User talk:Petebutt/Archive 2

The arts catalyst, referencing your page.
Hi pete, I am a new wikipedian and I am approaching you for some feedback, I, along with a working partner, will be linking from a page I am creating to your page on the International Astronautical Federation. I will provide a link to my sandbox below, displaying the content i intend to publish on the page i am creating. (The information that will be filling the page is divided between myself and my working partner, so please excuse it if it feels incomplete.) Here is the link, I hope you find it an interesting read.--J.skudkid (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J.skudkid/sandbox--J.skudkid (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Petebutt/Archive 1 User talk:Petebutt/Archive 2

No. 340 (French) Squadron RAF
Hello Petebutt, I've deleted this page as it was a redirect to itself! I'm sure you were intending to draft a full article so there will be no problem with you recreating this page with sonme full text when you're ready. If I have misunderstood what you were doing, please contact me. Best wishes! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  22:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I just made the link without checking it, as there were a lot there. I have to admit to relying on others like yourself to dig out my mistakes, Thanks.Petebutt (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh! Should have removed the (French).Petebutt (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space reorganization
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:


 * 1) Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
 * 2) Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

List of Russian aviators
This article has been listed for deletion. As you are one of the editors involved, I am sending you this notice.

A civil considered discussion of this article is called for, in the interests of improving Wikipedia.

Best regards,Georgejdorner (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

List of districts in Thailand
I hope you did not create that tables manually, with over 7000 subdistricts it should be something to do by software instead, as it way too much work and way to easy to make mistakes manually. In fact, I do have some code which already creates the tables in most of the Amphoe articles, and that could probably be adapted to do this kind of list as well.

I don't get what you meant with the section of Amphoe Mueang Nakhon Ratchasima in the description, as it is only confusing two different kinds of subdivisions - the central administration of Changwat, Amphoe, Tambon, Muban and the local administration of municipalities (Thesaban) and TAO, which exist is parallel.

Also, the naming of the lists is somewhat misleading, as it is a list of subdistricts sorted by districs alphabetically. Especially the Changwat, Amphoe, Tambon in the article title looks strange. Thus the title would better be "List of subdistricts in Thailand, districts A-K" and so on. However, I think this kind of sorting is not the best either, if there really is the need for a list of subdistricts, it is better to have it for each of the four major regions, and then done hierarchically instead of alphabetically by district. andy (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

List of airships of the United States Navy
Hi there,

looks like for your recent edits to List of airships of the United States Navy you used a reference called &lt;ref name="Aerofiles"/&gt;. No reference with such a name have been previously defined. There is also a need for to list all the references you intended to include.

Regards Fti74 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Slip of the finger, got transferred from the source, shouldn't have been there either, fixed now.Petebutt (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

British Royal Air Force
You obviously did not like my reversion of your change on the RAF Museum page but as I have challenged the edit it really needs to be discussed rather than me changing it back again. I have raised the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aviation, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello, Petebutt. I've reverted a couple of your edits relating to dismbiguation pages:, ,. Disambiguation pages are used to document multiple articles on Wikipedia that could correspond to the term being disambiguated. The edits you made don't do that; for example, adding the redlink Wang, Tha Chana to Wang won't help anyone get to an article on Wang, Tha Chana, because it doesn't exist. The dab page you set up at Wang Yai consists only of two redlinks, and does not disambiguate between existing articles. And the one at Nong Hong has only one blue link, i.e., there is no diambiguity.

On those last two, note that we don't usually use a dab page where there are only two entries, anyway. The better approach is to have the term redirect to the primary article and use a hatnote (WP:HATNOTE) on one of them to distinguish.

WP:MOSDAB has a lot of helpful information on this. If you end up creating some of the articles that were redlinks, feel free to put them into the existing dab pages, or create your own (or more likely use hatnotes) to disambiguate them.

