User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 2

typo results in unintended joke
The end of references always has a < / ref >. I forgot the /. Look here (2nd paragraph of "overview")

Excerpt: but is in the process of transferring the bulk of its European air operations to Leipzig, Germany in 2008[1] or North Korea. [2]

If you forget the /, then all the text is diverted to the footnotes until the next reference. In this case, the #2 footnotes ends with the text "North Korea".

Weird coincidence! Archtransit (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty good. :) It hides everything until the next, I believe.  Putting the slash in the wrong place, like does similar strange stuff too.  Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tamper
The focus of anti-tamper has been on military aircraft. The following article indicates that the FAA is now concerned about this for civilian aircraft. Do you have any thoughts on how or if this should be incorporated in civilian aviation articles?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/03/220564/faa-demands-connectivity-security-for-boeing-787-control-and-information.html FAA demands connectivity security for Boeing 787 control and information networks --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure right now. Maybe wait until Boeing has a press release on how they will or have handled that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. This article was ahead of most.  More articles have come out this week.  As I understand it Boeing has an agreed plan to test and verify the security of their 787 network. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

747 now FA!
We won! 747 promoted to FA! I looked up WP:FAC and didn't see the nomination. I thought 1) rejection or 2) vandalism. Looking up the rejection list - - not there. Vandalism requires looking up diffs and the history so I decided to look up the FA winners. It's there! Then I looked up the history to make sure it's not a prank. SandyGeorgia promoted it here. Just waiting for the FA star to appear. All those left field suggestions and the reference work paid off. I have no major changes planned but now I feel I can edit the 747 article. I was afraid to edit it before because someone might say "it got LOCE approval but since you changed the comma, it's now not approved". Happy New Year, again! Archtransit (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeff and Archtransit, congratulations on Boeing 747 winning FA status. The FA star is now in place. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was a lot of work.  Arch did a lot and found most of the references. Thanks to all that helped! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done! 4u1e (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review comments and help 4u1e. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations - fantastic job! --JCG33 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BAe products
Yes, I see the logic Fnlayson, but I think if the links should be anywhere, they should be on all of these products! I guess it's a Wiki style issue. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the info, no problem. And thanks for the helpful suggestions re F-22 cockpit. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the tidy-up. I have now asked Nick Dowling if he considers the article notable. And thanks also for the welcome on my talk page - it was nice to get a welcome that wasn't also a reprimand for my early efforts! Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Well I'm not sure about that! I am merely trying to fill a perceived gap in the articles I have read. Until very recently no military airraft could fly without a pilot and no pilot could fly without a cockpit. I regard military aircraft cockpit design as one of the most interesting and demanding challenges still facing aerospace engineering, not least because of the almost global move to single seat design, at a time when sensors and weapons become ever more sophisticated. There seems to be no concommitant development in the sophistication of the human operator. On the other side of the coin, there must be literally thousands of miliitary jets still in use which are potentially lethal (obviuosly) but which still have cockpits designed when the occupant was an afterthought and/or was regarded as the most expendable component. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BAE Systems is a Featured Article and as such needs to be well maintained. Excessive links were removed from it as part of the review process a couple months ago per policy (WP:OVERLINK).  It is somewhat borderline as the Typhoon links are well spaced.  It not worth me arguing about anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Oh yea.  I was going to do some work on those references there.  Many are repeated. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You seem to be becoming the resident cockpit expert. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

F-22/Eurofighter/Fourth-Generation Jet Fighter
Jeff, all of these articles seem to be conflicted at present with debates about various and sundry aspects of type capability and performance. Can I ask you to step in and defuse some of the angst, especially since the continuing debate I sense is deteriorating. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Uh, I was trying to stay out of it, mainly on the Eurofighter. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me guess: the two main combatants are still economist and Downtrip? Sorry to hear it's still going on, but that's why I stopped watching those pages! Seriously, it might be time to file an ARBCOM against these two, who first started warring over these pages in July/August. If Downtrip really is Wikzilla, as the fact that each showed up when Econ began his rants and edits month apart, then he'll just keep coming back, but at least we'll have some official sanction on actions against them. I wouldn't even mention the Wikzilla angle in an ARBCOM, as Downtrip has enough against him as it is. - BillCJ (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Downtrip and HDP are the current users names . Don't know about Econ angle.  Staying out of that part. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My one and only Wikipedia name is HDP! --HDP (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, HDP has been trying to do the right thing all along. Sorry, HDP, my above comments aren't directed at you in anyway!
 * Downtrip is, and always has been, trying to stir up trouble, and isn't interested in anything resembling civil conduct or discussion. PS, an anon IP has repeated my above comments on my page and on Down's. These guys are SO predictable! - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * - I mentioned HDP in a suggestive way without meaning to. Sorry about that.  I only meant the 2 main users "disputing" EF content now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

mop (admin)
I've just been given the mop, the adminstrator's tools. Thank you for your support. Even more thanks for the 747 help. I'll take a break for a day and return for editing tomorrow. Archtransit (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw that the RfA was closed. Congrats!  And the drop the hammer on some vandals when you can. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NF-104A edit
Hi Jeff, I am puzzled by your recent edit to Lockheed NF-104A (placing notes and references after 'see also'), I checked it against Boeing 747 which you helped to get to FA and the bottom of this page is not in this order. If this is the MoS way then we have a lot of articles to change. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't really checked the 747 article. It was a pain getting that approved for FA due to the Navboxes and order of bottom sections.  The Manual of Style and the Layout guide gives more guidelines on the bottom sections.  Note 1 in the Layout guide actually says the See also can go before or after References.  I had missed that note before.  I moved the See also below references in the NF article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

F-35 Unit Cost
I noticed you changed the unit cost for the F-35. No argument on the number. I do however think that it really is a bit misleading considering the fact that only six are being procured and that while they are production aircraft, they still will be used for testing before the F-35 goes in to volume production. While I don't think anyone really knows how much they are going to cost when in volume production I do think the 200 million does not in fact reflect reality. Is there anyway to note that these are not volume production costs?--Downtrip (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note sure. I listed 2008 even though we're barely into the year to be more realistic.  The previous flyaway cost listed was actually for 2014, I think.  A Cost or Procurement section (like F-22) could cover this better in the text.  Flyaway costs will be very volatile depending on how many the international partners order and when they want them. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

F-22 Unit Cost
hi, sorry to remove the F-22 Unit cost. however the reason behind this is because i included the Unit Cost including the development program, since this is the cost listed for the Eurofighter and the Rafale. The source for this estimate was: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

as their methodology shows, the US authorities themselves cannot even make their own minds up on the F 22s cost! anyhow, i see your point but also believe that this cost should also be displayed too... Pratj (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really matter. You removed a valid reference without replacing it.  Your edit wasn't but it could look like vandalism to some users, especially with no edit summary. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. Anyhow I personally think we should include both the USAF budgeted Flyaway cost as well as the Defense-Aerospace.com's estimates of program unit cost. their methodology and sourcing seems very sound, and is the best estimates of the "actual" cost of each aircraft that we have. and is being used on other aircraft's pages. Pratj (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure and sorry for my tone above. That's a reasonable idea for aircraft where the cost data is difficult to find.  It doesn't make much sense to add for the US aircraft where the service readily supplies the data already. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i agree. the problem with US budgets is that the DoD, USAF and US GAO cannot agree upon the actual cost of the F-22. also, the European aircraft also include VAT is their budgets, something the US does not. therefore i will be including the program unit cost for the F-22 too (if u don't mind of course) Pratj (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained before with the US costs, the difference is largely average unit cost versus incremental flyaway cost. Bad data/incorrect calculations are a factor too... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

yes. i understand. anyhow i have been doing my own bit of research and the 2007 figure seems to be way below the average flyaway unit cost, even using USAF units which are flattering to say the least! i know there is a policy of using the most recent data possible, but i believe in this case the most representative data should be used. anyhow, do you know where any official government (UK, Ger, Ita, Esp) figures on the Eurofighter and Rafale flyway cost can be found... Pratj (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

F-35 weight
The Lockheed reference is this is very old ~2004. The Reference 73 is from the USAF, September 2006, this is 2 years more up to date. --HDP (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought the previous weights were from the Global Security page. OK, I'll change it back to the numbers from the 2006 briefing then.  I hadn't noticed empty weights in it before. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

X-33
Is this what you sugggest for communication? You may have noted that I have been adding bits to the X-33 article. As it exists this article STILL MASSIVELY CONFUSES the funded (and cancelled) X-33 project and the VentureStar "Concept" (Artists Conception). In this it sounds like LM "PR" Hype, pretending that a new Space Shuttle was in preperation and would soon be flying! In fact a new suborbital Hypersonic Aircraft (with performance similar to the X-15) was in process as a technology demonstrator, but it failed to prove that the new technology was usable for this suborbital application, or that this technology would improve the chances of a SSTO effort succeeding - it was appropriately cancelled for this reason! Rpspeck (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be better to discuss at Talk:Lockheed Martin X-33. I don't see the VentureStar confusion myself.  That is mentioned just twice in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rpspeck (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC) If that is the best place, then please copy all this there.


