User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 4

Review requested
Hello. I write tire articles. My English is a bit odd so I would like your opinion. I know of no other Wikipedia tire people but I thought of aircraft tires then I saw that you are one of the respected aircraft people.

Would you look over Nokian Tyres and see if you see any stilted English? Or any other suggestions off the top of your head. No need for using a microscope, just general thoughts and pointing out poorly written sentences. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did some basic formatting and clean-up on it. I will read through all of it and leave comments on Nokian talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Combining references
Hello. I noticed you were combining some of the references I used yesterday in the Boeing 747-8 article earlier; thanks for that. Would you mind giving me a brief explanation of how you do that, either here or at my talk page? I looked through the wikitext, but it made very little sense to me, so I wanted to ask someone about it. Thanks. C628 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A reference name has to be added so, is changed to . Then  can be used for other uses of the same reference (note extra /). There's more info at WP:Citing sources and WP:REFNAME if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'll have to try that at the sandbox before I'll feel comfortable using it in articles, but it seems to make sense. Thanks. C628 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture for you
Consider adding this to your user page thumb|right|Finlayson Works, Tampere, Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Finlayson_works_Tampere.JPG The picture is of the Finlayson Works in Tampere, Finland. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. But surely no relation to my Finlaysons from Alabama. ;)  There is a Mt. Finlayson in a park near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada also . -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MD-90
Hello sir, how are you? Regarding my edit to the MD-90, it was my mistake from the first place way back when I added the section/photo, 717 uses the MD11 avionics, so in turn, we should keep it to the MD11, the citation I dug out doesn't mention the 717, but does mention the MD11. Thanks a lot and please get back to me on my page. Yosef1987 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Will reply on your talk page... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, ok since both are related to the MD-11, let's keep both of them related to the MD-11, what do you think? Yosef1987 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the MD-95/717 and its cockpit came after the MD-90, I don't think it is needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused sorry, how can we relate the SVA MD-90s to the 717 if the 717 came after? Yosef1987 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They are all family so to speak. Offspring versus parent.  -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup I know, but shall we make it clearer to the average reader? The edit you reverted I mean, or something else if you have any suggestions, thanks a lot for getting back to me. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe I already did if you check the article text, by removing the 717 mention. I can find references that say much of MD-11's glass cockpit was used in the MD-90 and 717 systems, but nothing directly between MD-90 and 717. If you want to discuss further, bring it up at Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-90. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, just one more thing because I'm really confused, you said "nothing directly between MD-90 and 717", can you please explain to me why shall we leave the 717 in there? Again it was my mistake from the beginning, the mention of the 717 was my edit when I added that part for Saudi Airlines and then uploaded the photographs. Thanks again sir. Yosef1987 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again read the article text at McDonnell Douglas MD-90. There's no mention of 717 in regards to the glass cockpit avionics there now.  Nothing to fix on this.  Let's move on... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah you've reverted the revert! Thanks! Yosef1987 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

stable version
...


 * Hi Fnlayson. This user Paulotanner has again started disrupting the Led Zeppelin article and adding unhelpful edits. Now he's removing my well-referenced content from Britannica and AllMusic without any proper reason. If you further see his contributions, he has a long history of disrupting and deconstructing articles, and more interestingly, 80% of his edits were reverted by other editors. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, I know. I've tried and have had enough with disruptive users on that article.  Try somebody else. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have contacted Camaron. Thanks for your help, Fnlayson. Really appreciated. --Scieberking (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good deal. You may need to post at one of the Notice Boards under WP:Noticeboards at some point.  Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Axed
The Class IV and a couple of UGV's got axed last week accoring to this. This is evidenced by the army capabilitys page. The GCV lives on though. username 1 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, the army has an upgrade for the M109 palladin as seen here. username 1 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I saw that about the cut, but was not sure what Class IV UAV meant.  OK, class IV means it can be controlled from another aircraft, like an AH-64.  Maybe that means a larger UAV also..  -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UAV
I started a parent article for all Future Combat Systems UAVs at User:User name one/FCS+BCT unmanned aerial vehicles. The Class IV UAV can probably be merged to it since it was canceled and I suspect but cannot confirm that it was just a clone of the navy's MQ-8 Fire Scout. username 1 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Army has been studying the MQ-8B. According to this Northrop Grumman press release, the MQ-8B was part of the FCS program in 2007.  So it may be coming back with BCT Modernization. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiout
-- RP459  Talk/Contributions 00:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll see how it goes. That's a work day and will on the computer anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Snow?
I woke up this afternoon to an inch of snow, and we've had at least another inch since. We live out about 20 minutes from the city, on a ridge, so downtown may not have gotten as much as my neighborhood. Did y'all get anything? It looked like you would get a wintery mix per the Weather channel. but we were supposed to get that too! Take care driving if you have to be out. - BilCat (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We got freezing rain & sleet about mid-morning here. A fair bit of rain since.  Don't think we got any snow.  We should have icy roads in the morning though. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, that's what they thought we'd get here, and what we usually get. We're getting a little rain and snow mixed now, so it should be a mess on the roads in the morning here too. - BilCat (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We got a fair bit of snow (for the area) the first week of this month. Thanks and be careful as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * More snow yesterday and today here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Contest
Hi Fnlayson! This note is to inform you that your Aviation Contest submissions page has been archived from the previous round! You are now free to add submissions for this round! Note: This next round will run from January through February, so feel free to update your submission page with work from both months! Thanks, and happy editing! (Note: I will not be watching this space. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Contest discussion page. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I'm not interested in the contest any more.  -Fnlayson (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Beechcraft Starship
Thank you very much for your comments regarding my efforts on the Starship article! I will rework the design section to incorporate your suggestions. X96D74828 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Let me know if you need help there.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at turning the design section into prose. Can you take a look at it and let me know what you think? Thanks! X96D74828 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me. Much better for sure.  I'll try to work on list in the 2000A variant entry. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input! I hope you don't mind but I went ahead and finished up de-listing the 2000A section. I really appreciate your help! I have more refs coming for the design & development sections. I hope to be able to get to them this weekend. X96D74828 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! I did part of it and planned to come back and do the rest later.  But you beat me to it. :)  I'll try to help some more.  I've got Starship on my watchlist now. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blue whisper?
In re this: Happy to tinker, but be advised, it'll probably get stranded in my sandbox space, since I'm terrible at moving (& I understand the preference is not just to copy paste); if copy paste isn't an issue, tho...  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After a bit of looking, I realize, I'm way over my head without a copy of the film in front of me... This was a start, when I started asking things I can't answer. Frex, the spex on the weaps & equipment.... Maybe a tick better now, tho.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 06:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a look at the movie didn't add terribly much. (And somewhere along the way, I managed to screw up the table formatting. :. If you think there's enough added, feel free to copy & delete this.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 20:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Trekphiler. I beleive I copied all the new parts from User:Trekphiler/SM Thunder Air to User:Fnlayson/Blue Thunder (helicopter).  I'll have to combine the repeated parts.  Clean up/remove some trivia and it should be ready to move to main space.  Unless folks want to wait to fill in the specs or something first. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to do it.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 21:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Seekin' help on AH-64 Apache
Greetings Fnlayson

I've been appreciating your edits in shaping the Apache article up to scratch and keeping an eye on my own edits.(sometimes it isn't nice to be working in a silent room!) I have two questions; one is simply that if you can continue to help in knocking the article up to GA level, can you? The other is more random: Can you speak Spainish?

