User talk:BilCat/archive7

=December 2007=

United States Navy
Can you please explain why you've done this reversion with the edit summary 'POV comments'? I don't see the slightest bit of POV in calling the Es and Fs 'heavier' and 'slower' than the As/Ds as, according to the numbers at F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, both of those are true. Am I missing something? Maralia 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure: Becuase it's unnecessary info that doesn't need to be there. It was more than likely added by an F-14 proponent who dislikes the SUper Hornet, but even if I'm wrong on that, it just doesn't need to be there. That sort of detail belongs in the aircraft articles, not an oveview page on the USN in general. - BillCJ 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, it's OR analysis. It's not quoting a source that says that, it's an editor looking at the different numbers and coming to conclusions. WP:OR makes it clear that it is not our job to analyze unrelated source information and come up with our own conclusions and judgements, it's our job to report what others are reporting.  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill, I agree with you that it's not really relevant and doesn't need to be there. I was really only wondering why you'd call it 'POV', which you've answered. Thanks.
 * Akra - I respectfully disagree on principle here; we are allowed to use common sense, and I can't fathom calling it 'analysis' or 'judgement' or 'OR' to compare two very straightforward numbers provided by the same source. Heavier and slower are very clearly defined words; we're not saying 'clunkier' or 'worse' or something obviously judgmental. That being said, though, I imagine there's probably a fair amount of fans trying to push peacock language for their favorite aircraft (or the opposite about other aircraft), so maybe you're overstating your case out of the irritation of cleaning up blatant peacockery? In any case, I didn't mean to start some great debate, and I truly don't care about this instance, although I'm now curious about your views on OR :) Maralia 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Navy lists their max speeds as fairly similar. Probably not much difference given the Super Hornet was intended to generally match or exceed the C/D's performance.  Certainly not enough difference to state it in the Navy article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Areskaratepe
Thanks for the heads-up. I've taken a look and will spend some time trying to bring him around. Cheers --Rlandmann 19:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. - BillCJ 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation
Cavour can operate as LPH, with 2 eliassault from 6 EH-101 each can land all marines. A very bad translation. I was barely capable to understand the sense, but we are lucky and it seems it is the it.wiki article weird translation. There it is written: "La nave è predisposta per lanciare in 2 eliassalti, condotti da 6 EH-101 ASH/TTH, le truppe anfibie che può alloggiare" that means: Cavour can operate as LPH, being capable to deploy all her 416 marines crew, sending all of them in two consecutive attacks taken by her 6 EH101 helicopters fleet. The "two consecutive attacks" concept could be better translated with "sorties" which is an aviation term or "... her 416 marines crew by means of two subsequent air attacks made with her 6 EH101 helicopters fleet.". Also the "marines" concept could be improved by writing "...to deploy all her San Marco naval infantry ...". Hoping you have now a better situation awareness, I am very interested in seeing how you will make plain the paragraph. --EH101 04:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Air attack" may be the literal translation intending "air assault". Assault=attack in English, although militarily they have a different connotation. In the current U.S. Army vernacular, it would be one air assault with two lifts; each lift comprising 6 chalks (aircraft). Sorry for butting in. --Born2flie 08:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. Different countries and even different armed forces use particular words depending on their doctrine books and terminology. Assault(a), lifts(b) and chalks(c) are typical "airborne" words, mostly the last one. The best could be to listen to a U.S. Marine member due to the specific equivalent environment. I guess he will suggest Assault(a), ship to shore deployment(b) and platoons or companies(c) as translation. Things are becoming more and more interesting to me. Let’see. --EH101 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange aircraft
Last night walking back to my room, I heard an aircraft approaching from the west. At first, I thought it was an Apache, but it did not go anywhere on the airfield I expected it to go. It slowed and made an approach to a different location and then my mind clicked and I thought that this might actually be a different aircraft with different capabilities. Three guesses. --Born2flie 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My three guesses:
 * An A380 - everyone knows this is the most important aircraft in history, because it wasn't designed by Boeing, or built in the USA.
 * The latest Iranian aircraft built HESA, the 209-5 Teheran rotary-wing Mach 3 stealth attack fighter that looks like a cross between a F-5 and an AH-1J, but was soley designed and built in Iran and only resembles the US aircrafts, or is a simple upgrade of old F-5s and AH-1s - we're not sure which.
 * A V-22 - but it might have been hard for your to tell if it didn't crash while autorotating, wasn't shot down from the front or side, and didn't have Bell-Boeing PR people running around instisting that it actually can fly. (No intent to make fun of crashes or shoot-downs here, as this may be sensitive issue over there.) - BillCJ 09:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LMAO! I knew you'd enjoy hearing about it. :) --Born2flie 09:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft
Copyedit from my page:"Bill, I was following the Kelowna Flightcraft link from the Convair CV-240, and saw it redirected to Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, which is set up (correctly) as an airliner page. There seems to be a little info on Kelowna Flightcraft's other activities there, but not much, and nothing whatsoever on their being the Convair type certificate holder, their CV5800 conversions and similar activities. Would you be interested in setting up a dedicated page for the parent company that covers a braoder range of its activities? I figure you probably have some first-hand knowledge on the company to work from, and better access to local sources. If you can't, just say so, and I'll try to throw a stub togother in a few days. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * Hi Bill, I actually have my offices in a buliding owned by Flightcraft Maintenance Services, an offshoot of Kelowna Flightcraft. I'll do some quick research and see what I can do. They are an interesting concern with a number of projects that are sited in my part of the world. FWIW Bzuk 19:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi Bill, I'm having an odd discussion with the editor who redirected the original article who obliquely insinuates that my information is wrong. Oh well, I think the easiest thing to do is rewrite the original article into a Kelowna Flightcraft Company piece and then provide some sub-articles to entities like the Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, Allied Wings and their various maintenance and support operations. FWIW, I may need an admin to allow the article to have the redirect's name. Bzuk (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC).


 * As long as you have reliable sources attesting to the notability of the main company, we shouldn't have any problem keeping the article. The original page was not AFDed or protected as far as I can tell, so I can't see that he has any authority to stop you from putting in the new article where the old one was. That doesn't mean he won't protect it now anyway. You should probably talk to Alan or John, and get their take on this. As to daughter articles, we can probaly cover everything on the main page, except for the Air Charter division which certainly seems notable on its own. (And it already exists, meaning we don't have to create it!) As for Allied WIngs, if you find enough sources to put something together at the same time as the main article, then it would make sense to split it off them. Otherwise, it can probably survive as a section on the main page for now. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Kelowna Flightcraft appears to be the company's preferred title per their website, so I wouldn't think we'd need to title the article Kelowna Flightcraft Company. There will be links to Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter in the main article, so I can't see any reason to make Kelowna Flightcraft a DAB or redirect page at all. - BillCJ (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the name being Kelowna Flightcraft and I only referred to the company because I was using a company template in my sandbox article. I had styled it loosely after other company articles I had written or edited. I'll keep working on the article(s) till they are ready to go then get some advice as to how to make the changes. FWIW, I found some interesting tidbits about Kelowna Flightcraft and their role in supplying aircraft for the short-lived Greyhound Air (an offshoot of the Greyhound Bus company) Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Curious and curiouser
Bill, I trust your antenna and radar is more finely tuned than mine; whatdoyathink about the pattern here: ? Seems suspiciously like a friend of ours? FWIW Bzuk 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC).


 * The IP is registered in NJ, and his pattern seems different. I think it's just a teen and/or Russian immigrant trying to "improve" Russian-related aircraft aritlces, but who either doesn't understand RS, doesn't care, or is adding false info on purpose. Still, who knows!! - BillCJ 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the latest heads-up. Sigh. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. Don't ya just love Whack-a-Mole? :) --Rlandmann 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MRJ
RE:your health tag. I hope it's ok! About the MRJ, "However, backlog for all medium sized jet makers including Airbus A320's, Boeing 737s, and Embraer E-Jets are over 4 years, with my expanding airlines eager to get their hands on any new aircraft.". I'm not sure it's true. If so, orders of CRJ1000 should be higher than they are. I started the article and thought "I don't think I'd wrote that, especially with no citation." Looking at the history, it's confirmed. I didn't! Archtransit 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have a long-term chronic, though not life-threatening, illness, so some days are better than others. I usually try not to be more specific in an open forum, esp as I have a vindictive wiki-stalker that doesn't respect people's privacy.


 * As to the MRJ, I checked the cited article for the item in question, and it really doesn't bear out the conclusion, tho a hint of it is there. It's possible the user added the thought from another source, or it may just be OR conjecture. I left the VS tag in to give others a chance to look at it.


 * I know what you mean about seeing things in articles we wrote or heavily expanded, and going, "Did I write that?" :) Sometimes I actually DID write it!


