User talk:Nimbus227/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --John 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * You're very welcome. Let me know if you need help with anything. --John 23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:MiniNimbus.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MiniNimbus.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply inserting a space as your first character on a line on Wikiepdia does weird things: like this.

Instead, create indentations using the colon, and add more in replies on talk pages:
 * Like this,
 * and this,
 * and this!

There's also bullet points using the asterisk ( * ):
 * Like this,
 * and this,
 * and this!

Hope this helps! - CobaltBlueTony 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please
Please add that info you mentioned on the Talk:Lockheed CL-1200 page. Cite the reference as you go. Thanks. --Colputt 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good information on Lockheed XF-104
is excellent information that might be merged with the Lockheed F-104 article. Chergles 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nimbus, don't fret the AFD too much. We'll help you get it sorted out. You did add a lot of good info, and if we do merge witht he F-104 page, most, if not all, of it can be kept. I do believe an Merge proposal would have been the better course to have been taken, and have recommended that the nominator change the AFD to a Merge proposal. So we'll see. Also, I have placed a "formal notice" on the WP:AIR talk page, as this step is accepted by most editors of the Deletion Policy pages. However, asking other editors direclty for help would be considered "canvassing", notifying Projects is acceptable to many serious editors and admins. - BillCJ 20:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, it seems that user has a hobby of tagging AFD's and does not appear to be an aviation editor. Will see what happens but it is a bit downheartening all the same. Nimbus227 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just read your note on my page. As I said, the info will be kept, even if the page is not. Don't let the AFD part bother you - most AFDs are for notability, sourcing problems, and other things along those lines. That is not the issue here, just whether or not the XF-104 should be covered separately from the F-104, and that is really a matter of opinion. I've had pages AFDed a number of times, and some were kept, some were merged, and some were deleted. It's part of life on Wikipedia. I do hope you'll stay with Wikipedia, regardless of the AFD's outcome, as you show a lot of promise as an editor. Also, you've picked up things much faster than I did, and I do believe you can be a great contributor. - BillCJ 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we will see, at least I have not upset anyone (I think) in my short time here. It is far more hostile in here than I imagined especially when the basic rules seem so simple. Nimbus227 20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, at times in can be very hostile. But from what I've seen, you adhere to the basic rules very well. Regarding the F-104 page, most of the disruption was caused by one user, who insists on not following the rules, especially regarding proper sourcing, and whose lack of English skills makes cleaning up after him tedious and difficult. You are NOT taht kind of problem, and have adapted very well to our proceedures so far. I'd recommend that you take a short break from Wikipedia as soon as your are ready, be it just a couple of days to a couple of weeks. We all have to do that from time to time, and it will help you decide better what you want to do here at that point. Also, spend some time with what is really important to you, if you can, such as with family - that can sometimes help to put things in perspective. But whatever decision you eventually make, know that there are many of us in WP:AIR who appreciate and enjoy your work, but still, you need to do what' is best for you, in the end. - BillCJ 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Bill. I think I know who you are talking about!! I have recently given up being a gliding instructor after many years, mainly it is sad to say, due to students who do not appreciate the time and effort that is being put in and quite amazingly answer back (mini rant over), this venture was (is) my way of continuing to put something constructive in to society. Not too worried, find it all a bit intriguing what goes on in here and I do seem to be getting some support. Watching the process with interest Nimbus227 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed XF-104
BTW, the editor who proposed the Afd is apparently coming back from an indefinite block as a sockpuppet and has a very ? history. FWIW, I think the whole action was either done without much thought or worse, deliberately provocative. I do not think you should have any recriminations about your attempt to add a useful article to the catalog of Wikipedia aircraft articles. Bzuk 03:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Stick around
Hi Nimbus, just thought I'd post a note to say that I hope you stick around. IMHO the FX-104 article was a good start for a new editor and certainly didn't deserve the AfD (which is getting no support BTW) so don't be disheartened; the reasons for deletion were nothing to do with its quality. The Wiki is like any community with a mixture of good and bad members, but fortunately the majority are good and only too willing to help if you don't get things quite right. I see from this page that some experienced and well-respected editors are already giving you their support, and as you continue to contribute (as I hope you will), you'll come to recognise several other worthy names (and the odd not-so-worthy ones).