I've noticed a wealth of information over on the Spainish Wikipedia article, that is currently rated FA standard. Their design section is extensive, although I must say that our Operational History appears to be better on balance! I can't actually speak Spainish though, but their section is more than ten times that used currently on the English Wiki, not to mention there are some rather nice titbits of info and its displaying methods demonstrated, such as the tables displaying the various engines used for the Apache. An interpreter would be great, somebody prepared to do some converting would be marvellous. I'll take what I can get, even if that is a simple "No".

Thoughts? My thanks are with you already. Kyteto (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a year of Spanish in high school, but have forgotten most of it. I've got at least 3 good books on the AH-64.  Think there's been 3 or 4 engine versions.  Maybe list or outline what's missing or needed on the AH-64 talk page.  That'll let others know that can help.  Hard to tell where you're trying to go without some outline/plan... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've managed to pull out most of the unique and fresh information; it's a little disturbing to see their commentry for the Design section sprawling over five times the length, but I suppose that it because of the poor prose system used there. The tables I wanted have been sourced and implimented, thanks to you mant of the flaws in my initial translation has been fixed. If you can find a reference for the occasional use of the AGM-122 Sidearm mssile on the Apache, which is apparently possible but not a usual loadout, that would be great. My plan is to basically find out what information on there the English version hasn't bothered to cover, which is an obvious defeciency; but the two most important items have now made it in, so I guess there isn't so much pressure to act now. Thanks. Kyteto (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked over the Spanish wiki version to get an idea of what's covered (tables, images mainly). I doubt an article with that many lists would make FA status here.  Don't think the Side Arm is a current missile.  The US Army does not carry air-air missiles like the AIM-92 Stinger, bit not sure about other users.  Will have to dig up concrete info. Further discussion should probably move to Talk:AH-64 Apache. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is quite rude of me with the GA now underway, I have made several improvements to respond to the reviewer already, but I have been called away abroad, and won't be able to access the internet until the 11th of next month. I wanted to leave a note as you seemed to be following the review already, if you can keep an eye on it and hopefully maintain its hold until then (or pass it before, by all means :P) then I'll be able to come back and respond to the reviewer's updates. Thanks for showing an interest, I am glad we have been able to work together to improve this article, I've learnt quite a bit about the Apache on the way! Kyteto (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey life happens. ;) I'll try to help with it.  But I don't know the specifics on the mods for the UK Apache or about the Israeli names. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You and/or others can finish formatting the article titles. I've had about enough of that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am alive and back now, Canada was an interesting place to visit! I'll start editing away on the Apachn article now, the capitalisation command seems interesting though, never come across it in previous GAs, but as it is wanted it shall be established. Thanks for helping out, raising article quality is worthwhile and very pappreciated by all users, especially myself. Kyteto (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good deal. I've read the MOS:ALLCAPS section multiple times.  It says to title case small caps, but not lower case words.  I don't feel like arguing any more about it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI WP:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) is the main section for cap'ing titles. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Mi-24
Looks like the author of your reversions came back afterwards and did some more editing. Don't have time to review, but thought you should know. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I noticed, but did not feel like fighting it.  Most or all the text was unreferenced, so it could be incorrect anyway.  However, the designer's quote should be added back if it can be cited. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the quote was cited before. I fixed some of the IP's edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Arena Football League
Because of word that the new league formerly called "Arena Football 1" has decided to take on the new Arena Football League moniker, I thought it would be a good time to revive WikiProject Arena Football League. The team I adopt for this project is the Milwaukee Iron (my home team), and I am leaving this message on your talk page to (hopefully) get you interested. I notice that you're a fan of the Alabama Vipers, so if you're interested, pleae sign up on the members list and we'll get things going. Rejoice, for ARENA FOOTBALL IS BACK! Tom Danson (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I started watching the project page. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A-X article
I've noticed you've been doing some work in the A-X section of the A-10 article... after writing the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance article, I've been fairly interested in getting more of the procurement programs as separate articles, not just sections in the article. Would you be interested in trying to break out the A-X section of the A-10 article into it's own article? (Part of the reason I'd like to see the program broken out of the articles is because I'd love for us to be able to track down more info about the losers, not just the winners.) -SidewinderX (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't help with that now. The AH-64 and A-10 articles were recently nominated for GA by other editors without giving any prior notice.  So I've been trying to fix things and reference info in those 2 articles lately.  After that I'd prefer to work on Northrop YA-9 first.  ALSO: The USAF started to focus more on CAS in the early 1960s with a counter insurgency aircraft under the LARA program (OV-10).  Then to handle armor it moved to a super-COIN with the A-X.  The A-10 article needs to touch on this some of this background. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With that said, I will help with an A-X sandbox or article, where I can. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
See page history

CFM56 Article
Hey Fnlayson, I'm planning on giving the CFM56 article a shot at FA. (It would be the engine task force's first jet FA) I know you've been watching the article, and if you have a minute to give it a quick run through and see if any things that need fixing jump out at you, I would appreciate it. I'm adding things here and there, trying to make sure it's complete. I would appeciate a set of friendly eyes before I put it infront of the actually unfriendly eyes over at FAC. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look at it, but will probably miss details the FA reviewers look for. It might be a good idea to post a similar message on the article talk page and WT:Air/Engines. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Fnlayson. How you doing. Just came here to say hello {don't need any favor on an RFC or something, of course :-) } cos I saw you gave up editing rock music-related articles... You were a great and knowledgeable editor! Regards, Scieberking (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm doing alright. I have not given up on music articles in general.  But maybe I'm less involved.  I have several on my watchlist. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