 * Btw, the MRJ article is good for one about an aircraft that has just been launched. It is amazing to me how many companies are entering the RJ market right now. I've thought for years that the Boeing-Airbus duopoly wouldn't last as long as some, esp Airbus, seem to think it would. With Bombardier, Embraer, and others now trying to break the 100-seat limit, this is being borne out on the low end. I do think this will have a great influence on the natures of the Boeing 737RS/Y1 and AIrbus NSA, to the point where they might not even try for the 100-seat end, and go more for the 130-200 range. Of course, as these other manufactures learning curve for airliners grows, I think we'll see them take cances with larger aircraft in the next 10-20 years, and be willing to be more innovative. Personally, I think Boeing can handle the competition, but Airbus at this point seems to treat Boeing as the the only one to beat. An analogy would be a sports team designed solely to beat a rival: They usually have one or two good years, and ofetn to best there rival, but soon another team with a different style of play and personnel comes along, and they aren't ready for the challenge. I guess we'll see what happens! - BillCJ 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Downmight10
He's a sock of a guy named Roadcrusher who has been uploading non-free images onto Wikipedia for over two months now (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Roadcrusher. Got repeatedly blocked for copyvio so now uses socks.  Started to pick up his scent about a month ago and sadly now he's kind of the Jean Valjean to my Javert.  I knew it was him but decided to see what would happen if I tagged the vios and fixed the legit FUs (not the first time, mind you), but he's back to his old tricks so I reported it to WP:AIV. Kelvinc 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to know that he is a sock, so I don't have to worry about 3RR (or at list a block sticking for long). THanks for your help in this. - BillCJ 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Makes sense from the way he repeatedly removed tags & stuff off the CRJ 1000 image page. -Fnlayson 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge template
Hi! I were who removed the merge template, because the two article title were same. If they weren't same, what was the difference between the titles? Nbuda (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Please answer to my talk page. Nbuda (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

USN Commander Crowley
FYI: The only "Commander Crowley" I can find with internet searches was a Lt Commander John D. Crowley of the USS Flier (SS-250) during WWII. USS Flier on Navy.mil omits the Lieutenant part. In any event, looks like the youngest Commander Jim Crowley (USS Cavalla) thing is probably fiction.-Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you saved me a search! I kinda figured that was the case, esp since he was 23 in the first three posts yesterday! - BillCJ 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I saw you remove it that yesterday. I figured I'd check to see if there's any truth to it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dark Blue World Spitfires
What was your problem with noting the different Spifire marks used in Dark Blue World, or were you just having a bad day? BomberJoe (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My problem is that it is commentary, and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopdia article. Find a reliable source which gives that info, and cite it, and write it in a formal style. And, no, this is one of my good days :) - BillCJ 06:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Post
More info there now, for those who are unfamiliar with "blue" as a synonym for police. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Why can't a link be made to a section in a Talk? LanceBarber (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit in question)


 * I only said I didn't think we're allowed to do it, but I can't cite a policy or guideline on it. The main reason for me tho would be that it isn't a content page, but a talk page. It should either go on the main page or in a separate page. Tags can link to talk pages for discussions on moves and such, but I've never seen an link in the text to contnet placed on the talk page. I'm going to ask a few admins, and see if they know of a guideline or policy explicitly forbidding it. - BillCJ (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't immediately find a policy which forbids it but rather than unhelpfully cite common sense, I suppose a link to talk fails WP:RS; a talk page can be edited by anybody and is intended for discussion about improving the article. It is not for linking to from mainspace with certain exceptions that you mention. Sorry I cannot be more helpful at the moment, but obviously I agree with you on the issue. --John (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we try to limit or discourage trivias and popular culture sections and sub articles, creating a section in the Talk seems to be a viable solution. The B-52 or various automobiles is one of a hundred plus aritcles that have this situation. We do not want all the uncited crap that we have dealt with, but there is a lot of pieces of information is an integral part of our society... way of life... language and slang... all part of documented history. I'm try to find a common ground for all of us, and this seems to be a solution.... not the perfect solution, but viable. Lets find a viable solution here, and get it into our Wiki projects as guidelines. Thank you. LanceBarber (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think it is a viable solution, and there is probably a rule against it somewhere. I admire you for trying tho. This one really needs to be discussed at the Wikipedi-wide level, such as at Village Pump, if you really want to try to make this a viable option.

- BillCJ (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey guys. One of the big reasons for no cross-namespace linking is the fact that Wikipedia is mirrored and forked all across the Internet, and many mirrors only copy the mainspace, so such links would be broken.  See also Self-references to avoid.  In addition, the reasons for keeping trivia out of articles apply equally well to putting the trivia on the talk page and linking to it.  It's not that there's something special about the mainspace that needs to be kept trivia free.  We don't want trivia sections on Wikipedia, period. TomTheHand (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also cite Layout, which governs the See also section, and which says that this section "provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia" (emphasis added). This is a very narrow range of what's appropriate in an SA section.  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that by linking to the talk page, we give validity to the list of trivia that is on the page, but lose any control over the content of that list. Talk pages don't have the same restrictions for verifiability, notability, and such that we have in the article space. --Ckatz chatspy  20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is been an excellant learning session, thank you for everyone's input and references. I've created a few Talk links, and will go back and unlink them. Should an update to Self-references to avoid with an explicit note to include in its examples? LanceBarber (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry for noseing in but wouldn't the link be redundent?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Invincible class photo
Hey Bill, I've noticed the back-and-forth you're having with Kurt Leyman on Invincible class aircraft carrier. I warned him about violating the three revert rule; you haven't made three reverts yet, but I'd ask that you kick off the dialogue on the talk page instead of reverting him again. I'd rather not get involved in the issue one way or the other because I'd like to retain my ability to act as an admin if necessary. TomTheHand (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on USS Illinois (BB-65)
I'm sure there is some significance/relevance pertaining to the three being retained and disposed at the same time. But, until either myself or User:TomStar81, who I'm collaborating with can cite it, I guess it is best to leave the note out of the article. Hopefully when we finish our finals and implement the suggestions from the FAC, we'll be able to cite something. -MBK004 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not paying attention to who added the items. I do try to give regular editors the benefit of the doubt most of the time. I've reverted so much jusk today that I just assumed this was more of it. I'd rather leave it out, but if someone else adds it back in as-was, I won't revert it. Also, unless the item is related specifiaclly to the Illinois, it would probably be better in the class article to cover the Kentucky also. Of course, it depends on what the sources say, and the context for the whole item. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries at all. I've been in that situation as well. I imagine after finals we'll find a place for the information to reside. I could also be totally forgetting about an article where this is already documented (not likely as it isn't mentioned except for a line or two in the class articles and individual ship articles). The one thing I'm sure about is that sources exist, they just have to be found. -MBK004 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: ADF questions
Hi Bill. The new Labor government has said that it will keep all the contracts which the previous government signed, so the Canberra class ships and Super Hornets will go ahead (though the decision making process which which led to the Super Hornet purchase will be reviewed). Labor is also committed to maintaining the 3% annual real increase in defence expenditure, so there probably won't be much change in the ADF's size, structure and procurement program in the short run. In the longer run, the new government is going to commission a new Defence white paper, which should lead to some changes. Labor will probably take a more disiplined approach to defence procurement than the previous government did, so things like the sudden purchase of Abrams tanks, C-17 Globemasters and Super Hornets aren't going to happen again any time soon. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

US
You may not be aware that there is some discussion about the use of US and U.S. on the discussion page for "F-4 phantom operators". The current consensus view is that U.S. is being used. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there, and perhaps you can influence the consensus. There may be a simple explanation, but I am puzzled by your comments in the edit summaries. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter...look...please...
Hands. Cramping. Fingers. Tired. Can't type. Look. Article. Helicopter. Tell. What fix? --Born2flie (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Copyedit from my talk page: "Bill, what is the Canadian spelling of manoeuvre/maneuver? Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"
 * You could already guess that Canajans (formerly know as the colonials) are typically psychophrenic and use both Amerispeak and Brittalk. Generally speaking, both terms are in vogue but most often "manoeuvre" is used in the Canadian Forces (notice we are no longer the Canadian Armed Forces, they took our guns away...) but get this: "The Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre (CMTC) is the premier Army training experience for all soldiers that will occur at the Canadian Maneuver Training Centre (CMTC)" which is a direct quote from a Canadian Army document. I did say psychophrenic, I should have probably added "dopey." FWIW, go with "manoeuvre" in an official Canadian document and "maneuver" everywhere else, especially in publications such as newspapers. Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Those are spelled different but pronounced the same, right? Good one on the guns part. Call it Canadian [Unarmed] Forces. ;)  For that matter the US Dept. of Defense is not really accurate either.  But we're all used to it... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we're not unique in calling it the Dept. (or Ministry) of Defense either, even if the spelling is peculiar to the US. But at least we ARE armed! For a nation that so much wants to be out from the US's shadow, they'd up crap creek if they were invaded and the US didn't come to their aid! The USMC is over twice as big as the entire CF, btw. After all, what good is spending so much on healthcare and other social spending if there's no one left to spend it on? But I guess if I lived in a neighborhood where the guy beside me is armed to the teeth, I really wouldn't need to own a gun. Of course, I wouldn't be egging his house every chance I got either! :) - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey USe guys, stop making fun of us, it's not in the best interests of U.S. (remember, we own all the ice up north and when Global Warning really hits [I know it's Global WarMing... or is it Global Warring?]) and youse guys come to us for a drink o' water, then we'll see whose laughin' at us or US? I'm getting really confUSed here?! FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Renaming
Having a discussion about renaming of article on aircraft nicknames - Goto the Category:World War II notable aircraft you will see numerous examples of "Aircraft Name" with a subset added afterwards - need to standardise these articles. The best way is to identify the aircraft name "Enola Gay" then type aircraft (B-29). There was several Memphis Belle (B-17) & (B-52) as an example. Another point being, a name such as Enola Gay (Aircraft) tells you nothing about the article Enola Gay (B-29) tells you not only this specific article but might also direct you to the B-29 article.Davegnz (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points, Dave, why not bring them to the project group as they may be of interest to others. Bzuk (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).

