User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 6

Ka-50 edit
Hi, Just a quick question regarding your recent edit of the article... Don't you think that you were a bit heavy handed, ie. "Kamov was forced to consider foreign analogues as a temporary replacement for a domestically designed and built system, due to a slow development of the indigenous systems." VS "Kamov was forced to consider foreign analogues as a temporary replacement for domestic systems."? It is my personal belief that the edit significantly altered the state and intent of the sentence, rendering it incomplete, ie. Why was Kamov forced to consider foreign systems? What was the purpose of a temporary introduction of those systems? What was wrong with domestic systems? I would like to hear your opinion on this matter, before taking any further action. Regards, Ltr,ftw (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My edit diff. The slow development part is already covered in previous sentences, e.g. lack of funding, was late. No need to summarize at the end, imo.  Use the article's talk page in the future as the Notes here request. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would love to use the Article Talk page; if only people would visit those from time to time- I was the last one to contribute to it on the 6 Sept 2011! Getting back to the point... You are not quite right- the previous sentence was in regards to LLTV, whereas the sentence in question is FLIR. Different systems. Different design. Different development. Different sentence requiring explanation. Ltr,ftw (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding and the quick action. I am quite happy with the end result and I belive the article will benefit as well. P.S. In the next couple of days I will be adding info on "Samsheet-5" system and extra info on Ka-50Sh. Be on a look-out. Regards, Ltr,ftw (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interested in expanding Navy article for a DYK?
Fnlayson, I wanted to see if you could expand Elliott Loughlin at all to go in on a joint DYK nomination. I'm a college basketball editor who found you via some Navy-related article's history page (you were a consistent editor on one of them). I know nothing about the Navy or its jargon, nor do I pretend to. I created the article because he was a consensus All-American basketball player at the Naval Academy in 1933 and needed an article. I've given the article my best shot (and hope that I was correct with what I wrote about his naval career), but I could really use a knowledgeable person's input and expansion on this. I'd like to make it at least 1,500 characters tor DYK eligibility. What do you say? (btw I pinged User:Neovu79 about this as well) Jrcla2 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have any sources to help with this. But I will look at it... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your intent to help, but User:JMOprof has assisted me with this and a revised version will be made soon. Again, thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you two can fill in gaps in his history. I'll check in on it later. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review and insights. You've taught me a lot about Wikipedia.  And while I still don't get which pipe characters are followed by spaces and which aren't  &#9786;, I'm savvy enough to know and follow good example.  Would it be a trouble for you to look at Maurice H. Rindskopf to see if I'm on the accepted path?  I don't want to impose, but do wish to do better.  Thank you.  JMOprof (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you were able to pick some things from me. As far as I know there's nothing wrong a space before and after the pipe character (|) in templates.  I like to have one before the pipe to help with reading on the edit screen. There are some other formatting things that are acceptable either way.  I'll check that article later today.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and improvements. I continue to learn.  If you ever need help with submarine topic, please ask.  I'm a served submariner, the son of another, and have rights to use a fine military library.  World War 2 subs are my hobby.  All the best, JMOprof (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

AW101
Hi Fnlayson. I was wondering, do you have any ideas for further work on the AW101? I've hit a roadblock trying to deal with the three remaining citation needed tags, and rather than getting too narrow-minded on that one issue, I thought to ask you on what you have been considering of the article's condition. I've noted your interest in the project, and although it looks unlikely to be made suitable for GANing with the aforementioned tags, it has been a fairly good refit of the article; have you got any thoughts on areas to address or key information/sources that haven't been incorperated into the article already? Kyteto (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I had not noticed the cite needed tags in the article. I'll see what I can find to cover them.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I added 2 refs. No cite needed tags left there now.  I have only one print source with much detail on the EH101/AW101.  That's the Eden Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft book, which has 2 pages on it.  So I don't know of any particular details that are missing. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay then, I think it is good to go for a GAN then. Thank you for your help. Kyteto (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done Kyeto!  Sorry, I should have helped more, but did not care for the review.  It seemed too focused on seemingly minor things... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly excellent work on the AW101 article. I've recently put a few small edits just to correct some things that I thought needed a little clarification about this aircraft. There are some bigger things that I think need doing, particularly when it comes to the various equipment fits, but being very new to this I would rather make suggestions in case I destroy the feel of the article. I hope I can contribute further to this article. Scott belzonitt (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fixes. I messed up the AEW/ASW acronym thing earlier.  I suggest you bring up any issues with the article on its talk page (Talk:AgustaWestland AW101) so others will see it and can help. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rocket Technology book
Fnlayson, I have an e-book I'd like to send you in appreciation of past assistance you have given. The book is a pdf file requiring 14MB. I do need an e-mail address to sent it to. My own e-mail address is magneticlifeform@gmail.com.Magneticlifeform (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, sure. That's a bit of a decent size file, but not too big.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my caption update on Apollo program so that it shows up. It's always the simple things (like the thumbnail argument) that I forget. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. But it was not too simple to figure out.  I tried using the label9 field first with no luck.  Then tried the thumb option and that worked.  Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

SLS
Hello, thank you for correcting my mistakes, i know the numbers i put are not perfect, and that predicting costs on a new launcher is difficult, but they provide at least some order of magnitude about the project.Do you think the critiscism section have a bad wording, or should be made more neutral, what are the issues you see about it ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Try to use the caps lock/shift button more. ;) Thanks for your work there.  I think the criticism section is in good shape.  The article should include some positives or counter arguments for balance, in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I count on you on this one, i recommend you a nice documentary (Black Sky: The Race For Space), my eye opener about the space stuff was the doc "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

