
Information sources I used to edit earlier versions of Su-30MKK and J-11 are mostly in Chinese, w/ some in English, for Chinese information source:

1. Book titled: The China that can say no (Zhong guo ke yi shuo bu) ISBN:7801002431 (1st Edition: 1996.)

2. Book titled: Stop Taiwan Independence: Not promising abandoning the use of force (E Zhi Tai Du, Bu Cheng Nuo Fang Qi Wu Li) ISBN: 7800887340 (1st Edition: 1995)

3. Book titled: A warning of Taiwan Strait war. (Yi Jiu Jiu Wu Run Ba Yue) ISBN: 9579002819 (1st Edition: 1995)

4. Book titled: (Strategy of Chinese unification: we choose to strike Taiwan Independence in full strength (Zhongguo guo jia tong yi zhan lüe : he zhan zhi jian, wo men xuan ze quan mian da ji he e zhi "Tai du") ISBN: 9628871846 (1st Edition: 2005)

5. Book titled: High tide low tide: Nationalist and communist struggles at Formosa Strait (Chao zhang chao luo : Guo Gong jue zhu Taiwan hai xia ji shi) ISBN: 7801002350 (1st Edition: 1996)

6. Book titled: August shock: (Run Ba Yue Zheng Dang), ISBN: 9575449061 (1st Edition: 1994)

7. Newspaper: Chinese Daily News (Southern California Edition) circa 2000.

There are other dozens books published in China and Taiwan including the official information I used in the edit, and I will not list all.

Other Chinese sources including Russian designers' interviews and news conference at the past several Zhuhai Airshows, starting with year 2000. These interviews includes the information I used to edit Su-30MKK and J-11 and are widely reported in domestic Chinese media, including Xinhua news agency and its associate internet.

English source: Jane's Information Group, including:

Jane's Defense Weekly: Articles about Phazotron (NIIR) and its products, all of them prior 1997 but after 1993.

Jane's Avionics 1993/94 - 1999/2000 editions

Other publications of Jane's Info group including: Jane's Intelligence Review and all the world's aircraft.

Other English source: www.milparade.com Russian military magazine included numerous info on Russian radars (before 2000, when there was more free featured article)

Question regarding sources
For example, In the book titled China that can say no, in the chapter of describing the Su-27 in Chinese hands, the information of N001 and N001V radars are given, so when you say that I still have to say where you got the information from, what is exact the format?

Let's start with N001V, N001VE and N001VEP, if I put down the following:

"N001VE has improved capability in that it can simultaneously engage two targets instead of only one like its predecessor N001V.

...

N001VEP has improved capability in that it can simultaneously engage 4 targets instead of only 2 like its predecessor N001VE.

..."

What is format of quoting sources and how many sources should be there? Should the sources be cited for each statement? Or can I simply put it before giving the fact like this:

According the Russian designers at 2002 Zhuhai Airshow, the radars on Su-27 has been continuously improved incrementally:

"N001VE has improved capability in that it can simultaneously engage two targets instead of only one like its predecessor N001V.

...

N001VEP has improved capability in that it can simultaneously engage 4 targets instead of only 2 like its predecessor N001VE.

..."

Also, I appologize for re-editing the J-11 again, I thought providing the list of sources was good enough, you can revert it.

About the F-22 Article
I'm just very curious. How is it my edit to the F-22 Raptor article is considered 'gamecruft' when the Raptor is the signature aircraft of Ace Combat 04's main character? Further, if it is just cruft, wouldn't that make the entire 'popular culture' section just that? Its contents are, after all, of interest only to those who frequently read Tom Clancy books, which not everyone does, or only those who went to see the Transformers movie and liked Starscream's portrayal of the Raptor. I just don't see why the edit referring to Ace Combat was edited out for being 'cruft' while the rest of the popular culture was untouched. Trisar 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the hidden in-text notice: Read WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. Random cruft, including all Ace Combat, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances and anime/fiction lookalike speculation will be removed. (Emphasis added.) If you'd like to discuss the issue further, you're welcome to post on the Talk:F-22 Raptor page. - BillCJ 14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bill
My dear Bill, I'm truly sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but I wanted to do some research regarding your question about editors who could help in writing articles; and with the little time I can currently spare on wiki, it's a miracle if I can merely breath! ;) Seriously now, your request is a very good one, and unfortunately, I've been unable to locate a particular Wikiproject or another form of editors' initiative to focus specifically on writing articles from scratch. Be aware, tho, that I tend to focus on admin actions mostly, and whenever I feel like writing articles, I generally do so myself; so I'm not the best help on this matter. My humble advice to you is, to ask a couple of my friends who focus mostly on copyediting and enhancing artciles, and who surely have much more experience in the matter than me. Try asking my friend Deckiller, for example; he's a fabulous editor, who spends most of his time in the article writing part of wiki. Meanwhile I'll see if I can find more info for you, k, sweetie? Hope this helps, and let me know if I can help you further. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * THanks for your sweet reply. I have asked a few other admins (ChrisK and AlanR) about places to ask for help, but they didn't know of any either. I will contact Deckiller and ask his advice. Thanks again! - BillCJ 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 787
My god Bill, there are three things on Wikipedia I feel the strongest about for my 2 years on here. One is the 787-3 issue. One is the variants being launched versions and not "shopping around" versions, and one is Specification tables being neat and organized. I just cant help but get all worked up about these three. Im a reasonale person and I rarely revert other peoples edits but on these three I draw the line. I think because the rollout of the 787 is just around the corner a lot of people have been taking an intrest in this article. Way too many edits suddenly. Ive nurtured the 787-3 and the variants section for a long time but I can't fight this anymore. If the 787-3 is deleted one more time or citations placed i will leave it be. And if I get a lot of people disagreeing with me on variants, i'll let that go as well. Im just gonna go for a walk right now. Im beat talking about this today.Your friend, Marcus--Bangabalunga 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with taking a breather from time to time - I may have to take one today my self over a baseball page! I've not been following the 787-3 issue on the page, so I can't comment, but it the -10 is to be included, then surely the three should be too. I disagree with you wanting to put the -10 info in the main text - there's too much info already in just the Boeing press release to not be in a section. Yes, some of it will be outdated when the officla launch is made, but we do that all the time anyway. All the data witht he websites for the 787 rollout will have to be taken out after the event. Take the time you need to cool off, nd see what you think then. But so far, with the data I've seen fromt he Boeing press release, the -10 section should be left in. - BillCJ 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:2007 NL East standings
First of all, I know that you copy-pasted my comment to the project page. But still, please don't remove any of my comments from an article's or a template's discussion page. I find it rude to have my comments deleted by somebody else. I'm not going to discuss it on that talk page, but I still don't want my comments removed.