 * [X-33 confusion comments moved to Talk:Lockheed Martin X-33.
 * Thanks. I'll copy the rest there. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically I don't know enough of the X-33 details to fully understand all these details. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 747, C-5 Galaxy and the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) RFP
Jeff,

It is not clear in the Boeing 747 article that Lockheed's concept for the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) became the C-5 Galaxy. Likewise, it is not clear in the C-5 Galaxy article that Boeing's concept for the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) became the Boeing 747. I would like to edit both articles to reflect this information, but not at the risk of losing focus on either article. Since you are a principle contributor to both articles, I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter before I consider any edits.

Thank you in advance for your guidance, --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The 747 didn't directly come from Boeing's CX-HLS proposal according to Joe Sutter in his book. Boeing's proposal design seems to have influenced the 747 design though.  Thses details do not really matter to the C-5 article.   The Background section in the 747 article probably could be shortened some.  I should borrow parts for the C-5 article though. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft page layout
Noticed that you are changing the order of items on aircraft pages, particularly moving refs above see also. Rather than just reverting the changes I just thought you should know that other aircraft project members have spent some time moving them the other way round!! Please have a look at the agreed page layout at WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content their has also been recent discussion at Talk:De Havilland Vampire. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well crap. We had References then Related content (now See also) before.  I don't think that order change was ever discussed.  But whatever, revert/fix all of them if you want. I'm not going to bother with fixing any of that... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK just trying to be helpful. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, you were, sorry. Just irritated that the order was switched without me catching it... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK no problem - if I remember it came out of one of the FA reviews it was easier to change the layout then keep arguing with the reviewers. MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true. Things are better off now with the new navboxes and all anyway.  The MoS layout guide allows the order of See also and References to be switched.  But I'll go with the project more specific policy.  Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, most of what I did this morning was put Ext Links and navboxes at the bottom of articles. Switching the order of the References and See also sections, won't be that bad to fix.  Just do a little at a time... -Fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reminder to self: See also, then References, (External links, & navboxes) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
Jeff, I just noticed your previous quote on your Userpage. Reminds me of a comment attributed (I think!) to Kenneth Johnson, creator of the 1978-82 Incredible Hulk TV series, in response to the 2003? Incredible Hulk movie directed by Ang Lee: "Don't make me Ang Lee. You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee!" :) - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ang Lee.. Nice. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch - a truly wonderous pun!--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane
Jeff,

You might find the following of interest: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064803cae35 FAA "Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Operation Without Normal Electrical Power".

--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/28/221879/us-faa-to-impose-special-conditions-on-boeing-787-electric-power.html Flight Global US FAA to impose special conditions on Boeing 787 electric power By Stephen Trimble --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

T-38/F-5
I just had a quick look in my books, seems the F-5 was developed from the T-38, though it all happened about the same time. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry just to add to Nimbus227 - the N-156 was a private-venture lightweight fighter design, a two-seat N-156T which was ordered as the YT-38 in December 1956 (although they had FY58 serials) then the N-156F single-seat fighter as the YF-5A (which had FY59 serials) but the main production of F-5s were not ordered until 1962. If that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I was thinking of Northrop's N156 design as equally the F-5 at first, but that designation came later.  I've got Warbird Tech book on the T-38/F-5/F-20 that I haven't got to yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You learn something every day here! Looks like the F-5B two seater to me (to quote 'Woody' from Toy Story, 'why am I not surprised') ;-) Nimbus227 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

KC-45
Do you think that the page should be split since the aircraft was finally selected today? I was the one who you moved the page from yesterday so I didn't know if you wanted them split so that your choice is valid. Kevin Rutherford 23:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. There's an article on the KC-45 now.  See Northrop Grumman KC-45.  I think Bill copied the A330 MRTT article to start with. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
We all have to keep on top of the featured articles. Amazing that the 747 and Phantom were in the 'wrong' order all along. I know that you, Bill CJ and myself have been correcting the order of many articles, which was the source of the confusion. There seems to be a fairly 'concrete' layout order now which has got to make things easier, no one has contested the changes, in fact 'RL' said it was 'perfect'. We will have to have a look at the other FA articles for consistency otherwise the other Bill (bonsoir Bill) and the MoS police will 'whoop our asses'. :-) Nimbus227 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That restaurant image still goes into the Specs section on my screen.  The Manual of Style lets the order of some of those sections be switched.  The FA review on the 747 was just finished a few weeks ago.  The reviewers made sure it was right per the MoS (or very close) then. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A-10 mils
Here we go again. I'm thinking of calling in some admin help on this one (for warnings), instead of revert warring with someone who doesn't seem to understand deeply-technical info even simple technical info, such as radius of a circle. The [FAS site gives the same basic info as in the book source - 5mil, 80%, fired at 4,000 ft, 20-ft radius. This is starting to seem like another "lost due to navigational error" type situation! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. I missed the latest change.  I'll fix it.  This might as well be vandalism... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll see how long this carries on. Since this is a gun issue, I've asked for expert help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and for admin intervention if necessary, just in case it is troll vandalism.

I noticed you have the book the cite is from, Great Book of Modern Warplanes. Have you checked the original wording to see if I'm reading this right? It's on page 44 of the 2000 edition. It does say "at 4,000 feet", but I'm not clear on if this is the range, or altitude as the user claims. Range seems to fit best. I you could double check my interpretation, I'd appreciate it. Higher math was never my strong suit, especially if I didn't keep it up.

Btw, the 1987 edition of this book has the F-4, F-111, and a full section on the B-1, esp the B-1A development. It's well worth having both editions if you can find the older one cheap somewhere. Mike Spick did a good job updating the new edition, but He didn't have the space to go into the kind of detail on the new models or newer planes that the older edition did with the older ones. I got the 1987 edition new, and wore it out the first year I had it! Someone gave me a second copy of it for graduation, and I sold the first one to a used book store. I've been able to keep the second copy in better shape! If you can't find a copy, I'd be glad to loan it to you; just e-mail me about it. - BillCJ (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - BillCJ (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't really check the wording in the Great Book. The Jenkins WarbirdTech book states similar angular data and that the cannon was optimized for a range of 4000 ft.  I'm going to add that part to the article for useful info and to help this situation.  Thanks for the info on the older edition.  I hadn't thought about them removing chapters like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pressure article
Pressure You state: "(Revert unneeded. Scalar quantities has no direction component.)" May I ask why we should obscure this fact from those seeking information? The article describes the gas pressure as acting 'in all directions' anyhow, so what's the problem? --Profero (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not hiding anything. Scalar quantities have no direction component.  I felt changing it to "no particular direction" was unneeded and somewhat incorrect.  I added "component" to the wording to better clarify. Sorry if you were offended. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not offended - just humorously curious - because I think "no 'particular' direction" underlines the same fact you wanted to prove. When one uses the expression "in all directions" in the Scalar nature-part of the article I can't see the problem of using "no particular direction" – which is no less correct.
 * So one has to decide about the logic: if one states that the pressure works in all directions, one cannot say that "all directions" doesn't include "one of all directions". But I don't have a problem if anyone prefers it that way. The reader probably understands the symbolic use of the expression ; - ) --Profero (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it's really just a semantics thing. It's not that big of a deal to me.  Change the wording to something better if you wish.  I won't bother it... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. No big deal. It's just sometimes interesting to see what language can do to logic.... --Profero (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Airplane" vs. "aeroplane" vs. "fixed-wing aircraft"
I was gonna argue that a bit too, Jeff. But the consensus in the community is that if a term in one version of English is spelled differently in another version, but a similar term also exists that is common to several versions of English, then that is the term that should be used. Morcus didn't even present it in light of the MOS, but while I was looking to argue my case, actually found that the community agrees somewhat with the point Morcus was making; since American English and the Queen's English cannot agree on airplane vs. aeroplane, fixed-wing aircraft is an acceptable term. --Born2flie (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand the situation.  Just wanted to put a comment in about it. "Fixed-wing aircraft" is the lesser of 3 evils. ;)  Take it easy... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, wasn't sure. --Born2flie (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA for B-70?
Now that the article has been fleshed out and has long stabilized, would you be interested in another GA attempt? Every one I have done in the past eventually turns into a debate over the number of citations, which bores me to no end, so I'd likely need some help on that front. But basically, aside from the superb play-by-play of the flights on 001, I think it's safe to say this article is the best of its sort anywhere. Maury (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is worth a shot. I'll do what I can to help.  But I don't have print sources to cover much of the B-70's background.   -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well on that one the technical report from Rockwell (linked in the article) is likely the best source we could hope for! Practically every statement in the article comes from it, with the exception of the really early history. Maury (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AH-1 pics

 * AH-1 Cobra pic
 * this one too

Jeff, I haven't seen a AH-1W with the Zulu-type exhaust suppressors, but this sure looks like one! Evetrything else about the Cobra appears to be a Whiskey, including the winngs with the little box on them, and the two-bladed rotor. But that's definitely not a Whiskey exhaust. - BillCJ (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen enough pics of the that area to tell much difference. But I found a AH-1W image to compare to here. Found some other images of the duckbill exhausts here and here on the first DVIC results page (searched on AH-1 Cobra).