 * Uh, for what? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sea King articles
Hi Fnlayson, you may have noticed my reconstruction work over on the Westland Sea King article. While the bulk of this work is in place now, I've been thinking more and more about the condition of the parent article, Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King. While the two were comparable in detail and size in previous years, now the licienced Westland aircraft is notiably more thoroughly covered than the original Sikorsky product - while this is partly due to sub-divisions between different Sikorsky variants, I was thinking, perhaps you might be interested in doing some work on this article? I'm trying to motivate myself up to take it on, and it would be more enjoyable with active company also redeveloping it at the same time. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll try and fit some time in to work on the parent as well. Kyteto (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Those go back a bit further than I am generally interested in. The S-61R is the about the oldest helicopter related to that I have worked on.  I probably have a general source or two on the Sea King.  I'll see what I can do and help as much as I can... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to admit, the Sea King is a little ancient for my tastes as well. I suppose it depreciated especially fast in the US, as it was pushed out by the Sea Hawk far sooner than in many of the export customers, the many of the replacements for which (AW101, NHI-90, Sea Hawk, Dhruv) were introduced only in the last decade, or are still pending! I guess I wanted to give it a going over before the type completely disappears into museums; it also helped that I found a whole ton of information was available on the Westland Sea King - but ironically enough, info on the parent Sikorsky helicopter is skant in comparison, I've been scraping the bottom of the barrel but haven't produced a fraction of the content on that. Can't win them all. Kyteto (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, but the SH-2 Seaspirit probably started replacing some SH-3s before the SH-60 Seahawk came along. Jane's Helicopter Markets and Systems says Sikorsky produced 794 S-61s from 1959 to 1980.  So the US had moved onto newer helos by the 1980s. I'll try citing S-61 Variant entries and stuff where possible. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Museum guidelines
Hi! I first tweaked the WikiProject Museums/Guideline sequence, which wound up reverted fairly quickly, so now there's an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums/Guideline about the sequence of sections. You are invited and encouraged to chime in. Please also see the discussion about consolidating several sections which tend to be especially brief. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like you and the WP:Museums members have that well handled. Good job. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again... (Ronald Arthur Hopwood)
Hi - You helped me prepare Charles Elliott Loughlin and Maurice H. Rindskopf. I have an article in draft at User:JMOprof/sandbox. It has no talk page yet, but if you have the time, would you please give it your once-over and start one? Thank you for any help. ...best, JMOprof (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Struggling under the burden of Using British English &#9786; best, JMOprof (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I only know enough BrEng to be [almost] dangerous. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting over whitespace
Reverting over whitespace is not helpful. Such space makes the citations easier to read. I when I fixed more serious issues in the references. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That was partial revert maybe, definitely not a full revert as you imply. I mainly moved spaces to be consistent. This does not seem worth further discussion to me... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll not help this article further, then. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that probably came off the wrong way. I just did not think there was much left to say on this.  I agree that spaces in the cite templates help with readability. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Spaces do help, and I do see that they were a bit inconsistent. That could be fixed in the direction of even better readability, such as a vertical format, WP:LDR, WP:SFN; examples:
 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A380s in service
Not sure why you want to retain the 2011 in-service figures (50 in service) when there is a good ref. for the 2012 in service (75). Why not drop 2011? Misleading and confusing, looks like Airbus is making a claim but we don't quite believe them. Big % difference between 50 and 75. E x nihil (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Adjust the Airbus wording or something. I was not trying to imply anything there.  The numbers for each airline is from the Flight International source.  The date needs should stay with that data to keep in context, at least.  Flight will update their data in a few weeks, also.  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
Regarding this. I noticed that the figure of 25 million dollars was from a third ref in the same para, ref no 114, in the page as here. I am not sure if the source is reliable (as it is a blog). That is upto you, as are you are more experienced. Just wanted to bring it to your notice after reading your edit summary/comment. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for checking! I'm not sure if that is really relevant.  That kinda looks like a biased addition to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Right. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, if you see things differently, please speak up; with this or anything. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey! no, i do not. I agree that the wording seemed biased, also I wanted to inform you that a cited source did have the 25 mil $ figure, in case somebody challenged it on that basis in future. but i was unsure what to do in such cases, so I asked you. Thanks for your help/clarification. :) Anir1uph (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Aerospace engineering edits
Hi there,

I made an edit to the aerospace engineering page, where I tried to change Canada's portion of the aerospace engineering degrees section to read more neutrally. Apparently this edit was deemed unhelpful and has been reverted by yourself. What should I have done differently? 206.47.148.202 (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Michael


 * I have not reverted any edits there in over a month (Aerospace engineering history). So I don't know what you mean.  The recent edit to the Canadian paragraph there looks OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, for some reason I got a message saying that my IP address had made unhelpful edits to the page and it said that you had reverted them - but it appears that's not the case. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm not really sure what happened there. 206.47.148.202 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Michael

Suggestion/help needed
There are too many images at Multirole combat aircraft, in fact the images exceed the length of the article. Also, there is a continuous edit war to remove/replace images of India's Hal Tejas, Su-30MKI and Pakistan's JF-17 by nationalist ip editors. Can you suggest ways to solve both the problems? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed images of 2 in-development ones. The article seems to have room for 4-5 images.  Maybe add a hidden note stating the lack of or room for more images or consider adding a gallery as the last main section, i.e. before See also. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thanks! Right now, the problem is gone. Will do so when it reappears. Regards, Anir1uph (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bama article
I have the restored definite article "the" to the sentence "For its final regular season game, the Tide defeated the rival Auburn Tigers 42-14." in the National championship seasons#2011 section of the article "Alabama Crimson Tide football", in the belief that the sentence has a plural, not singular, object:Auburn Tigers; am I remiss in my belief that this is correct grammar due to the plurality of Auburn Tigers? Tech77 (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD. No reason to take Auburn as Bama's one and only rival.  I think "its rival" would have been better if there's only one .  Discuss further on the article's talk page if needed... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a member of that apparently most-unusual group of fans---i.e. fans of both Alabama AND Auburn---I must wholeheartedly agree that the Auburn University Tigers, while arguably the rival that perhaps most Crimson Tide fans would rate as # 1, are hardly the team's ONLY rival (the article is perhaps remiss in listing only Auburn, Tennessee, & LSU, considering the historical rivalries with Vanderbilt University, as well as those with the Universities of Arkansas, of Florida, of Georgia, of Texas, of Southern California, and of Notre Dame, amongst many others); I believe your usage is the most encyclopedic and intellectually correct, perhaps as so: "For its final regular season game, the Tide defeated its rival, the Auburn Tigers, 42-14."? If you agree, I would be very pleased to contribute to what I believe is Wikipedia's highest function, "the shedding of light" (so to speak), by either seeing such an edit in place, or by performing it myself.  I should apologize for not discussing this further on the article's Talk page as you suggest; I plead neither ignorance, nor arrogance, but rather a desire to impart the following, personally, to your specific attention: I'd like to compliment you on your endeavors, which are surely obvious to the most-casual of observers as representing the ideals Wikipedia strives to embody. I'd also like to thank you for pointing out the page: "Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle", and for your usage of it as an "preface" for such unsolicited contact as I so boldly forwarded; I shall always remember to use such linkage as a preface---as well as to make every effort to adhere to the principles embodied therein---in any future unsolicited communication that I may employ on any Wikipedia editor's Talk Page.  Thank you for your time, and also for your very helpful suggestions! Tech77 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize; you were being bold and we're discussing now. Sorry, for being gruff or short earlier.  Either "its rival" or "its main rival" are OK with me. I'm not an Auburn fan, but do support them, sometimes. ;) Keep up the good work. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cobra cruise dive speed
Hi,