I also noticed that you expressed concern over contributing to the main F-104 article; not wanting to make mistakes. Well, judging by your work so far I wouldn't worry too much about that. When I started contributing a little over a year ago, I was also welcomed by John (then Guinnog), and the one thing he said that has always stayed in my mind is "be bold in your editing". If you have something that will enhance/improve an article, with references of course, or if you see something that needs to be changed, if it's nothing major that requires discussion then go for it! Whatever changes you make can always be undone if necessary, so there can be no permanent damage if you do make a mistake. Every editor makes mistakes, and there's nothing to be ashamed of there, but a good editor will learn by them. Don't be scared to ask for help, or email a user if you wish to be more confidential.

I hope that this helps persuade you to carry on. --Red Sunset 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Great words of encouragement there and thanks very much. It appears that the user is withdrawing the AFD nomination, I have my own thoughts about what has happened. Hopefully I can get on with helping out on the F-104 articles now, Did someone say NF-104! Will enjoy talking about that on the relevant talk page. Also in to gliders and there are a lot of them missing but most would never be much more than a stub. I'm always willing to listen to other people's point of view and that seems to be the way to get along in here. Thanks again Nimbus227 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My pleasure Nimbus, and I look forward to your glider contributions; I'm sure they'll be a breath of fresh air after some of the articles I've encountered. Keep up the good work! --Red Sunset 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The NF-104 is definitely worth talking about, and the best place for that is probably the F-104 Starfighter page. I have found two good ways to go about preparing for a new variant article:
 * Just keep ading good, sourced info on the variant to the main article. Once it gets to a point where the info overwhelms or dominates major sections of the aritcle, then propose a split, or carry one out if the consuensus is already there.
 * Create a "sandbox" page on your userspace (we can show you haow to do that, it's very easy), and just start creating the article there. Once it's ready, ask other editors to take a look at it, and if theres support for the new page then, move it to the new name (or cut/paste).


 * Actually you can do both steps at the same time, or somewhat stager them. I have a good number of [pages I'm working on (not too much work recently tho) linked at User:BillCJ, if you'd like to take a look at ideas of how to set one up. - BillCJ 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just dropped by your sandboxes, busy chap!! I did the XF-104 in my single sandbox, it is still there. Perhaps I should work on brightening my user page but am aware of the time I am spending on here, addictive isn't it?! I do have a very good book on the NF-104, perhaps something for the winter nights. Perhaps the main F-104 article should be a priority for everyone to help with. Thanks, feeling much brighter tonight. Nimbus227 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

XF-104 contribs
You're comments are very welcome Nimbus227. IMHO, there is no real answer as to how long a good article should be. If a lengthy article is well written, so that the information is put across in such a way that it flows and maintains the reader's interest, then it is not too long (there are limits of course). Similarly, a high level of detail is acceptable if it is relevant and easily absorbed. Probably not the definitive answer that you were looking for, but it works for me. As the XF-104 article currently stands, I don't think that it is too long or detailed that a couple of extra paragraphs should not be added. If you think that your extra material will enhance the article, then by all means incorporate it; after all, it can always be tweaked if necessary. But if you still have doubts, post your intended additions on the discussion page for other editors' comments before going ahead. Regards --Red Sunset 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I suppose one man's trivia is another man's meat! After finding a long lost book (oh for a dedicated study room)there is more relevant info that can be added but not that much more. I need to work on the other F-104 articles, waiting for an arbitration matter to be resolved (you might know who brought that about) Nimbus227 23:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindly posting in the page of discussion, Nimbus. Too fair, at one time i feared that you will proposed to burn me as heretic too (-. Nor personal insult were made nor animal were injured in making of this post.--Stefanomencarelli 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nimbus dear, could me let kindly know when and why you was threatened by myself? I even encouraged you to edit CF-104, while you did not it. So what's your point to call me a 'discourager of wiki.newcomers'? I acted with you at the opposite, the only discussion was about the F-104S radar range, a very trivial stuff to say the best. And more, i never rollbacked you for anything. So let me end: what's your point?--Stefanomencarelli 17:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Stefano, the first point I made was that your tone was taken by me as aggressive ref my suggestions on the F-104S even if it was not intended to be. I did not take it as a personal attack just that the tone could have been more friendly. The second point is that any newcomer is not going to want to get involved in editing articles where an obvious editing struggle is going on, perhaps I should make it clear that this would be the case whoever was 'being unreasonable', it just happens that you are the main reason why I will not edit any of the F-104 articles until the situation is resolved. I think you asked me to edit the CF-104 article using Joe Baugher as a reference, unfortunately WP does not appear to allow websites as primary reference, their rule, not mine. I have plenty of books on the CF-104 and will use them as references if I do get around to editing that article. I think I will concentrate on creating new articles for the near future then I have only myself to argue with. Absolutely nothing personal and please remember that I like the others have offered to correct small amounts of text. We all need to work together otherwise we go forwards very slowly or worse go backwards. I think we should not converse further until the arbitration is closed as I feel that matters are only getting worse. Nimbus227 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that your statement about the 'WP not allows websites as primary references' is widely herroneus or not respected at all: just in F-86 there are more than 40. Joe Baugher don't is below average. --Stefanomencarelli 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:XF-104_Johnson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:XF-104_Johnson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