AC-130 protection
Hi Bill - I would love to help out here, but feel that semi-protection would unfortunately be against protection policy, specifically that semi-protection should not be used
 * "In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. "

How would you feel about temporary full protection to see if some kind of consensus position can be reached? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with full protection, but I think it's a bit extreme for the case. As far as this being a content dispute, I have to disagree. The IPs seems to be random crufters from different IP groups, and who don't seem to care that there is/has been discussion ongoing. As I said, they even remove the warnings at times, which to me makes this more a case of vandalism. They are of course free to engage in discussion, and a few have, but for the most part this is just drive-by editing. I really don't see why we should punish regular editors for the actions of a few random IPs who don't care a wit about the rest of the article, or even about discussing it. However, I asked that you do what you feel is best, and I can accept that. If this is your interpretation of the policy, I'll abide by it. I asked you for help, so I won't try to bypass you by going to someone else at this point. Thanks again, and I do men that sincerely. - BillCJ (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I also just realised that you've already had your wiki-birthday while I was away. How do you feel about that long-overdue RfA now? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sent you an enmail. Hope it got through. - BillCJ (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't turn down a lynch mob, jest kiddin' (FWIW, {:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Carrier Kuznetsov.
With such current events, why dont you help out & search for sources yourself. Also & try and edit 'poorly written' text, rather than deleting it.... Thats ignorance & stupidity at play... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.t2006 (talk • contribs)


 * ignorance & stupidity - good description of the text I deleted - glad you agree with me that text like that shouldn't be left in the article. - BillCJ (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

F4U Corsair
I saw your edits here-- given the length of time the material remained unsourced the deletions were appropriate. I do not think it was original research however as the points are made in a number of sources. (I was not the contributor of that material, but I do have a dozen of the listed sources in my library.) It has long been on my "to-do" list to add the appropriate references to those sources, and perhaps your edits will now give me the incentive I needed. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Virginia class submarine external link revert
Hi BillCJ, I saw your revert on removal of the external link to Maritime geography. I did read the article, but I still think this is a big stretch to include this as an external link to Virginia class submarine. External links should have a close relation with the main topic. Virginia class submarines have as close a tie to the maritime geography article as they do to other topics like Navy, Commonwealth of Virginia, Submarine... yes, its a somewhat related topic, but hardly so important to warrant an external link. Otherwise, you might as well make an external link section that is 10 pages long, and include Maritime geography as an external link to every ship in existence. What makes the tie between Maritime geography and Virginia-class so exceptionally important?

I'm not big on revert wars, and hardly feel strong enough to revert again, but hope you'll give the appropriateness of the external link a second consideration.

Cheers, Warthog32 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we call a link to a page within Wikipedia an "internal link". "External links" are those to other websites. This is an important distinction, but one easily confused.


 * As to the link to Maritime geography, the Virginia class was designed explicitly for operations in "littoral waters", or green-navy type operations. The "x-water navy" terms are defined in the Maritime geography page, and as such do bear a relevence. THere may be a more-appropriate article to link to on the subject, and I'd be for changing the link if there is one. - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Schweizer 434
Oh, it was a misunderstanding. I think you forgot to type the appropriate code so the page didn't appear as a redirect. Its content was  instead of , thus I mistook it for a test page. My apology. @pple complain 09:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that you currently experience health issues. Be well soon! @pple complain 09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your post on my talk page. Sorry for the mixup! -- jonny - m t  11:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

F-4
I have listed the target of the F-4 redirect page for discussion at Redirects for discussion. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Veteran's Stadium
Great point! I did not think of the disambiguation of that. I certainly would make more sense to edit the (now) multiple links to other stadiums with that name to be a disambiguation. I'll add that to my personal to-do list. Gwguffey (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

V (The Second Generation)
Absolutely nothing worth salvaging there Bill - just a link to a YouTube video of an embarrassingly badly-made fan attempt at a trailer for the new series. Yechhh. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No - no problem. It only counts as "re-creating" deleted material if the new article is "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." (WP:CSD G4) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II
I see you have reverted the proposed change. That's ok with me because I seek guidance and finding out what the consensus is. The change is in the diffs for others to see and evaluate. If you have an opinion, consider placing it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Manual_of_Style_dispute

and/or

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747&redirect=no

The WP:aviation page may be a better place for policy discussion, the 747 for FA page for evaluating how it can become a FA. Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The drama is quiet for a few minutes...in that time, I'd like to say hello. I see your contribution list and there are quite a few articles that interests me. If the 747 article gets FA, then the pace of editing there may decrease and I'll find a new project to work on. Archtransit (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Hello, and welcome! Feel free to help out in anyway - help is always appreciated. And I'm sorry tha I was a little too contentious today - it was time for my nap! Really! - BillCJ (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill, anyone, what happened with the F-4 redirect discussion? The F-4 still has the tag for Redirect for deletion thing, but it's not on current list there anymore (don't see archive page either). So I can't find the result. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, here's the answer! I'll remove the tag from the F-4 page per that diff - was just waiting to see if the closer was still going to get it. - BillCJ (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I missed the log link, but I wasn't sure of the exact date.  Mtmelendez's edits of the redirect link on F-4 Phantom II reminded me about this.  Have a Merry Christmas! (in case I forget later :) ) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

L-23 Seminole
G'day from Oz. I just wanted to say I appreciate what you've done with the article; it looks a whole lot better now and to be honest I hadn't even thought about moving the images across. YSSYguy (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and no prob! That is actually the kind of improvements I enjoy doing - doesn't require much research or writing-from-scratch! Oh, feel free to update the specs to an L-23 or U-8 model if you have the sources - I did it that way just as a starter. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the L-23D was equivalent to the E50, so it should be just a matter of changing the title; I will have a look at Beechcraft and see what it says. If you have the time and the inclination, do you reckon you could look for a PD image of one of the radar-equipped RL-23s or RU-8s? I couldn't find one and I think that it would cap the whole thing off quite nicely. YSSYguy (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

SPEEDHAWK, Speed?
Hey Bill I'm quite sure the Speedhawk gose faster than Vne 167 mph, I don't have the magazine anymore, but they had an artcle in Rotor & Wing Dec. 2007 issue on the speed hawk & as I remember it was closer to 230 mph. I know, I know so w.t.f. just wanna to give you the heads up. If I can verify I'll up dated. By the way dose my artcle User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture need to be in a more paragragh structure, to make it, or am I just wasting my time? Hope you feeling better - Happy X-mas/hanuka/KawanzaANigg (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The 167 mph speed is for the SH-60B, as a comparison. When you do find sourced specs, start listing them under the X-49 heading, above the SH-60 specs. Once we get a full list of figures for the X-49, then we can add them in to the regualr specs table in place of the SH-60 specs. I hope that makes sense.


 * As to "Copters in Pop Culture", anything you have needs to be in prose form. Also, each appearance needs to be notable, and have a source of some type attesting to its notability. That's going to be the only way the article will be allowed to come back at all, and that will take alot of time to do. Anything less would be a waste of time, as it will just be CSDed or AFDed again. - BillCJ (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Financialmodel
Hi Bill - I haven't gone through the dispute exhaustively, but given the level of animosity developing, an RfC would be in order. However, an RfC must be brought by someone who who has been involved with trying to resolve the dispute, and seconded by another. You can find the instructions here in the "General user conduct" section. If you need any help with setting it up, please let me know. You will need to show specific diffs, as well as list the policies that you feel have been violated. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikizilla= Downtrip
Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla

You will be interested in knowing that your suspicions on Downtrip were justified, a check user request has shown that the anon IP addresses that warred on the aircraft page were from Downtrip; more importantly the check user found Wikizilla to be  the same user as Downtrip.Freepsbane (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. He does seem to want to be productive, so perhaps an olive branch with strings attatched would be worth it. Probably need to find an uninvolved admin to do it tho, as I doubt he wants to hear from us. Perhaps the admin who "told" us not to re-add stuff a user deletes from their own talk page might be willing to help out. - BillCJ (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you indeff blocking him would only result in a new hidden sock account, however the fact remains he still is engaging in sock puppetry and edit warring. If he is to be a active editor he must halt these unsanctioned actions, not merely provide the appearance of constructive editing. Regards Freepsbane (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At least he's not harassing me right now, following me around like a sick puppy, reverting all my constructive edits as vandalism, etc etc. You keep going at him like you are without conclusive proof (the kind even troll-loving admins can't ignore), and you'll have your very own troll folowing you around! Some things just aren't worth it - it's easier to just get the pages protected. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, thanks for the advice.Freepsbane (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Email alert
Something in your mailbox today from that blinkety-blank Canajan fool up north in the land of ice and igloos. Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