apart from excessive vibration you would have retreating blade stall on the main rotor head - modern helicopters cannot cruise at 200 knots, the AW109 Grand New can cruise at 160 knots but any fast pushes both airframe and component wear as vibration builds up.

Specially modified aircraft like Westlands G-LYNX in 80s could achieve those speeds but not for regular long lengths of time in commercial service.

It is also commercial unviable as the fuel burn rate goes up considerable at those speeds.

Gyroplane concepts like the Eurocopter X3 are a step back in helicopters to the days of the Rotordyne but the give greater top speeds.

Regards Alphacatmarnie (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is clearly NOT labeled a cruise speed. It's a dive speed.  Use the AH-1Z's talk page for discussion on this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering the number in question is actually sourced to Bell, who should know how fast their helicopters can go in a dive without falling apart, it would need a pretty good source to over-rule it!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, you would hope they understand the Cobra well by now.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Navy Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, but I have not done anything significant to that article. Just try to keep an eye on [it] to prevent vandalism and unhelpful edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A380
Dear Fnlayson !

Before deleting my changes PLEASE USE VERIFIED resources, like I do - http://www.planespotters.net/,for example, where the 22-rd whalejet for Emirates marked delievered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shpeex (talk • contribs) 08:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's job of the one who changes it per WP:Verify. The numbers mean little if the sources are not available with them to verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, you should make your sources clear in the article; it's not our job to go hunting across the entire internet to prove your case for you, that's supposed to be what citation and referencing is for. Kyteto (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

MiG-29
Hi!

I dont think you know better the specifics of the MiG-29 as the pilots book of it what i have... Please dont make the MiG-29 site of the wiki as a the media. Im not sure if you are a 29 pilot, i guess not, so please do not fill it up with false statement... Thanks! Ohh and the flymig has the test pilots of the Fulcrum, so if you think its not enough, than nothing... By the way these datas are the expected ones before the plane first fly. But they did a better aircraft they expected, that is why these numbers are low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.170.237 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, you're trying to say a commercial site is a better source than a long time fighter manufacturer. This is mainly a matter of reliable sources.  Take it to the article's talk page (as noted above) if you have a real concern. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not especially... I tried to say that the pilots guide book has the only true statements. That site got only near datas... not the real ones like in the pilots guide. The truth is only in the book. There isnt site which is correct. Thats why this wikipedia is nearly unusable. You can put the real datas but the editors will remove, because there isnt any site which is showing it, and this site (since its an encyclopedia) must have sources... So i put the link from that site, because there is the nearest data i read in the book.
 * Unfortunately there isnt any site which has the full guide, im planning to do a site, where not the media's positions dominate but the experience by pilots and mechanics. On the internet unfortunately are so few informations approaching the real 29s ability and history.
 * i.e: Youtube: Did you see where a 29 is behind an F-anything? (14,15,16,18 etc.) I didnt but i know there were. In my country i saw plenty of HUD-records from the 29, and this plane is really very manouverable at least if not better as much as its american opponents. That is why im planning to do a site and hopefully i'll have the HUD-records digitalized to upload them with also the story of some MiG-29 pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.170.237 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS and WP:VNT (also WP:THETRUTH) . The pilot's handbook - assuming that such a thing actually exists "in the wild", as it were - would be a primary source. Claims regarding the plane's maneuverability would require verification though secondary sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That is why i want to make a site, where ill upload the scanned version of the pilot guide without modification. I understood those perms already what you shown me this is the main reason to do this hopefully it will change some term especially the respect of the Fulcrum, thats now nowhere. Secondary source, yes... and that will be hard, i see what you said above, but thats also true to the HUD-records from the F-16s as well :) (i know they are real though such as ours...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.170.237 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope we can try to be patient with this fellow who is, perhaps, from a country more familiar with the aircraft than we are, and is trying to introduce sources that may (or may not) be relevant. I'm sure that a lot of going-about-it-the-wrong-way has happened, but hopefully we can move beyond that, and try to communicate about what we need here on English wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Operators section is only for actually operators or users with aircraft on order
Should we apply this same rule to delete say S-300 (missile) or what? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 August 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Yes - that seems rather WP:CRYSTAL-ish... - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My comment was for aircraft and is based on WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. I would not argue about applying it [this rule] elsewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of having different rules for content (or even article layout) for different kinds of military gear, when this can be avoided. (I'll keep an eye out for abuse under aircraft however.) Hcobb (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

F117 /F-117
The dash may have meaning to an avionics person, but redirects are about common usage, not jargon. They are not meant to educate people by bringing them to the wrong article, when we know perfectly well that it's not the article they were really trying to find. If you look at the pages that link to the F117 page, they all refer to the plane. Right or wrong, they do. And F117 isn't even the designation of the turbofan; it's F117-PW-100. "F117" and "F-117" are lot more similar than "F117" and "F117-PW-100". In fact, at no point in the turbofan article does it say that anyone might at any time simply call it an F117. It might be true, and maybe you have some experience with that, but it is esoteric and way outside the scope of a redirect.