V-22 thrust
Hi there, do you have an idea where I might find thrust specs for V-22 ? My google and article searches have not been fruitful. Thanks. TGCP (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Obviously I should ask that at V-22 discussion, so I will. Sorry. TGCP (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do the Boeing, Bell and Navy spec pages not have enough detail? They all list a max power of 6,150 shp. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I need thrust, not power, for a diagram I am doing comparing various STOVLs. V-22 is the only one left. I will post question there when I have checked the archives. TGCP (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Never seen that listed. Max thrust has to be approximately half of the max vertical takeoff weight though.  Bell's pocket guide list the vertical takeoff MTOW as 52,600 lb (23,859 kg).  Oh, and there is downwash on the wing.  It loses 8-10% there as I recall.  Make that about 28,400 lb (126 kN). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * here is the diagram - what do you think of it? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LiftThrust1.PNG My intention is to compare operating areas of different aircraft. It could be prettier and .svg, but that I leave to others. TGCP (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you following me again??
Sure looks like it, per this diff] :) - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, I was bored and looked at the article. Sorry. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries! I was just wondering what had brought you to the article. I had heard him on the radio years ago, and just found his TV program last month. He's not the usual televangelist, that's for sure. His topic today was on believing God even when He says "No," to your requests, certailny not what most of these guys are pushing! Anyway, I didn't think his dogs' names needed to be mentioned in the article! Oh what fun editing WP can be! - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if you think that is funny then you should really see the fiasco over at City Harvest Church, between them and Benny Hinn. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I was actually being serious about Stanley, and contrasting his message with the prosperity theology proponents such as Joseph Prince, Joel Osteen, and even Benny Hinn. I was just making fun of the users adding the info on his dogs! That kind of stuff can be found in many bio articles on WP. - BilCat (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. Some of the most trivial stuff get added to articles.  Believers are blessed in multiple ways (tested too), not just wealth and material things.  The real reward is in heaven anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Stryker articles
Hi there - Just wanted to let you know that Mr. Topol appears to be a devotee of Mike Sparks, and approaches these articles with a strong bias. Please review the talk section on the Stryker vehicle controversy page - particularly NPOV take II. Also, in reference to the source he used in his recent edits on the Stryker page (most/all of which I intend to revert based on NPOV, the removal of cited material, and poor references) were based on a source which appears to be only available in full on a forum (generally not an acceptable source by Wiki standards - even if it claims to be from a legitimate news source as the article can be liberally edited), or from a site which requires a paid subscription to read the article in full - the snippit available does not support any of the claims made in the recent edits. - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I've been staying away from the controversy page.  I have not gotten into checking the details of the Stryker criticism section yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just going to add that I did find a full copy of the article on archive.org, so I updated the reference accordingly. Also re-wrote the article section to put things in, I hope, context.  I trust you to be unbiased in these things, so let me know if I'm out of line. - Jonathon A H (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The changes look fine. I had no luck finding that article earlier on Archive.org.  Good that you found it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert tools and Vector
Jeff, I use some revert tools with my IE8. WIth the switch to Vector, they no lopnger work. Have you heard of any such tools for IE8 using Vector? I know you don't use IE8, but I have no clue where to look, and thought I'd start with you. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are better off asking Adam (Ahunt) or other software person (somebody better than me anyway). I haven't used IE enough to figure out to make the script tools work there.  Is Vector as in Vector Markup Language (VML)?  Do the Gadgets or other settings in the Preferences help?  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess Vector is VML, though I don't really know. My only prograsmming experience is in BASIC circa 1987! I'll ask Adam if he isn't lurking here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry you have me there! I don't use Windows or IE! Strictly Linux and Chromium browser these days! - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adam! - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I couldn't provide some actual real help! - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries! - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Friendly mediation of Lockheed dispute?
Hello Fnlayson,

I see you were one of the active editors reviewing some of Bryan TMR's recent contributions to Lockheed U-2... and that he now wants to leave the project and restore the article to the state it was in before he started work on it. Do you think you might have time to talk to him about his concerns, and help him make changes he feels are apprporiate to the article? It seems a shame to lose such a good contributor over such a small edit war.

Barring that, it seems to me polite to let him remove his contributions and relegate them to its history... it is always good to be polite, and when we are rude we generally lose at least as much in global goodwill and ripple effects as we do by not having a few dozen references and paragraphs in an article for a year. –SJ+ 02:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I replied at Talk:Lockheed U-2. No need to discuss in 2 places. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MQ-9 Reaper
Hello Fnlayson,

Wikipedia is a source of information used by users throughout the world. Among all the countries in the world, only three officially do not use the metric system (USA, Liberia and Myanmar), and one uses the metric system officially but unofficially mixes up the unit (UK). Hence, it does not matter if the product is a US product or not, SI units should be used first in very article. Let me add that by the size of the UAV, we can actually see it was designed in meters and not in feet (20-m wingspan vs. 66ft).

Thank you for your cooperation in making Wikipedia a better source of information worldwide. Xionbox (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not correct in this case. Try to follow the actual policies here.  See WP:UNITS, where it says "US articles generally put United States customary units first.".  For further discuss use the article's talk page as the Notes at the top say.  -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I had not knowledge of that rule. Do you happen to know how to propose a vote to change a Wikipedia rule by any chance? I really do think unit should be homogenized throughout Wikipedia (and possibly the world). It only brings confusion to use different units which have no correlation between each other. Xionbox (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea. But it's been that way for ~2-3 years at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope nobody minds me butting in, but I've had some working experience with this kind of discussion before, and we essentially came to the conclusion that we should put the measurements in whatever form they arrived in from the source (same as the Home Country policy) but in the case of the Imperial measurements it has become common to put in brackets afterwards a Metric measurement in order to satify those that are ridgidly stuck on that system and be more helpful to those from nations other than the few using other measurements. This isn't a requirement, but it is how we settled much of the arguments on some article pages, so it might be good enough to satisfy both sides here, if it is suitable. In prose, giving the primary measurement then the secondary in brackets has become fairly common and approved of; many British railway and aircraft articles are like this. The reason we put the home country or the source information first, is that the other situation adds more unreliability through needless extra conversion exercises. Usually we automate the conversions from the primary to secondary measurement, but if we put the manually calculated secondary measurement first we then get an automated conversation back into the measurement it was natively made in! This adds needless inaccuracies (the conversion formulas are rarely perfect, in some cases flicking back and forth endlessly can actually cause a visible drift, taking both numbers away from the real measurements! So we keep is down as much as we can, hence the primary measurement of the source being the primary measurement here). I'm not a stickler for the Imperial system, but I equally disapprove of 'metrificiation' at the expense of lowering the accuracy of the numbers. But I evaluate on a case by case basis anyhow, and I'm no authority by any means, this is just the working understanding I've garnered in the last year of activity. Kyteto (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The place to go to change policy is the Village pump. Marcus Aurelius (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Xionbox started a discussion at WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). It has gotten several paragraphs long now.  I'm OK with the current policy and am staying out of it, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 767-400ER
I have removed the sentence comparing the 767-400ER's sales to the A330-200, as the 767-400ER was never intended to be a major seller since it was intended to suit the widebody trijet (L-1011 and DC-10) replacement needs for Delta and Continental. While I see that you modified the previous IP's POV edit, I personally think this sentence is best left out, as it still can mislead other editors into believing that the 767-400ER was a failure, which we all know is not true since it was designed primarily for two airlines in mind. ANDROS1337  19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine. But why not post of the article's talk page? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I already did.  ANDROS1337   19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw that, thanks. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:V-22 Osprey/GA1‎‎
Re. Talk:V-22 Osprey/GA1‎‎

