User talk:Completeaerogeek

Welcome!

Hello, Completeaerogeek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type   on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dolphin ( t ) 14:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Lift(force)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 23:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Babinsky Cambridge University - Streamlines around an aerofoil.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Babinsky Cambridge University - Streamlines around an aerofoil.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Babinsky placed his work into the public domain in the Guardian newspaper and on YouTube. Citing it (including illustrations) meets the requirements of the 'fair use' clause in the Australian Copyright Act. both in scope and content for educational purposes.Completeaerogeek (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Frank Whittle
Your recent editing history at Frank Whittle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --IIIraute (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Frank Whittle, you may be blocked from editing. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Please self-revert your latest edit. --IIIraute (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Frank Whittle, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please self-revert your latest edits on both articles (Whittle & von Ohain)! Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Whittle & von Ohain
First of all, I have not violated 3RR, i.e not done more than three reverts within 24 hours. Secondly, I was the editor giving you notice (three times!) about your edit warring →, , , however you did choose to continue your reverts. You repeatedly removed long standing referenced content, in favour for your unreferenced changes, for example →, ,.

Also, I did answer your talk-page message, telling you to read the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", as well as the "The Draper Prize" reference, before you remove sourced content.

I was the editor asking the admin "SlimVirgin" to protect the Frank Whittle article → - what the admin did.

I also have contributed to the Hans von Ohain talk-page → - what you did not.

What you seem to think is "news" is a book that was published more than twelve years ago - so please let me tell you - it isn't news at all! Furthermore, your claim is not supported by the source: "Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001)" → WP:CHERRYPICKING - only when filing his patent, he came across something that "looked like a patent of an idea" (his patent attorney found it during a patent search, but that doesn't mean he started from that idea) → "Von Ohain began development of the turbojet engine in the 1930s while pursuing his doctoral studies at Goettinger University in Germany. He and Frank Whittle worked independently of one another, their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention." This matter has been thoroughly discussed before → ,

A couple of sources, all published within the last three years (I can give you another twenty!):

"Heinkel's backing allowed von Ohain to progress rapidly, and by 1937 (though entirely unaware of Whittle's work, as was Whittle of his) he successfully tested an engine in his workshop." Kenneth W. Ragland, Kenneth M. Bryden, Combustion Engineering, Second Edition, 2011 - page 506

"Von Ohain and his patent attorney were unaware of Whittle's work and of Guillaume's 1921 patent, whose existence, as von Ohain later noted, “should have been the cause for the rejection of practically all further turbojet patents”..." Vaclav Smil, Two Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines, 2010, page 92

"In 1930, Frank Whittle (UK) submitted patents for a gas turbine engine, which potentially offered much higher thrust than a piston engine. In 1935, Hans von Ohain (Germany) started work on a similar design while completely unaware of Whittle's work..." Thomas A. Ward, Aerospace Propulsion Systems, 2010 page xiv

"Meanwhile in Germany, unaware of Whittle's work, Hans von Ohain had developed his own theory of jet propulsion in 1933, while studying for a doctorate in physics and aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen." Adam Hart-Davis, Engineers, 2012, page 335

⇒ and some more sources on von Ohain being the designer of the first "operational " jet engine:

"While Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine, Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent..." J. S. Rao, History of Rotating Machinery Dynamics, 2011, page 37

"...Ohain, the 25-year-old Doktor Ingenieur was able to produce the world's first operational turbojet engine..." Sterling Michael Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second World War, 2007, page 17

"...the first operational jet engine was designed in Germany by Hans Pabst von Ohain and powered the first jet-aircraft flight on Aug. 27, 1939." Robert Curley, One Hundred Most Influential Inventors of All Time, 2010, page 237

I would also like to ask you to refrain from personal attacks, such as mentioned in your WP:AN3: "I believe there is a national bias here." and your other patronizing sarcasm. Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page comments.
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Hans von Ohain. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not place your edits in between parts of my texts.