Looks like you've made some huge contributions in the aircraft and military related areas of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! TJRC (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see your points. I was just following the links in the lists I was trying to DE-disambiguate, if you see what I mean? I shall just change the names to include the next level up on the rest,. Thanks.Petebutt (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lists of tambon
Awesome job with the lists of Tambon. I'll help create them all at one point or other. I strongly recommend creating a nav footer template to connect the lists and a lot of the text in the intro is not needed, people can see the ordering anyway. Any date of population data? I'll continue helping clean them up tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you help with the Nav template, something I haven't done yet. The data is mostly from the 2005 census, as noted in the Amphoe articles, which were my main sources. Clean away, ThanksPetebutt (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done it. Can you tag the talk pages for WikiProject Thailand|class=list. Can you place the pages on your watchlist in case anybody tampers with the population figures and try to dab the same name tambons with dab pages?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocketry activity check
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Aircraft page moves
As you may have seen at Ryan ST-100 Cloudster and also at Pitts Special, and in particular the discussions at Talk:Pitts Special and also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft your constant moves of aircraft type pages are controversial, not accepted by other editors and thus have to be constantly reverted, wasting a lot of time and effort on everyone's part. In future please do not move any aircraft articles without first gaining consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Airmate
Pete: I note you moved those Schreder sailplane articles on the understanding that the aircraft were called "Airmate" as an aircraft name. In checking it out Airmate was the name of Schreder's design and drafting company and so the proper name was indeed Schreder Airmate HP-8, etc and not Schreder HP-8 Airmate. You will find more on that in Richard Schreder. As a result I have moved them all back. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Just that all the references I could find listed the Airmate part as the name and not part of the Manufacturers name. In that case they should all be airmates.Petebutt (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Soaring refs I have Schreder stopped using the Airmate name after the HP-11 and the subsequent models (HP-12 to 22) didn't use it. It also wasn't applied to his first design the HP-7, leaving only the HP-8, 9, 10 and 11 as "Airmates". - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured that out OK.Petebutt (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Letov C-11
Hi. I've just deleted Letov C-11 as a 'Good faith editor error'. If you make a page by  mistake again, you  can get  it  deleted by  blanking  it and placing  a  tag on  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, happens more often than I would like.

Tambons
Hi Pete. I've begun building articles on the tambons for Chiang Rai Province and will aim to do the whole of Thailand in the coming weeks. One thin though. Can you please help go through the district articles wiki lining the tambons and dabbing the names? If you do say a province at a time then I'll follow suite and create the articles and then do another province etc. How does that sound? Phan District etc now needs dabbiong and the others wiki linked dabbed etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I,m not sure what you mean here, but if you check the Tambon lists you will see that i have pre dabbed them by piping the links to articles (noyt written yet) titledtambon, amphoe. Likewise for Districts I have dabbed those that required it as Amphoe, province.Petebutt (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Caspar-Werke aircraft
I've created Template:Caspar-Werke aircraft as requested in AFC.  Chzz  ► 02:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chzz; I moved this to Template:Caspar aircraft to better fit how we name these templates. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Links to aviastar.org
Hi again Pete -- I notice a few links to the aviastar.org website creeping into citations in the List of Aircraft. Unfortunately, we shouldn't link to this site because of its blatant copyright infringements. See WP:AVIASTAR for more details. Keep up the great work! :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Narang night raid
Hello Dear Sir, You mentioned that you had offered Narang night raid up for deletion. Was there a WP:AFD on this? I wasn't able to find any record of it. ThanksV7-sport (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Along time ago I looked at this article and was concerned about NPOV, as there was a definite Victim bias, but I don't recall actually calling for deletion.Petebutt (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Petebutt, and congratulations on having flown the Vampire, I always admired that aircraft. (Closest I got was a Tiger Moth. ;-) )V7-sport (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was my reward for helping with an "in the field" engine change. The Police had to close the Chippenham - Malmesbury road at the end of the runway, quite wisely as we went over at no more than 50 ft. One quick circuit and flypast for the Gliding club and off to Odiham. I remember that it was very stable, not the best thing for a fighter, and the controls were very Heavy;Squadron Vampire pilots must have had bulging biceps.Petebutt (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
I just came across this and this. The redirects are the correct version otherwise you could end up with two articles about the same thing but with different content. Are there any others like that? The thing is that if there are and what should be the redirect has been edited since it will need a move to merge the history. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the problem here? I can't de-cipher your post, please elucidate.Petebutt (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By making the above edits you created two articles on the Grob G104 Speed Astir and the Grob G102 Astir. In both cases neither Grob G104 Speed Astir or Grob G 102 Astir had been edited since. If, for example, Grob G102 Astir had been edited by someone after you then the history of Grob G102 Astir and Grob G 102 Astir would need to be merged because of attribution. To do that requires deleting Grob G102 Astir and moving Grob G 102 Astir to Grob G102 Astir. Then Grob G102 Astir has to be restored and the most up to date version used. There is more info at Moving a page, Help:Page history and Copyrights. So if you did do any other articles like that they need to be checked for subsequent edits and either turned into redirects or moved first. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember this. I was trying to sort out the mess left by someone else. I obviously didn't do enough.Petebutt (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was easily sorted. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