F-15 edit
Thanks for fixing that edit involving the 1 air-air "loss" earlier. A Japanese F-15J was lost in a training accident in 1995. Similar wording used to be there, but I removed it as that's not air-air combat. Just thought you might want to know more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Aircontent
The only way that I can see to do it would be to include an extra field called "Extra navboxes" or something - this wouldn't have to generate any text of its own; but would prevent the "See also" field from being called. I can't think of any reason not to do it, but it might be worth putting it to the project first! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. WIll try to bring it up this weekend/early next week. - BillCJ (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

UH-1 Iroquois and UH-1N Twin Huey
Bill: Thanks for reverting the deletes of Canadian units flying these two aircraft. Someone seems to dislike that info being there, even though it is carefully referenced! I already reverted the deletes once! I'll be keeping an eye on those pages, as you are too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AH-1Z Viper
Bill I want to write an artical on the AH-1Z, since the UH-1Y Venom has its on page. Can you show me how to get past the AH-1 twin cobra redirect?ANigg (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll keep you postedANigg (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The AH-1 SuperCobra article covers the Z model some. I wrote some development on all the twin engine variants but the Z.  It's almost a new helicopter.  Add to that article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill when you get a chance take a look, give me your thoughts User:ANigg/AH-1Z Viper thanx DrewANigg (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI: I'm helping with AN's AH-1Z article. The Modern Battlefield Warplanes book will probably be my main reference as least through 2004 publish date. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hay Mon, Irie Chrismus...
Everybody knows (sung to the tune of Chestnuts Roasting...)

When gungo cook an sorrel flow, Yu dun know seh de season brite, Gal an bwoy wid dem starlight a glow, Dem naw go waan fe sleep tonite.

Dem know seh joyride deh pon di way. Wit music rockin, rockin tru de day, An all de chicken dem a try fi spy, Fi see is which one a dem is gwine fry.

An so, we want to big up everywan. All kidz from one to ninety-two, Aldoah money dun, Have a hole heap a fun. Irie Chrismus, Irie Chrismus ... to yuuuu!!


 * To you and yours, the best this season. Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

Aircontent
Your edit to undo my correcting the h3 tags interests me. I woudl be interested in your rationale.

Currently the h3 lines are 100% incorrect because the tag is opened but not closed. Wikipedia is amusingly tolerant of incorrect HTML, but it remains that it is incorrent.

I use this template on another wiki, and the problems this incorrect html created ion internet explorer were immense. I came back to WP and corrected it, but you reverted my edits as if they were vandalism, despite my having posted a proper edit summary.

So I am interested in your rationale.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't usually describe vandal reversion as a "troubleshoot revert" or "troubleshooting" in three successive edit summaries. I usually call them "vandalism". That should have been a clue as to my rationale, or did you miss the summaries? :)


 * There were problems on several aircraft pages related to template, mainly one dealing with aircraft specifications, but the problems affected the aircontent template too. After various attempts to see if I could figure it out, I reverted your edits to see if it made a difference. The results were inconclusive.


 * I did ask User:Rlandmann, an admin who has experience with these templates, to look at the problem, and I believe he fixed it but they are still there. You may want to correspond with him to make sure the problems were not caused by your code changes. (Probably not, but he writes code, I don't.) Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. But do look at the HTML you are using.  must be closed with .  If not then the HTML is imperfect and creates errors.  Those templates are far too complex because they require experts to debug, and my advice would be to simplify substantially.  I am only interested insofar as there was a problem at Plane Spotting World which was formed from lawful copies of wikipedia material and whose stated purpose is to diverge form WP as fast as possible to make a place for the plane spotting community with WP look and feel.
 * Do feel free to pop over. Currently the articles will be wholly familiar to you, but that ought to change over time.
 * Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't find this either presumptious or banal and thus patronising, but W3Schools is a great tutorial site for HTML, and, even if you are knowledgable, it is a great reference point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link - I'll try to take a look at it. I got involved with computers in the mid-80s, and only got as far as some light programming in BASIC (no COBOL or PASCAL at all). HTML came after I was on my chosen degree track, so I never got/took the oppurtunity to learn it. I can do the basics in Wiki-mark-up, but that's it.So I will take a look there, and see if I can learn anything. In my present situation I can't work, and would love to learn some more about HTML and the like, and possibly later do some work from home to have a little income. As to the PlaneSpotting site, I will keep an eye on it and see how it goes. WP is becoming far to combative and accepting of "non-productive" users, and I may not last much longer. I just haven't found a good general-content alternative yet with the same strict encyclopedic content standards as Wikipedia "supposedly" has. Anyway, thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I started with Algol in the seventies! If you could do Basic then HTML poses no challenges at all.  It's a breeze!  The point about WP and its challenging nature is well taken.  It's why we started PSW.  In terms of rigorous content there, that is a matter for the community that develops to decide.  At present it is relaxed and waiting for simple rules to be determined.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

General American

 * Hi, I noticed that you undid my removal of 208.104.45.20's edit to Talk:General American. I would like to clarify that this user seems to have civility problems and the edit that I removed was uncivil, assumed bad faith, and seemed to have no purpose other than to disparage another editor.  I would have simply left a comment to remain civil and on topic but then I noticed this edit by the anon user.  It seems very much like they are trolling; removing uncivil material is a proper response suggested (albeit with caveats) by WP:CIV.
 * We don't need to get into a dispute over this. My intention was to remove the comment before Homely or anyone else chose to respond to it.  Now that I've given you my justification, I'll let you decide whether or not to re-remove the comment.  Regards!  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your point, I do disagree with its removal. Granted, it's a differnece of interpretation of the rules: I perfer to remove only blatant vandalism or blatant personal attacke. Today, I read comments (a few nmonths old) where an apparently British/English user where he stated that he "hates AmE", but they were left to stand. It seems it's OK for non-Americans to express such things, but not Americans. To be honset that user is exactly the kind of attitude that the "rant" is in reaction to. Other than his use of the word "lies", I really don't find anything objectional. He used no profanity or slurs whatsoever, unlike the diff you've pointed out. Those are the types of things in comments that I find objectionable, but I see them everywhere. I'm sorry, but I don't believe an emotional rant rises such as this one rise to the level of uncivil behavior. His post on the user page certainly does, so ding him for that one! I agree that we should not edit war over this, tho, and if you still believe it ought to be removed, you may do so. - BillCJ (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian navy help request?
I tried to follow your link from the MILHIST talk page, but didn't find an "Indian Navy" heading.

You raise an interesting point, which is at the heart of practicing decent open source intelligence. I'm hesitant to say the government or the "reliable source" is always better. Sometimes, the government information has individual pieces that are useful, when crosschecked even when dealing with someone who is a true conspiracy buff.

Anyway, if you can give me a working pointer, I'll try to help. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the post is up now. It took longer than I intended to write it! - BillCJ (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FMA IA 58 Pucará
Dammit! I'm creating articles from this list, and I thought I'd searched all the various names it may have been under, but I guess not. Thanks, I'll merge them.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant information
Sorry about that. I saw only the Singapore Air Force listed and figured it wasn't needed since no other military branches were named. Again, sorry for causing you the extra work. :)

=January 2008=

Congratulations!
I see that you are among the 5 most active editors to the Boeing 747 article (#3, actually). It has just been granted featured article status! The star isn't shown yet but it's listed among the promotions. Archtransit (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New word
Canidalism - the belief by some Canadians that the USA wants to eat their country. :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if they don't want to eat us up, they sure want our water to drink! LOL [:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Infobox missile
Hi Bill - it's easily done... but the immediate result would be that the caption (such as it is...) would disappear from every article using the infobox. Before doing that, it really ought to be discussed with whatever WikiProject oversees that template (MILHIST?) I can't imagine any objections, but it's better to avoid accidentally treading on toes if possible! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the data is still right there adjoining the photo and since the "caption" doesn't actually add anything anyway (which is why you wanted to change it I guess!) I've gona ahead and made the change. If it causes a fuss, it's an easy revert. To make it work, an extra "caption" field has to be added to the data in the article - take a look at this example to see what needs to be done. Hope this is what you were after! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I just meant the pipe at the end of the line; when putting it at the start of the line is so much more elegant :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

