User talk:Petebutt/Archive 3

engine redirects
I've started a discussion [here]. Comment welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 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] 10:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Consolidated Liberator I, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Wikih101 (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Dolphin
See recent changes in the article, using original reference sources. Use talk if you intend to make changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC). I am familiar with citation templates, but there is no use in using them when all that is done is to introduce errors. See the edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

Cybele class mine destructor vessel
Just curious why you state this article fails B5? A photograph, while preferable, is not required to pass it. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just personal opinion. I feel that just an infobox is insufficient and any article I assess is judged similarly. If you think that it is justified go ahead and re-assess.Petebutt (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since I created the article, it would be COI for me to reassess. ;) Just wondered why you reassessed it after it had already been assessed. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating article by the way. It got picked up by the new article bot at Aviation, It's a pity there isn't an image, I searchewd the internet and couldn't find one either. Strange that they were actually given the status of ships even though they were only towed, maybe part of the deception!Petebutt (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very odd indeed. Pretty sure that was the reason - hush-hush, old chap! - The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

SENAN
I appreciate you were trying to help with the SENAN article, but in future please do not add direct machine translations to articles, they are generally too poor if you're not going to do any cleanup afterwards--Jac 16888 Talk 13:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually wasn't too bad from what I read, but yes I did the dirty deed and ran.Petebutt (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 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] 02:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

826 Naval Air Squadron
Thank you for your words of support. They mean all the more as they come from someone who seems to have a creditable track record, as distinct from some of the pompous, overbearing and patronising "administrators".

I don't blame the Bot for flagging the article. That was a fair cop as I had saved it prematurely. What gets my goat was the "Welcome to Wikipedia. We're trashing your article which may have taken two hours of your valuable time. Maybe you'd like to completely rewrite it. Happy editing. Have a nice day" attitude. This is to someone who would have been paid up to 100,000 pounds in a commercial environment for the time they have freely given to the site. "Welcome to Wikipedia" to someone who has done 30,000 edits - you couldn't make it up.

Plucas58 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross series
Thanks for your contributions to the various Knights' Cross of the Iron Cross articles. I reverted some of your changes, particular those adding the "See also" section. I believe the "See also" to be unnessary since the upper right hand navigation template addresses the same needs. Also various reviews of had indicated that a "See also" gives the impression of an incomplete article. And lastly the articles are already rather lengthy. Please also note that the full name of the order is "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross". The Knight's Cross refers to multiple orders. I hope you agree and understand MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't get my head around the fact that they were ALL Knights' Cross of the Iron Cross. The navbox was a definite Doh! on my part. What I am trying to do is elevate them all to at least A-class status, it seems silly that some are and others not for what is essentially a single article split into parts.Petebutt (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

GAN review
Hi, Pete. No rush, but were you going to complete the GAN review for German aircraft carrier II? If not, it's not a problem, just let me know so I can reset it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service GAN
Hi Pete, Thanks for taking the time to review this article. Have you now finished adding comments at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service/GA1? If so, could you please mark the article's talk page as having passed this review? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done it.Petebutt (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

changing templates
Not wanting to sound funny about this, but why are you changing articles from template:aircraft specifications to template:aero specs. The former is an accepted temnplate in long use and shouldn't need changing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because someone has tagged them as requiring either template change or more specs. The template is Template:Aircraft specs, the latest iteration, but yes some earlier ones are acceptable, but there is no problem either changing them or leaving them. Is there a problem I am not aware of?!!Petebutt (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My apology with the redlink, trying to do two things at once. The template template:aero specs missing only marks an article out as needing more specfication data - eg performance data - not that the template needs a change. A problem I can forsee with changing the template is not retaining the original data which should be in the units that are given in the source. If the source is not available to be checked, both imperial and metric set should (need to?) be retained. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a problem with the Template:Aircraft specs, it rounds off the speed conversions such that strange effects occur eg 200 km/h and 201 km/h. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What can we do to address the conversion factor problem. I don't see how it is doing that to be honest. to be so wildly out, maybe somebody has written the script to round to the nearest five instead of one!Petebutt (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've commented on the template talk page. I believe I have the answer. But I am supposed to be "at work" at the moment, so cna't fix for a few hours but it does seem fixable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Royal Air Force & Defence Units & Establishments and Operational Training Units
Good Evening Petebutt

I'm working on a list of Operational Training Units (OTU) do you know where would be a good place to place these?