I have reverted your edit warring. You need to get editor consensus BEFORE removing sourced material, or you will be reverted - please use the talk page. Please do not edit this page again, until such consensus was achieved! --IIIraute (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Hans von Ohain, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not change the content of my postings! --IIIraute (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page edits, as you did at Hans von Ohain, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please do not add text to, or use another editors name (W.BAILEY) when posting! Also, please do not change the heading! --IIIraute (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hans von Ohain
Hi Completeaerogeek, please discuss your proposed change on the talk page rather than continuing to revert (see Bold, revert, discuss). If you can't reach consensus on the talk page, the best thing is to create a request for comment to bring in other people. See WP:RfC for how to do that. If you need help setting up an RfC, I'd be happy to advise. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Hans von Ohain. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop inserting your talk page comments in the middle of comments by others. Binksternet (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from North American X-15 into Flight altitude record. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lockheed P-38 Lightning. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Dear Bilcat, have you received my reply? Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is where I have previously tried to have this resolved.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lockheed_P-38_Lightning Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Bilcat, I have put clear comments in the edit. I have cited the EARLIEST primary source, that of the AUG 1943 LIFE magazine article. The citation of Baugher is bogus. It is an unreferenced web page. The are various versions of this claim plagiarised, likely from the Martin Caidin book on the P-38 but no primary source has been provided. A google search will show this this plagiarised tesxt is all over the Internet without a primary source.
 * This is the plagiarised unsourced text they are drawing from:
 * On April 5, 1943, 26 P-38Fs of the 82nd Fighter Group claimed the destruction of 31 enemy aircraft as against the loss of six Lightnings. In these air battles, mixed success was obtained Because of the tactics of the enemy, the Lightnings were forced to fight at lower altitudes of 15,000 feet, and in battles against fighters it was not entirely successful. The twin engines restricted maneuverability to some extent and the Lightning had a wheel control instead of the conventional stick, which may also have restricted maneuverability. Nevertheless, the Lightning was effective against bombers and had a sensational zoom climb that could rarely be matched."
 * "It wreaked great havoc among Rommel's air transport well out to sea, earning for itself the German nickname "der Gabelschwanz Teufel"--the Fork-Tailed Devil."
 * Further, the commentary from German pilots such as Galland later in the same Wiki page refute the impression that the Luftwaffe feared the P-38. Without a primary (contemporary and preferably German) source, this sort of thing damages the credibility of Wiki.
 * As a former University lecturer I would never allow unreferenced, non primary or validated sources to be used by my students. I wish to protest in the strongest terms. I have put my objections on teh relevant WWII page to no avail. The Poster has also used another poster to revert my edit to try and get around the 24hir rule. Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to discuss all this on the article's talk page, where the other user has opened a discussion. Please be ware of making comments such as "The Poster has also used another poster to revert my edit to try and get around the 24hir rule." This is not assuming good faith. In general, once a person's edits have been challenged, they should not restore them until a consensus has been reached. I realize Wikipedia works a little differently to what you experience in a classroom/lecture hall, but you do need to adapt. Your background as a lecturer is valuable, but you need to use it in a way that works on Wikipedia. Explain your case on the article's talk page, but try be be as succinct as you can. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw that you'd already commented on the talk page before I posted this, but I had not seen it then. BilCat (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have asked them for a primary source but all they did is say in essence 'lots of sources mention this' and did not offer any verification. The reason for me assuming the posters were coordinating is they used exactly the same wording. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have asked them for a primary source but all they did is say in essence 'lots of sources mention this' and did not offer any verification. The reason for me assuming the posters were coordinating is they used exactly the same wording.
 * I believe the claim of the name should be deleted from the article until they can provide a primary independent source that is at least contemporary with the article from AUG 1943 or preferably prior. The article mentions in a single line on page 51 that the military police brought in a dishevelled German flyer who was repeating hysterically der gabelschwanz teufel
 * In the previously lines it is bemoaning the P-39s existing 'jinx'.
 * The article clearly reads as propaganda which was an active effort in all allied nations during WWII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_propaganda_during_World_War_II
 * A primary source should include the airman's name, the unit number, where and when he was captured and the origin of the statement. A single source should also be compared against other sources from teh same theatre i.e. other Luftwaffe fighter pilots. Without this what we have it wartime propaganda.
 * It is telling that in the same Wiki article the leading Luftwaffe fighter pilots make the opposite claim.
 * Adolf Galland from his book The First and the Last says exactly this.: General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."
 * So far they are refusing to provide a source which I believe disqualifies it from inclusion claim and it should be removed.