Second, in response to your comment, "I'd have really appreciated if you hadn't reverted my constructive edits today, so I guess we're even." The reason I reverted your edits was because there was already a discussion about that issue and the agreement was to not include the note until it became a problem again. I had a reason for reverting you, but even when I said "[T]his has been discussed, and agreed not to include this," you ignored me. In your edit summary, you said the reason why you reverted me is because you thought I was being a dictator again. You harshly judged me based on past conflicts. In fact, you reverted me four times today, even though I gave perfectly valid reasons why I reverted you, all of them saying that the discussion agreed to remove the note. Once, you reverted me because you didn't find the discussion. Just because you can't find a discussion, even when I've told you that there was one three times already, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fourth and final time you reverted me, you said it was because I was being disruptive. I'd like to know how. I don't think I was being disruptive at all and was only following the agreement that was reached on this issue. I told you about it, and you still reverted me. Please respond on my talk page. I would really love to know how I was being disruptive and why you reverted me, even though I've given you plenty of proof behind why I did. –– Ksy92003  (talk)  04:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please reply back to this above message? I'd really like to know why you reverted me when I've given you reasons and how I'm being disruptive.  You reverted me because you wanted it your way.  I reverted you because there was already a discussion about it.  In my opinion, you're being more disruptive than me.  Please reply back; I'd really like to know how I was being disruptive, because I don't think I was at all... but, I guess if reverting somebody who wrongfully reverted you and caused you lots of tension for no reason, when you were only going along with what the consensus was, then I guess I was being disruptive.  –– Ksy92003   (talk)  05:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It taks two to engage in a revert war. I was wrong to continually revert you, but I thought I was right, just as you think you're right. I do push, sometimes too far, but I know when to back off, even when I've gone too far (most of the time, anyway). We have engaged in at least 3 revert conflicts. and in those 3, whose edits are still there? Have you once backed off first? Have you once tried to compromise, to allow things to settle down when they weren't the way you wanted them to be? How long has it been since I last reverted the first two conflicts? A good several hours on the second, and more on the first. Do you think I backed off because I'm weak? I still believe I'm right, I'm still working to get a consensus to get thing changed, but after a point, I've not reverted you. You CANNOT say the same thing. Period. Most of the time, it takes more strength to back off when you know you're right. When you finally learn that leasson, you'll why I think you're being disruptive. I jsut hope it doesn't take you as many years to learn that lesson as it did me. - BillCJ 06:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me the chance to say one thing: I didn't revert you because I thought I was right or because I thought you were wrong. I still do hold the opinion that we don't need to include a note of the date as long as they are being constantly up-to-date, which I went out of my way to make sure everything was up-to-date late last night.  However, yesteray, my personal opinion had absolutely no part in why I reverted you.  I didn't revert you because I thought my way was right or your way was wrong.  The reason I kept reverting you is because there was already a discussion about that before, and the agreement was to not include them as long as they are being updated daily.  I don't think you shouldn't create another discussion if you want or think it still is necessary.  But again, I was only reverting you because there was already a discussion about it, and we were following the agreement.


 * I'm not worrying about the number of reverts we made or any of that stuff. It didn't frustrate me that much because you were reverting me.  I was only frustrated because I told you there was a discussion about it, and I showed you where that agreement was.  But I noticed that after you saw that agreement, you didn't revert me.  I suppose I did go the wrong way about this and maybe should've given you the link earlier, before we reverted each other 4 times, so that is partially my fault.


 * I'm not saying it's your fault at all, since all your reverts came before I gave you the link and before you found the agreement, so instincively you reverted me because you didn't see the discussion, and I assume you probably thought I was making up an excuse to have it my way. I know you were doing what you thought was right, and I encourage that.  If I were you, I honestly probably would've reverted you unless I was given the link to the discussion and the exact agreement, so that's why I don't blame you for this.  But if I was being disruptive, I think it was because I was reverting you, talking about a discussion, when I haven't even shown you the link to the discussion, causing you to doubt me.  I take full responsibility for all of our actions.  I think you were reverting me for good reasons and I was reverting you for good reasons without first showing you the proof.


 * That being said, I apologize for the disruption and turmoil I caused you yesterday, which I think could've easily been avoided if I went about solving the dispute sooner. I'm sorry.  Please except my humble apology.  And happy belated 4th of July!!!  –– Ksy92003   (talk)  16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and I apologize for my behavior also. We both got pretty heated, but we did actually keep the discussions relatively civil - no name calling, no bad words, etc. I looked for a link last night, and couldn't find it, but there is a guideline on Wiki about edit warring that states there is no "right" version in a dispute. Basically, it means whether we think we're right or wrong, or that one edit is preferred over another for whatever reason, that it doesn't matter which version is up. Just stop reverting, and discuss it. It's a good guidleine, but I hate following it! We're both probably lucky an admin didn't stumble onto to our reverts and block us for revert warring! They'd have been well within the rules to have done it.