More redirects
I'm not sure what you were aiming at with this group of edits? The result ended up getting given a stub tag and turning up for stub-sorting but I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be a redirect, an article, a comment that it ought not to exist, or what! Could you clarify? And I think I may have come across another similar (unless I just spotted this one before). PamD (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done by way of disambiguating other peoples mistakes. As there is no real article, only an explanation of why the re-direct was removed, there is no reason for them not to be deleted, if you dfeel that way inclined. I would just like to say that there is at least one editor who is plodding his way through the tambon and they will get sorted eventually.Petebutt (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

List of aircraft engines
Evening Petebutt. Please don't delete any more cns from revisions to this article. They are there for a reason and have taken some time to sort out. In a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines again it was pointed out that our engine list was a particularly bad example of uncited material and that it needed sorting. For some manufacturers a single source covers all the engines, so we thought that a header Source:Lumsden  would do the trick without loads of repeated, identical refs. Quite often, many but not all engines have a single source. We agreed that something like Source:Gunston except where noted would be an economical way forward, giving individual refs to those engines not in the main source for that manufacturer, or a cn to show that this engine was not in the main ref and that we had not yet found a ref for it. Leaving it un-noted would imply it was in the main ref, which it was not. Having gone through Gunston and any other easy reference text, we can than turn to the cns and should be able to replace many with good cites. The best place to debate this further, if you want to, is probably on the Engines#Lists again page where we can get the opinions of others.TSRL (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As already established at Talk:List of aircraft and I.A.W. WP:REDDEAL, redlinks intended to link to future articles or re-directs, in a list, do not need references or citations, and can be left without fear of deletion. The references come when the articles are written!!Petebutt (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:REDDEAL allows redlinks, but as per WP:V they very clearly do need refs added. This is to prevent adding red links to lists on non-notable, erroneous or even non-existent subjects. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is my point but from a different perspective. This list is constantly editted and monitored by people that know the subject, (yourself and myself included), any spurious entries are soon corrected or removed. Another point is that to add cn's could encourage people to write less than satisfactory articles just to keep the deletion hounds at bay. All I say is common sense should prevail. If we have a consensus that references would be nice but not necessary, we would have a case for local modification of the WP policies.Petebutt (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy says refs are required for list entries. I don't think that there is any reason to ask to change the policy and I certainly wouldn't support it. If you want to take a case to the policy pages to change that then go ahead, but in the meantime refs are required for list entries, so please stop removing them and put them back if you have removed them. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Holleville Bambi
Hello Pete! Thank you for your kind remarks about the new article. Unfortunately, as you correctly surmised, there's not a lot published on this pretty little design. I looked up the Flight archive, but their references to it were minimal. Also, and surprisingly, the coverage on the Aviafrance website is very poor - not even an image. I would hope that other Wiki reviewers would look for quality rather than overblown quantity of narrative. What's there is accurate and to-the-point - I hope! I continue to add my photos to image-less articles (the Kay Gyroplane is coming up), and am working on one or three other less well-known types. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Yakovlev AIR-3
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fokker FG-2
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That Russian aircraft carrier article name
You don't think Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is a) a rather unwieldy article title b) against the Wikiproject SHIPs naming convention? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, hadn't read that. I wanted the article names to naturally sort alphabetically from the name rather than country, Oh,well, lots of reversions to do and re-think the table maybe. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment, off down the pub. Will check tomorrow and rectify if not done already. Don't forget there are lots and lots of re-directs.Petebutt (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it can wait. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has beaten me to it. Thanks and sorry, I should have known to read the naming convention.Petebutt (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left the Kuznetsov as Russian aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, because that is the name of the ship, translated, and Admiral of the Fleet is a rank. I wouldn't like being labelled a Captain if I were an Admiral, would you?Petebutt (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing discussion on the Admiral Kuznetsov's talk page. I suggest you get over there and defend yourself and your position, and strongly suggest you not make such unilateral moves without community consensus in the future.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 02:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Brumby 600
G'day from Oz; the name I chose was bothering me a lot as being clumsy and I was tossing up a rename, so thanks for making the decision for me :-) Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Meyers Midget
Evening Pete, Thanks for adding the company link. However, on the alternative name, aerofiles appears to show that the Kreider-Reisner A Midget was a completely different machine - see photo of a low wing monoplane. Unless I'm missing something, revert?TSRL (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be an oops on my part, but the aerofiles entry does cite Meyers as the owner/customer. More invest required!!Petebutt (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the photos are captioned correctly, then they are two different aircraft, so I have reverted and added a note not to confuse the two.Petebutt (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Article moves
Petebutt I was asked to look at a move you made from SOKO to Soko Vazduhoplovna Industrija, ro Vazduhoplovstvo which has been reverted, although I appreciate the change was made in good faith it is one of many moves that you make that have had to be reverted. This is English wikipedia and Soko Vazduhoplovna Industrija, ro Vazduhoplovstvo could never be considered the common name in English for the company. Can I suggest that because of the problems with your renames you should really make move requests on article talk pages before making any more moves, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiel FK 166
Thanks for finding a ref for this aircraft type article! I would have hated to have someone nominate it for deletion as "non-notable"! - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to individual specification
A bold idea to generate articles for each specification at List of Air Ministry Specifications, but I feel too ambitious. Most would be stubs and the rest duplicates of content already existing in aircraft articles. Also they would need to be in form "Air Ministry Specification C.xx/yy" for consistency. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sequoia 301
If you have a problem with the redirect, you may follow one of two procedures: Replacing a redirect with a note that says "this is a bad redirect" is not appropriate or acceptable practice on Wikipedia, however; you're entitled and welcome to fix the problem, but not to use articlespace to create metacommentary about articlespace. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) List it for deletion at WP:RFD,
 * 2) Create a new article about what the title should actually contain.
 * Thanks for the info I know what to do when I uncover more bad re-directs.Petebutt (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