Redirects aren't about getting the punctuation 100% accurate; in fact, they are designed for the very reason that people tend not to get the punctuation right every time. We take terms that people are likely to search for and redirect them to the articles that they are most likely to be searching for. The article that is most commonly searched for in this case is obviously - unquestionably, absolutely - the airplane. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular Gordian knot has been cut by turning F117 into a letter-number combination dab page. (Also, the turbofan is indeed designated "F117"; "F117-PW-100" is the particular variant of the turbofan) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that in the article? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, yet; I'm adding it now. However, that's how the U.S. military designation system works. Also: - specifically, "Our F117 turbofan engines are the exclusive propulsion system for the C-17 Globemaster. III transport..." - The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a different variant of the F117, other than the F117-PW-100? Seems to me they're just using it as an abbreviation because the full designation is long and awkward and doesn't lend itself to press releases. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there are no other F117 variants, but assuming it's "shorthand" isn't how the U.S. military's engine designation system works. It's just like the aircraft designation system; the "F-16" is the basic variant, the "F-16C-42" a more specific one - but even in cases where there is only one variant, the base designation is always the simplest one, in this case engine type (F for turboFan) and sequence number (117th engine designated in the sequence). -PW indicates the manufacturer (Pratt & Whitney), and -100 is the subtype of F117. The -PW-100 part is never part of the base designation, as (while not nearly as common nowadays as in the past) the engine could be subcontracted to other manufacturers, and other variants could be designated (and assuming there won't be falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL). See for instance the LHTEC T800 (which is an out-of-sequence number for reasons the Army only knows why); only one military variant, but only the short-form designation is commonly used . See also  and especially  - a National Research Council publication, hardly a press release. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, first of all, assuming there will not be another type absolutely does not fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL. The burden is on you to prove something exists (or is, at the very least, almost certain to someday exist), not on me to prove it doesn't or won't. I'm appalled to see a fellow admin so badly misuse that policy.
 * Secondly, what you wrote up there is exactly the sort of esoteric jargon I mentioned earlier. People who search for F117 aren't interested in a lesson in US military avionics designations, and this isn't the forum to teach them. They just want the article they searched for. We should always be thinking of the readers, not of ourselves.
 * I don't doubt that there are any number of weird little military designations for any number of weird little machine parts, but they don't matter because we go by common usage. Common usage for "F117" is&mdash;far and away, not even close&mdash;the airplane. (1.9 million Google hits for F117, of which 32,000 refer to the engine. So 1.6% of search results for the engine, and 98.4% for the plane. Just a quick and dirty number, I know, but probably not far off.) A disambiguation isn't the worst solution, but I do think it's pretty inappropriate in this case. A redirect to the airplane article with a hatnote link to the engine would be much more useful to the average reader. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And common useage for the C-17's engine is "F117", not "F117-PW-100". Serving the reader also means not providing wrong information, though. There is no such thing as a "F117" aircraft. The dash isn't esoterics, it's being correct, or as Mark Twain is reputed to have said, "the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is really quite important; it's the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug". Yes, readers might well be - wrongly - searching for "F117" and seeking the aircraft, but redirecting it to "F117" does them a disservice in that it leads them to believe "F117" is a correct designation. The dab both allows them to find what they're looking for, but also informs them that "F117" is something completely different from "F-117". That's neither picayune, esoterical, or jargon; it's simply being correct. There are two things that "F117" could mean, as a short form for the subjects' full names (even at F117-PW-100, the short, commonly used form is still just F117); the dab page provides both options and, perhaps, lets a reader say "huh - I didn't know that" - which is something we should aspire to whenever possible. (Also, neither F-117 or F117 is avionics.) Anyway, if you truly think the redirect would be better, I won't wheel-war over it, but I believe the current solution is the best possible compromise. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the common name for the engine was PW2000. If not, the article title is wrong. Otherwise, it may be true that the most common military name is the F117, but that is too far removed from normal usage. In determining redirects, we go by most common usage in the English language. Rule of thumb is that if there are two uses of the term, we redirect to the most common one and use a hatnote for the lesser-used term. If there are three uses, we redirect to the main term and disambiguate the others.
 * The first section of a hyphenated military designation of an aircraft turbofan is the very definition of "esoteric" - understood by a small group or those specially initiated, or of rare or unusual interest. I strongly disagree with the idea that we should aspire to make our readers say "huh - I didn't know that". This is an encyclopedia, not a classroom, and we are writing articles, not lecturing students. We should aspire to give laymen the information they are looking for as quickly as possible. That means a redirect to the term that 98% of them are looking for, and a hatnote for the benefit of the other 2%. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The common name for the civilian version of the engine is PW2000. The common name for the military version is F117. And the military name is less common than the civilian version (which was developed first). Therfore it should be PW2000 as the name with F117 redirecting to it. "F117" is not the most common term in the English language for the stealth fighter - it's an error. And honestly I find it quite depressing that providing "technically wrong but useful" information is considered preferable to being right (as with, for instance, the local library cataloging Carl Hiaasen's Kick Ass in the fiction section "since that's where people look for it"), but I don't see the need to clog Fnlayson's talk page any longer. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% that it is an error. But it's a very, very, common error and the point of redirects is to allow ordinary people to make errors and still give them what they were (most likely) looking for. None of this has anything to do with the articles themselves; we're not changing anything in them. We're just considering which article readers are probably looking for and we're giving it to them. It's not our job to educate readers, just to provide the information to help them educate themselves. I don't think that's depressing at all. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose. Perhaps one day there'll be another F117 thingy for a proper dab and we'll all be happy then! - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Six Million Dollar Man, citation needed tag
In The Six Million Dollar Man, there was a statement that in Israel, the series was known as the "Man Worth Millions", avoiding the explicit, but arbitrary, number "Six Million", because it had negative connotations ("The Six Million", in Israel, is typically used to refer to the roughly six million Jews murdered in the holocaust). I'm not sure what kind of citation you'd like for this fact - especially one in English. Also, while it would be nice (?) to have a citation on every sentence in Wikipedia, in reality people add "citation needed" statements only to statements they personally dispute or find questionionable. What makes you think this fact (which I can attest to personally, being a child in Israel when this show aired) is questionable?