I'm thinking about placing the units within List of Royal Air Force & Defence Units & Establishments and making a new title for them (there are around 90 OTUs) but i'm not currently sure so i thought i would ask you as you created the list.

Thanks

Gavbadger (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that you ask, I wou;d have said they are already in that list but apparently not. I don't think there is a need to change the title, and if you did it would probzbly be revertyed as being too long. OTUs are covered by the Unit bit. Do you have Lakes Flying units of the RAF?, If not you might have difficulty.Petebutt (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I ordered both RAF Squadrons: A Comprehensive Record of the Movement and Equipment of All RAF Squadrons and Their Antecedents Since 1912 by C.G. Jefford and The Squadrons of the Royal Air Force and Commonwealth, 1918-88 by Halley yesterday but i've never heard of one by lake, I'll get it if the other two books do not cover the Topic. Thanks for the notice on my talk page by the way. Gavbadger (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those books probably won't cover OTUs sensibly. I assume you're getting them from a library, as the Lake book was printed in 1999 and is provbaly very hard to find for sale. (Flying Units of the RAF;Lake, Alan;Airlife;London;1999;ISBN 1 84037 086 6).Petebutt (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks i will have a look. Gavbadger (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 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] 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Company names beginning with the definite article
Thanks for your thoughts on the sheep shearing company name. The trouble is there are many companies whose correct names begin with the definite article. Just as recent fashion dictates (if you can do it) a one word name like Diageo the fashion a century ago was to get started with a The. Should all the other company names be amended just like the sheep shearing company? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In short Yes. Wikipedia is not here to re-write history! Or is it?Petebutt (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well I'm a fan for correcting the occasional Wikipedian excess but I try to be relaxed about it all. Here's a couple of examples where new article names would be immediately in order:
 * The Daimler Motor Company Limited check me here
 * The Austin Motor Company Limited check me here
 * Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Carry on.Petebutt (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wish I could find your enthusiasm! Best, Eddaido (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Blériot XI A class nomination
Hi Pete, I'm afraid that I've closed this nomination as not being successful. I hope that the comments the reviewing editors left are helpful for improving the article, and please feel free to renominate it once you think that it's ready. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always worth having a review to see what is needed.Petebutt (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Bennett!
An image, an infobox, tables of entrants in each competition... I obviously have to try harder! Nice to see that you thought the Bleriot XI article worthy of an 'A-class' review, btw: I've put a bit of work into the article but feel it needs a fair bit more.TheLongTone (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just standard stuff, the vast majority of imageneeded tags are unlikely to be satisfied, but it is necessary to tag them so editors can check what is needed and correlate it with what's available; see: on the WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance page. I suggested the tables as I would be interested in a complete list of entrants and their aircraft, especially as some were rare pioneering aircraft. I nominated the Bleriot article for A-class in the mistaken belief, (yes I didn't check) that A-class came before GA and not the other way round. A nomination for GA would probably succeed!!Petebutt (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * An image of the Trophy would be really nice, if there's a free image out there. The thing has a bronze sculpture of a Wright Flyer on the top. I'll add stuff on the individual races, but my crystal ball tells me there'll be redlinks or links to stubs involved.TheLongTone (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about red-links. they indicate articles that need to be written. Due to Wikipedia's strict search parameters I suggest searching in Google to discover articles that might be relevant.Petebutt (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Any aircraft flyable enough to compete in this race needs an article. Identifying the things can be a huge problem as well: for example Paulhan was flying two different Antoinettes at Rheims. Sources are oftern conflicting...TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to shout!!! (you popped in a semi-colon there. If you check List of aircraft or List of aircraft (pre 1914), you might find most of them have articles already.Petebutt (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I rather like semi colons. Yes, I've done quite a lot od sniffing around the pre-1914 list as I'm sure you've noticed. It's not the redlinks that bother me: it's the links to aircraft about which little reliable is published: I itch to expand them, but my resources are more or less limited to British aircraft.TheLongTone (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LikewisePetebutt (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nearly ready to drop in tables for 1909-1911: only one redlink (Bleriot XXIII, but the Nieuport II was a close shave, only been there a couple of months.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