 * As a former university lecturer I has no problem with my students using Wiki as an information aggregator as long as they verified and cited multiple sources from the page. The sources are what make Wiki credible. Without them it is just a guy saying a thing... Completeaerogeek (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Completeaerogeek! Your additions to Air Transat Flight 236 have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Dianna, accident reports produced by government agencies are public domain. Copyright regarding fair use for analysis and commentary also apply. Only a few paragraphs of the original 103 page report were cited.
 * All of my insertions were properly referenced to the original report. I also used quotation marks where I directly sourced the report.
 * The original phrasing materially misrepresented the conclusions in the accident report.
 * I wish to have this arbitrated unless you can demonstrate that any of the above are incorrect. Completeaerogeek (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Again Dianna, Portugal where the investigation was done is a member of the EU and by EU regulation EASA makes available all accident reports to the public as public domain in the interest of preventing future accidents. The Chicago Convention Annex 13 11 also supports this. All major government investigations agencies including the NTSB, AAIB, BEA, ATSB, Transport Canada. the German BFU and other agencies publish their reports for this purpose.
 * As a former Lecturer in Aviation Science and Technology I am well aware of copyright and its implications and I am confident the corrections in this article meet all the required standards both in us of public domain materials and under copyright 'fair use' applications available in most countries.
 * I look forward to having these edits reinstated. Completeaerogeek (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Copyright laws pertaining to government works vary from country to county; in many countries (including Portugal) they enjoy copyright protection. The EASA webpages are marked as copyright as well. If you've found a copy of the accident report that is marked as public domain or released under license, please let me know.Regarding fair use: Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. — Diannaa (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Diana, again, accident reports are universally released as public domain. The report is on the FAA website. (link below)
 * It is standard practice in academic settings to use accident reports as long as the source it cited. News organisations may publish them.
 * They are published on government websites for exactly this purpose and by treaty other nations may distribute them.
 * In the case of Air Transat 236, the FAA is distributing a Portuguese (EASA) report.
 * You will notice there are no copyright attestations, as you may find in other places such as 'Crown Copyright' on this report.
 * By international Convention (ICAO) states must publish a publicly available report on every accident. See below.
 * https://www.icao.int/about-icao/FAQ/Pages/icao-frequently-asked-questions-faq-11.aspx#:~:text=Preliminary%20Reports%20may%20be%20marked,if%20possible%2C%20within%20twelve%20months.
 * https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/C-GITS#:~:text=The%20accident%20investigators%20determined%20that%20the%20fuel%20leak%20leading%20to,against%20an%20adjacent%20hydraulic%20line.
 * Here is the US NTSB policy specifically stating it is public domain.
 * https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Policies/Pages/Policies.aspx
 * '''Text appearing on NTSB Web pages, in reports, recommendation, and public dockets, unless otherwise noted, was prepared by employees of the United States Government as part of their official duties and, therefore, is not subject to copyright. By publishing its reports and recommendations and opening public dockets, the NTSB has placed the contents prepared by its staff in the public domain.
 * This material may be freely copied and, at your discretion, credited to the NTSB with a "Courtesy: National Transportation Safety Board" notation. The Board requests that uses of its material be accurate and complete.'''
 * This is one of the few areas where reports are required by international convention to be made public for research, commentary and other uses.
 * Every ICAO country in the world (Portugal is a member) is required to release these reports (with the exception of information protected under law or ICAO regulation) without restriction.
 * I hope this clears things up.
 * Cheers David Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the text that I can prove is in the public domain as it is present on the FAA webpage. Sorry I am not going to restore anything further as I can't prove it's in the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Diannaa, the sections I quoted and referenced were from final accident report that was hosted on the FAA page. the remainder was my explanation of the various facts for clarity. Cheers David Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers (and patrollers like me) will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks,  — Diannaa (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, thanks for the tip. Will do! Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on North American P-51 Mustang variants. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Hi Blink I have communicated on the talk page and one of the editors has agreed to change elements of the page as I edited. Several other items remain under discussion. However it should be noted than blanket reversion without a message in Talk is what caused this problem. Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X move
I see that you moved Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X to remove the "Mk." with the rationale that "All period communication refers to 'Mustang X' See numerous official communications in 'Rolls Royce and the Mustang' by David Birch." Considering that "Mk." or "Mark" was often omitted even in some official documents for most RAF aircraft, I think that you're going to need a better source that definitively and unambiguously states that the Mustang (Mk.)X was an exception to the RAF designation system. I've reverted your undiscussed move. If you wish to move the article, please discuss it on the talk page first. - ZLEA  T \ C 14:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please cite your source for the designation 'Mustang Mk X'. I don't see one in the article. An uncited 'claim' to a designation cannot stand. In the Appendix of Birch's book are reproductions of a wide variety of tests carried out by the AA&E and AFDU signed by their COs including on p 129 by WGCDR D.O. Findlay CO of AFDU.  In every one, the aircraft is referred to as Mustang X and nothing else.