I want to make something clear - it wasn't me who wrote this original paragraph. I'm not even sure it is appropriate subject matter for the English encyclopedia entry (although it is naturally explained in the Hebrew version, which is linked from this article). But I just wanted to say that I can also attest this to be a fact, and therefore I didn't think a citation was really needed. Nyh (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The text had a cite needed tagged before you rewrote it. Since you did not provide a reference, the tag should remain.  The text is detailed and not common knowledge, so WP:Verify seems to apply. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the only reason to ever remove a "citation needed" tag is when someone adds a citation? What about the case when someone else comes along, *knows* this statement to be true (from personal experience), and doesn't think a citation is needed? BTW, I did try to find a citation, but it's not easy - First, this is an Israeli-specific piece of trivia, so most references to it are in Hebrew, not in English. Second, there haven't been any high-browed articles in the New York Times or in-depth books on the history of the Six Million Dollar Man and its sindication around the world, so this piece of trivia can mostly be found in various peoples' blogs reminicing the good old 80's on Israeli TV, and similar venues. And of course, the Hebrew version of this article also makes this statement in its second paragraph, but I guess you wouldn't find this a convincing citation. To summarize, it appears that this ugly "citation needed" tag will just stay in the article forever, while hundreds of Israelis reading the article know this statement to be true (as they watched this series in the 80s) but have no way to formally "prove" it. If any of them thought the statement to be false, they would remove it (instead of tagging it). So I fail to see what's the point in this tag. Nyh (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's a dispute over wheither a Citation Needed tag is necessary, we usually go by consensus. Preferrably, we like evidence to be put forward, as it improves the site's value for research and its stance as a reliable source. I know it might seem offensive, but it isn't typical to take someone at their word that they're right on an issue or that they know this from experience, as there have been several high profile Wikipedia editors who turned out to be lying through their teeth - see this news story as just one example: Fake Wikipedia prof altered 20,000 entries. That is one big reason why we, as editors, overwhelmingly prefer to go by what evidence is presented, rather than assume an absense of it will be okay, because the site has been humiliated in the past by editors straight-up manufacturing their own fairy tales as fact - if evidence had been required by proactive editors in the past that wouldn't have been as damaging. Most facts (beyond WP:Skyisblue plain obvious facts) should be cited, and if not, challenged to provide a cite, it helps make the cite reputable and eventually an editor may come along with a source and fill that in where prompted. We also leave these tags visable to the reading public as a fair warning that a piece of content has not been authenticated or cited to a source. Ultimately, Wikipedia deals in WP:Verifiability, not truth, its safer, less prone to abuse, and more accurate that way - effectively its a policy that if it cannot be sourced to somewhere reliable, it doesn't belong here, as cruel as that sounds. Kyteto (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition, sources do not have to be in English. See WP:NONENG for more info on that. Oh, and thanks for the input Kyteto.  -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Antonov An-225
Wait a minute, please. :-) I am adding a couple more things in the header and would need the third paragraph as it was before.

Also, I used 'biggest' not to repeat 'largest' twice in the same sentence. I'll reinstate it if you don't mind. :-)

Best regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can't read minds. Use the edit summary field. Short, 1-2 sentences paragraphs are poor form, imo.  -Fnlayson (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. I have italiziced the 'biggest' part to show it's the popular expression. I think I'm done, please check and edit at will. ;-) --MaeseLeon (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope
Troubling to have my edits to this article today effectively undone as if I was on a drive-by date format spree. In 2008 I worked with the only remaining primary author of the article at that time, User:LouScheffer, to save it at WP:FAR. A few hours ago I asked him to help me buff it up again, and specifically mentioned that I would be cleaning up the ref formatting. Before starting the work, I checked WP:MOSDATE to ensure that I understood the current date guidelines, where I read this:
 * Publication dates in article references should all have the same format. Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD....Access and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD.

Nowhere does it say that citation date format should match that of the article text.

Next I checked the article itself at the time it was kept after FAR, where I saw that we had chosen to use YYYY-MM-DD.

Since the preexisting format was YYYY-MM-DD, and that format is still acceptable per MOS, I was simply cleaning up for consistency. Perhaps you could explain why you changed all the citation dates to MMMM DD, YYYY? Maralia (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The dates and access dates were not consistently formatted throughout the article. Some were MM, DD YYYY, others were YYYY-MM-DD and a couple were DD MM YYYY.  If you think this is important, you or I can change them all to another format.  Or discuss more on the article's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I know the dates were not consistent throughout the article. I was working on cleaning them up one section at a time, while also verifying links, confirming that cited sources supported the text, and adding missing citation info. Frustrating to have half my work undone while I was working on the next section, and with an edit summary that implied I had not followed policy, to boot. Hence my coming here to explain myself.


 * In any case, I would appreciate your assistance in helping clean up the article further. In particular, it appears that the sections 'Debate over final servicing mission' and 'Servicing Mission 4' could be consolidated. At the very least, the 'Debate' section no longer belongs as a subsection of 'Future'. Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Insignia edits
Hi. See. Please check your grammar. "Insignia" is the correct plural, "insignias" isn't. 81.227.20.220 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Modern usage is to treat insignia as singular according to dictionary.reference.com and Merriam-Webster. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, one reads a lots of shits on the Internets. To someone who has learned even the slightest bit of Latin, "insignias" simply hurts the eye. But asking Wikipedia to polish its linguistic standards is a fool's errand anyway. Should have known better. Thanks for the education. 81.227.20.220 (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If Webster's dictionary is just some site on the Internet, then very little will be good enough... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Aah, nothing personal, and nothing against Webster's. But they essentially report usage, they don't attempt to shape it, and so these linguistic abominations eventually get an air of credibility once they are recorded there (and elsewhere). Nil desperandum. 81.227.20.220 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, fair point. I changed the wording in the 777 article also. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

X-48 / Boeing 797 hoax talk
see talk page

i'm signing off for now and feel option 2 will be presentable - a sub-section about popular science's photo and another one about the 797 hoax, both under 'popular culture'.