PZL P.11
This article you contributed to needs one para referenced to remain in the B-class. Perhaps you'll have time to work on it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done!Petebutt (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 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] 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

reqphoto
I see you are very busy with updating aviation talk pages at the moment. Adding the reqphoto is useful but could you please note that the parameters should relate to existing categories. For example not USA but the United States, not UK or Britain but the United Kingdom or England or other region. I know the wording of some others are difficult without looking them up such as Georgia or some African republics so if you do not want to go though he subcategories please feel free just to add reqphoto without any parameters. I have a bot that runs once a week and based on WikiProject templates will set the correct category.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Mostly finished at present, just trying to clean up the nimageneeded pages and widen the catchment area for the requests.Petebutt (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please be careful with reqphoto parameters, if you are getting a red link check existing categories, most topics and places are well covered. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying a re-direct but i am not sire it worked correctly.Petebutt (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note some categories of reqphoto you may find interesting:, . --Traveler100 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC),--Traveler100 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * corrected another --Traveler100 (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Batik Air
I noticed you put a photo request on the talk page for this article. What are you requesting a photo of? Please specify. Thanks, Comp dude 123 15:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! OK, a photo when they finally start operations then!Petebutt (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles H. Zimmerman
I have added a group photo to the page which includes C.H. Zimmerman. Also a photo of some of his work (looking at the dates I do not think it is him in the photo). --Traveler100 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, but is Zimmerman one of them?Petebutt (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you click on the image the description states he is the 16th from left.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a good one of George H. Prudden too.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets better, I knew it was a good idea to widen the catchment area. Well done!Petebutt (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

RLM numbering system for gliders and sailplanes
I think you had better look again at the reversions you carried out on this article. Strictly speaking it is your actions that could be construed as vandalism!!Petebutt (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted the changes mainly because they said "Data from German Military Aircraft Designations (1933-1945). However this webpage quotes the Wikipedia article as its primary reference. This is clearly an example of a circular reference which I couldn't resolve. I tried to clarify in my second edit summary that it was not a case of vandalism. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Think about it. The info inquestion was not mentioned in the article, which is why I put it in. So how can it bew a circular reference if the article didn't have the info in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Egg definitely comes first!!Petebutt (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a note to say that the reference to wikipedia quoted in the reference is incorrect.Petebutt (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Found the source of the trouble. A previous editor has obviously removed the table list after Mr Pausch wrote his webpage, so the circular reference did not exist.Petebutt (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that now the article quotes no main source, whereas the version I originally reverted to at least had a contemporary primary reference, the Flugzeug-Typenbuch of 1939/40. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a problem,but te Typenbuch didn't give the correct RLM designations. We shall have to find a sourcre somewhere. Somebody must have one because the wikipedia article came first.Petebutt (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
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] 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Aviation accident TF
Why was the sub-page for the accident TF changed here? I don't see any discussion for it, and now all the templates that link to that page, e.g., Template:WikiProject Aviation, have redirects, and you can't use the "up folder" option anymore. I don't see a benefit to it, and I think it should be changed back, as the majority of project TFs are subpages. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update, I've moved the task force page back to its original page name, so that it remains a sub-project of WikiProject Aviation, and all the backlinks will work now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That'll be why I got wierd results when I tried to revert. Does it work OK now?Petebutt (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually trying to turn it into a primary page instead of a sub-page, but the results I was expecting didn't material ise and then I had real life intervene. Thanks for the repair job.Petebutt (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think it's working okay now. Cheers! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Chicago (airplane)
Hi. I was wondering is we could come to some agreement on this merge issue. Before your proposal, I had proposed this article for use on July 14 at did you know because of the Bastille Day angle. Now, it wont be eligible until we hash this out, so there is bit of a time issue. I created this article based on a request at the Smithsonian Project page, so there was at least some indication that a separate article is warranted. I did comment at the merge discussion and I think I understand your point but given the names of the two articles, it does appear they are on different related subjects - similar to any article pair about a class of things and an individual notable example. So, would you be willing to abate your merge proposal? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The slashing of content to bolster a case is not acceptable and when just refusal to listen to others is also evident, the rewrite of the new article was always a possibility but the Douglas World Cruiser and First aerial circumnavigation are the main articles and there does not appear to be any need for a peripheral article. Three months is really a long time for a merge proposal, typically a one-week period suffices. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Are you talking to me or Alan? I, for onr, am not talking of slashing content, but ensuring what is there is in the right place and of a good standard. As i say in the discussion better one very good article than several mediocre ones.Petebutt (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not you. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC).