MS.341
Thanks for the edits on this. I seem to have rushed it and got more errors than usual. One query about sources: you say the 342/2 had a Gipsy II and enclosed cockpits, whereas Howson says Gipsy Major and does not mention the glazing. Could you add a ref to make it clear that particular info is not from Howson?TSRL (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the ref. Very useful photo - certainly has covered in cockpits. According to Golden Years, 'NAY started life as a 342, then was modified to become the only 342/2, the c/n going from 2 to 1, so I suppose image is post mod. However, the aviafrance description says Gipsy Major like Howson, so where does the Gipsy II come from?TSRL (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an oops easily rectifiedPetebutt (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!TSRL (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ProFe D-10 Tukan
I moved this back to where it was. The correct company name is ProFe, according to the company themselves and not Pro FE. You have been asked many times to discuss page moves before you make them. Can you please start doing this, as you are making a lot of unnecessary work by not gaining consensus first. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Chrysler T36D
Yep, very odd, but the only reference I found for that engine gave pounds as the units. I agree, turboprops do convert a high percentage of their power as torque to the prop, and have some, but often very little, thrust from the exhaust. I am searching for more data on the engine, and am now reading a 550+ page book on engine development during and after WWII. Regards,  Buster40004  Talk 00:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sikorsky H-3


The article Sikorsky H-3 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Content fork of Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King; list of links only with no other content, majority of links simply redirects to a very few pages.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger One ping only 17:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

List of gliders
Thanks for adding Windward Performance and the Windward Performance Perlan II to the list, you beat me to it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the Lockheed Constellation production list
Go ahead and delete the lists if you want. I'm in full support. I'm sorry if I caused any kind of harm to Wikipedia by making them, I was just trying to add information that might be useful to other individuals. Sorry again. 707 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the Lockheed Constellation production list
Thanks for telling me that. Next time, I'll try and do something more encyclopedic. 707 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants
I have reverted you change to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants article you cant just copy and paste one article into another, it is a variant article and most of the stuff is not relevant. You now have more than one article tagged for a move discussion but so far have not raised a discussion or made a comment anywhere. Please take care, get some agreement and we can merge or whatever properly when you have a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, calm down. I tagged it for a merge and left it in place anyway. So what is the problem?Petebutt (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking Request
Hello.