References sources
Hi Nimbus227, I can see that you have really got "the hang of it" in this WikyWacky world we inhabit. Like yourself, I have a primary interest in aviation history and have in the last decade, been an aviation writer (now I can hitch up the more high-fallutan "author" shingle) and have learned that in posting to Wikipedia, much of the same qualifications for research and writing apply. I asked for some clarification on an aviation project page and received this reply: "As to the use of reference sources, the guidelines point to WP:RS which identifies peer-reviewed scholarly works considered the most authoritative with specialized books by recognized experts in the field, generalized books following with periodicals and finally, web-based information sources as accepted resources. According to WP:RSUE, in the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are used in preference to foreign-language sources. Online discussion forums/blogs are considered unreliable and are usually not accepted as reference sources on Wikipedia." FWIW Bzuk 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC).


 * I re-read some of the verifiability, reference and citation sections and WP:AIR to see if I was incorrect earlier, as you say web sites are generally listed near the bottom of lists on what to use as reference. So my own perception of the system still stands that web based sources should not be used as primary sources if books etc are available on the subject, I think that is clear enough and also makes sense to me where it does not seem clear to others. Nimbus227 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Home-base
Just out of interest Numbnu...er...Numbers...sorry, Nimbus; which part of our fair isle do you hail from? --Red Sunset 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Robset)

Quite close to here which is related to my job. Lived in Fife for many years but the cold got to me! Cheers Nimbus227 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You lucky son-of-a-gun, I never followed F1 until moving from Coventry to here, and have ever since wished I still lived (relatively) nearby. It was a great season wasn't it; kept us all guessing 'til the last minute! --Red Sunset 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw Raikkonen crack a smile on sunday! I follow F1 every day, it helps with the mortgage. Nimbus227 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You sure it wasn't a touch of wind? --Red Sunset 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces
Hi Nimbus, you're probably referring to non-breaking spaces. These should be applied to units to prevent a possible wrap-around at the edge of a page where the unit could become separated from its numerical value. Just one of those preferred wiki guidelines (I'd place a link here if I could remember where I read it) which few editors adhere to, and one which often gives me something to do if I can't find much else to "meddle" with (as with the NF-104 article). I was getting quite into it when I got your message; it's looking good. --Red Sunset 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please carry on and look for more 'herrors'! So that's what the nbs means, thanks. Nimbus227 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You speak in tongues?! Nimeral- send me an email. It's a test, you send me one, I'll send you one back! FWIW Bzuk 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Er, how do I do that?! Frightened the cr*p out of me as I did a tiny edit on the F-104S page and got a message that I had a message! Nimbus227 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Harumph (the proper response to Er). Just find me page by clickg on my usern*me (Bzuk) and look at the left margin "toolbox" and scroll down the menu to "E-mail this user" and magically, a email message window appers. You wrte to me and pt yur emil in the messge- rember not make herrors in this dotation? FWIW Bzuk 23:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

Your attitude
You know, I've just had it up to here with your insistence on using real facts and being polite in dealing with others in Wikipedia!! With that in mind, and, on behalf of others that have noted your stubborn belief in following rules and being compliant, versatile and well-meaning, hang this on your principles. BTW, your work has progressed remarkably quickly from a first submission to a DYK and you have shown some talent in writing while maintaining rigid adherence to high standards in research.