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Woomera Test Range
Hello Pete. I noticed that you have recently reassessed this article as "Start class" from "B class" with this edit. Not sure if you realised though that both MILHIST and WPAVIATION templates are still displaying it as "B Class". This is because each of these templates still have the B class checklist filled out with all "yes's", so it is automatically displaying the assessment as B class. If you feel the article still needs further development to reach B class (I have no opinion either way) then you will just need to adjust the B class checklists appropriately to reflect this (i.e. is it lacking for referencing, coverage and accuracy, structure, grammer or supporting materials?) etc. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that The assessment systems for WPAVIATION, WPGERMANY and WPMILHIST require the start classification for the automatic assessment to work, so don't worry and dont change it', or the B-class will disappear.Petebutt (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday again Pete. Now I'm confused - if an article is assessed as meeting all the B class criteria then shouldn't it be a B by definition? Likewise if it is a Start shouldn't it not meet all the B class criteria? Like I said I actually don't have an opinion on whether the article in question is a B or a Start, it just looked to me like you were reassing it as a start, but had left all the criteria as "yes" by mistake. If thats not the case then no problems (although I'm still confused)! Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just the way it is. Projects without the automatic assessment have to be labelled B or C class but those with don't.05:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Petebutt (talk)
 * Check out the Assessment page at WikiProject Aviation/AssessmentPetebutt (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read it too now. The class must be stub, start or B for the checklist to work.Petebutt (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Actually I think the issue is with the way the WP:Aviation template is set up. You (Australian collective) need to use lower case "b's" in the B Class checklist for some reason. MILHIST doesn't seem to be case sensitive though. I've made the change so hopefully I've understood the issue correctly. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that those projects with automatic assessment do not need to have the class changed from stub or start to be classed as C or B.Petebutt (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but it seems to be displaying correctly now though fol the change I made (as B class). To deliberatly use class=start to trick the WP:AVIATION template into displaying it as B class is not necessary and seems counter-intuitive to me. Just use class=B and lower case "B's" in the B class checklist, i.e. b1=yes as opposed to B1=yes . I don't think its an issue with the MILHIST template though, which seems more accomodating. Anotherclown (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting confused now. Is there a problem? Nobody is tricking anybody. As the process is automatic there is no need to bother changing the class, simple as that.Petebutt (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem friend. You imputed class=start when you appeared to mean class=B (at least thats what I thought). I interpreted your reason for doing so as being a way of getting around a bug in the template (i.e. that it wouldn't display the automatic assessment of B class unless you did so). Hence I summarised this in my post as you attempting to "trick" the template into displaying what you CORRECTLY wanted it to display, but which it wasn't doing. I wasn't accusing you of trying to trick someone. Pls correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is you were trying to get the WP:AVIATION template to display the article class as B class, which it now does so there is no problem AFAIK. I was attempting to explain why you were having the difficulty I percieved you were having, thats all. Anotherclown (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanna organize your user page?
Wanna organize your user page? I can show you how. Tonymax469 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * GO ON THEN!Petebutt (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to shout, forgot the caps lock.Petebutt (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

World War II films
Hi, That new page name uses a date range, so it should be 1950–1989 with an endash. Cheers, 99.237.226.35 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Turbomeca
Dear Pete, I have reverted your recent page move, the article was named in accordance with WP:DIACRITICS which says that the title should follow the form used in the sources. Both Gunston and Flight use the form that I created the article with. Turbomeca is not accented across the project for consistency, neither is an accent used by Gunston for the company, nor the company website. The accents are left in the names of Turbomeca engines because they do change the pronunciation.

I note that you are still carrying out undiscussed moves, with engines articles at least could I please ask that you add a move request to article talk pages or at the main talk page of the engine task force. There is one further problem with your page moves that you may not be aware of, moving causes a redirect to be left behind, the navboxes are set up with the correct names of articles so that they 'auto bold' as they should do when they are opened in the host article. This feature does not work with redirects and a bot eventually finds the error some weeks later (sometimes not at all). Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   19:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it just seemed silly only using diactiticals on half the titlePetebutt (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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] 09:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Help needed
Can you suggest more improvements to DRDO Netra to enable a B-class rating? Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Virtus
Added a pic. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, now B-class!Petebutt (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

United Arab Airlines Antonov An-24
Are photos of airplanes at airliners.net eligible for uploading to WP? If so always, or is it in just some cases. I saw what you did with United Arab Airlines 749 and China Southwest Airlines Flight 4146 and was just wondering.