your opinion is welcome. --Krishvanth (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

the hoax info from x-48 page has been moved to Blended wing body page as it seems more relevant there. also, i've redirected Boeing 797 to this section since the existing redirecting to Boeing Yellowstone Project makes no sense - there is no such project as of now so no point sending users to an article where no relevant information is available. --Krishvanth (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

additionally, i guess it was a combination of "LightWave 3D" and Photoshop. i noticed Photoshop in the source popsci.com but didn't notice LightWave 3D mentioned before that. but i guess leaving it as computer-generated imagery sounds fine too. thanks. --Krishvanth (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I had I've been offline most of today and have not seen that yet.  I was indifferent on that move. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 797 redirect page
i redirected the Boeing 797 to that blended wing page hoax section cos there is no boeing 797 as of now. in the event one is made, i thought we could create a Boeing 797 hoax redirect page while the regular redirect goes to yellowstone or its own article or whatever.

point is, a user is not going to search for boeing 797 hoax unless he/she is explicitly aware they are looking for a hoax. the alternate option of creating a link on the top of the yellowstone page asking if they were looking for the hoax page is not a great idea since the section itself is not of any great note except for trivia and to clear misinformation.

the newly created redirect page can stay, but i suggest the Boeing 797 page is redirected to the BWB page hoax section, for now, until things change. i feel that will make much more sense for a regular user.

a final alternative is to mention the 797 is a hoax in the yellowstone article but i feel that will reduce the quality of the content by mentioning something that is merely entertaining to read. again, why i feel the 797 redirect page must go to the BWB hoax section.

its totally your call, and perhaps you can discuss this with others if you feel like it. i dont want to unnecessarily edit the redirect again and again myself. --Krishvanth (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Boeing 797 was originally redirected to Boeing Yellowstone Project based on the consensus at the AfD page (Articles for deletion/Boeing 797 (3rd nomination)). So that's not just my call.  And Boeing 797 should turn into a real article in several years.  Take further discussion to the project talk page (WT:AIR). -Fnlayson (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Happy Holidays all! -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merry huh? LOL, that covers all the possibilities.  A Merry Christmas or to you and yours! -Fnlayson (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gulfstream/ELTA
Good spot. I didnt see the previous ref. Wikiblindness :) Irondome (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, Irondome. I had reworded or added text to the "G550 Airborne Early Warning" variant entry a while back.  So I knew it was in there.  Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To you and yours too mate, hope its been good so far! Cheers :) Irondome (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle Hawk: Thank You
Dear Sir: Thank You for vastly improving the Battle Hawk section and moving it to the correct location and adding the proper references. Again - Thanks.

Jack E. Hammond

PS. Forgot. Have a Happy Holiday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackehammond (talk • contribs) 05:19, December 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jack. I meant to add something on that about 2 years ago and forgot. Glad you added that to remind me. :)  Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Shenyang J-21 / J-31
I found this page on the Shenyang J-21 and I'm a little confused on what its talking about. I think it's supposed to be about the Shenyang J-31 fighter, but was created before its name was known and the J-31 page was made. If that is the case, could you merge or delete the J-21 page? (America789 (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC))


 * Yea, the J-21 article is mostly uncited. Per Flight International, the fighter has been called F-60, J-21, and J-31. I can't delete articles and someone would probably recreate it anyway.  I'll merge anything useful and redirect the J-21 article to Shenyang J-31. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

F-35 revert
Hi Fnlayson,

The edit I made was in relation to this [|this edit] on the Chengdu J-20 page. Mallexikon believes that the J-20, J-31, PAK FA, and FGFA should not be held as 'comparable aircraft' to the F-22 and F-35, since they are prototypes. Since being a comparable aircraft is a two-way street, if he is going to singly edit the J-20 page, I felt it was appropriate to edit all the 5th-generation fighter aircraft pages to reflect clearly the distinction between design-phase, prototype-phase, and production-phase 5th-gen fighters. If you would like to help me clear up the discussion and revert all of the edits back, please join us on the talk page here. []

Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The text you are leaving when removing these lists appears to be original research. If you want to remove the comparable lists fine, but don't leave such claims behind. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Got it. I think your edit works better in this instance.  Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you like unicode?
Hi Fnlayson,

In this recent edit, you changed U+2212 MINUS SIGN for U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS. First, I'm impressed you noticed, knowledge that there are different dash (or hypen) characters available is somewhat esoteric. But my question is: why did you change these characters‽ (interrobang just for fun) To my judgement, U+2212 is the unambiguous character, having both an appearance, but also a syntactic meaning of a negative value indicator. It seems perfectly suited for the information presented. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * NDashes are only supposed to be used for number ranges and to separate parts of a sentence per MOS:DASH. Bots and scripts sometimes apply them in incorrect places. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that you point it out, of course wikipedia has a style guide for dashes. I took a look at it today and there's a relevant section on use as a negative mathematical sign. In this section I read that U+2212 should be used to represent a negative. This is a different character than U+2013 EN DASH or U+2014 EM DASH, which are used as punctuation and range markers, as you described.  So in this case, I agree with the MOS's recommendation of using U+2112 MINUS SIGN to indicate negative values.  What do you think?  —fudoreaper (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a big deal to me. I prefer the basic characters on the keyboard, but do the fancier ones where Wiki policy dictates or suggests. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Article merge
Hi, is it possible that I call for another merge of Sukhoi Su-30MKM and Sukhoi Su-30MKI, given that the rationales for the oppose are speculative, had either been rebutted, or withdrawn? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I quoted Jane's when I called for merging Su-35BM into Su-35 article (see Talk:Sukhoi Su-35 or the archive page there).  Maybe try merging Sukhoi Su-30MKM to Sukhoi Su-30 instead, just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Request suggestions
at Talk:Multirole combat aircraft, as MilborneOne pointed out to me here that consensus should be more clear on the talk page. Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 16:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Commented there, gallery created in article also. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

MDY tag
Jeff, I can't remember what the tag for mdy is for articles. I need one for Cessna 208 Caravan. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Had to check this to make sure it's right. Add  anywhere in the article.  For DMY change the tag is . -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I couldn't remember, and couldn't find an article with one. - BilCat (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good job

 * Thanks a lot Founders! Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On reverting new-ish user’s contributions
Hello Fnlayson,