I haven't seen any released reports that the -Ws were using the duckbills (or at least I didn't realize that is what they were talking about), but I will try some searches tomorrow or the next day to see what I can find out. We definitely ought to have someting about it in the SuperCobra article, and a few pics of the new type too. Interestingly enough, I was actually searching for "amphibious assault ship", trying to find pics of the LHAs/LHDs with other carriers, especially the foreign ones. That search had over 5000 images, and I only got as far as 600 before I had to stop to do other things. - BillCJ (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I found something on the Hover InfraRed Suppression System (HIRSS) being installed on AH-1Ws here, and it was selected for the H-1 Upgrades also. - BillCJ (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, "Suppression System" does seem more likely than "Suppressor System".  -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

C-130J Super Hercules
Thanks for catching the author and copyright on the C-130J Super Hercules specs cite from the USAF fact sheet. I know I didn't add that info in on purpose, but it was on the first edit I did of the page. It must have been from the original cite template that I copied, and I just missed that info was still there. I don't even know how to make the copryright symbol on the keyboard! Thanks again for cleaning up my messes. - BillCJ (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. No idea how to make that symbol either.  Probably some odd key combination.  You caught that incorrect spec change.  I let it go and checked later and found ceiling is 28,000 ft on the Lock-Mart page.  Was going to fix the data, but you had already reverted it by then.  Thanks and take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-X protest
Also, Flight International/Global has a link to the redacted version of Boeing's KC-X protest here (2.5 Mb). It's interesting in that they show the KC-30/A330-200 wingspan by length "footprint" is actually larger than a KC-10's. Seems kinda inefficient based on that. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-addition of a tag I removed
This edit: goes against Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Museums, because of Battleship Memorial Park. -MBK004 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's much clearer what was redundant. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I could have been clearer, but as you can tell, I was using the same edit summary to expedite the correcting of my mistake as seen from the discussion at the project level. This was my fault and could have been avoided had I asked before I started tagging all the museum ships blindly without checking for applicable articles solely about the museums. -MBK004 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation "Boe_storyIV"
Jeff,

The citation associated with "Boe_storyIV" referenced a blacklisted website: www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com. I did not discover this until I tried to re-insert the citation.

The original citation was:

This citation appears to have been removed by User:RoboMaxCyberSem with edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=199054955 --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Same here.  I tried to re-add it last night only to discover it was blacklisted still.  So I just removed the rename part and added a fact tag to remind myself and others to reference that. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation, Joe Sutter, Jay Spenser, ISBN-10: 0060882417
 * based on a "Search inside this book" at amazon.com
 * references to bulge: on page 85 and 94
 * references to door: on pages 85, 98, 120, and 215
 * --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, well done! I hadn't thought of that.  I loaned my copy of that book out.  The page 85 in file (93 in book) is the one.  You should add that page number to the footnote to get the credit.  -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Obit for Robert E. Bateman - Boeing aerodynamicist
Jeff,

Since Mr. Bateman worked on the B-52 and Boeing 747, you may be interested in his obituary. He died March 23, 2008.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/obituaries/2004309049_batemanobit27m.html?syndication=rss By Jim Brunner Seattle Times staff reporter Thursday, March 27, 2008

During four decades as a Boeing engineer and executive, Robert E. Bateman worked on some of the company's most recognizable planes, including the B-52 and the 747. He led one of the company's more unusual experiments — the construction of sea-skimming hydrofoils.

...

--Dan Dassow (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet
Jeff, would you be able/interested in putting together a specs table on the Harrier Jump Jet page? If you're not able to do the whole thing, I could do the leg work of lining up the specs figures, if you'll tell me which you think we should compare. I was thinking of P.1127 and/or Kestrel, Harrier GR3, Sea Harrier (FRS1 or FA2 - not sure which), Harrier GR5, and AV-8B+. THose ought to be enough to give a good comparison, and we can swap out some of the models if we can't find particular specs. It just needs to compare the major points, comparable to what a simple specs table on an airliner page does. This isn't a high-priority thing, so we can take our time. I'm surprised it took me this long to think of it, though!


 * PS, good idea on linking the birds in the HSH page. - BillCJ (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I can get that started anyway. I can take specs from the variant article except for the P.1127. You want to list both BAE/MDD Harrier IIs. They are slightly different (hardpoints, gun, etc). Here's table with rows for basic specs.

Aircraft: P.1127, Harrier I, Sea Harrier, Harrier II

Data: Crew, Length, Wingspan, Height, Empty Weight, Maximum take-off weight, Max speed, Range, Engine, & Thrust

Will add the extra column... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As to the Harrier II, there are basically 3 models: AV-8B Day attack and GR5, AV-8B Night attack and GR7, and AV-8B+ and GR9 (only plus with radar). A lot of the avioncis are different in the American and British models, but most of the specs are the same, esp dimensions, and the engine models are comparable for each pair. I do believe the AV-8B+ has a slightly longer fuselage than the rest (and the FA2 is longer than FRS1), so that's why I prefer that one, and because of the radat. If you can, a line for the radar would be good too, with "None" for the non-radar models. The Shar has the Blue Fox radar (Blue Vixen in FA2(, while the Plus has the APG-65. We don't have to do all the models, just enough for comparision, though if we could do both Shar variants, that would be good. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I got that started on the Jump Jet page. Some of the specs don't look quite right.  I know the Harrier IIs are a little slower.  Take a look and discuss on that article talk page.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

717
Hi, I'm trying to clarify in the lead that the plane was never actually produced or delivered as the MD 95, which is disussed in the text below. There is a lot of information crammed into the lead, thus I'm reluctant to add much more text to clarify my point. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I just moved marketing to before MDC. Also, what "introduced" means could be vague to some people. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "introduced" is vague. I think we need a clearer statement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True. I don't have any better ideas right now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We were edit conflicting so I continued to fix my errors and formatting. I'm done for now, so please fine tune as you see fit. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Is the closing of the LB plant pertinent to the lead for the 717? I removed, but won't contest the return of the text. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the edit conflict(s). That didn't fully close the LB plant.  Boeing assemblies the C-17, makes commercial airplane parts and does engineering at the LB facility.  The last commercial airplane in LB thing is covered in the Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A plane, not a scandal??!
What in the world is going on at Talk:Boeing KC-767? I didn't sign on today until after 8pm EDT, and wow, what a mess! Thanks for being the voice of reason there - I hope they'll listen! Revert wars over categories? I think this one could on the "Lamest revert wars" page, your efforts to moderate it notwithstanding nor included as part of the "lamest". - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, that is kinda funny if you don't get too involved and worked up. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sound a little familiar?
To paraphrase the old line: "The more times change, the more TIME get even worse!"

I ran across an article from TIME in the Nordeen book, and just had to check it out: The Marines' Bad Luck Plane! Sound a bit familar? If you need a reminder, TIME has included a list a "Related Articles" on the left, and the one I'm referring to is the last one. THe article is pretty short, and skimps on details as for the reasons, primarily because the Marines weren't able to order two-seaters until the last batch, which arrived the year the article was written, and the accidents rate came down after that. I know some of our sources cover this in detail, especially the Gunston piece in The Great Book of Modern Warplanes. - BillCJ (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't need a reminder on the flying shame article.  The 2 seaters back then were just trainers, right.  There are going to be teething problems with cutting edge technology (AV-8A & V-22).  -Fnlayson (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:AIR
Thanks for your constructive way. I can propose to hide the box like this.What do you think? Is it good this time?

--Toubabmaster (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant reformat like the Bell and other navboxes. But adding the collapsible option sure helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Delete warnings
Hi, can you specify which image(s) you're referring to? Spellcast (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Helicopter air mail, 1947 .jpg and Image:First B-1, Palmdale.jpg are the 2 I saw on my watchlist today. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks tagging those and all. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

F-104 Starfighter
Looks like someone is writing an essay in there! Nimbus (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea. I didn't have time earlier to do much more than add the unreferenced tag.  Looks like only the last paragraph is needed to set the stage for the F-104, imo. The rest looks like fluff.  -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph recently entered contradicts the referenced truth in the next para, that Lockheed took the design to the USAF unsolicited and not the other way round. That IP has many warnings, does not provide references or edit summaries and is digressing into dubious B-47/MiG-15 performance comparison here? Cheers Nimbus (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. The text says Johnson was trying to build a better, simpler fighter to counter the MiG-15.  That's different than designing an interceptor to counter bombers.  The Origins content is all unsourced, OR-like and out of place/wrong.  Delete it if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gone, will see if it stays that way. I agree BTW about your change (10-15 years), that text has been there for quite a while although I think it was one of the reference book editor's POV that could have been copied in (phrase sounds familiar) Nimbus (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Your descriptive edit summary should help if that gets readded sometime in the future.  The Joint Strike Fighter went some 5 years from when the prototype development contracts were awarded until the X-32 & X-35 first flight.  Not sure how long they worked on proposals before that though. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the '104' had a 'Gattling' gun as well ;-), why would someone add an edit which caused a redirect that was not there before? I saw that this morning, left the house shaking my head! All the best. Nimbus (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