XF5U
If it's not in the right series, why don't you put it where it belongs, rather than just deleting it? Lou Sander (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because until now, the page hasn't listed Navy aircraft, and I'm not sure they ought to be there. The page is a mess right now,and has expanded far beyond its original intent, which was to list the X-series planes only. I don't have time to rework it right now, but that's no reason to intentionally make it worse. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a bit of WP:OWN has crept into this article. Other editors can't divine its original intent, or know that Navy aircraft haven't been listed. It's hard to see how adding an experimental aircraft can "make worse" an article listing experimental aircraft, especially when the added one seems to be in perfect synch with the information in the lead. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can be bold and make a category for US Naval planes if you like, and add your entry to it. If I tried to work on it myself right now, others might think I owned the article. I intend in the next few days to bring the page up at WT:AIR to get input on how to revamp the article, as there are several ways to go with it, and I usually don't try to make those decisions by myself, esp since I'm not sure which is is the best way. However, I don't expect you to have divined all that on your own, but neither did I think I had to inform you of my every intention in improving the page. - BillCJ (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You may get a kick out of this. I don't have any intrinsic interest in the XF5U, and I never even heard of it before today. But today I was listening to an old time radio show that mentioned it (a Hop Harrigan episode from 1947 -- I listened to Hop when I was a kid). Just out of curiosity, I looked for the XF5U on Wikipedia. It didn't show up, probably because I was putting dashes in the name. I finally found it, but that was after I ran across the article with the list of experimental planes. Since the XF5U was an experimental plane that wasn't on that list, and since it seemed to fit the qualifications in the lead, I felt the need to go back and add it, so I did. Lou Sander (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:U-571
Um, were you planning to reply on Talk:U-571 (film), or just pretend not to notice that I've asked you very nicely to justify your mud-slinging? It'd be even better if you could justify your edit (other than with "I'm unhappy"-stuff). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Option 3: I missed your response totally. I was busy making more mud :) Of course, as an American, option 3 doesn't count when a non-Amercian has already made up his mind otherwise. Do what you want on the page, as I'm done fighting bruised British egos. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually hoping for some input, as I was (and am) just trying to make the article clearer. But if you're fed up, don't worry about it. By the way, I too have just had a message from 70.4.227.155 on my user page, under the heading Talk:U-571. Don't know if it was from you, but doesn't seem to relate to me at all. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have wikistalkers. Sorry they got to you, but I assure you I do all my ranting :) under this account. They're cowards who have to use sockpuppets and dynamic IPs to harrass others becuase their original accounts were blocked. They're not that bright, and they think acting like this will get them reinstated! They're just a nusiance, like ants at a picnic, but I am sorry you were bothered by them. - BillCJ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. Sorry you're having to put up with them. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

-200 747s
Bill, please have a look at my Talk for your 747 reply - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MC-130 Addition
BillCJ, I hope your health is better. I know Wikipedia encourages updated work, but my novice addition probably looks amature. I am well versed in MC-130 operations (eleven years); as a MC-130 weapons officer, a peer approached me about some inaccuracies with C-130 and MC-130 information. I see you have already improved my MC-130P addition in the form of better format. I am offically in training in my Wikipedia abilities, therefore, when I understand the code better, I will add a picture to go along with the MC-130P. BTW, I don't have the official number of aircraft, but for the Combat Spear, MC-130W, there were two aircraft as of November 2007 vice the one that is listed on the site. The 73 SOS, now stationed at Cannon AFB, operate those aircraft. --jb 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh
Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the canvassing accusations. Anyway, I shot my wad over that one, and perhaps any future admin chances of my own. I was amused by someone's commnet on your "inability to think for yourself". That's something I expect to hear from people with misconceptions of the military, and I think that's all that comment was about. If anything, you've demonstrated an ability to think for yourself "too much", not too little! Oh well, I can't say that in an RFA either though. I don't think this has much of a chance of going through, especially with the canvassing accusations. Without any consideration of how you worded it or who you contacted, some good editors seemed put off by the accusation alone. That says more about them than about you, in my opinion. If you need any support regarding fallout from this, let me know. - BillCJ (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BQZip01's RfA got closed earlier today. Sorry. :(  Try again later.  Try not to give too much extra info in your answers in the future.  People used that against you it seemed.  I didn't get the canvassing thing either.  We wouldn't know about it otherwise unless we stumbled across it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Provincial constitutions?
Copyedit form my talk page: "Bill, I asked this at Talk:Provinces and territories of Canada, and I thought i'd run it by you also. Do Canadian provinces have their own constitutions? This is not covered in the Provinces and territories of Canada article, and it seems to me it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"

As a matter of fact, provinces and the federal government are governed by the British North America Act of 1867 and all the various incarnations that came about since confederation or our birth as a nation. So the answer is no, provinces do not have their own charters or constitutions. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

Re: Template:RAN amphibious warfare ships
Hi Bill, I was going to drop you a line to explain why I made those changes. The landing craft would be out of place on templates for larger navies, but given that the RAN has always been pretty small I think that they're OK. List of Royal Australian Navy ships might be a better link given that most of the ships on the template are now out of service, but there's probably material for a very good article on Amphibious warfare ships of Australia or similar which I might create in the longer run. I think that I've missed three LSTs by the way, and am trying to find their names. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just created Amphibious warfare ships of Australia as a stub. The Navy book has a very useful chapter which will make excellent source material. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

UserBox Addition
Thanks - it was not me! most unusual to add to other peoples user page but we must WP:AGF. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)
Unless you are seeing a different article, there was no lengthy discussion on its talk page about the name. The ONLY section on the article name is 1 person explaining why they moved it from "Bionic Woman" to "Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)" and another user saying they agree. I won't move it back myself, but I will start a move reuquest since I know I am right.  TJ Spyke   09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you make this odd comment on my talkpage: ? Or was that just an IP pretending to be you? I never edited your userpage or nominate some list of airlines for deletion (both of what that IP say I did).  TJ Spyke   11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The joy of Jimbo's open editing and trolls. I only comment on this username. - BillCJ (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a peer review of Boeing 737
Hello! Based on your areas of interest, we believe that you may be interested in participating in the peer review of Boeing 737. Comments from reviewers are needed over the next few weeks to assist editors in improving the article; we would be very grateful if you could spare some of your time to help out! If you would prefer not to receive such invitations in the future, please leave a message on this page, and we won't trouble you again. If you have any questions about the review process, you can ask them here. Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Now what? Well, now when you look at the history of an article, you should see a new link beside each version marked "Rollback" (next to the link that says "Undo"). In one click, "Rollback" reverts the article back to the state it was in when the last different previous editor changed it. In other words, it doesn't matter whether a vandal has made 1 edit or 20 - Rollback will blast the article back to the state when the last editor who wasn't the current editor worked on it. Hope that makes sense!?! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! I just tried it out, and LOVE it. - BillCJ (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes
Thanks Bill! I think that one of the nice side-effects of this unhappy process is that we're going to get a lot better intra-project navigation out of it; and the collapsibility of the navboxes means that we should be able to include more sequences than ever before. Apart from the RCAF/CF: Sweden, the RAAF/RAN, and Brazil all have neat numerical sequences that are well-documented. I've got to take a break for a few hours at least, so good luck! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Navboxes are super RL. Thanks to you and anybody that helped/ing with making them. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake in the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation template Bill; that was the first template I have done, I'll try not to muck it up again :-) YSSYguy (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob. My secret is to usually find one that works, and "borrow" the coding! - BillCJ (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there.
You don't have to worry, because the system actually helps to fight vandals, even if they get a momentary kick out of it. It's easy to revert, and there is a large group of editors watching pages to catch the vandals. It may be tiring to combat it, but in the end, their effort is ultimately wasted because it brings no lasting change to the Wiki. --Born2flie (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's not as important as the fight others do in the deserts of the real world tho. Those guys make the world free for me to make Wikipeida free! And we won't forget that they and their families make the real sacrifics.


 * PS. You might get a kick out of this diff. Can we say "Amero-phobia"? - BillCJ (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow

 * Ah, I see now, extremely sorry. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have been a litte contentious already, so I can see how it might look like me :) But I promise I only use this screen name on Wikipedia. Forgive me for the cleanup above, since it's not applicable now. - BillCJ (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel starvation
Why are my edits being reverted? Surely, there's nothing wrong!!!

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is all over your talk page. Stop editing long enough to read what's there, and pay attention to what is said. - BillCJ (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bill - I'm monitoring the situation. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
You deserve one of these in recognition of your impressive work on maintaining aviation articles and correcting vandalism. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User 63.215.26.148
Hi Bill, I remember you as someone who knows a lot about airplanes. Would you mind taking a look at the activities of Special:Contributions/63.215.26.148 ? I can't really figure out what he's up to, but it doesn't look all that productive. I first noticed him on this article: Controlled flight into terrain, and then when I looked at some of his other contributions I discovered that he had taken a perfectly good redirect page and turned it into something completely different: Hansajet. I've reverted both of those articles, but I don't have either the time nor expertise to understand what he's doing or do anything about it. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm busy at the momet with another project. You might post this at WT:AIR - there should be someone there that can look into this. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe as a generic term
BillCJ, I saw that you were involved in a discussion whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used in a generic way in German. I added some new and compelling (so I think) arguments to the discussion, you might be interested in. I would like to invite you to share your point of view and to facilitate the decision making. -> link. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, but I'd rather stay out of it. This guy seems like a troll (at least his actions are trollish) out to make a point that registered editors don't AGF with IP editors. However, my problem with him is with his words and actionsm, includ the use of profanity on my talk page. Hence my desire to bow out of this one, as I doubt he'd be willing to listen to me now, seeing he didn't listen earlier. - BillCJ (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian Carrier Hornets
Following the failure of the Invincible sale,

"The Minister [of Defence] made a statement in the House [of Representatives, on 26 August 1982] in the course of a budget debate saying 'The needs that led to the Government's decision to buy HMS Invincible remain. In particular, there is the necessity to ensure an adequate anti-submarine capability given the long maritime sea routes between Australia and her principal trading partners'. He then outlined the scope of the re-examination of options. These included; a new ship of the Invincible class, one of the Iwo Jima class, one of the Garibaldi class, possibly a SCS, a conventional carrier of 35,000 to 40,000 tons able to carry the FA18, British and United States proposals to build a simple carrier to merchant ship standards, and smaller carriers, including the conversion of existing container and other merchant ships." - Page 173 of Anthony Wright's Australian Carrier Decisions...the bibliographic data is in the Melbourne rewrite's bibliography if you want it.