 * Anyway, I hope we can get the discussion going again on the Season articles talk page, and get some more input. I think we're both well aware of the other's position now, so there's not much use rehashing that part. I will try to build a consensus to have the dates re-added, though right now we're the only ones interested in discussing it. - BillCJ 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This was actually one of the calmer edit disputes I've gotten with another user. But part of why I think we weren't blocked for WP:3RR was because after I told you that we should stop so we wouldn't violate WP:3RR, we stopped the reverting.

As far as the division standings' time note goes, if we are the only users interested in discussing it, then obviously we're not gonna have a consensus; it will be 1 vs. 1, which means we can't do anything. So, if you want other users to be involved in the new discussion, you can get their attention. Users who I think would have a huge say in this dispute would be Soxrock, aviper2k7, and X96lee15; those three have made a large majority of all recent edits in this project.

But again, I still hold the same opinion. I really don't think any change is necessary as long as they are being updated constantly, as was the term of the agreement that would cause a chance to be necessary. –– Ksy92003  (talk)  17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I stand by my opinion that dated material should display the date, period. I am currently looking to see if there is a guidleine on Wiki to that effect, but there doesn't appear to be one. I may take up the issue at WP:DATE, and see if they are interested in discussing the issue. If I do get a discussion going somewhere, i'll try to let you know so you can participate. If no one is intersted there, I'll drop the issue. Remember, what you have is a small consensus regrding the Season page articels and the templates only. If Wiki adopts a general standard, then the new standard would apply. - BillCJ 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any sort of consensus right now, but I think that if there was a Wiki rule regarding information like this, per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus could overrule that. But again, there still is the problem of 2007 Major League Baseball season having to include the same "As of" date 6 times in succession. That would look rather unattractive, in my opinion.

I'm gonna drop this discussion here, for now, and wait for the discussion at the project page to get underway before responding about this issue again. Good day. –– Ksy92003  (talk)  17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Fulmer
This is not vandalism, he takes all of his football recruits to this specific shoney's and he always takes his family there too. TecmoDude55 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Tecmodude55


 * It still shouldn't be added. It's friviolus info, and you know it. Do I need to get an admin to explain it too you? Not to mentioned unsourced, allthough I'm sure you could find a blog somewhere to back it up. - BillCJ 23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Aviation articles
You might find some people willing to help at WikiProject Aviation or WikiProject Aircraft. I'm not sure if they have a "todo list", but if not, you can create a talkpage thread and list the sources or the sandbox entries. &mdash; Deckiller 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, you're already a member :) If you can't get help there, I'm not sure where a good place would be. Some of the WP:DYK editors are really good at starting new articles, so maybe you can do some searching there. &mdash; Deckiller 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. - BillCJ 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I don't know if you're familiar with DYK, but if you create new articles and compose a little fun fact about them, that fun fact can be added to the main page for a few hours. It's a great incentive for writing high quality articles immediately (before their chance to appear on DYK expires). &mdash; Deckiller 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gurney flap
You may be interested in an article I am working on: Gurney flap. Any input would be welcome. Dhaluza 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741
Thanks for your feedback. I lost an entire article on the sandbox once and generally avoid using it, even though I understand its the right way of using it. kmisra 10:38, 5 July 2007 (PST)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean those sandboxes. I meant having pages on your your userspace to use for pre-articles and other projects. Take a look at User:BillCJ, and you'll see what I mean. Feel free to look at the pages there. - BillCJ 06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Atlanta Braves season
Hehe. Ironically, this actually kinda interests me. I didn't realize that my previous edit summary to that article was ambiguous, especially considering the previous disputes we had a couple days ago. This really interests me. Sorry for the ambiguous edit summary. –– Ksy92003  (talk)  07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Braves and Reds
I'm thinking it might be correct that the Reds were established in 1866... as an amateur team. They turned pro in 1869. If their origin is 1866, that point needs to be explained in the article. Baseball Bugs 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is explained in the Reds article, which is where it should be. The Boston club comparison is to professional teams. - BillCJ 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. The Reds article says 1863, which I don't think is correct, but it does explain it more fully... and not altogether accurately either. I'll fix that. Baseball Bugs 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations for Martin Maryland
I have added citations for the article about the Martin Maryland. Idsnowdog 20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

why can't we all just get along?
President (James) Dale: "Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?" Now if you can tell me where this quote comes from, I'll be even more impressed (truth be told, I'm easily impressed).Bzuk 02:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC).


