User talk:Redjacket3827

=WikiProject Aviation=

Bell P-63 Kingcobra
Hey Redjacket, thanks for the clean up. should have thought of resto section myself, good idea! Will be getting back to other airframes, the primary sited ref of warbird resource group was checked in Dec 2010 but actually the newest update on P-63's is 2002! I will be doing some checking and updates on all survivors this weeked. Thanks for the help and glad to meet another fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemmatador (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Curtiss SB2C Helldiver and Douglas SBD Dauntless
Please note the changes to the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver and Douglas SBD Dauntless; I realize that adding a survivors list is useful and all your submission are WP:AGF, but taking a few seconds more to give full details to the citation would save a lot of cleanup afterward. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Bzuk, Sorry about that, just ignorance on procedure on my part. I've modified the Helldiver, Dauntless, B-26 and B-50 pages.  The only other ones I plan to do are the B-24 and B-29 (and possibly the B-17, haven't decided yet).  Keeping them simple, accurate and uniform.

List of surviving A-26 Invaders
Hi, Redjacket3827, nice tweak to the table. Appreciate your interest there and in survivors elsewhere. Grateful if you can keep aircraft histories out - my aim was just to present current location, status, markings, etc, PeterWD (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Supplemental. Strongly disagree with your latest amendment. The identity of an aircraft is that which is painted on it - it is not necessarily related to original USAAF identity or FAA registration. The purpose of that column is to allow people to identify the aircraft from photos or a visual sighting, based on the single most prominent tail number. Less prominent identities and names therefore go in the remarks column. Please return the table to its rational state. PeterWD (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I reverted it back.  The only other thing I am going to do is add some more airframes and update the references to what is out on warbirdregistery.  I'll also fix some of those broken linksRedjacket3827 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your understanding and actions. By broken links, if you mean red links, then please do fix them if there is anything to link to. I leave them in place in the hope that someone will create a suitable article - in case you are not aware, in Wikipedia such links appear on a list of "articles wanted" (forgotten where to find it) to encourage their creation or disambiguation. I have been studying detailed histories of A-26s for many years, using all the electronic and paper sources I can get access to, and I keep tabs on almost everything published. I maintain hundreds of thousands of aircraft images, and millions of aircraft data entries, with electronic checks against the downloaded FAA register every month. My experience of Warbird Registry is that the A-26 data is mostly just plagiarised from a very old paper copy of Geoff Goodall's Warbirds Directory (later on CD in 2008), but with added typos and misunderstandings. Example of code alongside the FY serial (A-02) means that it was judged airworthy, but last update was in 2002. Not many A-26 status codes after that date. I have tried sending updated info to the website, but never any acknowledgment or action. Meanwhile, we have much more and better information. The aircraft in the table are the only confirmed existing whole sets of airframe parts. Some have unknown origins, and may never be traced. eg Salvador 601, that is almost certainly ex-CIA and therefore devoid of data plates or other ID (colleagues have inspected it externally). Similarly, 44-35732 cannot possibly be the original FY serial of the Warner Robins A-26, but correspondence with museum staff has not yet revealed its true origin.PeterWD (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS There are additional surviving A-26s not in the table, but they don't qualify for being accessible or viewable, or likely to be accessible soon to the public. See also discussion page for the article. PeterWD (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

List of surviving B-17 Flying Fortresses
While I appreciate your work on survivor articles you appear to be using a different format to other survivor articles, I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aircraft, your comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MelborneOne. Good to see another person interested in military aviation!  I just responded to your post.  Basically I said I am ok with either format country/status or status/country.
 * No problem - I am happy to help tweak the format etc but please keep up the good work. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Tri-State Warbird Museum P-51
About 1 month ago I tried to update/add the Tri-State Warbird Museum's P-51D to the list of P-51 Mustang survivors. You reverted my edits. I want to make it clear: I am NOT angry. I came here to ask for your help in properly updating the list. I volunteer at the museum and know for a fact that they do indeed have an airworthy P-51D. The serial number it is currently painted as (44-84410) matches the aircraft on the list I tried to change. I cannot find the museum's aircraft on the FAA registry. However, I do have other sources confirming its information and that the aircraft exists. One of the sources even connects the information on the aircraft on the list I tried to change to the aircraft at the museum. It is also listed under a different s/n (44-73260). However, upon searching the FAA registry with that serial number, it does not refer to the correct aircraft either. I happen to know that the P-51D at the TSWM is comprised of multiple airframes, possibly 4. Bottom line: This is really confusing, please help. -Noha307 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noha307, no worries! It is very confusing in researching that particular aircraft, and I don't think I have the answer.  I'm not an expert on these things, I just undertook going through wikipedia and updating all of the survivor pages (as they were uncited and unorganized).  I say go ahead and change it back to the Tri-State Warbird Museum, citing both the FAA and the tri-statewarbird museum links, as well as maybe either warbird registry or P51 survivors, just to show the complexity of that particular owner info.  Thanks for your hard work at the museum, as we need to keep these birds in the public's eye.  And thanks for your interest! Redjacket3827 (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