FWIW Bzuk 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much, I'm blushing now!! The system works if you follow the rules (although I don't know all of them yet). I will wear my 'Wikiwings' with pride. Nimbus227 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rules? What rules? Who said anything about rules? Joking apart, Numbsku...er Nimno...er sorry, Nimbus; people always get noticed for their shortcomings, but only too often don't receive recognition for the good that they do; so well done! BTW, I hope you don't mind me saying so, but it doesn't do to let these colonial chappies know that you don't drink tea; they may construe it as a sign of weakness. (I only drink coffee myself, but don't tell anyone! LOL) --Red Sunset 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates as leads
I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and tell me what you think? - Peregrine Fisher 06:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hi 'Minibus', I was just checking out the current situation, and noticed your new evidence. It appears that it was not Stefano's Octopussy contribution that was reverted, but a later one. Thought I'd better warn you so you can be prepared for a reaction. --Red Sunset 18:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you've explained it Nimbus, there are several extremely good reasons for not using BLC on takeoff. (That must be some air con unit in the Tornado; even bigger than my Jag's!) Snowing? Don't get much of that round here. BTW excellent work on the F-104; you've spotted lots that I didn't. --Red Sunset (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycling Wikiproject
Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yamaha RD500LC was created by me, a glaring omission from the motorcycling world! Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:F104G.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:F104G.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Nimby, see if you can provide source information. I believe the rest of the information (taken by USAF personnel) should fit. FWIW (O is at it again) Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Image is from the USAF museum archive at
 * Can you provide the URL of the page the image is used on? A direct image URL doesn't cut it, as the USAF could be using content taken elsewhere. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Page URL as requested: Page 2 of that URL also contains the F-104C image you have nominated for deletion. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (GMT)

Reeve Aleutian Airlines
I've added the infobox. Would appreciate a grade being given even if it is only start as I've self-nom'd on DYK. The stub showing on Alaska could disqualify it. Will work o destinations, as RA was not an intra-Alaskan airline, flying to US destinations outside Alaska as well as those in Canada and the USSR. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheating? It's the most relevant picture I've found so far, may even be an ex-Reeve aircraft! Am adding representative pictures until more relevant (Reeve liveried) ones can be found.Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Refs - have had a look at the page you suggested. Personally, I think my way looks better. As long as it is clear where the ref is to is the main thing. have a look at River Darent or River Len, Kent and tell me if the refs aren't clear! Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure as I said, I don't care. I got jumped on for inventing my own version, there are people here who care more about how things are written than the facts in the articles. If you wanted to get your article to B class for instance it would be mentioned and stop it progressing . There is a clever way of shortening the ref list if you use a reference more than once using the 'ref name' format, it's where you see a,b,c, etc, in the footnote list. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore me, I see you have worked that out already but you strictly should be using the authors name not the book title, as I say I'm not the MoS police!!! Crack on! Nimbus227 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens if you are using two books by the same author, both published in the same year? e.g. Watermills of the London Countryside Vol.1 & Vol.2, or even two books with two different titles by the same author? I've had articles graded as B class despite this "problem" - Hopper hut went straight in at B class on first grading! Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously depends who is doing the review,some editors in the aviation project who have been picky are actually out of step with the rest of the community, anyway as I said it does not worry me, cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-ordinate?
If you're interested, there is the WikiProject Aviation/Coordinators page, if you want to add your name to the Outreach part. This is another page that doesn't get much use at all yet, but would be good if it became more active. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hi - just picking up on your comment on WT:AIR about users trying to "alter the navboxes in individual articles" - could you point me to some examples? Just want to stay aware of any potential havoc that the process is creating! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

F-104 owner
Hi Nimbus, just noticed 104-owner (email enabled) in the list of WP:AIR participants. Only made three edits last year and has blank user pages but apparently owns an F-104 (surprise surprise), so I thought I'd let you know in case you'd like to make contact. All the best --Red Su ns et    23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob, I am active in the Yahoo group, he might be one of the members there. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

737
I think that at least as long as the peer review is going on, comments should be put there, unless it pertains to a conversation ongoing on the usual talk page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dornier Do 28
Hello -

I noticed that you had created a request for a German translation of the article about the Dornier Do 28 a few weeks ago. The request was "lost" (by not being listed on the translation pages), but I recently went looking for lost requests and yours was among them. It appears to me that you might have done the translation yourself already. Can you let me know if you still need the translation? If you don't, I'll set the status of the request to "completed" and then remove it from my list again.