US Army Aviation Museum sandbox
Howdie. You might want to mention the Cessna_CH-1 as well, because they have in storage there the only remaining version of it I believe. I just found a photo of it in storage and the owner of the photo was nice enough to release it. He said that pictures of other stored aircraft might be possible too in the future. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The image attribution for small images is under discussion on the village pump right now: Village_pump_%28proposals%29. You might want to weigh in. I think additional attribution is appropriate when adding a third-party cc-by photo. I've given it some thought recently. In this specific case, the photographer is offering to go out of his way to photograph more of the aircraft in storage if that helps expand articles. Quite generous... what would you think about a (cc) link without the author's name, just linking to the image page? That would make it more clear that the image is cc-by licensed and more explicitly where to go to find out by whom? I doubt everyone knows to click on thumbnails, especially in infoboxes where no expand icon occurs. Thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I looked on the image page and didn't anything for adding attrition.  Revert my edit or do the cc thing if you want.  -Fnlayson (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a CC link in the CH-1 article. Good idea. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?
Saw that you have a good record of reverting vandalism, and that you don't have rollback. So, would you be interested in having this anti-vandalism tool? -MBK004 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Done: -MBK004 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks like that would be helpful to have. Sure, I'd like rollback capability.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I've been meaning to suggest this to you. It works well with vandalism. I've reverted other edits a few times too, mostly by accident. In such cases, we need to leave an explanation on the article talk page or the user's talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the .js pages so I can do an edit summary if needed. However, the links to the user name/talk pages are cleared out. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Von Braun
Jeff, I noticed you had a book on Von Braun, and thought you might be interested in this tangental discussion at Talk:DARPA. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I replied there.  I still haven't finished that book.  Probably over halfway done though. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KC-X
i know the weight doesnt fits. But the extra cargo is included in MANY references. Probably they removed the passenger-seats, which can be done fast and easy in the airbus.

And it is normal in the US Air force to give plans overweight with extra long runway, water-injection and so on. Probably this are the differences between european and us-version. Wispanow (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or other engines. The KC-767 is also "advanced". Wispanow (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. It's doesn't quite add up.  They will probably increase the MTOW some.  I think the KC-30/-45 is supposed take on more fuel after takeoff too.  I think the fuel capacity with cargo should be called something else, like typical. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Emirates "daily"
Would you mind going over to the Emirates Airline discussion page to comment on the anon who wants "double daily" and "7 (Daily), please. I'm "nervous" that perhaps I'm wrong and I'd like lots of opinions. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I commented in the Emirates article. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

BAE Systems on 29th
Hi. You did a good job yesterday keeping an eye on vandalism. Unfortunately I wasn't that free to be able to do much. Caught a good one today though (when not logged in): apparently BAE was formed by the:
 * "merger of two British companies, Marconi Electronic Systems (MES), the Electronics Division (GDE) a subsidiary of defense contractor and naval shipbuilding company General Dynamics (GD), and aircraft, munitions and naval systems manufacturer British Aerospace (BAe)"??!

I think we can both be proud of the article making it to the front page (with a lot of help from others of course) Mark83 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just some police work on my part yesterday.  The back and forth UK/England edits got on my nerves.  I let that go after a while so as not to get into an edit war over it.  I did very little on the article.  Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gripen wording
Hi, Fnlayson.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the expression "A decision by Croatia".

First, I don't think "by Croatia" is needed for clarification, since they're the only party in the context that has to take a decision (at least in that paragraph). Saab has made an offer, Croatia will take a decision. Right? (Not very important point though, I can live with Croatia being mentioned again.)

Second. I don't think it's good English, although I realize that, in the present company, you should be the expert. How about "A decision from Croatia is expected ..." or "A decision is expected from Croatia ..."?

LarRan (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a native English speaker but far from any kind of expert at it. Just seems some clarification is needed there.  The Swedish Defence Material Administration and Saab are mentioned right before that sentence.  I tried rewording some more.  Change to something better if you want to . -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again. There's something strange with the references section on the Gripen page: suddenly all text - apart from the headings - has become much smaller. It wasn't like that before, I believe. Does it appear the same to you? LarRan (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've only noticed a reduction in the size of small font such as the reflist template used in many Reference sections. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. More language issues: "The Gripen NG's empty weight is just 200 kg (440 lb) heavier..". Shouldn't it be more rather than heavier? "How heavy is the weight?" is not a question that can be asked, is it? Also: "Due to relocated main landing gear...". Shouldn't it be "Thanks to ..."? It's an advantage, not a disadvantage, right? What do you think? LarRan (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Heavier" seems fine to me, but "more" is fine too. "Due to" seems more neutral, but either is OK with me.  I will work on rewording the NG section so the text is longer a copy of the article.  Help where you can.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to common units of measurement
Hi,

We ran into each other at M16 rifle. Links to common units of measurement are in the top most frequent links in Wikipedia. The guideline at wp:overlink says In general, do not create links to ... Plain English words, including common units of measurement. and has footnote giving some examples of these.

Some people say that links help with conversion but where the conversion is right there on the page, that rationale does not apply, of course. I just thought that I would let you know. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, it just seemed odd to remove the Yard link and not the inch one. How many links are enough is a big gray area sometimes. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'inch' is in a similar class (i.e. common units) to 'yard'. The removal of the link to yard was not an endorsement of the link to inch. I simply overlooked inch. I also agree with you that the *correct* amount and the *actual* amount of linking for each unit term (metre, kilogram, foot, inch) are both somewhere on a continuous scale from 'none' to 'all'. This is not the most important issue for me. Lightmouse (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A-4 Skyhawk & A-4SU Super Skyhawk
I'm not so good with adding references but I tried. Anyway, I was also expecting Jane's reference from online source but I found none. To my knowledge and if I guess it correctly, they had it only in print because A-4PTM was retired back in 1993/4 following delivery of their BAE Hawks. I ought to know because I stay in Singapore and I follow the region's procurement of aircraft types very carefully, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia. Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the link. I thought you were looking at one of Jane's books. Flight Internal/flightglobal.com is another good online source.  Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was, I have Jane's Defense Weekly in print since September 1989 and Jane's Handbook for Aircraft / Ship recognition since 1997. Flight International is another good source too (have it in subscription since 1993). But that one thing that bugs me is a lot of their past data are now available online only if you are a paid subscriber. You take it easy too and I hope I didn't get on Bill's nerve too much today. BTW, I run a check and found this ==>>> List of A-4 Skyhawk operators. Oh boy... the amount of stress I had to went through when the reference was actually so close at hand. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are two artwork of A-4PTM patches as given by Grumman to Royal Malaysian Air Force; --Dave1185 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) patch 1,
 * 2) patch 2.


 * I don't think you can find anymore of these around as it was shot by a professional photographer - Peter Steinmann (who had been commissioned by MINDEF to shoot the photos on several occasions since the late 1990's) and was published in the MINDEF's "Pioneer" magazine somewhere during the year 2000 and only those two were selected for use in the online version - "Cyber-Pioneer". Do you mind reverting the image back now OR do I have to do it again? Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what the 2nd Blackknights image adds. It's basically the first one turned 90 degrees with different lighting.  A different A-4SU image would be good.  Bring it up on the article talk page if you like. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NVM that, I came up with something better and it has been added. Let me know if this will do. --Dave1185 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's real good. Thanks.  The ram air intake is the long rectangular budlge on the near side of the intake, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You got it right! But wait... I've just added two more images, one from as far back as 1988, which was a mock up during the Asian Aerospace exhibition. Wait till Bill sees this, ha! --Dave1185 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw, I had left a message here on Bill's page, perhaps you could offer me some advice? Thanks! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Airwolf replica
Someone just added this link to a story about the Airwolf replica being sold on eBay. It said it was in Georgia, but I think it was the same one for the helicopter museum in Pigeon Forge, TN. I'd been hoping to go see it some day, but oh well! Anyway, notice the Bell 222A link in the piece - seeing more of that around now, which is totally cool! Nice to know our work is being seen by more than vandals, huh? - BillCJ (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good that someone is buying it, vs. destroying it. Wired did use severaal 'pedia links. :)  Have you seen any of the discussion on the heaviest US airplane on Talk:Boeing 747-8?  I've tried and think I'm pretty much done with it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the userpage for that 747-8 guy. It says it all! If he contiunes to be a problem over it, we could bring it up at WPAIR, and get a consensus to bypass his objections. I don't think anyone would object to saying the A380 is the heaviest plane ever offered by Airbus, but thats a bit more obvious. Anyway, Boeing is pretty wordy in its PR releases - we can probably find a statement to support it there somewhere. - BillCJ (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Airwolf
I have seen a source on that junk that keeps being added - it's apparantly a recent news story. I honestly don't see how such an unverifiable claim - no one apparently saw the man "do" it - belongs in the article, and I'm not sure it's relevant even if verified! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sounds like tabloid content, not encyclopedic at all. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, someone added that stuff to the Airwolf (helicopter) article with a link this time. Seems like that falls under WP:NOT though. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Leyte Gulf reverts
I am not inconsistent. Had you bothered to read aft as I suggested, you would know that after is the adjective form of aft, which refers to the rear of a ship. Thus, "these gun turrets are aft" but "these are the after gun turrets". The phrase "after gun turrets" is used twice in Battle of Leyte Gulf as well as in other Wikipedia articles. DES (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aft is adjective in most common usage. Same as aft cabin example in the aft article. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder
The aircraft's payload seems to be a bit controversial. someone has given the reference of Aviation Week & Space Technology which looks a bit odd as it it does not provide any speific info of JF-17 of its own. Article states that the empty weight is 6300+ kg but some well established sites mention it as 3800kg.I would like you to look into the matter. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No idea what is right. The Aviation Week reference in the JF-17 Specs lists a 2008 Aviation Source Book, which appears to be AWST Source Book.  Flightglobal.com does not have a profile on it either. That's all I have.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

well these sites do provide valuable [click here] and [here]. These sites provide authentic info but I really don't know if they can be used as reference. Daredevil555 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a reference that lists the JF-17/FC-1's empty weight (mass). One does list max take-off weight and normal take-off weight.  Given those weights and its size being similar to the JAS 39 & T-50, an empty weight of 3,800 kg seems way low. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

same here.I think its way too low may be because its based on a third generation airframe Daredevil555 (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