I've got a simple request to you. I'd be really pleased if you could check mine two newest articles in terms of grammatical sense. Here they are:PZL.3 PZL.27

Sincerely

Tobias von Tobiasov.

Tobias von Tobiasov (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to. If you don't want me to edit or re-write them, tell me now.Petebutt (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's fine, do it. You are a native speaker so you know better what would fit. Tobias von Tobiasov (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, in progress. By the way the Specification template you are using is out of date, go to Template:Aircraft specs for the latest version which is a lot more versatile and converts and adds the unit abbreviations automatically (don't forget to add met or imp) or nothing will show and only input the selected unit system (if you chose metric only input meters, kg,,kW etc.). Happy writing.Petebutt (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have two more questions. First, why do you make points "." betwen leters in PZL? Is it obvious in English? Second, are you sure PZL.3 had 4-men crew? According to my stuff it's 6-men. Tobias von Tobiasov (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cynk was specific in his use of full stops between acronym letters, where the company used the them, so it is a good reference on how they were actually written contemporaneously (I hope your English is up to this, use Google translate if you have difficulties). As for the crew, Cynk mentions Pilot, co-pilot/mechanic, bomb-aimer/gunner, plus the two other gun positions so that is at least five. If you want to change it use the insert citation ( – )function to add an in-line citation.


 * P.Z.L.
 * RWD
 * L.W.S.
 * W.Z.
 * P.W.S.
 * D.K.D.
 * LKL
 * WK
 * CW
 * MS
 * K.L.S.
 * W.W.S.
 * etc.etc.

P.S. Postwar all the Polish company acronyms seem to be written without punctuation,so Pre-war P.Z.L. and postwar PZL Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. I understand it now. Wow. Your knowledge is totally huge. Tobias von Tobiasov (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire
Hi Petebutt! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:
 * 1) What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
 * 2) Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
 * 3) What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
 * 4) Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil and filling it out.
 * 1) My strengths
 * 2) Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
 * 3) Sources which I have
 * 4) Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
 * 1) Sources which I have
 * 2) Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
 * 1) Sources which I have
 * 2) Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
 * 1) Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
 * 1) Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
 * 1) Articles I'm willing to provide assistance