 * No, I don't need a hint. I know I don't know it. Sorry to dissappoint you :) - BillCJ 02:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jack Nicholson in the cult Tim Burton film, Mars Attacks (1996). You just have to see it. FWIW I'm not disappointed in you! Keep up the good fight! Bzuk 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal
Bill, sorry I've been so slow getting to work on this, I've been a bit busy in real life. I should get a chance in the next 24 h or so. Thanks for setting it all up. --John 04:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill, this might be worth a look now, I've done a fair bit on it. --John 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In researching it I realised that this is maybe not the best title for it. It's possible that the worst excesses took place in the 1960s, but it seems to have gone on throughout the 1950s well into the 1970s when it was detected. I suggest Lockheed bribery scandal as the title.
 * I also became aware that there was a previous article at Lockheed Scandal which was merged in August 2006 to the main Lockheed article. It's interesting to look at the history of it; I took a few bits from it. "My" article is a lot better I think! --John 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur that version is musch better. I had originally suggested Lockheed bribery scandal as the title, so it looks like we've come full circle. I think what I will do is restore the original Lockheed Scandal page, and move it to the new tilte. I'll then copy your version over it. That way we keep some continuity in the history. When you think it's ready to go live, let me know. It doesn't have to be perfect, just able to pass an AfD by "Wiki Internal Afairs officers". - BillCJ 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds great Bill. I'm still looking for more info on one or two things I came across, and I thought I had another book which discussed it but it seems I was mistaken. Ah, old age...--John 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's ready to go live now. I need to take a break anyway. I saw you adding in the links for it. Thanks for all your help. --John 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * THank you! You offered to help out, and I'm grateful for that too. - BillCJ 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Article duplication
Copyedit from my page: "Bill, I'm getting really tired of you not beleiving me when I'm telling you your edits are duplicating the article. Please check it out carefully BEFORE revert me on this, please?? I've gone back to the version on the F-22 where you deleted the cite template, before the duplication happened. You must have some kind of bug in your browser, because something is duplicting the entire article, and this isn't the first time it's happened, nor the first time you won't beleive me. It's getting old. I TOTALLY beleive the duplication is inadvertant. I don't think it's my browser reading it worng, but I am willing to check that out. So please, trust me on this? Check this diff carefully. - BillCJ 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"
 * Hi BillCJ. Thanks for your note. On the F-22 Raptor article, I came across some odd referencing in the citations. It looked like every second one had some peculiar quirk, from switching around the  author to giving the title first to date inconsistencies. Whenever I tackle something like this where there are multiple errors in format, I usually try to deal with them in one standardized style. The Wiki guides do not clearly come down on the side of the APA or MLA style guides which is understandable since both of these are used within reference works. I tend to follow the Modern Language Association guide because it is more complete and is readily adaptable to citing a variety of media sources. The American Psychiatric Association guide is a bit simpler and is the basis of the first Wiki templates to help editors streamline the process of citing references. I know that lots of editors prefer the templates but when I noticed that there were even errors made in entering data in the template used in the infobox in the F-22 Raptor article, I began to rationalize all the edits as one standard form. When you noted that the template was fine to use, I then went back to try to capture where were all the other edits I had made. Most of them seemed "buried" in the body of the work so it was easier for me to simply copy the entire section of the article where I had made the other edits rather than going back one-by-one to reinsert editing changes in the citations. Generally speaking, the original editors had a mix of styles. The MLA guide is decidely simple: Author. Title. Place of publication: publisher, date. (with any other information added after, for example, a page number (s), ISBN/ISSN note or even an Internet location). So... I had made the edits intentionally not the browser malfunctioning, just because I was trying to speed up the process of finding which edits I had instituted without resorting to the edit history of the reversions. Sorry for the confusion, I am just about to embark on a long trip to an Aviation conference and tried to squeeze some last minute edits in. It looks like I am completely out of time anyway but that was the reason for the edit note to you to alert you that the edits sans the template which I grudgingly left alone were somewhere in the body of the article and that for expediency I was using this method to resuscitate the editing work without having to redo everything from scratch. I hope that's clear but I just didn't have the time to elaborate on the reasons for putting back such a large chunk of the article. FWIW, this is the usual pattern of how I "rescue" an article, I look for the last "clean" edit and then put it back in, but this time I just plumb ran out of time. Bzuk 00:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

I still don't understand how having 2 almost complete copies of the text visible helps anything. I admit I'm somewhat confused by your reasoning of this. PS, in the future, if tou intend to duplicat the entire article, it might be helpful to place an inuse header at the top of the page so others know you are working on it. Sorry for being testy. - BillCJ 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC) - BillCJ 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Sorry about the confusion but if there were two duplications it was most likely me hitting "copy" twice instead of once. I can see that happening inadvertently, as you said. It wasn't the intention to duplicate the article, just to restore a complete version which somewhere had my edits. Testy?, never the mind, you haven't met my wife yet have you? She is a politician, (would you believe I actually married someone of that ilk). You want to see "testy," look it up in the dictionary and you will see her picture. Whoops, got to go, she may be monitoring this... Cheers Bzuk 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

A380 Cabin Pressurization
Bill, I added a note to Talk:Airbus_A380. I'd like to consider readding mention of the Joseph Mangan controversy. I'm also letting Fnlayson know. Let's see if we can reach an agreement. Cxbrx 01:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Bird (satellite)
Bill, Back in May and June, I spend over a month cleaning up and merge KH-8,9, creating Big Bird article, redirects, inserting all my sources, checking all previous cited references, and enhancing as much of the KH series as I could will all my resources. NOW, User:Whosasking has broken all that I have done, made no refereneces for his changes, inserting unreference material into my referenced material. Please help!!!! Plus, I just got finished fixing my ref changes that he "broke" on the SAMOS (satellite)!!!! Is there a way to use his history log and undo all that he's effected to all the related KH satellites?? I am totally ticked off! just got back from a nice short vacation, finding this mess. Thanks, Lance ......LanceBarber 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Crane crash
N44094...thought you'd like to see this. I've pulled it from the survivors list.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MD-80's in cargo or military use
Hi, Bill! Please explain how the information referred to above should have been "sourced" in order not to get deleted by you. I am running an MD-80 Web Forum since 1995 and I know quite enough about that aircraft type to post that information as nice-to-know trivia. Should I post myself as a source or what? I am of course new to (English) Wikipedia, so any insightful feedback from you is most welcome. Andeln 10:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Antonov An-26
Bill, that Antonov An-26 table was beautiful. I don't see any photos bunching up on my screen. I'd leave it the way it was.-- Rob NS  19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, on 800x600, it looks like crap. - BillCJ 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty small size. I would say that at this point, people are moving towards bigger screens, not smaller.-- Rob NS  00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many users who still use that size, and we have to take care that their concerns are met too. The alternative is to take out omst of the pics. Besides, a list is much easier for new users to work with. If you have any more concerns, let's discuss this on the article talk page. - BillCJ 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough Bill, whatever you think best. I like the tables though, IMHO. -- Rob NS  01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