I am sorry, but at this time, I am unable to finish the review due to other committments. You can request a second opinion at the nominations page. Sorry for leaving it so long untouched. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but it sure shouldn't get failed for this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it should not be failed for this. If it does let me know, and I will take care of it. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 10:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh OK. Previously I thought asking for a 2nd opinion was after a reviewer failed it. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Labinal wiring systems mention in Boeing 787
Hi, I agree it was an unreferenced add and I apologize for that, so I will add it again with the reference. About not one of the major suppliers I must say it is an incorrent assumtion. Labinal is part of the major suppliers group for this aircraft, during the initial design Labinal had more than 400 people including wiring designers working inside the Boeing buildings. Also wiring is one of the major improvements on this aircraft not only because it incorporate more composite materials as other systems in the airctaft but because this aircraft relays less in hydrolics and incorporate more the concept of "fly by wires". As a reference to the add this will be used, I would like to have your recommendation mostly if you consider that is a good reference: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/dev_team.html

Kindly Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.178.3 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ref. I added some wording back. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

T-50 Golden Eagle
Just a note on your recent move Bushranger has just noticed Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(aircraft)/2010_article_renaming_checklist that KIA T-50 Golden Eagle should probably be KAI T-50 Golden Eagle. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, thought I copied that from the article. I reverted that move.  It is back at T-50 Golden Eagle now.  I'll see if I can move it over the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle redirect. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, thought that was the case but I was just checking! MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that really made my night! *grin* Imagine being named KIA blah blah blah... oh well, mistakes do happen... we are human beings after all. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 21:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess I've seen too many KIA car commercials... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, one of my boys in the hangar was telling me that it sounded like the dreaded "Killed-In-Action"... (mama mia!) now that's something not really auspicious for a new aircraft! Okay... back to work we go now! Best. --Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for input
Hello Fnlayson,

I'm currently holding a FAC nomination of History of British Airways and I would appreciate a comment, if you have the time. I regret I haven't been keeping you in the loop with the things I get up to in the past, so this is one of the steps I'm taking to make sure I keep others informed of what I do and my intentions. :) I'm also planning to put Concorde in for a GAN sometime in the future,(all citation tags answered!) I really think it is there and that big steps have been made to address the concerns of others. I'm sure I'll see you around, if nothing else on keeping the V-22 Osprey article in check with its review guidance.

Let's keep improving Aviation! Kyteto (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not done anything to that BA article. So I'll be a fresh set of eyes. ;)  Don't worry too much about keeping me in the loop.  As long as it is a solid B-class article, there's time after GA nomination to correct/clarify anything lacking. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello there. Just an update on what I'm up to. The BA article failed its review dispite however many hours was spent responding to comments, FAC is a lot less constructive than GAN to be honest. I'm still watching the V-22 Osprey article to see if there's an update in the comments so I can impliment changes; I'm also thinking of putting the B-52 article through a GAN, I hate working with manual references though, endlessly fiddly for me, but the article content is genuinely great and I've given it a polish of my own to add to that. I'm happy that Concorde got its GAN though, it has long deserved it, though it isn't the FA status that WolfKeeper was aiming for two years ago, its certainly a step forwards. What articles are you focusing on now if any? The Tornado article gets me down, I'm just not clicking with it very well, so I'm unlikely to be motivated to do much good to it, though I've been making some progress there. I'm looking for something I can click with well, so I can enjoy myself improving it and benefit others through my own idle learning. Kyteto (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry that did not work out with the History of BA article. I did some work on it and there were several others doing work at the same time.  In general Peer Review is a good route, but there is much more involvement from WP:MILHIST than WP:AVIATION.  I'll probably go back to improving the Start and C-class articles on my To Do lists.  I need to finish improving the F-111 article to B-class this summer. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * More delays on the V-22 GA review. It was put on hold today with no reason given.  Either it's bad luck or the Transport group is much slower than the Military group. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review started again with a 2nd reviewer. I started a WP:MilHist peer review on the article also to get ideas, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll see how flagged reviewing works on this trial.  Hopefully this will work out without any major issues.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Question - Armed Black Hawk
Hi, could you please help me identify this cannon~? Best. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like Sikorsky's Armed Black Hawk. The cannon is 20 mm per these:, , , , .  I can't find the model number or name for the cannon.  But the Defense Industry Daily article says "Israelis tested a French 20mm turret from Nexter, which has been developed to equip a number of helicopter types".  Hopefully that helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks but I'm guessing the GIAT 30 per this photo, IDK... I could be wrong. Best. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a 30 mm. The ABH's cannon could be a 20 mm version.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cripes! Finally, I found it... the gun under the Blackhawk is actually the Nexter THL-20 version of the 20mm M621 cannon~! --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hub and spoke
Regarding this edit: I don't think the hub and spoke model is the traditional organization of airlines' networks. I am surprised to hear that it was more common before ETOPS as I was under the impression that it generalized in the 80s (maybe a bit earlier in the US than in Europe). In that sense, point-to-point links would be a shift back to earlier modes of organization. What do you think? GL (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ETOPS lead to fragmentation of the hub and spoke arrangement in the 1980s. The hub and spoke arrangement probably goes back to the 1960s or a little before.  In any event, the background details are not that relevant to the 787. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What do I need to do to use a Skylon image on the Spaceplane page?