F-111 edit?
Jeff

I'm an irregular wiki user, and I don't know enough about the F-111 to edit anything, but the paragraph titled 'Futher Developments' appears to be out of place. Since you appear on the history page as one of the editors, I hoped you'd be able to rectify this, or pass the problem on to someone who can. T Dietrich (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. Yea, it does look odd now.  But that text is best related to development.  The Development section should address the aircraft's changes after the initial A and B variants (Air Force and Navy requirements).  I plan to add a little on that with a couple books I have. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
I noticed your edits to B-2 Spirit (thanks for fixing that ref I removed, I had not realized it had covered the prior sentences as well) and I noticed what a superb job you have done. Thanks for your contributions, Prodego  talk  01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No big deal really.  I was guessing it covered the earlier sentence.  Being a little safe with that.  That's good that removed the possible crash reason, since it was obsolete info. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to main user page, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)



Mechanical engineering
WP:MOS says to replace all the ampersands and slashes with words; can you reword it without the ampersand or slash? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The mining and metallurgical are grouped together there. Will see if I can come up with something other than a slash. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I read the reference and decided that I'd like to pull in more specific information from the source, and that takes out the need for a slash; see what you think. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Better and more accurate. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The GAN review is done, finally, and it's on hold awaiting improvements. I'm letting you and Ame know, in case you'd like to do more. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MXU-648 Cargo/Travel Pod
Hi Fnlayson, do you know if there is a travel pod wikiarticle? F-15 is certified to carry them on hardpoint 2, 5 and 8. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not look like it. I searched in Wikipedia using a couple options (Google, Yahoo) and couldn't find one.  If there are other sizes/versions of that pod and information is available, a new wiki article may be in order.  Great, looks someone sells models of these pods: MXU-648 Baggage pod ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6 $, gee that's why they are always so dented. BTW, beer is not purely personal belongings but also squadronal belongings ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

717
Hi, I thought that the incidents were rather un-notable, but if you have a purpose for that title that I've missed, I can work with your logic. What is the purpose? --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. The section is pretty short, so no problem.  In some aircaft articles we include "notable" to keep from listing every minor incident or accident. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conscripts on Gripen
Hi.

The idea of conscripts working with fighter aircraft is not that far-fetched that you might think. That has been the case in Sweden historically, for example with the Saab 37 Viggen. I am, however, unsure in the case of Gripen, since it was more than 30 years ago I was a conscript. I wasn't in the Air Force myself, but some of my friends were. So it might not be vandalism. But I agree that the article does better without the Soviet Union and conscript remarks.

LarRan (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insight, LarRan. Conscripts just sounded odd to me there. In any event that text didn't add anything of value. Specifying the Soviet Union does seem better than just saying "a superpower".  Take a look and see if that seems alright. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue Fox/Blue Vixen
Jeff, I've noticed we don't have an article on the Blue Fox and Blue Vixen radars, so I did some checking for internet sources. All I found was this one from Flight Global, but it's a reputable source, and has some good info ont he Sea Harrier FA2 upgrade also. ALot of related radars are covered togetehr, so it should be no problem putting these two on the same page. I don't know when I might get to it, but I thought I'd give you aheads up on it. I've never done a radar page from scratch, but most of them are pretty slim anyway. Id just like to put something together to avoid having redlinks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about those. I'll do what I can copy editing though.  Would you name the article Blue Vixon (newer one I think) and include the Blue Vixon info? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, looks like the Harriers up to the Sea Harrier used some type of optical sensor in the nose. The Sea Harrier replaced that with the Blue Vixen. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work at Mark E. Kelly
I am hoping to get the quality raised from C to B from the Aviation project.

Allegedly it is not B yet due to "Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met"

It looks like you've improved on that score.

Is there anything else that needs to happen?--Utahredrock (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have only done some formatting and copy-editing. No content was added.  So coverage is unchanged.  I added some comments at Talk:Mark E. Kelly.  Please discuss there.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you still believe it's not B class? Compared to other modern-era astronauts I think it's one of the best out there.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably so, but I think I'm a bit biased at this point. OK, you're re-asked for review/help at WT:Aviation, which was what I was going to suggest.  You might ask for a peer review at WP:Aviation Peer Review for other ideas on article improvements. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie!
Chattanooga 'best fit' for VW, CEO says:
 * "Chattanooga had some other advantages over other sites mentioned by VW, including Huntsville, Ala. Metro Chattanooga has nearly a third more people than does metro Huntsville."

Just teasing! Anyway, this is a big deal here, as Chattanooga has been trying to land a big manufacturer for over 20 years, and has missed out on several large auto plants, including some that went to AL. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice. :) Good that you got it. Chattanooga is well positioned to work with the other auto plants & suppliers in three state area.  Huntsville has like a few thousand Army jobs moving here due to the last BRAC round.  That's going to be enough growth for a while as far as I'm concerned. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, the Huntsville Times really covered the VW plant loss. It is all over its front today and a couple pages in the A section.  -Fnlayson (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your second response - at least that vandal had an upside! Any, Hunstville is close enough to Chatt that it might get some of the supplier business. We haven't heard yet what they'll build here, but I'm curious to see what it'll be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

F-104
Good work, I have mainly left that article alone hoping that the requested peer review (March 08) would generate some interest/input. Amazing how things slip when an article is left 'unsupervised' for want of a better word. There are still problems in there but I suppose you can't please all of the people, all of the time! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good work yourself.  You try to do what you can. It's not like we're highly paid magazine writers/editors here. Take it easy Nimbus. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it all got a bit stressful for a while. Yep, the pay could be better! Read something about people making money from WP articles, don't agree with that at all. I have an eleven year old son who loves surfing WP, tells me all sorts of wonderful facts, have to make sure the articles are 'straight' for him and his generation. All the best Nimbus (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Since you have experience of the discussion at Talk:Atlanta Braves involving this editor, you may wish to contribute to Requests for comment/MAL01159 and share your view. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I know about that. I'm still watching the Braves talk page, but I'm abstaining from further discussion (WP:DFTT). With the IPs before and now Mal, I've had enough of that 14 year streak mess. Thanks for letting me know. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bombardier CSeries specs
Jeff, when you get a chance, could you take a look at the specs on the Bombardier CSeries page? It's quite a mess now, in three separate parts. Something like what's in some of the other airliner pages is fine. Thanks, and take your time - there's no deadline! - BillCJ (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so combine the 3 Specs tables into 1 big Specs table. That should not be too bad.  I'll copy a table over and fill in the data.  Looks like there would be 3 columns; C110, C110 ER, & C130.  Bombardier CSeries page -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bombardier lists CSeries 130, 130 XT (Extra Thrust) and 130 ER on their CSeries 130 page (see 130 specs table). I added data for the C130 XT & ER versions last week as well.  -Fnlayson (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i thought the lead section also served as an introduction and to create interest in the article. The data about the market was posted there to show the reason for this aircraft being developed - i thought that fitted best in the lead. Anyway, it doesnt really matter. One comment about the tables though - would it be possible to make the cell outline black, or otherwise define it? IMO the table is a little confusing as so many of the items span more than one column, and the white outlines cant really be seen. Cheers A300st (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that was too much detail for the Lead. A shortened form of that could work in the Lead if you want to add one.  Mentioning it using composites, being more fuel efficient, etc. seems better though, imo.  I largely used the table formatting that was already in place.  I'll see what I can do.  If my changes don't help, bring it up on the article's talk page.  Others' may have similar or different ideas on it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Table formatting is exactly what i was looking for - far more readable now ta A300st (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. I can't tell any difference in Firefox with my color settings and all. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