I come here to ask you to be friendlier with new users when you revert their edits. Having one’s edits reverted is a huge turn-off for well-meaning users. What prompted me to write this was your recent revert at Gulfstream G650; "partial revert of uncited changes" is really strong here as the changes are benign and none of the information changed was cited beforehand anyway. If really you care that we say there are 8 not 50 aircraft made (I respect that!) it doesn’t cost much do drop a line on the user’s talk page and it truly makes a difference in not turning away what could be a great contributor. Thanks! Ariadacapo (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. I did keep the user's other change.  The G650 is a relatively new aircraft and the number built was just changed to 8 a couple days ago.  So changing the total from 8 to 50+ without a source or explanation is questionable.  I rarely get replies on new user pages and I give out plenty of welcome messages already. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The user (User:Wgere) has made some edits for almost 2 years, so not really a new user. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ok sure...Ariadacapo (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks. That was no trouble really. Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Need a Third opinion - EC145
Hi Fnlayson, Can you lend some weight to this discussion, many thanks - FOX 52 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo help
Hi Fnlayson. I believe you are an editor, and although we have had debates over the years, I respect your fairness and accuracy. Here is the issue: I do not know about this guy Stefan2 (also known as Stefan4), is he an editor? He takes a lot of pictures down, most of which should be taken down because of copyright issues. However, I have a picture of Eve McVeagh from 1945 that was never copyrighted. Stefan2 said I would need to scan the front and back (which I am hesitant to do given the brittle age of the photo which is framed) but I would do it given Wikipedia policy. However he said I would need proof that the picture was circulated as well. I feel in reading the many debates regarding pictures he has taken down, that he seems to raise the bar over and over until the person is exhausted with the entire process. Is it necessary to provide proof of circulation of a photo? It seems like I am being asked to prove negatives which is difficult. I must prove the picture was never copyrighted but how is this really proved if there is no copyright holder. How do I disprove a picture was not circulated? I have been back and forth in comments on the picture page Stefan2s talk page, my talk page,the picture talk page, and the file discussion page. I am not sure what else to do, and I do not want the picture taken down. I also tried mediation, but I guess I chose the wrong wikipedia mediation area because it was for editors and they suggested I discuss this on the file page..which I have been doing. Would you be able to offer me advice on dealing with this? Any ideas would be appreciated. :)Hans100 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Hans100

Thank you for your help. Yes, this is the picture in question and it is from 1945. The photographer is unknown but presumably deceased since Ms McVeagh would have been 94 this year and she was 26 when the photo was taken. No copyright information was given and the circulation is unknown, though I know it was used on the actors' picture board on Broadway at the Biltmore Theatre (the photos source)when "Snafu" ran there in 1945 (but the theatre changed hands and is now the Samuel J Friedman Theatre). It may also have been used at the National Theatre in Washington DC when the show was presented there as well. I always thought that if a copyright was not made on a photo before 1978 that it is the public domain in the United States (as the wiki template says). Cheers!Hans100 (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Hans100Hans100 (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Hans100
 * Hey Hans100. About all I can tell you is the person that took the photo is its copyright owner, unless it is many years old.  I do not know how circulation factors in.  I'll see if User:MilborneOne can comment on this.  Is this image, File:Eve McVeagh in "Snafu".jpg, the one?  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Short 360
Thanks for your valuable input on the Shorts article! --Spray787 (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

X-29 edits
Regarding the X-29 article, I understand that perhaps the citation standardisation could be questioned (though I don't understand what the problem actually was), but I don't understand why you removed the DFRC addition. I really don't understand why Bzuk performed a wholesale rollback of *all* changes I made, but I admit I have no desire to even broach the subject...I don't recall ever having a positive interaction with him. You have any insight perchance? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I got all the major changes you did. I did not mean to leave something out. It's been readded without repeating the 67 deg part.  I have not had any problems with Bzuk.  I suggest you bring up any remaining issues on talk page to get input from others. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I wasn't sure if you had a specific concern about it being there. And thanks for the suggestion, but I'm just too RL stressed to worry about bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, which is what's happened here. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good deal. Take care and try to de-stress wherever & whenever you can. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Boeing 767
This is a note to let the main editors of Boeing 767 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 2, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 2, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Boeing 767 is a mid-size, wide-body twin-engine jet airliner built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It was the manufacturer's first wide-body twinjet and its first airliner with a two-crew glass cockpit. The aircraft features two turbofan engines, a conventional tail, and for reduced aerodynamic drag, a supercritical wing design. Designed as a smaller wide-body airliner than preceding aircraft such as the 747, the 767 has a capacity of 181 to 375 persons and a design range of 3850 to 6385 nmi, depending on variant. The original 767-200 entered service in 1982, followed by the 767-300 in 1986 and the 767-400ER, an extended-range variant, in 2000. Versions for freight and military use have also been created. The aircraft was initially flown on domestic and transcontinental routes, before becoming the first twin-engined airliner to receive regulatory approval for extended overseas flights. In 1986, Boeing initiated studies for a higher-capacity 767, ultimately leading to the development of the 777, a larger wide-body twinjet. In the 1990s, the 767 became the most frequently used airliner for transatlantic flights between North America and Europe. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced changes by 98.229.229.164
I think there's a more widespread problem with their edits (multiple talkpage warnings) and it might be desirable to go through their contribs and/or apply for a block. Sorry for terseness, it's late. I keep seeing them at 1976_Zagreb_mid-air_collision where they repeatedly make an edit at odds with the AAIB reports. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I checked the user's edits after you posted this. I just re-checked the IPer's edits on that article and warned the user.  I'll try to keep an eye on the user's activity. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Ref was just taken from the V-22 article. No big deal.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

‎Happy Independence Day!


BilCat (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.