Thanks! Scbarry (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

de Havilland DH.60 Moth
Thanks for the heads up it was probably me that messed it up! confusion caused by the DH 60GIIIs that were named both Moth and Moth Major. When they changed to the Gipsy Major from aircraft #58 they changed the name but kept the DH 60GIII designation. Hope i have made it a bit clearer in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, there is certainly scope for confusion in there. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks for the note of sympathy Nimbus; sometimes it just seems like rigid adherence to what are supposed to be guidelines can be detrimental to an otherwise good article. Much of the MoS-related stuff that I do is for the sake of apparent "correctness", which in fact doesn't materially or significantly enhance the article, but merely goes some way towards presenting an article in a more-favourable light to a reviewer in order to get an award. The case of not bolding variants and marks is a particular niggle of mine – it's a common practise employed by many aviation publications! Replacing hyphens with endashes where "necessary" is another one – I didn't know they existed let alone where they should be used – there isn't one on my keyboard, and hyphens seem to do the trick for most people anyway! As I commented, I'm thinking along the same lines as Rl and wonder whether getting a "badge" is so important; and I will continue to cite Baugher and Goebel where convenient and advocate bolding in other articles. I only hope that common-sense prevails in the F-4 issue. Cheers. --Red Su ns et    15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now't wrong with Baugher and friends, been reading his stuff for years (even Stefo quoted him, bless) and have only noticed the odd departure from the truth (probably taken from the books he was using). I have over 40 books on the '104' and they contradict each other in places. This is where we come in to balance it all. I was fairly well miffed after the failed GA nom, which seemed to hinge on MoS stuff. Is there not an ignore all rules clause somewhere?!! Having fun in the Supermarine Spitfire article at the moment, seems to be a little bit of NNPOV in places and some 'urban myth'. Feeling mightily unwell at the moment (bird flu?!). Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Last time I looked, the Spit was quite a lengthy article and that was some time ago. I might just drop in and take a look with new eyes thanks to recent events, and see how many editors I can upset with MoS niggles (Lol), and possibly the F-104. Sorry to hear that you're not well (I've got a permanent pain in the neck, aka Norma). Get well soon, and take care! --Red Su ns et    15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Spit article is a bit long, what I noticed is that there are other articles like Battle of Britain but it still goes on at length. There is another bit about the Greek civil war, had a look at that and can't see any mention of Spits at a quick glance. The lead needs an end paragraph (we are allowed four paras according to MoS apparently). Had my first day off work in two years, but I'm well enough to type and think so that's ok!!!! Nimbus227 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I noticed that XIX was used elsewhere in the article and followed suit since it seemed a reaonable assumption; however, no problem changing back to 19 should that be correct. I tried to comment on "variants", but since I'm a bit slow on the keyboard, each time someone else got in first! The existing link to "variants" is about as much use as a chocolate fire-guard, so anything else has got to be an improvement. --Red Su ns et    22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which link to variants?!! Think I'm making progress on that one, I think we plough on sometimes, not realising that the average reader is completely flummoxed by the aircraft articles. I thought it would be nice to have a hit counter for each article, would give us a clue if it is being read or not. Will have to look into the Spitfire numbering thing, they deffo changed it somewhere along the line. Amazing what you can find to correct/expand in such a high profile article. Good job done. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(Return) Glad to see you're making good use of your enforced break – get well soon BTW! This is the link I was referring to, rather than the one to the Spitfire variants page. I still think that it should be un-linked for the time being as it presently only causes confusion in this context – it can always be re-linked later, and currently sub-variants goes nowhere. I like the idea of a hit counter though!

Now; about refs – good work on the F-4 page. It's generally accepted that books are the preferred reference sources for good reason (Bzuk's your man on this point), but some websites can be just as reliable and therefore acceptable although there are a few dubious ones about. Does Thornborough & Davis cover the same material as any of the Baugher refs, or the Bedevilers and Aardvarks stuff? Where the same ground is fully covered it would be best to remove the existing website refs.

Looking at the article on the day that it was awarded FA status, the whole of the section on the F-4's service with the USN (4 paras I think) is covered by just one ref to Donald & Lake's McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies (2002) at the end of the final para; and here we are, having to explain and defend the numerous in-line cites that have been provided following the reviewers' recommendations. Consistency within an article is important – I would have thought that it was equally important for reviewers to exhibit consistency otherwise it makes a mockery of the process – one reviewer's GA could be superior to another's FA!