F-16 Talk page
BillCJ, I added an answer to a comment(question) about the range of the F-16 on the Talk:F-16 Fighting Falcon page. Thought you might be interested if you aren't watching that page. I try not to edit that particular article, because I've worked on F-16s for 18 years and I am afraid I'd break the NPOV fundamental Wikipedia principle or inadvertently let some classified or FOUO tid-bit slip. IMO there should be three ranges listed in specs for a modern military aircraft, range (distance one-way un-refueled), combat radius (warload un-refueled), and maximum endurance (maximum time aloft). With "an average combat sortie lasting almost 4.42 hours", and non-stop (tanker support) deployments half way around the globe; the range performance specification is really of dubious help in understanding what a modern aircraft is capable of. What do you think? --Colputt 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DARPA?
Care to comment on my proposal at the bottom of Talk:DARPA? It's already been acted on, but a consensus would be nice. AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

V-22
Bill, keep an eye on this if you can...IP has been adding unsourced info, despite multiple warnings. I'm up against 3RR right now with him. If he adds again, I can't revert, but will block since he's ignoring the multiple warnings. Thanks!  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  18:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been, but your reverts happened during my lunch! I agree they're unsourced, and they're typlical of the unsourced or twisted-source anti-V-22 bias I've been trying to take out of thee for several months now. I'll do what I can. - BillCJ 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia project
(copied from my talk page so you'd see it:)

On a purely technical level, the creator of a new Wikia project has Bureaucrat and Admin levels of access to that project and that project only. New admins can be created (and demoted) by anyone with Bureaucrat powers on that project.

On a more general level, it's a new community and will evolve its own authority and rules. If it grows and flourishes, in time WikiaviationProject:U.S. Bombers may be debating whether to split the B-17 production list up into subtypes or to keep it one long list. Of course, if Davegnz wanted to intervene in that discussion and end it one way or the other, he would have the power to do so (as Jimbo has here on Wikipedia). --Rlandmann 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Museum
Hi there. I created the red link because I figured it made more sense to let people know that there wasn't an article for the museum itself yet. If someone follows the link they're going to be confused because it leads to a disambiguation page about the battles and not to an article about the museum. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OOps sorry, I was thinking of another article I disambiguated. If the diaorama in question covers all three battles, perhaps you should use a piped link to make it into the plural form? I elimanted the link because the third battle was already linked to at the top of the page. Cheers again! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not positive that all 3 battles are covered. For the most part, I've only heard of the 3rd one as THE Battle of Chattanooga. I'll see what I can find out. - BillCJ 06:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lindbergh
Hi. Don't want to get into a pissing match here, but this seems like a reasonable statement. Do you dispute that Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop from a mainland location to a mainland location? Perhaps I'm wrong on this. Your assertion that everything that I've added is unsourced seems extreme as I think that I have only been trying to edit other contributions into a more clear and concise text. I don't want to be difficult, but don't want to see good information omitted without reason. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll comment here, but we should continue this on the article's talk page. You've been making alot of assertions in your edits, not just editng the content that is there. If it's good information, then it should have good sources, and adding that should not be a problem. Also, there are competing claims here, such as your claim that this was not notable as a solo flight. I'm not up on all the information regarding the flight, but everything I have ever heard about the flight is in regard to it being the first non-stop solo flight, and I can source it if I need to, even the flight is pretty much public knowlege as being the first non-stop transatlantic flight, and not in need of a source. If you are going to claim this is minor, and that it's notable for some other reason, then you need verifiable sources for that. BZuk and the other editors may have other objects to add, so if you want to move this to the article talk page, I'm fine with that. - BillCJ 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill I think that you have me confused with another editor who was disputing the importance of the solo. I see that as the most important aspect.  My point is only to emphasize that along with the solo aspect, he was also the first to fly from a major population center to major population center non-stop across the Atlantic.  --Kevin Murray 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. My bad! Any way, it still need's a source, espcecially since it's not a well-known fact. - BillCJ 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohio class notability
I can't see why films are notable while games are not. Explain this to me. Gamer Junkie 03:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that films in general are notable, but the appearances. Per WP:MILHIST, "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. If present, the section should be a prose discussion of the subject's cultural significance, cited from reliable sources. In particular, the following should be avoided: Compendiums of every trivial appearance of the subject in pop culture (trivia), and Unsupported speculation about cultural significance or fictional likenesses (original research)


 * If you honestly believe that the game you've added meets those criteria, then feel free to state you case on the Ohio class talk page, and try to get a consensus to add it. - BillCJ 04:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Metal Gear Solid is one of the most popular, established and critically acclaimed video games ever made. Look at the "reception" section on it's Wiki article here.  Gamer Junkie 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's truly notable as Wikipedia defines it, you should have no problem getting a consensus on the Ohio class talk page. - BillCJ 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't need consensus there. The paragraph was there for quite some time before you removed it.  It would seem that the only person who has a problem with it is you.  That's why I'm here. Gamer Junkie 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do. It's not notable per MILHIST guidelines, and you haven't proved the item meets the crteria yet. The game itself IS notable, or it wouldn't be on WIkipedia. You have to prove the specific apprearance of the Ohio class is notable, and you need outside sources to do that. - BillCJ 04:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. If a game ranked as the greatest ever made isn't notable, nothing is.  I hope you intend to talk to the people who added points about movies since I don't see how they're "notable" as opposed to games.  Your removal of this point otherwise comes off as biased against forms of media you don't like or care for. Gamer Junkie 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Date linking
Copyedit from my page: "FYI, I have had many many comments in GA and FA that linking to dates should only be done if the date in question is an important one that likely will have a link back. IE, a famous battle is likely to be linked to from a date page, and should thus optionally link back. Other dates should generally be left unlinked, they seem to result in complaints from the reviewers. Maury 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Maury, I know that there have been discussions in the past on various forums about the idea of linking dates, eg. 15 July 2007 written as 15 July 2007 so that users who have preferences set for dates could read the dates in their preferred form. I also have noted that the 15 July aviation subset has also appeared and been the source of commentary and discussion. What you suggest is the best method of showing dates is unless the date is especially notable in itself? FWIW |:¬) Bzuk 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
 * 15 July 2007

BillCj, now I'm terribly confused... Help me!!! Bzuk 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC).