 * Skylon image for Spaceplane article

I've gotten permission from the author to use the image on wikipedia. Can I simply modify the image's description to include a fair use rationale? --Craigboy (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have permission from its author, fair use rational templates are not needed. There's a process to follow.  I'll have to find a similar image.. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you need to follow instructions at WP:PERMISSION. You may want to add a  tag on the image page while things are in work.  I'll ask somebody that has more experience with image permissions to comment here. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Craigboy with regard to your image the copyright holder needs to release it in one of the licences acceptable to wikipedia. Two methods you can use one as described by Fnlayson above in which you need to send a copy of the email into wikipedia with the relevant release the other method is to get the copyright holder to put the release on the website were the image is sourced from. Please note that permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough it needs to be release with a licence like Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License which allows others to use it including commercial use by others. As suggested if you send the email then add an OTRS pending on the image page this will stop it being challenged for a few weeks while you sort it out. I am sure Fnlayson would not mind if you have any questions you can come back to this talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But I would rather not force them to give up their ownership rights, how do I use it under a fair use license? --Craigboy (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The image has a fair use rationale for Reaction Engines Skylon now. It would need another one for Spaceplane.  There needs to be very good and specific reasons for its use. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for your note, I appreciate the thought. I am ignoring him. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked like you were. AND if you want to delete that later, you're welcome to delete my post with it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I delete it then it won't be evident that I am ignoring it! LOL! - Ahunt (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Point. Guess I have not taken ignoring to that high of a level. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did add the stalker banner to the top of my talk page however, so that people like you will feel free to chime in! - Ahunt (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm ignoring the post now too. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mi-17s in US Army
I've finally been able to add sources from Stephen Harding's U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947 on the use of the Mi-8/17 to both the List article and the main one. I had the source when I first reverted the edit, but wasn't able to add it then. It would be nice if IPs bothered to extend the good-faith they always complain we registered editors deny them, and if he would stop reverting and actually discuss things first. I was tempted to warn him for 3RR, but I doubt it would do any good. Somehow I doubt this is the end of it, but here's to hoping! - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't help much. I had seen there were Mil helos in the Harding book, but could not remember if they were Mi-8s, -17s or what.  Gave the user an AFG warning, even if it is a bit late. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force Portal Administrator
I am looking for an editor or editors to take over administration of the US Air Force Portal. If you think you might be interested please see the Portal Administration section on the talk page to see what is involved and comment there if you’re interested or have any questions.Ndunruh (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I've had no involvement with that portal or really any portal. So that wouldn't be right to come in and take over. Good luck. -fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-76 and Armenian Air Forces
Dear friend! Please STOP set IL-76s count in service to null and STOP require an RELIABLE SOURCE for number "2" in that position!!!! What do you need?! An official letter from General Staff? Signed and sealed yeah?! Anyway, You can LOOK at that IL-76s RIGHT NOW standing at Erebuni airport in Yerevan. Just go to Wikimapia or GoogleMaps! Regards Vahagnz (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently Aviation Week's Aerospace Sourcebook list 0 Il-76s owned/leased by Armenia's Air Force as of Jan. 2010. So some reference is needed to say those 2 are operated by Armenia, and not just visiting. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note there were 14 civilian Il-76s in Armenia as of Jan. 7, 2010, according to Ilyushin. Those 2 you see/saw could be in that group. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Undoing bot edits
I suspect that you would not have worded your edit summary like this if you had taken a moment to follow the links provided in the bot's edit summary for the change you considered "incorrect." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, I checked every one I undid. F14 is the disamb page and F14 (disambiguation) is a redirect to it.  Those bot edits don't help any. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my point was that there is a policy that specifically calls for these edits to be made, and an extensive discussion that was linked to in the edit summary that explains the reasoning behind it. You certainly are entitled to disagree with those views, but it would behoove you to express some reason for disagreeing with the consensus of other users instead of characterizing the bot's edits as "incorrect."  They are plainly not incorrect, based on the policy as it now stands, even though you may find them "unhelpful."  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In any event the bot edits I undid added no value. Creating those redirect pages does not seem to follow WP:DABNAME, which says "(disambiguation)" is only used in the filename "if a primary topic exists for that term". -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, you still haven't convinced me that you've even looked at either Disambiguation or Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but perhaps you have and just don't care to address why you disagree with them. In any case, the consensus among other users is that it is helpful to link to a redirect such as F14 (disambiguation) rather than linking directly to F14 when the purpose of the link is to direct readers specifically to the disambiguation page.  If you disagree with that consensus, I think you really ought to express your views on the talk page and see if others are persuaded, rather than simply undoing edits that implement that consensus (and which, by the way, the bot will repeat the next time it is run).  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Those disamb pages should have been renamed if the "(disambiguation)" part is so valuable. I looked at that talk page last month when most seemed against it.  -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to be sure you were aware of the renewed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, which relates to our recent exchanges, and had an opportunity to participate if you wish. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

US Aerospace and An-112KC
Win the US Aerospace/Antonov entry into KC-X, I'm wondering if we have enoguh info to begin articles on the aircraft? The company should be notable enough now for an article. FZrom what I'v been able to find online, the An-112 is probably a derivitive of the An-70, with 2 turbofans in place of the 4 propfans. If proven true, it might be best to redirect any An-112 pages to the An-70, and mention it there to begin with, so we can hed off any article creations by over-eager users. If the USAF does not accept the initial bid, we might not hear anything more about the An-112. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Starting as a redirect like that is a good plan. I can not find anything that says it is based on the An-70 though.  Just that the An-122-KC is a 2-engine version of the An-124.  There's an "An-112"  mentioned at Antonov An-12. -fnlayson (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some hits online from a report by Steve Trimble at FlightGlobal that the AN-112 is based on the An-70, but the FlightGlobal report seems to have been pulled. This links to a dead page at FG. Anyway, until we know what it is actually based on, we may need to strat a stub at Antonov An-112KC. Air Force Magazine has some info here that could be used. Once we know what it is, and especially if the bid is rejected outright, we can merge it to its parent article. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The company's site is http://www.usaerospace.com/ . - BilCat (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I didn't doubt you, just wanted to see how certain that was. Anyway, we can work on this at User:Fnlayson/Antonov An-112KC initially if you like. -fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Then again, it would not take long to set up a stub at Antonov An-112KC. -fnlayson (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True. I'll see what I can do later today or this week. I might just dump some source in the sandbox today, and get to writing it later. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The sandbox above has been started. I'm helping with it.  Please add to or modify text there.  Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * IP editer(s) has provided some specs info on the 112 to the KC-X article today. -fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AvWeek Sourcebook Citing
Hey -- I think we have discussed this once or twice before, but I have to admit that I forgot what, if any, conclusions we came to. Now that the AvWeek sourcebook has gone all-digital, how should we cite it when we use if for specs and the like? I'm usually loathe to link something behind a payway, and I'm not entirely sure that links from the source book are stable. For example, what do you see when you click this link? Anyway, what are your thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Last year's Sourcebook pages seem to be publicly available. I can get to that SaM146 page since we have a subscription here at work.  I just list it like a print source: "World Military Aircraft Inventory". 2010 Aerospace Source Book. Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 2010.  But I have added a subscription link like this: "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II". Jane's All the World's Aircraft. Jane's Information Group, 2010. (subscription article, dated 1 February 2010).  Maybe try something like the latter.. -fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hello! I just saw your ref edits at 1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash and hey, I learned something new which can save me a lot of time. Thank you!!! BTW: can you please point me to a page where I can find out how to use {{... citations? WideBlueSky (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Maybe start with WP:CITE.  Look at Help:Footnotes and WP:Referencing for beginners if needed. -fnlayson (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at these pages right away. Thank you so much! WideBlueSky (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
… for doing this. I was wondering why the B class checklist was so large… Also, great work on the article! Airplaneman  ✈  17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time and effort to go through and review the article. :) -fnlayson (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving old talk
Since you asked: I archived the whole page because it was very long and there had been no new talk posted to any of the threads in over three months, meaning conversations there were all stale and inactive. It's pretty standard to archive a page that long that has no active discussion on it. (as an aside I added the archive box because I hadn't noticed the links in the talk header. I always thought adding them there was a bad decision for exactly that reason, they are small and easy to miss, but that's a whole other discussion) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know about archiving. Just unusual/different to do the entire page. -fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no active discussions why wouldn't you archive the whole page? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In case things unresolved come back up or to prevent repeated questions from posters that don't check the archives first. On article talk pages I usually leave the last 6 months to 1 year depending on how long the page is. -fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The last thread on the page was resolved three months ago, all previous threads were in fact last edited over six months ago. There really aren't any hard and fast rules about this, but the page was quite long and quite inactive. If there are recurring issues that keep coming up on the talk page, WP:ARCHIVE recommends creating a WP:FAQ page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that. I only made an observation in the edit summary.  Your archive edit was only the 2nd time I've seen the entire talk page archived in the 4 years I've been here. -fnlayson (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Check spam folder
Did you get my email? <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Qwertyus   20:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I got it, but have not looked at that site yet. -fnlayson (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation/help
Your wisdom and patience will be welcome here. I give up --Jor70 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is better to withdraw than beat your head against a wall. Can't say I know anything about that Operation. I'll take a look.. -fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did some clean-up to the article. I just don't have the sources to do much else there.  Sorry. -fnlayson (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thks anway --Jor70 (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a quick eyes-over
Hello Fnlayson