 * Hey, thanks a lot BilCat!! Happy 4th to you and yours today! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been a wet day here in North Alabama. Looks like you may get a lot of rain there later on. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's been here half the day already. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Black Hawk photo
If it weren't for the primary subject of this photo being the crew chief (I suspect Thornberry), this photo might be useful in showing the FOD protection mounted around the engine intake. Unfortunately the focus is not that. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 12:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. I had not thought about view of the engine intakes.  There's a better place in the article for that image... Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

HAL Dhruv
Regarding this edit. The added info is from an analysis published by Wg Cdr Unni Krishnan Pillai and Gp Capt Hari Nair VM and was hosted at here, the website of Aero India. The paper was available some time back (this was the original link), but it is unavailable right now. The paper has been reproduced here, which is a blog by Shiv Aroor, who is an established journalist, as you can see here and here. But blogs are usually not considered reliable sources. The problem is how to cite that info added to the article. Can you suggest something? Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 14:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tried Archive.org without success. Paper #59 looks to be the same paper on the tech papers page.  But the link is dead there too.  Maybe cite it and list the blog as a courtesy copy. I can't think of anything else right now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will do that. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 04:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, i tried adding both the URLs within a single reference here, but the cite web template does not support that. The template documentation also does not provide any help. Can you suggest something? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 05:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Either try the archiveurl field or manually add the link outside the cite template. I did the latter. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh nice! I will remember this for any future referencing needs. Thanks :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A-12 photo
Given the outward similarity of the SR-71 and the A-12, I was concerned that the image labeled as "SR-71 assembly line at Skunk Works" might imply that the fuselage on the floor is in fact that of an SR-71 rather than an A-12.

The photo caption on cia.gov reads; "The A-12 ‘practically spawned its own industrial base’ and the 2,400 or so machinists, mechanics, and fabricators could do their own milling and forging.” The sign at the top, “Stamp out F.O.D.” was an exhortation to “Stamp Out Foreign-object Damage,” a problem of engine failure sometimes caused by small objects inadvertently dropped and left in nacelles during fabrication."

I also adjusted the image source which was returning a 404 previously. Bjornrust (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I could not tell where you were getting the caption text from before. Thanks for the info and fixing that link. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, roadfan!

 * Oh heh, whoops. I just templated a regular. Don't take that personally. I kinda add this template to all new members' talk pages. :p T C N7 JM 20:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of that I have seen. But the road related links (WP:HWY, WP:USRD, WP:HWY/IRC) are helpful.  Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Boeing E-7 / 737 AEW&C
The source you've provided merely says E-7 is missing from US military designation. Personally, refering to an aircraft that does exist trumps an aircraft that only existed on paper for seven months. --Falcadore (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That source also says that E-7 was briefly assigned as a designation before changing to EC-18. OK, the 737 AEW&C‎ article has not had that designation that long and it's not mentioned in the Lead with the other names. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the two of you are edit-warring on Boeing E-7. Fnlayson, you're at 3RR right now; Falcadore, you're at 4RR. To use the appropriate aviation terminology, it's time to knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought it was 2 reverts, but you're right 3. Falcadore and I stopped 3-4 hours ago anyway.  Thanks for your changes to the Boeing E-7 page. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving relisting comment
This corrected something that wasn't a mistake. The RM bot dates move requests according to the first timestamp in the move request section, so moving the relisting comment causes the discussion to not be relisted. See Requested moves/Closing instructions for more information. --  tariq abjotu  17:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it looks refactoring of someone's post. The relisitng notices on AFD pages are not done that way.  And I see no stated reason for the relistng. Given the requested move has gotten 0 support, there should be some reason for continuing it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, because only two people other than the requestor commented at that point? Are you seriously contesting this? It'll continue for another week, and if no one else comments it'll stay the same place it would have been had the discussion been shut down right now. This is not unusual. Maybe that's not how it's done at AfD, but that's how it's done at RM; no relisting reason needs to be provided. --  tariq abjotu  02:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not contesting it. Was just asking why extend, since a reason had not been stated anywhere I could find.  Waiting for more input is fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note about external link re-added to F-111 article
Hi. I see you re-added the "www.airforce-technology.com" external link to the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark article in a recent edit. Maybe at first glance, it didn't look like obvious spam, but if you look at the contributions of the editor that originally added that link earlier in August, you will see that she is a single-purpose account with the sole intent of adding "www.xxxxx-technology.com" links to a large number of Wikipedia articles. The websites they link to also invariably include images and text copied from Wikipedia without proper attribution, constituting copyright violations, so, as per WP:EL, including such external links in Wikipedia articles is not really desirable. Anyway, have a look and see if you still think that link belongs in the article. Thanks for your time. --DAJF (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing basically wrong with the airforce-technology.com and other xxx-technology.com sites. Somebody spamming those pages does not in of itself mean they are junk or useless.  I have not seen where they directly copied Wikipedia text, but will check. Listing just WP:EL is fairly vague are there are many reasons in the WP:ELNO section. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Max speed DRN / ANI edit warring
In case you haven't noticed, this has gone to DRN.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have reported Z07x10 for edit warring for making five reverts within less than 24h. Thomas.W talk to me  21:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I had not seen that. Thanks for the updates. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Minigun page
I just want to thank you so much for all of your help on editing and formatting the page. I am very new to this and hope to get better in the future but highly appreciate the work that you do! I wanted to ask you if you could possibly help me keep a lookout for any posts about PROFENSE on the minigun page. Profense is a company that keeps trying to portray themselves as having "bought out" Garwood Industries, which they most certainly have not. Any tips that you have for editing and adding a Garwood Industries minigun system photo at the top of the page below,or beside the Dillon Aero system would be highly helpful! Thank you so much! --Linsey.Garwood (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I can't think of any particular tips at the moment. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SR-71 at Air Zoo
Hello! You had just deleted an update i made to the SR-71B model's arriving time at the air zoo in Kalamazoo, MI, stating that I had not cited the information. I happen to volunteer at the air zoo, (I actually am the one who cleans this plane; pretty sweet job :D) and learned this while working there. How would I go about citing something that I learned from a group of people? I'm a very new editor... Savagemktwo (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That SR-71B is already listed in "Accidents and aircraft disposition" section in the SR-71 page. You need to add an independent reliable source to show that fact is notable to the SR-71 as a whole and belongs in the "SR-71 timeline" section. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OK-Thanks for the help!Savagemktwo (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Image review
Hi Fnlayson, you were of great help last year with my Eve McVeagh picture that finally made it to the commons, I was wondering if you could weigh in on this new one (URL follows) or forward to someone who would be a good reviewer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_15#File:McVeagh_publicity_photo_from_.22High_Noon.22.gif
 * I've looked at it. I'm not sure how I can really help there. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Happy Holidays to all! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)