I could put some explosives to good use at work myself – this week's already eight days long and it's only Tuesday! Need any help running that over-sized wind-machine of yours by any chance? --Red Su ns et    21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, still feeling rough though. Been doing a bit of aeromodelling to pass the time as well. My book probably does cover the same stuff and I thought about replacing the other refs but in a way I was making a point by having three refs for a completely uncontentious statement. I tried to find pages for some of the other questioned stuff, will take more time. Under all this we are supposed to believe that WP is not to be taken seriously, I don't agree with that. When I was a kid I had eight encyclopedias that I treasured, always went to the silver coloured one, (Science and Technology) for some reason!! I got my job by making the company website career page my homepage and then blagging through the interview, hey presto! Off to watch 'Everest' on TV, madmen. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Glider task force
Not exactly. A while ago it got folded into the Gliding project, there just wasn't enough content to support a whole task force. my recent edits were just removing links that already redirect to WikiProject Gliding. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockheed CL-1200
No problem Gary. Busy today and tied-up tonight but thought I'd briefly look-in to see what's happening; however, I'll give it a shot tomorrow. --Red Su ns et    19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)  BTW, saw the new car yesterday; hope it does Jenson justice!
 * So do I!!!! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just finished my chores (domestic harmony regained) and taken a first look at the article along with the results of a web search for further background information, and on looking at this I noticed some striking similarities between the two in some areas! This verbatim copying needs to be addressed, so there might be a bit of rewording involved here and there. Take a look before I do anything and see what I mean.--Red Su ns et    14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked a few minor bits and pieces but not changed anything drastically. I'll leave it there for the moment awaiting your comments on the copying! Cheers for now. --Red Su ns et    15:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I spotted the same thing you did, was copied word for word (by a previous editor). I swiftly removed the reference and have altered the text already. Should be able to 'adjust' it more using the material that I have, will take time. Free photos of this beastie are rare. Feeling better now, back to work tomorrow :-( Nimbus227 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's looking much better now; and once you've finished adding your extra info we can look at rewording the remaining verbatim copies of Baugher's text. I'm not sure about having two columns for the specs though – have you considered adding the X-27 equivalents in {parentheses} after those of the CL-1200 with a note in the section header; i.e. Specifications (CL-1200-2){X-27}? As it stands, the article isn't particularly long and IMO a note on the projected costings wouldn't be out of place, particularly since a major reason for its cancellation was lack of funding. BTW, as much as it hurts, I see you've correctly kept to U.S. spelling. Back in the harness tomorrow eh? It's a tough job but someone's gotta do it! --Red Su ns et    19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(Return) Yep, can still expand this article a bit. Will have a think about the specs (there is no source for the X-27 specs but it is on the web so that should do, seems a bit irrelevant as they were purely guesses by the designers). I've got a quote from Kelly Johnson somewhere saying he was glad it was cancelled! Must find that. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point re the X-27 specs being guesses, but you could say that many of the CL-1200's are also theoretical and as such I think it would be appropriate to add a footnote to the specs section to that effect. Generally I think the article is starting to look "complete" following your additions; the costings section gives a bit more background and interest to the subject, but I noticed one apparent slip: the unit cost has been put at $2.7 million for production runs of both 500 and 1,000 aircraft.  I'll make a few more small tweaks tonight, not much needed now. Good work! --Red  Su ns et    19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My slip with the cost, should have been 2.4 as in the infobox. I'm wading through Triumph Bonneville at the moment (was completely unreferenced and I think some of the external links are dodgy). Many of the bike articles are in a terrible state. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that contributors to aircraft articles tend to be very enthusiastic and pay great attention to precision, accuracy and detail (exhibiting some of the same characteristics as those actually involved with the subject), and I reckon that this is possibly the hardest area to edit in – just compare the number of aircraft FAs to other projects! If you can hack it here then you can easily spot shortcomings in other topics. I was never allowed a 'bike at home following my brother's exploits on a series of Matchlesses, BSAs and Hondas (cheers bro!), yet my father was a keen biker in his day. --Red Su ns et    20:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose anyone involved in aviation, engineers, pilots and even spotters all have a certain attention to detail, that's why we have such great 'debates'! I met the ultimate 'spotter' at a vintage aircraft rally yesterday, wish I had a tape recorder! Don't do many miles on any of the bikes now sadly but I try to give them a run out occasionally. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this idea for incorporating both sets of figures in one table? Just a suggestion; but one you may be able to improve on. --Red Su ns et    20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)