Bits in single square brackets [la la la] are inserted by me for clarification, and do not replace any of the original text. The underlining highlights the point I believe you were interested in.

Hope its useful! -- saberwyn 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Montego Bay
Excuse me, but I think you are sorely mistaken. Montego Bay's mention in a Beach Boys song is notable, but it's mention in an Aerosmith song is not?? That's all I simply intended to revert-your removal of the Aerosmith mention. And how is that linkspam? I thought linkspam was external links meant to advertise a product. Abog (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amateur site link? What are you talking about? I've never posted any external links or spam in the article or talk page for Montego Bay. So please quit spinning lies. Your so-called warning needs to be removed, since no external links or spam ever took place. All I did was add a few internal wiki-links. Excuse me for tyring to contribute something to the article. Abog (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted. I now see how my undoing of your one edit could be confused with the undoing of another one of your edit's. I considered the edit vandalism as it was a removal of content, with no justification why in the edit summary. I felt the mention to be on equal footing with Kokomo's mention, as they are both songs about tropical places that featured "Montego Bay". Sorry if I over-reacted. As I've been a Wikipedian for two years who contributes a lot, I don't take too kindly to warnings and ultimatums. But I now see it was all a misunderstanding. Abog (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Email
Bill I sent an email to you. --Colputt (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

B2 Toilet
Sorry for the tone of my posts and comments if I seemed uncivil. It really annoys me that people who've never seen a B2 make assertations one way or the other. As for the disagreement, you do not remove content just because it's uncited, you strive to cite it. --Asams10 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My reason for doubting it was the fact that it remained for 4 months after first being questioned, which is why I stated I removed it. I probably would not have removed it had it not been there unsourced that long. Also, as I stated, the style of writing is reminicent of sneaky vandalism, my other reason for doubting it. Rather than continue to revert with tags, you should have waited those three minute till after you found the source. I'm glad you were able to find one, but please remeber that to impetus to source is one those adding or keeping the item, not those questioning or removing it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A101
Hi Bill, what a pleasure ! Yes, the photo is loadable under Italian and U.S. rules, but its PD status is controversial on commons which does not allow these loadings (an old story). In fact, I loaded the Image:A101.jpg on en.wiki, complete with its appropriate copyright status and I promptly filled Agusta A.101 helicopter template. One day or another I will continue with my "cousins" Agusta vintage helicopters. I promise it ! Thanks for your suggestion. See you around ! --EH101 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. Should the "count" be capitalized, since it is a title? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you are right ! I fixed count in Count. Just for your curiosity, I did the mistake due to different rules on capitalization between Italian and English. In Italian conte must be written without any capitals (maybe it depends from our republican status and subsequent change in orthographic rules) --EH101 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Humm. All the titles I can think are capitalized in English.  But then I live in the US where there's not real royalty. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

F-16 main image
C'mon dude that was a gorgeous shot of the F-16's elegant silhouette, very representative of the type, unlike the current image. There's no policy that imposes limits on picture height and with the page length, I thought it was very suitable. I ask you to reconsider. Koalorka (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It can go anywhere on the page, and should, but not necessarily the Lead. Yes, there is no policy against it, but the infobox is there for the info as much as the pic. Readers shouldn't have to scroll down to see the first lines of the infobox. I'm not going to war ocver this tho, so if you want to re-add it to the Infobox, it's your choice, tho someone else may remove it. Alternatively, you can ask on the article's talk page, and see if anyone else cares either way (or even do both). - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

sure, a helping hand is always welcome..
Certainly,

If you could Wikify and eliminate my typos(not using my primary browser and there might be prettymuch of typos) and in general help to NEAT it would be greatly appreciated.. Absolutely, the only difference btw Ka-29RLD and Ka-31 is the avionics suite and the GPS/GLONASS upgrades..this sure can be worked. but i need to dig up some more sources..esp for the latest upgrades (Elbit seemed to have upgraded a command control relay system, but i see it in only one news reease, will keep u posted) & again...

thanks

Swraj (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

=February 2008=

WP:Mediation Cabal
You may be interested in Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-31 Indian Navy; on whether the claims of the Rg Veda on Varuna have any real function in IIndian Navy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take a look. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for Infobox fix
Hi BillCJ, I myself had changed old climate box to infobox, but saved it (unsigned) before realizing that it broke ref section somehow. I discovered the goof with ref and did not know how to fix it quickly, so reverted it. Thanks for the infobox fix. Chirag (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha! You had changed the Infobox as an IP, and then reverted it as a Registered user without saying you were the same person, so I didn't catch the connection. What I did was to check Template:Infobox Weather. When I saw there was a date field outside of the ref tag, I just added it - simple fix. Checking the template page often, though not always, helps in finding and fixing such problems. That's the good think abour Wikipeida - we can all double-check each others' work, and help fix problems and errors. I still make pleny of error, and others fix tmine on a daily basis. - BillCJ (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing thumb sizes on Japanese military pictures
Hi there. Please note that I may restore some in an attempt to ensure the pictures line up properly with text, rather than have one or two lines creep in underneath. I won't do it for the moment, but when I do I hope you won't revert me - or will at least raise a discussion on the talk page. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that it makes a difference what resolutions you are using, and that the pics may not line up at other settings. It's probably best to move the pics to othr sections, to a gallery on the page, or to remove them. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback
My comments weren't directed at you, but only as clarification to the previous comment. You and I disagree here and there, but we both yield to consensus and remain civil. I think many others are quickly becoming uncivil in this discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have two boys under the age of three...I have a few he can use...
 * Strictly for feedback, User:TomPhan weighed in on my AfD, but he has almost no edits outside my AfD. His edits are similar to CC's (misquoting me/misrepresenting what I said in order earn "points" with reviewers). Something strikes me as sockpuppety about this. Do you think I should bring it up at WP:SSP? Should I simply request a checkuser to verify? — BQZip01 —  talk 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes
You managed to fix my dumb M61 mistake and fix the Sea Harrier thing I missed today. I can miss things sometimes. I got an account on the Plane Spotting site a week or so ago. Haven't really done anything there except start building up a watchlist. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And missed the non-Sea Harriers in that loss summary. I need to go to sleep... -Fnlayson (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you're pretty good at catching a lot of my mistakes too. I think you cought a couple n the last few days even. The Harrier thing was easy to confuse, you were just copying what the other guy wrote. I was suspicious about the 6 vs. 10 losses tho, so I looked at the source, and realized the user was missing that fact that there were both Harriers and Sea Harrriers in the numbers, and that he didn't realize the difference. I know there are plenty of times you've caught similar mistakes of mine. We do make a good team tho. On the M61, I believe I made a similar mistake some months ago, and someone else corrected me; GE is the only producer I had known of to that point. - BillCJ (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I checked that Harrier reference page and thought the 6 vs. 10 losses was accident/ground fire mismatch thing.  The good thing about an editor messing up something in good faith is you notice where clarifying is needed.  I'm doing some work on the F-15N page on the plane site, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

IL-76 AWACS in Iran
I'm afraid that the person who said that Iran has the AWACS modified by Iraq is correct. Here is a picture of one of them, taken in 2007 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76-Adnan-1/1315765/M/ Hudicourt (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said it was a "mistake" - I said that "such an extaordinary claim certainly needs reliable sources". A photo site is not a reliable source - photos can be retouched, and captions can say anything. - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

VZ-9-AV
My first book was actually a ghost-writing project that I undertook with a researcher who owed his publisher a "first refusal project" that he wanted to devote to the VTOL flying saucer designs of Avro Canada. I knew nothing about the secret projects and had to rely on his extensive knowledge and exhaustive files based on a 30-year search through UK, U.S. and Canadian sources. Eventually, through the use of Freedom of Information Act requests in both countries as well as separate searches through UK sources, author/researcher Les Wilkinson obtained the original documentation on all of the Avro Canada "black" projects dating from 1952-1961. These projects included spade-shaped tail-sitters and disc-shaped "flat risers" that eventually culminated in the WS-606A supersonic fighter program that was funded by the USAF. The VZ-9-AV Avrocar which was initially considered a "proof-of-concept" test vehicle for the supersonic fighter was also funded by the U.S. Army as an entry in the "flying Jeep" sweepstakes. All the manuals, and every official document including company, government and military correspondence refers to the "VZ-9-AV" which was a reference to the project's Avro Canada origins. The project office was at USAF Dayton AFB and most of the material that was obtained came from USAF sources.