I've just finished refitting Avro Vulcan, a classic Cold War RAF bomber, towarding pushing it through its GAN. I've put an appeal out for help on the Aviation Wikiproject talkpage for assistance with the Specifications section, but aside from that I think it has been reasonable prepared to go ahead. I wondered if you could go over it in the fashion you have done with several of the articles we have collaborated on, as there will always be things one person won't see which another person will, which has worked to the benifit of producing superior articles many times before. If you have time, can you drop by? Kyteto (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know next to nothing about the Vulcan, but I'll take a look at it. -fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't think there was a plane I knew more about than yourself. :P I must admit, I'm a bit of a fraud in that I don't know tons in advance about the planes I overhaul in some cases; I often get a feel for an article and decide that I like the subject and its format isn't too offputting, and hit the books reading about it and tweaking it endlessly as I go along. Aircraft like the B-1, I pretty much learn its development history after I came across the article and decided I wanted to get stuck in. In the end, I do come out with a great deal of information learnt, and an article looks far better for the effort made, I suppose on those grounds what I do is quite benifitial. I do believe that you are a better editor however. Thanks for visiting the Vulcan, and thank you for being an inspirational user. Kyteto (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, no doubt about it. I think I know stuff about an aircraft until I really get to working on the article.  You don't know what you don't know until you know it or something like that. ;)  I don't see how you find the news articles and other references you find.  Thanks and keep up the good work. -fnlayson (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject watchlist removed
Are you aware that you removed a link to a watchlist of pages in WikiProject Aircraft? I have been adding hundreds of such links (please see my contributions) and some editors have thanked me (please see my talk page). Perhaps you rejected an external link out of hand, without examining what it was that you were rejecting. (I am watchlisting your talk page, and I will watch here for your reply.) —Wavelength (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not see where it added anything. Why not bring this up on the project's talk page and get some agreement to add it?  That's generally how project pages are or should be updated. -fnlayson (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see now that this particular watchlist says " redirects to, used instead."  Therefore, I have decided to let this one go. -Wavelength (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

SH-60 Seahawk landing gear
You didn't actually revert my entire edit to keep the poor wording about the tail gear did you? Not agreeing with my edit regarding the main landing gear does not require a revert on the tail gear wording. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it read better before without the parenthetical note in the middle of the sentence. -fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You were right, it did not take 2 sentences to cover the tail gear. Keep up the good work.. -fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
I totally disagree with the tactics used by the above Anon, and now consider him nothing more than a vandal. He has repeatedly tried to stir up controversy for WP:DRAMA sake. If you want the Lightweight Fighter link, put back in, you will have to do it yourself, as I have lost patience with this baiting and Tendentious editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Don't know about vandal, but definitely disruptive. -fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User is back at it again.. -fnlayson (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 737
Hello, last night I made some edits on a few pages related to Boeing 737. I would like to ask why it is not good to list out all the different types of typical seating arrangements of Boeing 737. Thanks. -- LS C HIST (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I explained it enough in my edit summary. The spec table in the 737 article already has a lot of data.  Listing the maximum seating and typical 2-class seating pretty much covers the range of seating capacity.  Try the article's talk page if you want further discussion on this.. -fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

present v. past tense on aircraft
Just a quick question on use of verb tense in aircraft articles. I noticed you reverted my use of past tense for the intro on the SR-71. However, another article you edited for the YF-23 was left in past tense similar to the B-25 article I cited as part of my rationale. None of these aircraft are in service now which is why I chose past tense. I looked at the Manual of Style and the archived talk pages but no real consensus was reached. Thoughts? CompRhetoric (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally whether the aircraft still exists or not is the basis for saying the aircraft is/was ..., depending on sentence wording. I believe that's what is done by WP:Air.  But we do not seem to cover this at WP Aircraft guidelines, but WP Aircraft Engines guidelines do include tense guidelines.  Ask on WT:Air if you want more info. -fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at the references you supplied and here's what I've found: the aircraft engines tense guidelines echo my point - specifically related to flyability. I've also created a proposal on the Aircraft Naming conventions talk page to use past tense if an aircraft is no longer in its intended service. Nearly all aircraft articles I've surveyed list in-service aircraft in present tense (along with those proposed or in development) while those retired or not having entered service are referred to in past tense. So far, I've not found examples of retired planes being referred to in present tense except for the SR-71. General usage suggests the SR-71 was an advanced, long range, Mach 3+, strategic reconnaissance aircraft. CompRhetoric (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tense is not related to naming of the aircraft article. I already started a section at WP Aircraft guidelines talk page. -fnlayson (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

X-51 unofficial speed record
hiya fnlayson, Slow down for a second, man! :)