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Prince Eugen von Schaumburg-Lippe
A tag has been placed on Prince Eugen von Schaumburg-Lippe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Prince Eugen
It appears that there already is an article in mainspace on the duke (link is Duke Eugen of Württemberg (1846–1877)). Thus I'm not sure how my userspace article could be affecting your redirect issue. Perhaps you could explain a little more? Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent, Problem solved, ThanksPetebutt (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Prince Eugen von Schaumburg-Lippe
Hi Petebutt, you recently removed a deletion tag from Prince Eugen von Schaumburg-Lippe. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion is no longer valid, as simple as that!Petebutt (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:About
You may not have noticed, but Template:About has limits on the number of parameters which it will accept, and you appear to be exceeding those limits in some of your recent edits. You may wish to read the documentation regarding the template. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, annoying isn't it. For the most part the least important link is maked at the end but it would be nice to have more parameters available, Do you know how?Petebutt (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Douglas DC-3 & Date format
Copyedit from my talk page:"Just for your interest DDmonth yyyy and Monthdd, yyyy are acceptable to wikipedia as long as usage is consistent within the article ,see Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. I was half way through reverting when I thought I had better check.Petebutt (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)"
 * Hi Pete, thanks for your note. The article originally was written with an international date convention, but because of a large number of challenges to this convention being used throughout wp:aviation articles, a general acceptance of "military" or "international" date (D/M/Y) convention is being used for all US and other military aviation subjects and all articles where the subject is not from the US, while a "familiar" or "informal" date (M/D/Y) style is used for US-civil subjects. You will note that this is consistent throughout the WP:Aviation group and was instituted because of some major demands that came from one particular editor, who quoted verbatim:"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently." These challenges resulted in the changes to the Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh and Hindenberg/Graf Zeppelin articles, ones in which he had particular interests, but subsequently spread to other articles. It doesn't matter much to me which style anyone uses, but the US-civil (M/D/Y), US-military (D/M/Y) guideline seems to work out well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the heads up, its best to know the history of decisions like that so they don't get repeated every few years.Petebutt (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:1974_Dan-Air_Luton_incident
It looks like that conversation has come to an end. Do you think it worth taking the article to WP:AFD? - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a re-direct to Luton airport, as a less contentious way of solving the notability problem. The author could also save the article into their userspace if they so wish.Petebutt (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Martin-Baker Mk.1
A Merry Christmas - and other winter festivities Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work! - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Project de-tagging?
Pete, can you please explain at WT:AIR why you are mass de-tagging articles without any edit summary or rationale? You are causing a lot of damage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   20:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What damage? I am removing tags that don't need to be there, nothing more, admittedly some could be argued to be suitable for the aircraft tag, but most are not. Apart from that, when I initiated a discussion on talk pages, project banners, and article assessment, a concensus was reached, by others, that it doesn't matter what is on the talk page, much less what tags are there.Petebutt (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They do need to be there, in some cases you have blanked the page, please stop. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanked what page, please give a reasoned argument for retention of the aircraft tag, where it is patently redundant.Petebutt (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the scope of WikiProject Aircraft. Where is the discussion where consensus was reached to de-tag the articles? Check your contribs for the blanked page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   20:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did that before I started to ensure that I stayed inside the scope. I have re-visited the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and have to admit that it was hardly a concensus, but it was an indication that there is apathy towards article assessment, tagging, and project banners. Maybe this discussion will stimulate interest.Petebutt (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to ask the same question why you are clearly removing the aircraft project from subjects that are clearly in scope, you need to explain what this has to do with assesment as I cant see the link. Think you need to stop and get some sort of consensus for your edits from the project. Are you going to add them all back or do the rest of us have to go back and add them back in? MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I am late to the party. I just noticed you were removing aircraft project talk page tags from articles such as Aircraft dope and Aircraft maintenance‎ with no edit summary to indicate why. It seems obvious to me that articles such as that are well within the scope of the aircraft project. I agree with Nimbus and MB1 that this needs to be discussed and a consensus found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Your discussion there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft only dealt with article assessment, not with project scope. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of reverting some, not all. Maybe I got a bit carried away and applied too strict criteria. I shall continue reversions.Petebutt (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it would do no harm to check the criteria with the project members, I am sure some could be wrong. Perhaps the "scope" on the project page does need to be revisited. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was interpreting it as is it an aircraft, if not then it doesn't get an aircraft tag, likewise with airlines and airports.Petebutt (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspected that. The scope clearly says 'aircraft related', this means aircraft, aircraft systems, components, manufacturers, terminology, maintenance, theory of flight, aircraft history, etc, etc, etc. I know that you don't like to converse but if you are in doubt then flag it up on the article talk page, if there is no response after a couple of days flag it up at WT:AIR. First time in four years that I have seen a project tag removed without being replaced by another parent project. The engines BTW are tagged as just engines and not aircraft and engines, the reason for this is that the project tags drive the stats for each project and task force (see the table at WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance), if articles are tagged with multiple projects the numbers are false. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   22:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to draw the line somewhere. By your criteria Tea should be in the aircraft project because it is served on airliners, an extreme example I agree, but fits with the criteria you describe. More discussion is definitely required, for my part I say that Aircraft project should be just that, Aircraft (all aircraft, airships, helicopters etc., anything that is a machine and flies or is intended to fly). Ancillary stuff like components materials etc would just be under the general Aviation banner. Like-wise engines, airports, airlines etc. An exception would be Rotorcraft, which must also be listed under aircraft. Don't forget that guidelines are not set in stone and be changed / challenged too.Petebutt (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have vetted those articles that I de-tagged and re-tagged those that I think meet the criteria.Petebutt (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

British Airways flight 2157
Hi. I have marked British Airways flight 2157 to be deleted. The comments you placed on the talk page may be best put here. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Petebutt (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 85
I just wanted to bring my deletion remarks to your attention. The television show Mayday has just aired a episode about this incident.William 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