I created two other new crash articles the last days. Avioimpex Flight 110 and Indian Airlines Flight 171. Feel free to work on. Cheers!...William 01:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * airliners.net photos are usually not free copyright and so cannot be used unless the author relinquishes copyright. there are ways of acquiring rights to photos but it is usually not worth the hassle.Petebutt (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)(edited on iPad)


 * I just did Palair Macedonian Airlines Flight 301 and WP Commons has a photo of the doomed plane. Could you please put it in the article? I don't know how to transfer. Thanks....William 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Infobox replaced and photo added, also assessed as B-class.Petebutt (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

re Slingsby Primary reqphoto


No, but a very close relative, being the origin of the vast majority of primary gliders (see Stamer Lippisch Zögling). Nor really representative as very few, if any, Slingsby Primarys had nacelles fitted.Petebutt (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sopwith Bee
Nice that you rate this C-class, I thought it was one of those aircraft forever doomed to remain a stub!TheLongTone (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is a fine line. I usually assess whether there will be much more to come. Those articles which have used up availabele info I usually rate as start and asswess for B-class from there. If an article seems to have much more to give then I assess more strictly.Petebutt (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your renaming of Thai Air Force base articles
Such renames aren't in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on article titles. They are neither recognizable nor natural, and don't help improve precision at all, since RTAFB still obviously stands for Royal Thai Air Force Base, regardless of what military units are stationed there, and it is clearly what the places are mainly known for. Also, An acronym or initialism should be used in a page name if the subject is almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form (e.g. NASA and radar). No one apart from Thai Air Force enthusiasts is likely to know what RTAFB is supposed to mean. Please strongly consider moving the articles back; thank you. --115.67.2.140 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You quote the policy yet obviously haven't read it:-

* Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. * Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. *Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise. *Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long. *Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

To rename all the RTAFB articles would comply with these criteria!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course I read all of that. Sorry, but I don't understand why you think having "RTAFB" in article titles will in any way be in accordance with said policy. Perhaps a formal request is in order. Thanks for your time. 182.52.52.32 (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) (pardon the dynamic IP address)


 * Is there a formal discussion on the renaming of these articles?  I would like to join in on it please.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this discussion be done in a more formal place, like the talk pages of the articles in question, or in a centralized place of a relevant WikiProject closest to all the articles in question?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AirportsPetebutt (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of US Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36 Stage III


The article US Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36 Stage III has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable subject, no refs since it was created

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. Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ANA Skymaster Amana crash
Hi Pete! Our article ANA Skymaster Amana crash is little more than a stub even though it represents a most significant accident in Australia. I am presently using my Sandbox2 to comprehensively expand the article. I have posted a message at the article Talk page to alert people to the text on my Sandbox and invite comments, but so far no response. If you are interested, could you have a look at Talk:ANA Skymaster Amana crash and let me know your thoughts? Thanks.

I am also proposing a change to the name of the article to more closely match the current guidelines provided by the WikiProject/Aviation community. Dolphin ( t ) 05:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a lot wrong with it. Needed sections to split it up, which I have added ( and moved some paras). The assessment is the opposite of the one alreadt done. Some attention to the grammar and style is required to eliminate Shot-Gun sentences but other than that it's good.Petebutt (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An expansion of the investigation section would be nice too.Petebutt (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at it. I'm sure I can expand the Investigation section. Can you give me some examples of deficiencies you saw in the grammar? Also, an example of a shot-gun sentence? Dolphin  ( t ) 00:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm mixing my own metaphors. I meant to say machine-gun sentences. Where sentences are too short. And do not flow together. To make good prose. A fault of our American cousins. But having a second look there is not a problem apart from the Investigation section. Keep up the good work.Petebutt (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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] 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Upper case in article titles
Hi, thanks for your work in creating aviation articles. Please note that lower case is used except for the very first character and for the initials of proper nouns. Tony  (talk)  02:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but what articles are you referring to? Petebutt (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Renegade Falcon T
It wasn't a redirect at the time. KTC (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK

Recent move of article
Do you honestly think that your recent move of Edward O'Brien (Irish republican) to an article title including the word terrorist in the title is in keeping with WP:NPOV and if yes would you care to explain how. Mo ainm ~Talk  07:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of a terrorist!! Someone who tries to impose his/her political views through the use of violence to TERRORISE innocent people.Does that not describe Edward O'Brien?? The evidence is irrefutable because he died in the act of planting a bomb inteneded to do just what a terrorist is defined by. How is this not NPOV. I can't help feeling that youare one of those looney lefties that think calling a spade a spade might hurt its feelings. Anyway Wikipedia is supposed to be clear to the point and ACCURATE. Further to the point, calling him an Irish Republican does a huge disservice to those law-abiding republicans that did not resort to violence in the pursuit of their political aims;or are you saying that ALL Irish Republicans are/were terrorists? If you really object that much puta requested move in and you will probably get your way, butat a moral loss.Petebutt (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well we could say soldier, volunteer, freedom fighter, terrorist, extremist, any number of terms, which one would fit NPOV? Also you say "What is the definition of a terrorist!! Someone who tries to impose his/her political views through the use of violence to TERRORISE innocent people" could it not be argued that it applies to any member of any army that wields a gun, be they American or British army or IRA. Mo ainm  ~Talk  09:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

1973 British Airways bombing attempt
Can you explain this WP:PROD a bit more? On the face of it this looks like a reasonable article - I accept that a failed bombing might not be notable, but I'd like to see an AFD on that really. But I don't want to de-prod it yet in case I'm missing something re sockpuppets. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It bears all the hallmarks of a known sockpuppet user, i.e. Very poor grammar and spelling, obsession with terrorism, writing articles on very obscure non-notable aircraft incidents / accidents. I must apologise; I have the wrong user see Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick, close but not close enough. It still fits his Modus Operandi.Petebutt (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if notable the major issue is the use of a sockpuppet. which warrants IMMEDIATE deletion.
 * I am 600josh and I have been blocked from editing because I am blamed of being RYAN???? All artcales I have done where notable. A number of terrorist attack by the IRA and other incident thought the world. I looked into the guide line of natable of terrorist incidents. All my work fitted them guide line. Yes my spelling was not great but that was because of the limated information that I could fined. I am happy that 1974 British Airway bombing attempt has been saved. But me being blocked I fear of it being deleted. Looking into terrorist incidents one the things I do best. I did mean to harm Wikipedia in any way just to help make better by show a peace of history that now adays no one would even known it happened. I am sorry for any problems I have caused and I do with you can help me to be unblocked. I promise to do better with my spelling and editing, think you . 1:30 15 September (GMT)
 * I am sorry that you are blocked, the intention was to investigate as the article bore all the hallmarks of the notorious sockpuppeteer. There is an appeal process which will get a block lifted if you are who you say you are. Do not worry too much, I have been blocked before ( for other reasons), it is good for the soul.Petebutt (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell you aren't blocked. The investigation is probably stalled anyway due to lack of evidence, which would be correct if you aren't Kirkpatrick. Sorry if I have caused upset, I shall try to be more circumspect in future, it is just that I was convinced that you were a sockpuppet of his.
 * It would seem thatyou are indeed blocked, I have asked the administartor responsible whether he had actual evidence and we shall see what the outcome is

Let's start again: Welcome to Wikipedia, how can I help!Petebutt (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thnak you, I need to know how to be unblocked. As you know I am a new user and I am not sure what to do now. All my work is focused

on terroist incidents nothing more. How can I be unblocked and convince people I am not Ryan Kirkpatric? 12:09, 16 September (GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.6.190 (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall check my archive for the template. The blocking editior should have left behind the means for you to appeal. Watch this space.Petebutt (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Found it Appealing a block, also see Template:UnblockPetebutt (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ihope that you are not trying to unblock using a different account. That would result in the ban turning into a permanent block as it would be doing exactly what you are blocked for. Carry out all appeals on your user page only!!Petebutt (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Any further discussion of this must be directed to the users talk page User:600josh or the investigation page Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrickPetebutt (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet evidence
Hard evidence is a bit lacking, just the subject matter, the authors grammar and spelling, (as originally posted), and previous sock puppets from the assumed author i.e. User:Ryan kirkpatrickPetebutt (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