 * I don't know they're getting the idea only important dates are to be linked, but I'd like to see the link to the policy/quideline they are quoting. The whole reason the year-in-aviation links are being taken out is because they don't work with the date-formatting. I think this is another case of Wiki's posterior not knowing what the rest of the body is doing because someone is sitting on it! :) I'll check WP:DATE and get back to you here. - BillCJ 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Manual of Style (dates and numbers): If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. - BillCJ 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bell 206L1+ / 206L3+
I just got my latest issue of Rotorbreeze that announces these upgraded models from Bell...but before I added them to the article, I wanted to check to see if you already planned on doing it or have text in mind....  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. I hadn't heard about them as yet anyway. Thanks for asking tho! - BillCJ 15:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

F-104
Hi BillCJ, I agree with your latest comments except that in the case of some editors who mainly make no contributions other than "snipping" I was making the point that when large areas of text are removed without a reason other than being "dodgy" then I would want some discussion to take place as it tends to become only one person's opinion. In the case of the "acre of land" joke; I believe it has some relevance, but in the area of assessing the impact of the F-104G. Irregardless, it was after checking out a pattern of large edits, that I thought it prudent to start a discussion. FWIW Bzuk 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Books
I mentioned this a few weeks ago. Just reminding you. Let me know if you want to borrow one of the books on my user page. I've read all of them, but may look at one every so often. You must have Int. Directory of Civil Aircraft and an aircraft encyclopedia (can't remember name). Are those fairly detailed? Take care.. -Fnlayson 04:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any book there I'm interested in right now, but I'll let you later if I decide to read up on one of those topics. I do have Int. Directory of Civil Aircraft, and also Int. Directory of Military Aircraft. They were published every 2 years (alternating) for several years, and I have several years of each. The last ones were published in 2003 (Civil; Military in 2002). They have good information on then-current aircraft, but they're getting a bit out-of-date now. Most of the info is good, and I get a lot of my specs from them. I just bought The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, published in 1997. Not current, of course, but it has just about every aircraft in the world since the Wright brothers up to the mid-1990's. I have about 20-30 books on different aviation topics (mostly military or helicopters) from the 80s and 90s, and a few from the early 2000's. - BillCJ 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Looks like those directories are 200+ pages long, good size.  The have used ones on amazon.com for $10 or less, which is not bad.  I might look at getting one of those.  Thanks.. -Fnlayson 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan template issue
Bill, we can do nothing with aliases in flag templates. Flag project has their own guidelines and fortunately they don't want to delete command. As for displaying "Taiwan" name - a lot of Taiwanese users / IP editors changes 🇹🇼 invocation to and we have no one standard. In fact I would like to set guidelines for flag templates in our Aircraft Project. It's quite easy to prepare page with all needed flags correctly described and prepared in both visual and code variants, like 🇹🇼 and 🇹🇼. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
I'm in a war zone. They don't let me drink beer, so when I'm hopped up on adrenaline from the end of a mission, all I have is an internet connection and a few unwary editors who allow themselves to wander into my sector. The community aspect was getting in my way until I decided that I don't care about the community. I have some goals for what I would like articles to say/be/become within the confines of Wikipedia as a project to develop an encyclopedia. I like you and Akradecki and Fnlayson and Piotr and all the other RTF editors just fine. It was simply that the tasks being completed were not ones that I cared about or envisioned as a task force. If my vision and the vision of the RTF no longer matched, then it didn't seem logical to continue. And then, well, the latest adventure was simply a test of wills and blowing off steam. --Born2flie 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I thought that might be what you were up to, but didn't want to ask questions you couldn't or shouldn't answer. As to the RTF, it's really not a matter of conflicting goals as much as no goals and no leadership (not a criticism of you, you're just not able to help as you were). I haven't even posted there in over a month myself. I know you started it with the idea of improving articles and getting them to GA/FA status, and that goal is still there. That hasn't changed - it's the application that is lacking. Personally, I know my ability to rate articles objectively is limited, so I have concentrated on getting some new articles up and going. Jeff and I have both worked on the AH-1 pages, and while it's not been major work, the pages have been improved. I have gotten some more sources recently, and one has a good bit of info on the Army AH-1s, so I hope to get to that in the next couple months.