Only after its demise did the VZ-9 designation become standard in referring to the Avrocar. I can elaborate further but I will have to resort to the dreaded "original research" to pull out the company manuals and other corroborating material. After Les' untimely death during our collaboration, I received 30 boxloads of his research, of which approximately 1/3 has now been donated to a museum that acted as a depository for research on the Avro Canada company history. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Bill, I did discuss this apparent discrepancy in my book: Avrocar: Canada's Flying Saucer (p. 69) as the "official" designation that was established by the Project Office was not always carried through but there are numerous other sources including Bill Rose and Tony Buttler's recent Secret Projects: Flying Saucer Aircraft (p. 76) that correctly identify the project as "VZ-9AV" (note the slight variation). From interviews with the engineering staff responsible, it was a designation that was made by the USAF WS606A Project Office to recognize the orgins of the project. It did not seem to be a requirement from the company as by that time, nearly 100% of funding was coming from the U.S. military, but it was acknowledged that the "AV" code was nonstandard. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

Canadian roundal
(moved comments from User talk:BillCJ/UBX/GWSun to here) - Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bill,

I have to apologize for not realizing to document my edits, I am very new here.

But, I was until recently a former member of the Canadian Forces and the roundel that is on the Canadian C-17 is commonly known as the RCAF roundel. The current roundel was introduced in 1965, simplifying the former roundel to match the maple leaf on the new Canadian flag. It has to my knowledge, training, and experience and in several references been referred to as the RCAF roundel, more of a tribute than anything else. This policy is in keeping with recognizing pre-unification items, such as the RCAF tartan and the RCAF March Past, as official 'issue'. Yes, the RCAF has been gone 40 years now, since 1968, but something’s do remain! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsim22 (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary?
Don't assume anything I do on Wikipedia is arbitrary, please. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 09:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's arbitrary per the MOS, whether you think it is or not. -- BillCJ (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Certification request
Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Cloud — BQZip01 —  talk 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag
Please be a little slower on the button when you revert. You will notice if you check again that your revert wiped out a cite I had just put in to a Congressional Research Service report down the bottom, citing something that had only previously had forums for substantiation. You seem to have picked up on my primary concern - which issue of Jane's Defence Weekly, and when? page number, etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the stomp - the second edit was off the screen, and I totally missed it - I'll try to be more careful. I hope you got my point about tagging in the middle of a quote. Just a reminder that neither one of us are perfect, huh? And I've been trying so hard to be perfecter laterly! - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up and good catch!
it does look like I got a little confused there with my edit to the 767 article...musta just had too many tabs open. thanks for the fix and friendly note about it! – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics of Puerto Rico
Im curious over all the edits going around, but my guess is that you are trying to unify all these articles, is this correct? -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tying to, yes. See Talk:Politics of Puerto Rico. If you can help constructively, such as writing a summary on the section I've taken out on Puerto Rico, I'd appreciate that. - BillCJ (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not up to date with politics and have avoided them since leaving the island on 2007, I'm probably not the user to summarize all those arguments. Just a comment though, the "oldest colony in the world" argument is a mayor game piece in the PNP (pro statehood) and PIP (pro independence) campains, wich means that its should be summarized in the lead somehow, however I am not sure how to write what is essentially a POV argument from a NPOV possition. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't know that much either. Basically, I'm trying to combine what is there taht is sourced, and remove the more-outrageous statements that aren't sourced. I'll try to work the "oldest colony in the world" part back into to the Lead if I can, but such a statement really needs an opposing view to balance it out.


 * Despite the circumstances of the choice, Commonwealth status was chosen in a referendum. THe Philippines was achieved commonwealth status in 1937, and gained full independence in 1946. I don't think anyone back then really intended for PR to remain a commonwealth for over 50 years, tho I could be completely wrong on that assumption. I think they expected statehood or independence to be chosen relativley soon, but that didn't happen. To me, the main problem with Commonwealth status is that it has know constitutional "status", being something entirely created by Congress, and subject to change by Congress. There are only two ways to change that: PR statehood, which would give it all the rights of statehood, but all the responsibilities too; or amend the US Constitution to provide voting rights to non-states such as PR, as with DC and the 23rd amendment giving the district the right to vote in Presidential elections. It seems to me that many in PR want both to be semi-independent while remain with the US, and have full voting rights in Congress, but not be subject to the same taxation as US states (the so-called "enhanced-Commonwealth status). THat's not going to happen, in my opinion. At some point, a choice to move forward is going to have to be made by PR residents, to either statehood or independence. I'm glad to see the US COngrees finally moving toward a referendum on these choices, and I hope it can happen soon. - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Only a referendum with two choices can resolve the status issue, because otherwise it will be inconclusive, however I don't see that happening based on a consensus of the political parties on the island, especially because there will be heavy debating coming from the PPD (pro commonwealth) who have prevailed in those organized so far, personally I think that unless one of the two parts (that being the governments of PR and the US) takes a conclusive and final action this debate will outlive me and my generation. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd.
Bill, thanks for your help in this article. When I read the other Flightcraft Charter article, I noted that it was probably best to revise that article but when I had tried to get the editor who had written most of the article and had moved it to revise the other similar article, he insisted that everything I said or wrote was wrong and so we were at an impasse. I left the article alone for the time being and then some wag found it yesterday in my sandbox projects and asked me to post it. Even though it wasn't anywhere near finished, I complied.

For the last few weeks, I had gone off on a tangent, writing aviation film articles just for a break. As to "The Ruptured Duck" article, it came from an aside in the "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" article I was working on and it seemed to be an interesting subject. Thanks for editing this article as well. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC).
 * I awoke to a flurry of activity on both pages. Please check the changes, I think everyone's contributions have made both pages substantially different from the original source articles and will probably pass muster now. FWIW, I did get it, BTW, that's my lot in life – to be the "burr under the saddle"! LOL Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

BA609 edits
BillCJ,

I saw that you changed 2010 to 2011, and 60 to 80, but did not update the references. Is this information you can cite? Right now the references in place show cert in 2010 and 60 orders. If there isn't a source, I think it needs to be reverted. - Davandron | Talk 19:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that wasn't me - it was the edit before mine. I'll will try to check the BAAC website later to double check the new figures. - BillCJ (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

E-3 page
Any idea what the "expand" tag is for on the E-3 development paragraph? ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. The article covers none of the history leading up to AWACS, nor the early development of the E-3. For example, the section should mention that the aging EC-121 Warning Stars needed replacement, and the new capabilities that the USAF wanted. There is no mention of the original designation, "EC-137D", or the fact that the original design was to have been powered by 8 TF34 turbofan engines. In addition, almost all of the existing "Development" section should be placed in the "Design" section, as that is what it covers. I have a few print sources with relevant info, and hope to get to it sometime in the future. My wiki-plate is pretty full for the time being, so it may be awhile, hence the tag. I will add these comments to the E-3 talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, a lot of design info, but little on how it came to be. I adjusted the tag on that page to try and say that. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jeff. Milb1 has already added a "Variants" section, but he has done that before on his own, so coincidence or not, Thanks Milb1! - BillCJ (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry it wasnt a coincidence this time!! I did see your message above and just happened to have my book on 707s handy so i thought I would just do it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rither way, many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Country of Origin
With regard to your recent comments about country of origin I think adding it to the infobox would be a good idea. I have been adding it into the intros of aircraft articles when I see them missing but having it in the infobox would do no harm. I was once reverted for being over patriotic when I added it in the intro to a Boeing article and I am not from North America!. Main problem is with US articles when the presumption (wrongly in my opinion) that if it doesnt say the related country it must be American!! Perhaps it may be worth bringing up again at project. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My problem is the presumption that American articles must state "American", while so many of other nations do not state their country of origin. It's honestly haphazardly applied, and I think that it were some on the objections come in. I'll try to mention the infobox issue again at WT:AIR in a day or two.