PZL Bielsko SZD-56
Petebutt: ASG29 certainly should be cross-referenced here (Diana article), it is a great machine. But about the wing loading comparison:
 * 1) can you give the reference? Brief search of http://www.alexander-schleicher.de gives 33-57kg/m2 wing loading, but perhaps for 18m configuration and/or without engine...
 * 2) I could not find any "inacurate" statement on Diana 2 wrt wing loading. It says "very large range", not "record maximal". Can you point to the phrase which is inacurate? Somewhere (I could not find on Wikipedia) people talk about record RANGE of wing loading (Diana 2 can change by more than 100%), this still seems valid... Szafranpl (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I added "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era" to the article, based on this year participation at WGC Uvalde in 15m class. Could you add/delete if you think something is missing/misplaced? I am new to soaring. BTW, is there a bot which automatically fills symmetric "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era" for referenced aircraft or should it be done manually? Thanks. Szafranpl (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell I have had no input to this article whatsoever, so i can't help you!! Petebutt (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was Talk page entry by user Petebutt, here is the notification I got:
 * The Wikipedia page "Talk:PZL Bielsko SZD-56" has been changed on
 * 17 September 2012 by Petebutt, with the edit summary: -
 * See
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PZL_Bielsko_SZD-56&diff=next&oldid=234349890
 * to view this change.
 * There is also some confusion as user Petebutt is moving talk page from "PZL Bielsko SZD-56" to "Diana Sailplanes Diana 2" right now. But importantly, if yesterday entry was not by you then someone stole your identity. This is serious, you should investigate. Szafranpl (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disregard, I made a mistake on who edited what in this article. There are evaluation edits signed by you (talk page), probably your bot. Szafranpl (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely not me as I would sign with four tildes. After you brought the article to my attention I moved it to the proper title, i.e. the latest name in production.Petebutt (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me amend that the Talk page move was automatic and the Project assessment was done by me because that is what I am doing presently - assessing articles with incomplete B-class checklists. So yes todays changes were me,but before that I haven't a clue!!!Petebutt (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of aircraft (L), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lockheed Orion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
N2e (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Blanking
Why did you blank Talk:2012 De Havilland Dragon crash? Seems within the scope. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * iMMATERIAL AS THE ARTICLE WILL BE DELETED ANYWAY, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, MOT LEAST THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY A SOCKPUPPET, sorry about the shouting (caps lock)Petebutt (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Article assessment
Hi Pete,

Sorry to trouble you but your many recent article assessments are causing problems.


 * 1) If you complete three parameters in the B class checklist as 'yes' then the article becomes 'C' class. This automatically shows on the talk page but appears as 'start' class on the article page for readers using navigation tools. You need to also change the article class parameter to reflect the assessment.
 * I was unaware of navigation pop-ups, will make sure letter reflects assessment


 * 1) Same applies if you complete all five parameters, article shows as 'B' class on the talk page but 'start' class on the article page if this is how you left it.
 * 2) You have demoted start class articles to stubs where the articles clearly have a structure, references, infobox and lead image and navboxes. These are not stubs per WP:ASSESS.
 * Some articles I felt didn't warrant start class, but I will check the assessment guidelines more thoroughly


 * 1) More puzzling is your award of 'no' for grammar and style to articles that are written in plain English with no obvious grammar or spelling problems?
 * I do this when the author uses bad grammar, or machine-gun sentences which don't flow together making poor prose.

Please be aware that talk page assessments drive the article quality tables, to see the number of lower class articles increase is misleading and discouraging (particularly with aero engine articles (see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft engine articles by quality statistics. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment by its very nature is subjective and there is no reason why someone cannot re-assess, after all nothing is set in stone. I shall carry on in much the same fashion but modify the way I do it.Petebutt (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * True, though it could look like edit warring if I have assessed an article, you change it (up or down) and I change it again (usually back to what it was). I'm particularly interested in improving/promoting the engine stubs, at one time there were 180, now there are 260. This may be because new articles have been created since the task force formed. Some of them will remain stubs forever unless new sources are found. Cheers and thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   09:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ishouldn't worry too much, someone will come along and fill in any gaps eventually.Petebutt (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)