Re: "not an official record", if you look at the text in the article and in the references provided you'll notice that there is no real claim to an "official" authority. It was widely reported that the X-51 flew "the longest duration hypersonic flight" though (I could be one of those editors who adds 10 "references" to 10 different news stories on the same thing, if you really want me to do that...), so it doesn't really matter how authoritative the record is. The fact simply provides a small amount of notability to the aircraft.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm only a part time editor anymore anyway. If you want to remove my edits then that's on you. Regards, — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 23:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read plenty on the X-51. It is a record but as I stated it is not an official record [yet].  A body like the FAI has to OK it for that.  If there's something further use the article's talk page.. -fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, the kid is asleep, and I'm all relaxing now, so... :)
 * The question that I have for you is: if the editors from the likes of Aviation Week, MSNBC space.com, etc... all determined that it was worth reporting "fact XYZ", then who are you or I to question that? Why does the "FAI" have any particular authority over what is included in Wikipedia?
 * I'm not going to use the article talk page for an interpersonal editor issue, either. Article talk pages should be used for article issues, not editor dispute resolution. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not change the message, just removed 'record'. But whatever, done. -fnlayson (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well hey, all I saw was "revert" twice, so I'll take my knocks for not really paying attention on that score. Since you've specifically mentioned removing the word 'record' though, I can certainly agree that using a synonym would be better. Now the question is simply how to rewrite the "which currently holds the record for longest duration flight at speeds greater then Mach 5." sentence fragment. I'm going to go with "which currently is acknowledged as having achieved the longest duration flight at speeds greater then Mach 5." That's kinda wordy and uses wording that is a bit awkward, but I think it sidesteps the issue in question doesn't it? You're more then welcome to do something different of course, but I think that a claim to fame such as that ought to at least be mentioned in the lead somehow (note that it was buried in the section below previously). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's OK. Will come back to a day or two.  Later... -fnlayson (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wing Aspect Ratio of U-2
Hi, Fnlayson! Someone just made a change to the aspect ratio listed in the U-2 article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_U-2&curid=32310&diff=387182335&oldid=387168601). While it looks OK at first glance to me, I'll be the first to admit I'm really not sure. Would you mind taking a look (if you haven't already)? Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Have no idea off the top of my head on that. I had hoped someone else would have a better idea if that was right or not.  I'll have to look/dig that up... -fnlayson (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry 'bout that! I didn't mean to dump it on you. I tried some searches and didn't find anything conclusive (aside from the usual load of search engine crap). I was hoping you had better sources than I but I didn't mean to dump a lot of work in your lap. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 03:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No real problem. I'll try to check my books later or in the morning. -fnlayson (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Aspect ratio number (10.6) is right per formula in Aspect ratio (wing). So seems fine. -fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking! After I got off work this afternoon, I looked at it again and found that I was doing the math wrong. (Doh!) I'm glad there was a second set of eyes looking at it, nevertheless. Sorry to bother you! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

X3, Euro-copy?
Eurocopter must be a bit short on originality these days, huh? And they wonder why some Amricans accuse them of copying US ideas at times! They still act like their in second or third place. - BilCat (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just working on a post for this on your talk page. ;) Eurocopter X3 demonstrator has a goal of 220 knots. -fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And some articles mention they flew it in secret on Sept. 6. -fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Euro-copy" - very cute! I guess they spent all their PR money on inventing Cassidian this year. The design in reminiscent of the Fairey Rotodyne. I don't recall the exact reasons that concept failed before, so I don't know if they've solved the problems with their new design. I've watch-listed the main permutations of Eurocopter X3 and Eurocopter H3, jsut in case someone beats us to creating an article. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As if the X2/Lynx stuff here was not "interesting" enough. Here's comes X3. :) I thought the layout might be similar to something.  Will have to look through my Straight Up VTOL book for that. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And here it is: Eurocopter X3. Sparse,and needs more sources, but a decent start. - BilCat (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made some improvements over what the original creator had, including adding the FlightGlobal and Yahoo News links to EL. The "Development" text needs works, as it's still too advertisement-like. I'll try to get to that later, and perhaps will have more sources available from the day's news cycle. - BilCat (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good Bill. I added this article to my watchlist.  I haven't seen any more news on this since early in the week. -fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a VFW H3-E compound helicopter that is a bit more similar. It has a small wing with ducted fans.  Aviastar page -fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

787 test flight
Hello, I wouldn´t be able to begin to put anything into this heading for the new dreamliner. But I have pictures of the plane siting on Runway 20 of Keflavik International Airport. It was here during early september 2010. If I get you the Pictures would you be able to make a edit to the test flights section for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Erik D Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.249.31 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To simplify things, we don't consider a plane fully complete until it flies or accepted by the customer. Boeing should update http://787flighttest.com or put a press release when 787 #6 flies. -fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * yes I know its not complete but it did do test flights here you can go to the test flight website and search Iceland and it is in there. here is also a link to a news sight in Iceland you can use google translate to get an idea of what they are saying http://feeds.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2010/09/01/dreamliner_thotan_lent_i_keflavik/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.249.31 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the 787 flight test site here 787 #2 was to do the testing in Iceland. -fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to have edited into the wiki site for the 787. I wouldn't be possible to make it professional or correct looking, and as it looks as you have experience in this field I was asking if you could make an edit onto the wiki site. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.91.70 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm looking for an article that says how the testing in Iceland went. This Flightglobal article covers the start of testing, but nothing summing things up. -fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
Hello Fnlayson, I see that you are quite the experienced editor here. There has been an ongoing Edit war on the Missile page, really don't know why anyone but me and the other guy haven't noticed. We are in dispute over the lead images of the "Basic Roles" section. Please advise. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to look at it later. But I'm not a weapons expert or anything.  You may want to ask for help on the talk pages on the involved projects, like WT:MILHIST.  -fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WT:MilHist/Weaponry WT:WikiProject Firearms are other talk pages for relevant projects/groups. -fnlayson (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Su-30M2
Su-30MK is a generic name used by both KnAAPO and IRKUT. (Check out both web sites.) It can have canards and TV. Su-30M2 does not. The later is manufactured exclusively by KnAAPO, whose previous effort without canards or TV was Su-30MKK. Now, which one is Su-30M2 likely to be based on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duduong (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Specific article issues are best handled on the article talk pages, as the notse here clearly state. - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * MK is supposed to be a generic name for Su-30 export versions and I added a reference for that. None of the other references there specify MKK.  The entry mentions without canards and thrust vectoring.  So I don;t see the problem.  Use the article's talk page if further discussion is needed.. -fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Su-30 merges
Now that we have merged the Su-35 articles, is it time to try to takcle the Su-30 family? It seems silly to have so many articles on subvariants, especially since most toh them are operated by the same users in some cases. I expect some resistance from the geniuses such as the precious poster, about blah blah blah being blah blah to blah blah but not blah, but most of the off-shoot pages are poorly sourced and badly written anyway. We might want to take up the general issue of the alphabet varant articles at WPAIR, and get some clarification in the guideliens to give us some teeth on restricting these variant pages. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I want to fight that. At least combining the Su-30MK articles into one article would help.  I only find articles for Su-30MKI (India) and Su-30MKK (China); nothing for the Su-30MKM, -30MKV, MKA and others, thankfully.  Adding a guideline for variant splits would be good. -fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A guideline needs to say something about the variant being significantly/notably different and if there is a dispute, seek consensus to split. -fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur on the guidelines. I'll try to bring it up at WP:AIR in a few days, once my involvemnt the Mick-nee Mouse affair dies down a bit. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A129
Jeff, sorry about deleting the Italy source, as I didn't notice it the first time through, Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that the user who added that appears to be a user-spammer, having added similar claims at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement, with a discussion on it as the first post of the talk page. Since these are the user's only edits, I think we're good to just delete it outright, and demand reliable sources for it to remain. Also, unless Portugal is buying used A129s, I think they'ed have to buy T-129s from TAI in Turkey, per the agreement with AW. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I figured you reverted from my previous edit.  The A129 is no longer in production, except for T-129 then? -fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, as far as I know, the A129 is out of production. AgustaWestland has the rights to sell it in Britain and Italy, though it would probably be a T-129 derivitive. Britain seems an unlikely buyer, but Italy might need more in the future. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, thanks. Looks like Italy's order for 60 A129s was it before offering the A129I and T-129. -fnlayson (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