 * Btw, please remember that the US has more people speaking English as their primary first language than all other such nations combined, tho many have trouble accepting this. Thus nearly 300 million people (certainly more than the English speaking Commonwealth citizens) have to share wikispace with people from the other English speaking countries, as well as many for whom English is not a first language who are from non-English-speaking countries. This is not the case for most of the other wikis, whose usage is tied to primarily one nation or geographich region, Spanish and perhaps French being the other major exceptions. I'm not complaining about the situation itself, as this is a by-product of English being the near-universal language, just asking for a little more understanding and lee-way from non-Americans. Yes, we share space with the rest of the world, but vice-versa is true too! (Sorry for the lecture - just my latest soapbox issue!) - BillCJ (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that all aircraft articles should state the country of origin whatever that is - I suspect you are right that the problem would be less. I understand about your balance of english speakers argument and the reason for tolerance - just a lot of people to educate then that their is a world outside of the USA!! MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last statement totally! I grew up partically outside of the US in a non-white commonwealth nation, and realize how bad that myopic view many Americans have is. I assign most of the blame to the current US media obsession with targeting the lowest-common denominator of intelligence in entertainment and news programming. I haven't wathced Amercin network news programs intentionally in over 20 years, as they spend 22 minutes on expanded "personal" stories, with litte har "American" news coverage, much less anything else from the rest of the world! I grew up where you could turn on the radio at 3pm, and listen to an hour of BBC World Radio news coverage - now THAT was comprehensive. Don't know if they're still that way or not. Also, US government-run schools are atrocious, and spend little time on world events outside of America's direct interaction, and currently most of that is in a purely negative light. So not only do they no nothing of the rest of the world, they think all the rest of the world's problems are our fault! I guess the fall of the various Eqyptian Empires was our fault since the US wasn't there to make it worse! - BillCJ (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dornier Do 24
Nice job on the Dornier Do 24 page Bill. I fixed it up a bit, and added some photos, but I like what you have done. Cheers from Canada. ;-) -- Rob NS  23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks much, and thanks for adding the pics. A large number of pics were deleted from WikiCommons recently for not have correct copyright status info, and the Do 24 lost several in the purge. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sikorsky X2 update
Hey Bill, didn't know if you were aware that we will be unveiling the X2 at HeliExpo 2008 this year. I have a few photos of the finished vehicle, and apparently some have already been posted online. I didn't take any myself personally, so I'm unsure of the copyright position. Unfortunately, our test schedule and specifically tether testing last week was put on hold for the show. --Cefoskey (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! I need to get busy and research some more sources, and try to get my X2 sandbox page ready before the first filght. Usually such events bring out more interest in the aritcle, and if there's not much in it already, we end up with a lot of info being added that is not well written and/or not sourced. - BillCJ (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Assumption is the mother of all ...
While recently watching the mindless action flick Under Siege 2 both a line from it and some of the action made me think of a recent encounter with you regarding the F-117 on the USAF fighters template. When I first removed the Nighthawk I didn't bother to see if anything else was out of place, otherwise I would've removed the rest like I did in the cited diff. I realized some might've seen the removal of something, then a reversion, followed by the removal of the first something and more as a wiki tantrum or something but not you since we've seen each other around. Anyway during the movie, a bud guy says "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups...", which is a surprisingly true statement from a movie (for example I guess North American assumed astronauts would never need to get out of their vehicle in any kind of hurry while on the ground) So with the idea of assumption being bad in mind, just wanna say it wasn't personal or anything :) Anynobody 07:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't take it personally. - BillCJ (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dollars and $ at Olympic Stadium (Montreal)
I made the edit comment -- but forgot to make the actual edit. Thanks for catching that, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with your edit. I was basically writing a compromise for the anon IP, who I saw was logged on at the City of Montreal and figured might know something I didn't. But it wasn't a compromise I was at all happy with. What you wrote is all that can be proven. Let's see what the anon can come up with. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I totally understand. I often try to do the same thing as a compromise, then anotehr editor goes ahead and removes all of whatever it is. We see this thing alot on WP, with people trying to prove things just by pics, which of course are not reliable sources. Keep up the good work! - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ARH-70
That's a good way of handling the Arapaho name. My searches found that same Army press release as the reference, but I didn't know what to think of it. I guess that's the most likely name now. But I imagine it won't receive an official name until an important ceremony (not sure what that'd be at this point). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Arapaho looks like the inevitable name, but they could come up with something else too. The Lakota's name was announced when it was first delivered, but that date has been pushed back so many times for the ARH-70, that I don't know when that is supposed to be now. - BillCJ (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can find, announcing the name happens at the delivery/acceptance ceremony. Same thing happened wayback when for Cheyenne. --Born2flie (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim of satanic images
Bill, I will briefly show you the image: thumb|screenshot This is the contentious frame that the editor has claimed is a satanic image with "666". If you believe that – first of all, it is upside down doodles that look more like "999" and what about the "333" symbol in the hair? FWIW, I didn't think the "666" claim warranted anything other than a removal as it was nonsensical. However, the wholly inappropriate comments left on the talk pages was my real concern. Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the pic - it is totally unrelated, as I assumed. If those comments continue, I'd take it to an admin - seems like either a blooming idiot or a troll - usually both! - BillCJ (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Image removed as it is prohibited from use outside of mainspace. Discussion continues on the "talk page" of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks. I was just trying to get the junk on your page stopped so I wouldn't have to take it off my watchlist! Hopefully this guy will run out of steam soon, since no admins seems inclined to spare the rest of us from this idiocy! - BillCJ (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dassault Mirage F1
In British english, the indefinite article "an" is used when the next word starts with a vowel ("aeiou"), and sometimes also when it starts with an "h" (as in "hour"). Is there some difference particular to American English, that words starting with a consonant also use "an" instead of "a"? Also, I don't understand what you meant by your edit comment that the initial sound in the abbreviation "SAAF" is "es". Thanks  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "SAAF", as I understand it, is an abbreviation, not a word, and is pronounced S-A-A-F (es-ay-ay-ef). As such, it would take a vowel, at least in American English, but I beleive I have seen the same practice in British English. That is why the bot corrected it, and why I reverted you. The bot does make mistakes, as it did here, where "SAC" is pronounced as "sack", not "S-A-C" (es-ay-c). If "SAAF" is generally pronounced as "saff" in South Africa, then I stand corrected, and you may revert me. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ] (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard it used as both an abbreviation and, more commonly, as an acronym. However in both cases, I believe that "a" would be correct (UK) English, as per     Socrates2008 ( Talk )   06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. In WP:AIR, we put French products under British English, so you can go ahaed and change it back. - BillCJ (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked up your link, and didn't see any rules for abbreviations. So, I did a Google search, and this link was the first hit. The site is registered in England ad Wales. It appears to be the same rules as in American English. But, if the common pronunciation of "SAAF" is as an acronym, then it takes an "a", just as does "SAC". - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, cool, I see where you're coming from. Cheers  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   08:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Akradecki
I thought you might want to comment at Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Akradecki was a good admin. --Edibility (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan was a great admin. Sorry to hear about this. As for Canadianisms, I would take a look at the Canadian Dictionary which came out in the 1990s. As for program and programme, both words are in use in Canada with no definite preference, although the Americanized form seems to have gained precedence over the last few years. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

"no admin will block IP vandals anyway, so why bother!"
Really? Hm. --Golbez (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd get a response somewhere to that one! Not enough room in edit summary for the whole rant, so here it is: Try blocking an IP for any real length of time - esp one that hasn't received "the full range of warnings in a 24-hour period", and see how long old Jimbo's lackeys will leave the block on, IP editing being sacred and all. Or how long they'll let you stay an admin if you keep it up! I've played enough games with the other admins to know that even if there are good admins who are tough on vandals, there's pleny more who aren't, and they're the ones who always seem to respond to "help" me deal with them. I've made a lot of edits, over 24,000 since Aug 2006 now, with some time off, and I'd bet 40% of my daily edits are vandalism related, if not more. With over 4000 articles on my watchlist, that cuts into a big portion of my edit day, and I don't - I'm here to edit, not clean up crap, but I'm addicted to editing WP, so I can't just leave either! Forgive me for generalizing, as you actually seem to care about making WP a safe place to read and edit. Oh well, I'm off to revert more junk on ''Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedi anyone can vandalize!" - BillCJ (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

LHA-6 image removal
I strongly disagree with your removal of the image that I posted on LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship. Yes, the work was created by Northrop Grumman. However, the work was done under contract to the U.S. Navy, which makes the picture the property of the Navy, just as if it were taken by an employee of the Navy in official capacity. Also you will note that the picture was officially released by the Navy. You should know that work performed by X under contract to Y, and paid for by Y, is legally the property of Y. —Life of Riley (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take the issue up at Commons, as I've speedied it there. If it is kept, I have no problem with it being in the article, as it certainly needs some pics. However, until the legalities are cleared up, it shouldn't be used in the article. You'll need to add a hold-on tag or something to the file on Commons if you wish to contest this. All I am doing is raising the question - I'll leave it to the wiki-lawering specialists at Commons to determine the pic's legal status. Even if Commons deletes the pic, we can probably use it here under Fair Use rules, but you'll have to reload it on WP under a different license. - BillCJ (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you get in such a rush to delete things, you really should read the source website’s policy. Quoting: “All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified.” —Life of Riley (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop bothering me about this, and take it up at Commons - It's out of my hands now. as I don't have the autohrity to delete the pic! I've seen them delete images for the exact reason I listed this one. Commons cannot use any pics for which the copyright status is not exactly clear, and cases such as this one are not, you're interpretation not withstanding. I'd hightly suggest that, if you're certain you're right about cases such as this one, that you contact the relevant person in the Navy informational sections (whatever they may call it), and have them clarify this situation to Commons. There may be many other pics besides the one that you uploaded that we can use, and Commons may be deleting them unnecessarily. At any rate, WP itself may be able to use them freely, even if Commons cannot. So please, stop with your own rush to judgment about what I did, and start focusing your efforts where it matters. - BillCJ (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

B-29 Superfortress
Bill, An IPer added a new section and I marked it as needing refs and may be deleted... what do you think? Notice you deleted some F-111 text, similarly. I was supprised that Bzuk didn't mark the section like i did or didn't revert the addition, he only corrected the section heading title. Lance LanceBarber (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well,.... User:Anyeverybody went ahead and deleted it, oooooooookay.LanceBarber (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read the piece, it reads like a copy of something else, and is probably a copyvio. That much text added on one single thought needs to be sourced to remain in the airtlce, especially given copyright issues. I'd have probably removed it imediately myslef! - BillCJ (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm back
Bill, thanks for note dropped on my talk page. I'm back but probably not with as high edit count as earlier, but this time I'm going to make some cleanup with Operators section and List of operators articles. I'll try to edit some pages about Polish aviation but certainly later. I'm trying to resurrect my website about captured planes and I hope I'll be able to run it in March. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

 * I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)