List of surviving North American B-25 Mitchells
Hi, noticed your comments in a recent edit summary "(all certs cancelled (were listed as restoration and probably were just hold numbers))". I think perhaps you need to look further into how the FAA register is compiled and maintained. The existence of an entry there does not constitute evidence that any aircraft exists, or even has ever existed. An applicant pays an initial small fee, and a registration 'N-number' is issued. Until recently, the registration number would remain on the register until the applicant declared to the FAA that it was exported, destroyed, or otherwise not required. If the owner failed to respond to periodic enquiries from FAA, the registration would remain. So, there are still many aircraft that are known to have been exported or destroyed as early as 1950, but remain on the register. The FAA is currently running a project to clean out all the old rubbish, but it's a long task. In 2009, there were 374,000 entries, now reduced to 322,000 despite many new aircraft (mostly homebuilts?).

One example you list as airworthy is N10564/44-29887, but that ceased flying before 1985, and currently believed in storage with NASM, who don't fly their exhibits anyway. The Warbirds Resource Group website is notoriously unreliable, inaccurate, and lacks accountability. I recommend that you review all the B-25 article entries with detailed histories to be found in Thompson 1997 B-25 Mitchell in Civil Service and Geoff Goodall's new online version 6 of Warbirds Directory, see: North American PDF. (I'll be watching here) PeterWD (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter, thanks so much for the response! I agree with you on FAA entries.  The only ones I find reliable are the ones that list Airworthy Dates.  Those I listed in the Airworthy section, and only then if they were recent (usually within the past 10).  All of the restoration to flyworthy conditions I rely on (unfortunately) the FAA entries.  Warbird Resource Group is VERY unreliable.  In fact, I've gone through most of the entries and change the references from WRG to either the museum cite or FAA entries.  I will look at the source you listed and update those entries accordingly.Redjacket3827 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Mixing metaphors, I think you might still be skating on quicksand to infer anything about airworthiness from the online FAA site data, note the waiver at the bottom of each N-number results screen. I have just tried to research the meaning of dates in the FAA data, and my interpretation is as follows:
 * Status (database - STATUS) - One of 40 codes. eg V=Valid means no ongoing issues or other activity in the FAA registration file for this N-number.
 * Certificate Issue Date (database - CERT ISSUE DATE) - The date when the first Registration Certificate was issued for this applicant and this airframe - note this does not update if a replacement N-number is issued to the same applicant, or if the address changes.
 * Expiration Date (database - EXPIRATION DATE) - The date when the current Registration Certificate expires, being 3 years after the N-number was re-registered - this is a new regulation from 1 October 2010.
 * A/W Date (database - AIR WORTH DATE) - The date when the first Airworthiness Certificate was issued for this airframe - prior to 1956, this could be updated on each yearly CofA renewal, thereafter only recorded once in central FAA filing. If a N-number was issued to an airframe, absence of date does not deny past or current existence of the airframe.
 * Last Action (database - LAST ACTION DATE) - The date when the last change was made to the aircraft details - includes ownership changes. This parameter is only in the downloaded data file, not in the online searchable data.
 * PeterWD (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwings
=WikiProject Texas=

Alvin ISD
The links were broken, and it may be too much work to add a link for it to become outdated quickly. It may be easier to just link to the district at the end. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any at the moment aside from maybe beefing up the references. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

=WikiProject Toys=

List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters
Hello! Thank you for cleaning up List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters, as it hadn't been updated in a while. However, some of the information that you have removed is not covered by any other G.I. Joe articles, specifically the exclusive figures and the Pursuit of Cobra line. I realize that all the figures since the 25th anniversary are not technically A Real American Hero characters, but why can't that information be included in the article? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortdj33, thank you! There was some discussion between myself and another person in the Talk page of the List of G.I. Joe: ARAH characters on that same issue a while back.  I think it was decided that Rise of Cobra and Adventure Team exclusives would not be included (and now GI Joe Retaliation).  The gray area was the Pursuit of Cobra line (and now that one Transformers crossover figure).  Technically Pursuit of Cobra isn't ARAH, but it isn't Rise of Cobra either.  But then neither is GI Joe versus Cobra (and they are listed).  Should they be on the same page, but in another list?  What do you think?Redjacket3827 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the section headers that you've added to the list, but one of my concerns is that by lumping all the convention and collector's club figures into their own sections, there is no longer any differentiation between the original O-ring designed characters, and the 25th anniversary designed characters. Also, if we are going to include all the lines of G.I. Joe characters, including those that are not technically A Real American Hero, the scope of the article in general will need to be changed. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was trying to figure out a way to do the convention/collector's club figures, but for now that seems to work.  Maybe they can be divided further into "pre-25th" and "post-25th".  The list as it was just was getting too big.  As for other lines of figures, I agree with what you are saying (and I even put back the figures you had originally).  But we need to list ALL 3 3/4 inch GI Joes from 1982 to present.  Should we update the paragraph leading into the list to reflect this?  What are your thoughts? Redjacket3827 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North American F-100 Super Sabre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museum of Aviation ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/North_American_F-100_Super_Sabre check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/North_American_F-100_Super_Sabre?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of active United States military aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggressor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)