F-117 thanks
Thanks for adding the F-117 ref. I wasn't sure that I wanted to be the one to add it, the way COI accusations can fly!  AK Radecki Speaketh  14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Funny, I was adding that reference and copied the author's name and realized that was you.  I thought it'd better to leave that off to avoid possible COI claims.  Good article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear Test - Eurofighter Typhoon Article
I appreciate you deleting that section for those reasons. However,can you tell me how to put a culture section on that page? Maybe you could do it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSSTRATFORD (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon. If that's not clear, ask for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it and tried myself. If that is not right, please tell me what I'm doing wrong, as I am new to Wikipedia. --RSSTRATFORD (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional Help
For additional help on Wikipedia, do you mind if I ask you? --RSSTRATFORD (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add a welcome message on your talk page. That should have links that will help as well.  If something is still not clear, you can ask me.  I'll try to help. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the best! Thanks for that message. It really did help! --RSSTRATFORD (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good deal. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for Administrator
Hi! I was wondering if you'd like to be administrator as I think that you'd do an absolutely outstanding job, but before nominating you, I thought I should probably ask. Best Regards and hope you write back soon. --RSSTRATFORD (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I'm not interested in adminship.  The review process looks like a hassle as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I was just wondering as I do still think that you deserve it. --RSSTRATFORD (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks for the kind words. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MF-80 Vandalism
Hey Jeff, do you know where the MF-80 article is? I've been accused of vandaling the page, with threats of taking me to admins, per my revert here. And all I did was revert his revert back to what you had done! This business of calling any edit one doesn't like vandalism is insidious, but we're seeing it more and more from certain users. I've never been very impressed with this user editing abilities, and crap like this doesn't help. - BillCJ (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed. Disagreement over content is no way vandalism, gee.  You seem to catch far more than your share of flak here. ???  I guess you got my e-mail earlier this week. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he was referring to the MD-80 article; IMHO the removal of the cost analysis information by both of you was appropriate, as it constituted OR. Just because you include a cite in with your OR doesn't protect it from removal. As an aside, I hung out with a friend at the VCV scrap yard yesterday, and was told that they just recently cut up a low-time MD-90, and had at least one more scheduled for scrapping. Just no demand for the planes.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, MD-80/90 article. The cost sentence is actually from a reference nearby (see Aerospace Notebook: MD-80 era..).  I added the percentage reduction in the place of that.  Dang, cutting up fairly young planes. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon variants
I've created a new article on F-16 variants; this will let me begin trimming the main article. A question: should I use the F-16 infobox on this article as well – or no infobox at all? Please take a look at the article and let me know what other work it needs. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Naw, I don't think it needs an Infobox. The articles split off form the F-4 article like [F-4 Phantom II variants]] don't have infoboxes.  -Fnlayson (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

CH-53E
I don't know how to change this, but everyone knows that a CH-53E is a "shitter" and that is an appropriate place for the comment. If you google "shitter helo" the first two images are of a CH-53E. It's like a CH-46 being a "phrog". Someone is more likely to be familiar with the plane by calling it a shitter than by calling it a CH-53E. What do you propose a good reference for that would be? Chexmix53 (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting it in parentheses does not tell anybody what it is or why. It should be part of the Hurricane Maker sentence or something like that.   This relates to an article so this should be discussed at Talk:CH-53E Super Stallion. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Aluminum/aluminium
We usually go with the IUPAC spelling on science-related articles. See also sulfur and caesium. --John (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Space Shuttle article uses US spelling. Changing to British/International spelling for 1 word is inconsistent and against the MoS policy (see WP:ENGVAR).  -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because it is a chemistry word (see WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines). Not at all like your typical ENGVAR example. As it says, "these international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article. These are based on "preferred names" in IUPAC nomenclature." For future reference the shortcut is WP:ALUM. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, John, but I can't see the Space Shuttle article as being "chemistry-related" - at least it's not a near-relative! It certianly doesn't seem to fall within WP:Chemical's purview, but rather WP:SPACE and WPAVIATION. - BillCJ (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, as a chemistry graduate I have a pretty inclusive approach to this. I'd say to the degree that this article mentions chemical elements, it is therefore a chemistry-related article. Is a wider central discussion merited or required here? If so, where? --John (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope not! I think there's a difference between mentioning chemical elements and discussing them in detail. Most aircraft use aluminum/aluminium in some form, and many mention it in the text, but I'd hardly call them "chemistry related articles". Granted, the Space Shuttle is powered by chemicals, which does necessitate some discussion in the text, but aluminum is not one of those chemicals. But, if you feel the need for further discussion, chose the location you feel is best, but post notes on the talk pages of WP:AIR. WP:AVIATION, and perhaps WP:SPACE. - BillCJ (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To pick up a slight error of fact, Al is in fact used as a propellant on the shuttle SRB; see here for detail. I'll put up a central argument somewhere, maybe the village pump, and post notes to the venues you suggest, and also to here, and see if we can clarify where the boundary between WP:ENGVAR and WP:ALUM is properly drawn. I certainly feel, per my argument above, that the space shuttle article falls into WP:ALU, but I suppose others may differ. --John (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discuss further elsewhere. Mention policies in edit summaries when making the aluminum->aluminium changes in the future... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding The Incredible Hulk
Hey there, thought I'd let you know that I've reverted your reversion to The Incredible Hulk (TV series); per WP:MOSTV, References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, so it shouldn't read "The Incredible Hulk was..."

Just thought I'd drop you a line and let you know about that guideline. Later! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. "Was" had been there for some time.  There was nothing in the main WP:LEAD policy about using present tense.  Wish you'd mentioned WP:MOSTV the first time... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I hadn't remembered the relevant policy when I changed it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello
Jeff, I watch the Boeing 787 and similar aviation articles. I tend to only contribute when I see something important is being neglected. Generally, you and others tend to update the articles frequently enough that important information is captured.
 * As of late, I have been editing articles related to Changeling (film) and J. Michael Straczynski.--Dan Dassow (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)--
 * Oh OK. Glad to see you are still around.  Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad Messages To Me All Of A Sudden
Today I have received these three messages (below). I have only ever made 2 edits. One was a date of an ancestor of mine. Something like 1518 I changed to 1581. And one other about an actor on Gilligan's Island (I think). A couple years ago. Since I am on Dial-Up I doubt my cats could have done all this editing by sitting on my keyboard while I was out of the room. Also, since I am on Dial-Up, I don't have time to go around the system and learn how to send this message to you properly. And I have to also contact the other two. I have never received a message from WIKI before. Now in one day I have three!!! I don't care two hoots about Rush but I hate to imagine what I am supposed to have done to the Rush page.

Metro Transit

Hi! Out of curiousity, where'd you find the years of construction of the Halifax and Dartmouth III ferries? I couldn't find it anywhere online, and Metro Transit never emailed me back. Ouuplas 05:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Progesterone. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Mwanner | Talk 13:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 2008

Your recent edit in Rush (band) is considered vandalism and has been undone. Further edits such as these will lead to you being blocked from editing. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

18myrtle (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)18myrtle


 * Your talk page is a red link. You could not have received any messages there.  Now if you mean at User talk:XXXX, that warning was justified.  This edit was vandalism. Now those vandalism edits could have been done by someone else using that same IP address.  Use your account for editting and there is no doubt about who did them. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I created that user account after I got the messages. Yes it is the IP XXX that got the messages. I searched around and found a HELP that dealt with "what if I have been accused of [whatever] and I didn't do it?" It shows several possible reasons. It also said to contact the people who sent the messages. So I created an account and did so. Nobody else uses this computer, so it was nobody in this house. But the HELP thing showed several possible reasons. Please check them out. I am not interested in editing WIKI. I use it primarily for genealogy research. I am starting to consider this stuff as an equivalent to SPAM at this point. It is really slowing down my DIAL UP use of WIKI. I came back here hoping to see "sorry" or something, and I will take the time to check out the other two as well. I have no interest in checking out what vandalism somebody did to the two articles, or the supposed "helpful" edit they did to the other guys's Metro Transit article (which I am also considering valdalism at this point). I wanted to let all three of you know that you have to dig deeper to find out who is at your articles and hold them to account. Do you not find it astounding that suddenly there are THREE vandalisms from this supposed IP address all at once, out of the blue. I do. My name is Sandy. Good luck and happy hunting. Oh yes, the sig thing ... 18myrtle (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)18myrtle


 * Glad the Help was actually helpful to you. Sorry you had to go through this stuff.  Good luck.  And let me know if you need help or have questions with Wikipedia stuff. -Jeff/ Fnlayson (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll check out now. But first, I feel bad for the Metro Transit guy who thought he was getting a valid addition to his article. Another thing I wonder ... it looks like the edits to the other 2 were done in 2006 and yours was done in 2008. What's up with that? And I'm even starting to wonder if my cats really could have done this ... but no way! The perfect storm of paws and butts??? If you see any more edits from my IP feel free to let me know, but the topics are looking very random to me. If it keeps happening, it will probably be yet more random articles. The one coincidence is that the Metro Transit guy is looking for info that I can probably get for him as I do work for that Municipality. I will check with him now and maybe I can make some phone calls for him. Bye Bye. Sandy Oh yeah ... 18myrtle (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)18myrtle


 * Cat vandals. :) IP addresses can be different when you log-in. So probably a different computer... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