SR-72 AfD
The original AfD is still open. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

List of aircraft (pre 1914)
Evening, I thought I'd contact you sincyou seem to be the only editor other than me active on the abovepage: I've leftanote on thetlk page & would value your input.TheLongTone (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Deperdussin
A bit of clarity is emerging, see the Monocque talk page for more if you have not already. If your 'reliable source' is [], I would say that it is almost entirely wrong from the word 'Type A'. Most photos are wrongly titled. I'vspent a lot of time ovr the past two months or so looking at photos of Deperdussins, so that is no casual slur. And the same site says some vry very dubious things about Voisin Canard, for which the only backup I can find are Gabriel V's 'autobiography', which is generally agreed to be a work of fiction. (I can reference that, btw!). It makes one very grteful for the Putnam books.TheLongTone (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there is a very big hole in the French aviation history library, which is strange considering their pioneering spirit throughout the last century. I shallnot be as trusting of Msr. Hartmann in future!Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I was happily mucking about with the early British stuff, & then the article on the Larkhill trials was put up & I recall making some blithe comment about how it should be easy to identify the French types. I first discovered the huge holes in the wp entries on the area, & shortly after discovered why. There really seems to be hardly anything reliable published, unless I'm much worse at using keyword searches than I thought I was. The Opdycke book 'French Aircraft before the Great War is an enigma: it has clearly been assembled without reference to Flight or indeed to l'Aerophile, there are some really glaring mistakes & omissions and he makes no attempt to collate the types.

(Infuriatingly, you can download the 1910 issues from the Smithsonian, but if they've scanned & put up any other years, I havn't found them). I'm going to grit my teeth & finish off the Type A article, which includes the Type B, which is sort of a Type Aa, & also the 1911 military trials aircraft. It seems to me it's better to have one reasonably substantial article than three that from a technical point of view largely repeat eachother, especially when the actual type designations are shaky. You will have noticed that the Shuttleworth collection don't bother with a type designation.TheLongTone (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So far so good. Thinking about it, it would probably be advantageous to use the Type number system to differentiate the different models, with a note in the article of each one explaining that the Type letter is applied retroactively, naming articles like this:- Depurdussin 1911 monoplane (Type A), this would remove a lot of the confusion that reigns at the moment.Petebutt (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The approach I'm taking is basedon the article in Pegase, (you can find a link to it on the monash site). The author of this uses 'Type A' and 'B', but gives up after it. The article I'm assembling (narly there) has a section on nomenclature, as you suggest. I prefer letters over numbers: they see to be what museums use. The musee de l'air call theirs B, while I thinhk teAustralians are i some confusion, but think it's a B.TheLongTone (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to seeing the results, I'm just sorry i don't have access to better sources at the moment.Petebutt (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Staib Little Bastard
A tag has been placed on Staib Little Bastard, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Staib The Monster
A tag has been placed on Staib The Monster, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburetor
Thanks for reviewing this article and deeming it worthy of a "C" rating. I note in your review that it lacks only sufficient references and citations to become a "B" article. I have added a new source, reworded the article throughout and added a couple of new sections to remediate this shortfall. If you have a spare moment, I ask you give it a second look to see what else can be done to improve its rating.  Buster40004  Talk 04:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I can simplify the metering to a less complicated explanation, if that would improve the article. It is a complex system, but the level of detail needed to convey the basic operation can be reduced to a non-technical level.  Buster40004  Talk  12:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I crave the details, but others do not, and rightly state that this is an encyclopaedia and not a technical manual. Good article though.Petebutt (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: New Aircraft articles
Cheers Peter. Uhlan (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Template
Hey there Peter. Just asking if you know of any templates that list Dornier aircraft? Thanks. Uhlan (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Dornier aircraft, well that answers your question.Petebutt (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Uhlan (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Harbin Z-19
Hi, why did you move the article? The citations are use the term Harbin Z-19! JunoBeach (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The WZ stands for Wuzhuang Zhishengji - attack helicopter, but my references say this is for export aircraft only so sorry I shall request a reversion.Petebutt (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is used in country as WZ - Wuren Zhencha for UAVsPetebutt (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)