 * Good luck with your work, and come home safely. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. Thanks for doing something, and for your sacrifices. Know that there are many of us here at home who support not only the "troops", but your mission and your ultimate CINC. I sickens me to hear of the enemy serving roasted Iraqi boys to their parents for dinner, yet all we here about is supposedly how bad the US military is. I'm not that stupid. If it means anything to you, know that I'm praying for you, and if it doesn't, thanks for fighting up for my right to pray to the God of my choice about whom I wish. Godspeed. - BillCJ 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, the AFD-naziz finally found it - Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture - BillCJ 19:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It had to happen sooner or later, but ah, the peace we've had while it has lasted!! --Born2flie 07:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So....both you two get your butts over there and comment on the AfD! Right now it's 6-5 (yeah, yeah, I know it's not a vote) meaning that if it were to be closed right now it would be no-consensus/keep.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  14:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:68.48.240.144
I have been tracking this user for a few months now. He is the same as User:Middim13. He is descended from Arthur Leopold Busch and suffers from the delusion that Electric Boat is trying to suppress the memory of his ancestor, although the reality is that the individual probably was not credited in the historical records due to his job. He was a blue-collar worker, not the designer of the submarines. He is a long term POV vandal and refuses to listen to reason. He even insists that the Plunger class submarines are called the Adder class, despite the fact that no records indicate this is true. Could you help me keep an eye on him (since you just reverted one of his edits)? -N 23:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do what I can. Thanks for letting me know about him. - BillCJ 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Maryland
The date for the mission that spotted the Bismark was wrong. I wrote the 18th when actually it was the 22nd. I was confused about the dates. The 18th is when it left Germany but the Bismark was spotted leaving a Norwegian port on the 22nd. This is confirmed by the FAA article under external links. Sorry. Could you correct this?

Idsnowdog 01:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Team
Because the article is a shambles to be honest. It is written in an incoherent manner and does not meet the quality you'd expect from an encyclopedia entry. Do I have to write an essay to justify adding tags which I hope will improve the article? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ <font size="-4"><font color="Purple">"Expecting you?" <font size="-4"><font color="Grey">Contribs 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * {Edit conflict) Yes, you do - it's a basic courtesy. I've been working at improving the article for six months, and it's come a long since then. I agree more work needs to be done. However, adding those tags now makes it seems as if nothing has been done. - BillCJ 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well its not that bad -it is the first half which is poor - but it contains much in list format in bullet points which many editors are trying to get rid of and turn into a well written and well referenced article. Also the paragraph ordering is a little unusual in places ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦  <font size="-4"><font color="Purple">"Expecting you?" <font size="-4"><font color="Grey">Contribs 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I'd recommend some specific tags in those sections. SOme recent contributors have screwed up alot of things that weren't broken, and I didn't realize how bad it had gotten again. - BillCJ 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh - THANKS!!!! for undeleting the main image. I'm still perplexed as to how that editor could claim it was unsed, and I told him so! - BillCJ 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIR flag templates reply
I've posted my reply in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Wikia
Hi BillCJ - just thought I'd let you know that Airframes is now up and running, for detailed history of individual airframes/serials/registrations, since I seem to remember you expressing interest in the concept. --Rlandmann 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tu-95 interceptions
Tehre's a discussion regarding interceptions of Soviet bombers by allied fighters at Talk:Tupolev Tu-95. Given your participation in such events, I'd be interested in your take on the whole issue there. THanks. - BillCJ 17:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Comments posted. HJ 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandals & stuff
Bill, what's your gripe about vandals? That admins are too nice and won't block them? If you have gripes/problems with stuff I've done or not done, tell me. Anyway take care.. -Fnlayson 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Jeff, I don't have a problem with you. I should have explained something on the SR-71 talk page about the "lost" guy before this. You're a good editor, and you assume good faith better than I do! I'm just a bit frustrated that no admin wants to deal with several dynamic IP vandals that are causing me problems, not just the one on the SR-71 page. My main gripe about vandls is that they are allowed to exist - this stupid "sacred" policy of Jimbo's about unregistered editing is eventually going to drive me away from editing altogether, since it is clear that polcy will not change as long as he's in charge of Wikipedia! - BillCJ 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They cause all of us problems. I do watch IP edits harder, almost expecting vandalism or something.  It's sorta cool when one fixes spelling or something I had totally missed.  The Admins don't have a problem with blocking IP on Wookieepedia.  They just don't block them as long term though.  Try not to let it get to you.. -Fnlayson 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, for what it's worth (perhaps not much at all), I'm a fan of your work, and would hate to see you go. Keep the faith, and know that people are indeed out there to help clean up the perpetual mess. If you'd like, feel free to give me a list of articles to vandal-watch and I'll add them. Cheers,--Jonashart 02:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WOW! I didn't know I had fans! Thanks! I took a one-day break last week, and I may need to make it a few days this week. But I do enjoy most of what I do here, and do intend to fight as much as I can before I consider leaving. Thanks for the support. I'll let you know some pages to watch as they come up. You might start with SR-71 Blackbird - we have a user with at least 2 IPs who's been pretending to think "lost aircraft" means "missing due to navigational errors", and not destroyed. This has been going on intermittently for several months now. Feel free to step in, especially if you know an available admin (the ones I know are on Wikibreak!). - BillCJ 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know stuff I don't about things I like. Then you make Wiki articles about that stuff. Simple. :D We got you covered.--Jonashart 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up here: Administrator intervention against vandalism. Worth a shot anyway.. -Fnlayson 03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I usually just go directly to Chris or Alan, but they've both been really busy of late. - BillCJ 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, mostly a waste of time. The admin declined to block 'em. -Fnlayson 04:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you know why I don't waste my time with AIV! - BillCJ 05:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill, happy to keep my eye on the Blackbird.--Jonashart 11:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

CL-215T/CL-415
Copyedit from my "talk" page:"Bill, have you seen this diff? THe user claims thi aircraft is a 415, and states on the image page it's because of the turboprop engines. Yet the caption original catoion says it's a 215T, which of course also HAS turprobrop engines. DO you know of a way to identify which claim is correct? - BillCJ 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I found the answer on the Spanish Air Force site. Even though it's in Spanish (which I don't comprehend), the numbers used are the same as in English ;) See my comments on Talk:Canadair CL-215‎ page. - BillCJ 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)."


 * Hi BillCJ: In regards to the CL-215T, it is externally a "look-alike" for the later production series CL-415. Although there are subtle differences between the two, the only true means of identifying the actual type is to use the manufacturer's "build" number. FWIW Bzuk 09:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

CF-105 Avro Arrow
Copyedit from Opuscalgary submission to another editor: "Un-Headered Message

Hi Flubeca:

May we find out WHO is doing the article rewrite on the Avro Arrow?