XHTML tags
Jeff, I noticed you removed spaces from some xhtml tags for line breaks . The correct syntax for these tags includes a space before the slash. It isn't an issue for most modern browsers, but it potentially creates problems for older or more strict browsers. If you'd prefer, you could simply change these tags to html by removing the space and the slash. XHTML is my preference, no issues if you choose to change them. --Born2flie (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know very little about html coding. I had not seen any issues leaving the spaces out.  I can leave those slashes out in the future with the line breaks (br).  Does that issue affect the ref tags like  ?  I'm just removing the spaces so they wrap together and to save a few bytes (not critical). -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MRJ
Jeff, some add uncited specs tables to the Mitsubishi Regional Jet page per this diff, and it was quite a mess, at least to me. I've reverted it for now, but I'm sure it will get put back if we don't have something better in place. (There's a very small table there right now.) There are some details on specs in this AvWeek article, tho they are over a year old. Thanks, and as usual on this stuff, there's no hurry. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, I've become the specs table guy around here. :) Really, finding the data, good data is part that can take some effort.  I was reading some about the MRJ in the Flight International the other day.  Should be some specs in that if Mitsubishi does not have all the data on their web site.  If you can help keep the B-2 article under control. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been forgetting about the MRJ specs. Need to do in a the next couple days and get off my plate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Interesting that Boeing will help Mitsubishi with marketing & support on the MRJs. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

F-104
Thanks Jeff, that article is beginning to get to me, I don't have a lot of patience left to keep it on track. Nimbus (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Nimbus and thanks for checking in on it. I feel like a stumble around trying to keep an eye on that article and others that I know little about. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will pop in there when I can but I am really getting cheesed off with it, the Indo-Pak war section is a popular target for 'input'. I spent a long time on researching that aspect and got close to the truth but the references were just not reliable enough to use. I'm glad you keep an eye on it, sometimes I'm just not bold enough. Also got some family stuff on at the moment. Happy landings. Nimbus (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

De Havilland.png
Hi, I noticed that you'd changed the licensing information for Image:De Havilland.png to a free-use license. However, per this guideline, this isn't exactly valid. Images of logos, regardless of who drew the logo, are generally considered non-free. I've restored the non-free license to that image. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, fixed now.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jeff, much obliged. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Add some more reasons to the purpose if you can.  To "Illustrate logo" is kinda weak. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

XB-70 Valkyrie
Do we have a troll? He is purposely twisting what I'm saying in my summaries. None of our usual admins are active right now, but I hate using ANI - I always seem to get on of the vandal-loving admins! I'm going off-line for now anyway, and I'll try to hunt down an admin later. - BillCJ (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If not, pretty close to one. Being difficult ... like Beavis' buddy. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked Maury to help and MilborneOne has helped also. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just reverted his/her last change and gave them a note on the user talk page that their actions could be considered vandalism if they persist. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange behaviour - you are being used as a source at Joe Baugher! MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very much so.  Me a reliable source, LOL! -Fnlayson (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the editor is at it yet again. If you need an admin to lend a clue-bat/block hammer, let me know. -MBK004 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try not to get too involved so I get frustrated. A message about working with others and assuming good faith would be fitting. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Already got warnings from Maury and MilborneOne. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now he's got one from me as well. If it keeps up I'm going to block, but I've also laid out a carrot about protecting the page to force discussion on the talk page. Any preference? -MBK004 22:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I lean to the page protection, but I can be a softie on this stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This business of adding uncited statements into the text supposedly based on edit summaries of the previous editor is one of the oddest things I've ever seen on WP. Ranks right up there with the loquacious User:Tenmei, but with a totally different style. - BillCJ (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it looked like he is implying the user in the edit summary is a know-it-all. Strange and silly stuff... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

SH-60 Seahawk
Jeff, I noticed you've been working on the HH-60 articles today. I just wanted to let you know I'm done with the SH-60 Seahawk page for the next few hours, just in case you had planned on working on it too. I planned to do alot more, but I'm not feeling well at all today, so I didn't get very far. - BillCJ (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I was going to wait and make sure you were done before looking at it. It'll be later tonight or tomorrow for me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. The SH-60 article in particular is such a mess. It has good info, but there is so much that can go in, especially background and development. - BillCJ (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was planning to go to the HH-60 Pave Hawk next, but can help with the SH-60 Seahawk too. The HH-60J Jayhawk is in much better shape.  I've done enough on it for now.  Hope you feel better tomorrow. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused on the origins of the SH-60 at the moment, so I'm going to look through all my books on it before adding text. As I recall the Whirlybird book states IBM was the prime contractor and picked the H-60 to be the platform for their systems.  But my Black Hawk book does not mention that.  Anyway, I'll work on the Pave Hawk one and come back to the Seahawk. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All the sources I've read, IIRC, say the H-60 was chosen by the Navy in the LAMPS III competition over the H-61. I can run down some sourcew, esp. from the early 80s, if you need them. - BillCJ (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I got it now.  The Black Hawk book says the Navy wrote its requirements tailored for the UH-60.  So they largely picked the platform for LAMPS III. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The beginning text I've added on the Air Force hawks seems to be all I have there. Will move onto SH-60 and try to add to that tonight. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to get started on this. OK, see User:Fnlayson/CH-xx. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Origins info done, now on to UH-60 to SH-60 differences... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A summary of UH-60 to SH-60 changes is done. I guess I'll try to source the other text in the article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice Work
Jeff, it seems like every time I check the history of an article I see your name. Thanks for all of the hard work. If you want me to collaborate on any articles let me know, my favorite topics are 50s'-60s jets.Ratsbew (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I mainly work on aircraft from the 1960s to present.  The main articles I'm working on are listed on my To Do list on my user page (maybe F-111 & XB-70).  Let me know me know if you have other articles in mind.  I may be able to help.  -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently created an article on the Lockheed XC-35, it is a start, but I'm sure it could use a lot of polishing. Ratsbew (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a little formatting on that article. Did the XC-35 have a legacy?  For example did it lead to another airplane design or something. That'd be something good to mention in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Airwolf (helicopter)
Jenkins was the creator of the second ship, which was the half of the reason for his ego (more so than Hawke beating him out as the original test pilot).

Also the rocket tube fired much quicker than Airwolf's, even with it's 3 deployment tubes on the ADF pod.

Lastly, it was developed secretly, without Archangel's knowledge (away from his section -- the section that usually commissions these black projects)

So, I think the above three points are very relevant to the article and need to be put back please.

Surge. SurgeFilter (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, sorry I missed some of your changes. The part about the external modifications need to be made clearer.  Like was Redwolf a different Bell 222 helicopter, etc.  Discuss further at Talk:Airwolf (helicopter). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I realize you mean well but yes, Redwolf was just a standard Bell 222-B variant [remember Airwolf was an original 222-A) - leased temporarily by McKernan Snr at Jetcopters for the late August 1985 shoot - with a paint job (this same ship was used in the 4th season premiere episode of The A-Team "Judgement Day" but it had been painted purely Phantom Gray Effect Black). The single rocket tube was only on the studio miniature. The scene that the 1st Unit shot over at Indian Dunes (where the test run for Zeus and the Secretary of Defense was staged) cut multiple pyro mixed with opticals FX from the miniature's soundstage-mounted rocket tube (which wasn't ADF enabled unlike the original Lady). Hope that clarifies? :)  SF SurgeFilter (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I remember bits and pieces of the show, but that's about it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Puff the Magic Dragon" reference in Minigun
Why did you change the reference to "Puff the Magic Dragon" to point back to the song? Don't you think that it is better to point directly to the Douglas AC-47 Spooky gunship than to a Peter, Paul and Mary recording from 1963? And why the song instead of the "film"? In my opinion, the previous link to the "Douglas AC-47" points to the correct page, so the "Puff the Magic Dragon" link should either point to the same page, or have the link removed entirely... not point to a page with nothing in common with the article except for the name. Quebec99 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As said in my edit summary, AC-47 is already linked in that sentence. Puff the Magic Dragon is not explained at all.  How is someone unfamiliar with that supposed to figure it out without a link or some explanation??  -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that mention from the Minigun article. It was just minor trivia.  It is more fitting in the AC-47 article anyway (where the song is linked). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my first attempt at changing a page. Thanks for the help. Sorry if the response seemed curt, but I didn't think the way that it was when I saw it was correct, so I thought I would sign-up and make the change.

I notice little things all the time... now I can correct them. I don't know if I will delve into a new topic, or expand old ones, but I have a general knowledge and interest in many things, not just military. ;-) Quebec99 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

777
Hello. As a frequent editor to the 777 article, it would be nice to get your opinion on the topic mentioned on the 777 talk page. It's about what qualifies for an incident and accident. Chergles (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep watch over the 777 article over Thanksgiving! Happy Thanksgiving! Chergles (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure that and some 350 others. :) Thanks Chergles and have a Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Saw that the article is about the 1867th most frequently viewed article, seen over 2000 times a day. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/Boeing%20777 That gives me some incentive to work on the article more next week. Chergles (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On V-22 comments
I fear I may have offended you on the V-22 talk page. My apologies for not being clearer. I appreciate all the work that you and other editors to the article have put into the article. I've left a comment on the talk page trying to give context to my request. I would appreciate the help of the article's watchers/contributors toward resolving the outstanding tags. I have done some gnomish edits. Thanks for your help. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It looked like at first you were asking for expert help with a couple fact tags. The ones I fixed last night were not difficult to find.  I could not find anything reliable on the emergency landing in June 2008.  That is probably just a minor non-notable incident if real.  I'll try to write on JVX stuff and do what I can during Thanksgiving break.  However, don't expect other editors to jump on this with a short notice, especially during the holiday season. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No problem that it is a work in progress. Any JVX info would be great.  If controversies can be integrated into the relevant sections, as per your proposal, that would be nice.  I've left my comments on the talk page in support of your proposal. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversial page question
While reading this page, I came across what I believe is an error, but due to the controversial nature of the page, the members cannot see the forest for the trees.