heading on the right path?
Hi just wondered if you could have a looksee, & tell me if you if worth writing? User:Dancaffey/Gulf Helicopters Thanx Dancaffey (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure. Seems like there would be an article for its parent, Gulf Aviation.  Try to reference what you have.  You might want to ask at WT:Air to get other opinions & help. -fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look at some Wikipedia articles of similar companies. See Category:Helicopter airlines for examples. Try to find some sources for Gulf Helicopters from external/unassociated groups, like media outlets and magazines. -fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes thank you very much for your help and contrubis to the article. I'm just finishing up some references and company logo.
 * Sincere Thanx Dancaffey (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Wondered if I have enough to get up on the main User:Dancaffey/Gulf Helicopters?
 * Thank youDancaffey (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of what I said above still applies. It is long enough to be an article, but needs 3rd party source(s) to show notability (see WP:Notability).  Otherwise someone might come along and tag the new article for deletion. -fnlayson (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!
Thanks for the welcome message! For what it's worth, I've made a couple of edits before (made some edits to SPHERES from IP 130.221.118.11), but never had a user account until now. Anyway, thanks for the help, and thanks for keeping me honest on my Shuttle Carrier Aircraft edits! ASFalcon13 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Another editor was helping too.  Take it easy. -fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Delta 767-400ER Image
The reason why I replaced the image of N826MH with N845MH (the Delta Pink Plane) was because the image of N826MH is in the older "Wavy Gravy" livery. We should keep things up-to-date. If it is okay with you, perhaps we could replace the image of N826MH with this image of N832MH in the current livery: (Yes, this image meets the Wikimedia Commons Flickr licensing policies). ANDROS1337 TALK 03:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The best images with the best/clearest views of of the aircraft is the main thing, not the latest. -fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That flickr -400 image shows the aircraft well, similar to N826MH image. -fnlayson (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

LTV Model 1600s
Jeff, do any of your books cover the LTV 1600 series in any detail? There is some detail in Strike from the Sea: U.S. Navy Attack Aircraft From Skyraider to Super Hornet 1948–Present, including some very basic specs. However, some details are unclear, such as what engine was in the final Model 1602B submission. (I'm doubting it was the GE F101.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat (talk • contribs) 19:13, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Great Book of Modern Warplanes might have that kind detail. I'll have to check that and other books when I get home tonight. -fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've checked those (both the 198* and 2000 editions), and there's very little specifics there, either in the F-16 or F-18 articles. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not finding anything yet Bill. Two that cover the LWF/F-16 don't even mention LTV Model anything. :( -fnlayson (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I've ordered the Peacock book listed in the F-16 sources, so I'll see if the info reported in the Variants article were accurate. (The cited section lists the F404 as the engine of the Model 1600, while Strike from the Sea states it was the F401, much more likely in my opinion.) - BilCat (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that book. Yea, it doesn't make any sense to switch from the F100 type engine to less powerful F404 for the naval version. For a good aircraft encyclopedia type book, look at Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft, ISBN 1-904687-84-9. -fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack helicopter vs helicopter gunship vs armed helicopter
Hey, there is a debate going on at some of the related articles, and the question is what are the precise definitions of these terms. Based on my experience in the discipline and studying various documents I've come to have a certain understanding of how these terms are normally used. However there are other editors who disagree, and Internet sources that appear unclear and possibly incorrect. What is your opinion on this? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, haven't you used Aviastar as a source? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm on a laptop without a separate mouse, so have my hands tied a bit now. Which talk page is this discussion on?  I used aviastar as a source 2-3 years ago before I realized its pages are copyright violations.  I cite the original source now. -fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Gunship is one of the pages and Attack helicopter. I tried using Aviastar but it was removed for being unreliable. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're going to play it safe on these articles when you could be helping me out? Are you a man or mouse? Come on, don't make me defend articles that you work on, by myself. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I commented on yesterday at Talk:Armed helicopter and just while ago on Talk:Attack helicopter. Can't really "help you out" as I feel the Mi-24 qualifies as an Attack Helicopter, though not a typical configuration. -fnlayson (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, then we don't need three different articles if you're going to help muddle the definitions. It plainly says in the Mi-24 article that it is a gunship. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 09:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice
Not a huge deal, but your edit on the AH-1Q to AH-1S is called passive voice and it not recommended as good grammar. Just a suggestion. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 19:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was trying to get the cause and effect in the right order. And thought that was clearer.  Whatever, adjust it or change it back. -fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's fine either way. I'm just talking. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 19:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good reminder. And use of be verbs should be avoided if possible.  Believe that's a passive voice issue also. -fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Holland
Fnlayson, I'm not fussed about it in the slightest, but I have to describe myself as confused. When did moving to a country change your nationality? I've lived and worked in Russia - does that make me Anglo-Russian? Holland was born in Ireland, and moved to the US when he was 33. He didn't even speak English until he went to school! I suspect he would have described himself as Irish. But, whatever. Shem (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like he lived out the most of his life in the US and probably became a naturalized citizen. That wording has been in the Sub article for some time (& I did not add it).  If there is a problem, use the article's talk page (Talk:Submarine) as requested at top of this page. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Cookie
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:white; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE has sent you a Christmas cookie! May its sugary goodness fill you with warmth and love this holiday season. But don't eat too many!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Thanks a lot TFI! -fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Have a happy holiday season all! Remember the reason for the season. -fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)




 * <- Nice card. Thanks Bzuk. -fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy


Thanks so much Bzuk. Happy New Year to you and yours as well. :) -fnlayson (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OH-58 variants
Wow, that formatting looks kind of familiar. :D It looks like how I had it formatted long ago, patterned after an older version of the B-17 article when it was still a featured class article. --Born2flie (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Was just a coincidence as I do not remember it being like that. :) The OH-58B seems to be just an export version of the A-model, so I did not give it a separate section.  Adjust section as needed. -fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that we could rename the last subsection as "foreign variants" and then list them in the traditional WP:AIR style. --Born2flie (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have used "Export variants" if the upcoming OH-58F were not in there also. -fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I initially had heartburn over the switch to the WP:AIR style guideline for variants, it ultimately is the best way to make sure each variant is recognized appropriately. The problem is the amount of text for discussing each of the prime U.S. variants. If we can ensure that the majority of those paragraphs are already incorporated as part of the article elsewhere, we can boil the variant list back down to the summary WP:AIR guideline. --Born2flie (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)