Bill Bzuk, with all due respect, has a "pre determined position" in his books on the Avro Arrow.

The Avro Arrow project was camcelled on purely economic grounds by the then Minister of Defence, Hon. Sir George Pearkes. NO silly conspiracies, or intervention by Nixon, or aliens, or anyone in between.

Unless the article writer tells the truth about the cancellation, & removes the silly sections ( replicas, conspiracies, etc.etc.) the rewrite will simply be "inmates running the asylum again". thanks

opuscalgary Opuscalgary 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)"


 * As much as I like being referred to as an asylum inmate, I think Reg has again gone too far in his personal attacks. BillCJ; give me a clue as to what is successful with dealing with "trolls?" Bzuk 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Oh dear! I haven't a clue what to do about troll,s, but you night try some of the admins in WP:AIR. Alan (user:Akradecki), and user:Rlandmann have both been helpful to me in the past, and should be able to point you in the right direction, if not help directly. Good luck, and I'll try to help you keep the page clean. Btw, from what he's written above, I can't tell whether he's listing your position, co countering it. And when I'm asking someone for help, I do try not to use words like "camcelled" :) WHat a mess! I do believe Flubeca will have no trouble indentifying the real inmates here! - BillCJ 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
Always a pleasure :) FWIW, for someone so apparently concerned about spelling, I noted his edit summary of "This is an English langauge artcile" under Pot. Kettle. Black on the current Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense page. :) --Rlandmann 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologise
I would like to apologies for my latest behavior and my past behavior i understand you take great pride in your work so i do apologies for being a nusence.Sparrowman980 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. We all have times when we aren't at aour best, myself included. And if I caused you any difficulty, I apologize also. - BillCJ 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering if you could help me in the article World's largest airlines could you please review it and please resolve it it would be of great relief.Sparrowman980 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll look at. What I am supposed to resolve? - BillCJ 01:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well a member of Wiki [] and [] have been all over my back about work on worlds largest airlines and they have been trying to do major changes i have done a lot from what they have asked but i would like your opinion on this just look on the discussion on there talk page and the world largest airlines also talk page thanks.Sparrowman980 02:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was going to suggest that you take it to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines page, but it's being discussed there already. You should participate, and state your case, but avoid going after the other users involved. Let the project decide what's best for the page, and then abide by it. It's not an easy thing to do, but it's the best way in this type of situation. Honestly, I think your format is better than the other option, which only listed one or two arlines in each category, and then sent users to other pages. The other option is primarily a list page, which many editors on Wikipedia do not like.


 * In the future, it's probably best to discuss such massive changes before making them, unless the changes you're making are towards existing guidelines for those types of pages. - BillCJ 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well originally the page was not a list or the one you view now but this was change because of Huaiwei we had a argument and i continued to make my case but he continued to want to change then he reported me for 3RR only getting him blocked also but he is still at it and from what i have seen only one person has backed him and he thinks thats enough but i am also wondering if you might be able to back me because you have great influence Wikipedia and especially aircrafts area!Sparrowman980


 * I don't have THAT much influence! Anyway, I think WT:Airlines is your best bet, because they work more with Airlines than I do. I mostly work with Aircraft, including airliners, but not much at all with airlines. I'll be watching the project and article talk pages, and try to help where I can. But beware that I'm going to back what's best for the article first, though I'll try to make sure you get a fair shake here. - BillCJ 03:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much?Sparrowman980 04:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous message
BillCJ, you may wish to note contributions by this ip address. Dropping wierd messages in people's talkpages, and having a history of calling you a vandal seems pretty odd to me.--Huaiwei 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, before this message, I never even heard of you (No offense). If I actually did something, please leave a note on my talk page, and I'll try to fix it. - Flubeca Talk 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The user is angry that I had an AIV filed on him, and one of his other IPs was blocked for a short period. He has been causing problems on the SR-71 Blackbird page intermittently for months, and has finally decidied to do that full-time. I'm just giving him enough rope to get him banned permanently, and his socks too! Thanks for the heads-up. - BillCJ 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like the hangman found him already! Thanks, Maury. - BillCJ 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

help
I moved some stuff around in C-23 Sherpa to make it more readable, as well as to give it some organization. I hope this is the kind of work you want done. I'll do more as time is made available to me. --MKnight9989 12:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Essay
Just wanted to say I really like your essay about the free library. It makes a lot of sense, really. It's really a terrible shame that any such idealistic project such as that library will be ruined, ultimately, by nothing more obscure or complex than human nature itself. LordAmeth 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"haven't you leanred anything?! "
Dude, don't you think the above comment from the CH-46 edit is a little rude? I believe every time in the past I have come to you for advice I have followed it. I added the CH-47 & 47 culture data at the same time. Since MilborneOne removed the section out of the 47 section I took it to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page to get further clarification. There is no reason to be derogatory or be a flat out ass about it. Everyone is here to work together. Keep the derogatory comments offline. I am doing my best to learn. --Trashbag 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I spoke too quickly. I'll try to watch myself next time. THanks. - BillCJ 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Amerika ditcher
This isn't the worst case of wishful thinking I've seen regarding Nazi weapons but, have you noticed how many assertions about them are just accepted at face value? If there is a tendency for people to accept ideas like a 7200 mile trip on a 6000 mile tank of gas seem plausible it's because Germany did field some advanced weaponry and not the fact that people think Nazis are always right. Anynobody 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your friendly vandal...
...has been blocked.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  13:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Air Force One in popular culture
Air Force One in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Air Force One in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Air Force One in popular culture& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Air Force One in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)