The section titled 'Early history', first paragraph says: "Several of the many groups of early immigrants to the American colonies were there motivated largely by the desire to worship freely in their own fashion, particularly after the English Civil War, but also religious wars and disputes in France and Germany. "

It doesn't read right. I think someome edited the section and left in an extra "there". See if this reads better, and if you think I should change it:

"Several of the many groups of early immigrants to the American colonies were motivated largely by the desire to worship freely in their own fashion, particularly after the English Civil War, but also religious wars and disputes in France and Germany. "

Thanks for the advice. Quebec99 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is trying to say the immigrants came to America [there] for religious freedom. Maybe: "Several of the many groups of early immigrants to the American colonies were there largely by the desire to worship freely ..."  -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Here goes... Quebec99 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Just be careful with text that has a reference following it.  Rewording too much may alter the intended meaning so the reference does not fully support the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiltrotor
That's fine, the other editor changed the whole meaning of the phrase to refer to how tiltrotors are configured, which is covered elsewhere, rather than simply the nature of operation of the tiltrotor's rotor. Especially, considering the previous portion of the paragraph dealt with horizontal and vertical position and function of helicopter rotors (main vs. tail rotor). Revert was simply easier than deciding which of his edits I liked. For instance, in the same paragraph there isn't a discussion of configuration of tandem rotors. In fact, we could probably eliminate the whole sentence, or else change it to be a clearer comparison in contrast to helicopter rotors. But the discussion should be about one rotor and one nacelle and how it functions in comparison to the singular subject used to discuss helicopter rotors, and to distinguish it from discussion about tiltrotor configuration. --Born2flie (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not see where the meaning was really changed. Just looked like some rewording to me.  No detail was added. This does not seem to warrant a paragraph of discussion from me.  Change, delete it, whatever...  -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't clear to the other editor that the discussion was about different rotor locations and orientations, then perhaps it needs revisiting to make sure that other editors won't have the same perception? --Born2flie (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't hurt anything. I see the point of that mention better now.  With the tiltrotors covered in the Antitorque configurations section, the rotor orientation thing could be removed without really losing anything. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried to edit it and it wasn't really working out, so I just removed it. For now, anyways, unless someone else has heartburn over it being cut out. Then I'll try and figure out how to edit it a little better. --Born2flie (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

2M articles
2M articles and we have to edit conflict on the MD-90! Take it away. I'll come back another day. Suggest keeping the V2500 photo as it is a little unusual and is what makes the MD-90 different from the MD-80. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I kept all of them. I messed up the link there for a minute.  Sorry about that.  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The previous version only said that there was one hull loss. I added some details (passenger brought gasoline aboard the plane). I once thought of doing the same thing for about 2 seconds. I saw some 94 octane gas, which is higher than the 91-93 found in the US. After 2 seconds, I thought that was a stupid idea. Looks like someone actually did it and with tragic results (1 dead, an MD-90 destroyed). Chergles (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a L-1011 was destroyed when a passenger was trying to cook something using a lighted portable stove! Chergles (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC) No it was a Pakistan 707. A cabin fire due to a leaking stove brought aboard by a passenger. Chergles (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistake found (omission)
An airline article (Air Nostrum) is missing a 2003 crash. Must fix it! Chergles (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I have photos of the crash. I was there, same airline, not the same flight. Chergles (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you running a news wire here with up to the minute updates? :)) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, gee. Is a F50 a Fokker 50 or something else?  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Formating Dates
According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, either dates are acceptable, I would recommend though if you are going to change the date format according to the WP:MOS then please make all the dates uniformed, for example; in the MH-53 article, the information box at the top still has the date formated in the American Style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates -Signaleer (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Most all full dates in the MH-53 article use International/US military date format already. Check first... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keyword most, if you intend to change one, you should change all of the dates in the article, namely the information box. Maintain the uniformity throughout the article.  That should be the editors unwritten responsibility.  -Signaleer (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe all full dates uses International/US military date format already before today. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Off topic, you have to admit, to be a faithful Wiki editor, you have to have a degree of OCD. -Signaleer (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were so I'd go around fixing date formats All the time. There are better edits to make. :) Good day.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

more 777
Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. The 777 article was rejected for FA a while back. I have been fixing it over the past few weeks, also addressing the concerns. Would you have any objections to listing it for GA or FA? If not, I think FA is the way to go since the comments from before were FA comments. Chergles (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanksgiving was good. Hope yours was too.  The 777 article did not have a chance at that FA review last year.  I say go for Good Article first. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I put it for FA already. If ok with you, some changes have been made above. :) Chergles (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. Most every paragraph has a reference.  Let's try to get all them referenced.  Most lists will probably need to get converted to paragraph text (not incident/accident entries though). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This FAC is getting hard than I thought. I don't think the changes really improve it but they are technicalities that have to be done. Chergles (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea. I'm staying off that FAC page until later when things are calmed down.  I'll try to reference what I can at night when I can get to my books.  Try explain why you're removing stuff better in your edit summaries.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, keep up the good work. You're been real busy addressing FAC concerns. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that the FAC process may have the unintended effect of shortening articles. One can avoid controversy by cutting out a sentence and then get the FAC passed.  An example, might be a discussion about some minor part of the plane.  Removing it doesn't make the article poorly written but it then passes the technical standards easier.  (After passage, the part can be inserted without controversy and additional references would probably be found by then.)  The really long articles have a harder time of FA passage, which is too bad. Chergles (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not really noticed that, but don't doubt that could happen. Like playing some kind of shell game. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"The MD-11F is another comparable aircraft but with less range than the 777F." That's in the article. I wonder how much we should observe the no original research rule. Comparable? According to me? The range we can look up. But saying it's less than the 777; is it my own conclusion or just math? Luckily, most of us editing the article are nice to each other so we don't get into fights about things like that. However, if people start to complain, then I suppose it will be very difficult to find a magazine that says "the MD-11F is comparable" even though we all know that it is comparable in some ways and not in some ways. Just some random thoughts about original research. Chergles (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was probably the one that added that a couple years ago. The MD-11F and 777F have similar payload capabilities.  There are plenty of comparisons to Airbus models also.  Nobody has challenged those either. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope the 777 gets FA. So far, there's been several implied support votes but nobody has used that word in bold. There are some other articles that I want to work on but I want to get the 777 out of the way. The next few projects will not be FAC's. Too difficult to do one after another. Need some breathing space! Chergles (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is way better off now. Need to start getting some support votes.  Hopefully overall this will go smoother than FAC Boeing 747 did a year ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked that FAC up. What going on (rather wtf)?  That editor who submitted the FAC seems productive but he was banned for sockpuppetry?  Yet none of the socks that I saw did anything except for blanking the page or similar, which was quickly fixed by that administrator who then blocked them.  If there's punishment then a temporary loss of blocking and counseling might be in order but not banning.  We need that kind of person to help us write/fix articles particularly since making an FA is hard (lots of fixing references and addressing minor things that people view as problems.) Either that or force the people who voted for a ban to help us fix the article.  Those people, even if they lack aviation knowledge can fix references. Chergles (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New idea: form a reference fixing squad of volunteers! Chergles (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

MD-90
I remember the hoopla about the MD-90T having a dual tandem landing gear. Upon researching it, I looked at photos of MD-90T and MD-90's. They have the same appearance. Upon researching it, I found a reference that says that they decided not to use the special landing gear for the two examples produced. On another topic, do you want to vote support for the 777 FAC?Chergles (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the MD-90, you might change the tandem wheel part to planned and say they decided to leave that off. Since I'm involved a lot with the 777 article I don't think I should vote for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-86
Jeff, I could use a second opinion on the Ilyushin Il-86 specs table. It only covers one variant, and is also trying to function as main text. Should we just replace it with a standard specs template? Thanks. Btw, I did notice your new quote you added recently. Very good! - BillCJ (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, too much text in that table. At least move the paragraphs from the table to a Design section or something.  After that either a table or the spec template will work if there's only 1 variant/version.  I'll watch that article and try to help some. I liked your edit summary in L-1011 when you removed the pop culture cruft to other day. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the design type paragraphs out of that table and into a new Design section. You might want to check the wording.  I tried to add wording to make complete sentences out of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Section formatting
Do you know how to shorten the line going across the screen, like 'Section formatting' above and also on this page where the line goes to the right-hand edge, and through the Ingredients box running down the right-hand edge of the page? Quebec99 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed it a little by keeping that Twinkie image above the table. Don't know about the line thing.  That table allows the text to go around it.  A white background to the table might help. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed it by setting the background-color of the box to white. page Quebec99 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!
   Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Remember the reason for the season. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year! Would you e-mail me? Chergles (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)