This is a problem for you as Rolls Royce was the design authority for the modification and the 5 aircraft produced remained in its possession, the Rolls Royce designation is correct. The RAF did not operate the aircraft. The Mustang X was never assigned to a squadron nor part of the RAF in general so the designations do not apply. The AA&E and AFDU only tested it under orders from the MAP. They universally referred the aircraft as 'Mustang X' in reports.

The fact that the Rolls Royce Historical Society and its period documentation designate it as the Mustang X, the burden is on you to prove that you have a better source than Rolls-Royce, the company that carried out the modifications. On P 130 of Birch's RRHS book are reproduced AA&E (i.e. RAF) performance charts bearing the designation 'Mustang X' not MK X. Happy to provide scans via email...

In 'P-51 Mustang' by William Newby-Grant p 24 he also correctly designates the aircraft as Mustang X

Please provide a more definitive source or I will revert your reversion under the appropriate rules. Again, you do not 'own' this article. If you have a better source than the RRHS please provide it.
 * Happy to have this adjudicated Completeaerogeek (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A simple Google search makes it clear that "Mustang Mk.X" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If you wish to challenge the common name as inaccurate, you are going to need a source which explicitly and unambiguously states that the "Mustang X" without "Mk" or "Mark" is correct and indeed an exception to the RAF designation system.  If you move the article without discussion again, it will be considered disruptive editing and will be dealt with accordingly.  Furthermore, making WP:OWN accusations every time someone disagrees with your bold changes will not help your case, and may be WP:BOOMERANGed if you start an edit war.  So let's not make this any harder than it has to be, if you wish to have the article moved, please open a move request on the article's talk page. -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are using Google as a research methodology against a primary source? This is a unique series of 5 prototype aircraft, not a standard production version of the Mustang so a common designation does not apply. Please provide an actual source that is more credible and I will happily accept it. Completeaerogeek (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your failure or refusal to "get the point" is quite shocking for someone who has been on Wikipedia for as long as you have. Once again, please read WP:COMMONNAME and especially WP:PSTS to understand why secondary sources are strongly preferred over primary sources on Wikipedia.  These are fundamental policies of Wikipedia, and ignoring them is going to do nothing good for your argument.  And for the record, I am having a hard time believing that a university lecturer would be making such condescending remarks towards those they disagree with.  There's no need for such hostility here. -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My friend, as there is no 'common name' for the Mustang X, being a distinct aircraft model, produced by one company as five examples only. The official name is therefore correct and the WIKI definition does not help you here. The MK X is simply incorrect. You might as well call the Douglas Dauntless the A-24, as that is what it was commonly designated as in the USAAF. Completeaerogeek (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can demonstrate that a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the Dauntless as the A-24, then by all means start a move request for that page too. - ZLEA  T \ C 23:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note that because the article was already named "Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X", it is on you to prove either that "Mustang X" is more common than "Mustang Mk.X" or that "Mustang Mk.X" is not accurate. I'll also make it clear that I am not questioning that "Mustang X" is a correct abbreviated designation (as your sources seem to clearly indicate), I am only questioning your claim that this aircraft is an exception to the RAF designation system (the absence of "Mk" or "Mark" in your sources are not enough to support such a claim). -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The burden remains on the person making the claim. You have made the claim by designating it MK X in teh article without citing a primary source.
 * I have cited multiple primary sources from RR, AFDU and AA&E documents. These aircraft were never operated by the RAF. The 5 aircraft were delivered to Hucknall by the MAP and remained in RR possession until scrapped at war's end. RR is in effect the manufacturer, so their designation stands unless you can provide me with an RR document that says otherwise.
 * If you can do so in a way that outweighs the numerous original primary sources I have, I will happily be corrected. But don't bother with secondary sources. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a look in my university's library and found several sources that support the "Mk.X" designation. Pages 46 and 49 of P-51 Mustang: Seventy-Five Years of America's Most Famous Fighter by Cory Graff refer to the aircraft as "Mustang Mk X", as does page 19 of Warbird History: P-51 Mustang by Robert F. Dorr.  Mustang: The Story of the P-51 Fighter by Robert W. Gruenhagen, which is already used in the article, only refers to the aircraft as "Mustang X", but inconsistently includes and excludes "Mark" or "Mk." from all other mark numbers as well.  P-51 Mustang by William Newby Grant consistently excludes "Mark" or "Mk." from all RAF designations, including those of the Spitfire.  None of the sources make the claim that "Mustang Mk.X" is inaccurate, or that it was not an RAF designation. -  ZLEA  T \ C 19:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gruenhagen is correct. As for Graff, look at the index and check his source. If it is not Rolls-Royce then it is not a primary source and must give precedence to RR sources.
 * Every report, chart and communication that I have found from RR, the AFDU and AA&E designates the aircraft as Mustang X. These are PRIMARY, contemporary sources.
 * As in law, where Relevant primary sources have the greatest influence on the outcome of any legal issue. Secondary sources explain the law but do not themselves establish binding law. research follows the same rules. If you are in university you should know this.
 * What you are doing my friend, is analogous to walking up to someone and telling them that they have spelled their name incorrectly. Their spelling is their spelling and by definition, is correct.
 * These aircraft were delivered to Hucknall by the MAP. They were not operated by the RAF. They remained with RR for their entire careers until scrapped. Rolls-Royce is in effect the manufacturer and accordingly their official designation has primacy.
 * If you can supply a RR document that says MK X I will happily be corrected.
 * Otherwise the article is going to be corrected and if necessary, I am happy to have it arbitrated. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you read WP:PSTS. To quote the section on primary sources, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."  You are doing just that by interpreting the absence of "Mk." or "Mark" to be an indication that it was an exception to the British aircraft designation system (my bad for calling it the RAF system, it was not only used by the RAF).  I will once again request you to start a formal move request on the talk page if you feel so strongly.  No arbitration is needed, you just have to seek a consensus and other users will weigh in on the matter.  I will abide by whatever the final consensus is, and I strongly advise you to do the same. -  ZLEA  T \ C 03:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Until a formal move request or other consensus-seeking discussion is started on the talk page, I will not discuss the matter here any further. - ZLEA  T \ C 03:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will point out that Wikipedia is not law. Your statement that
 * "Relevant primary sources have the greatest influence on the outcome of any legal issue. Secondary sources explain the law but do not themselves establish binding law."
 * directly contradicts WP:OR, which is a Wikipedia policy. - ZLEA  T \ C 03:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I did not include any OR in the article edit only talk page your point is moot. I have updated the talk page for the Mustang X and will have it arbitrated there. Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The best way to do that is to start a formal Move request at Talk:Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X. Simply replying to a decade-old discussion is not the proper way to request a move.  If you want, I can create a proper move request from your reply. -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please notify involved users next time you open a WP:DRN discussion. - ZLEA  T \ C 00:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)