User talk:Rlandmann/archive11

Thanks
Thank you for helping me out, I am new to this and I thought I would pay tribute to this great doctor since he had helped my mother and her father out before he passed away.--Nickthearmenian12 (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pics pre-1978
The two pictures with Dr. Kelikian and Bob Dole are from. I know they are pre-1978 but I don't know who took them. I do know they are from. --Nickthearmenian12 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting changes!
RL, you might be interested in this diff. I don't get the need or sense to change "feet-inches" to "Feet/decimals". He seems to have done this on a number of articels tonight, including here. Also note that the broad categories are still being added even while the issue is under discussion. Very interesting. - BillCJ (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Double standard
I'm hoping you can fix something, seeing I can't figure it out: the specbox here wants an optional engine/hp (the info's in the page). Also, FYI, this was created recently, if you want it:

Thanks for the look. Trekphiler (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have known it was more complicated than that.... Thing is, my source doesn't have much more beyond the hp. :[ I was hoping for something beyond a lot of white space. Ah, well. Maybe somebody else has better sources. Thanks anyhow. And don't forget to check out WSP. (Unabashed plug.) Trekphiler (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget Wikipedia. I want that for me! If I ever need to confirm a spec, now I've got a place. You made my day. And considering the crap I've seen from vandals today, that took some doing. Is there an award for that? You just got it. Trekphiler (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This just keeps getting better! I'm not so fussy about verifiability, & for what I want, sometimes a name & a pic is enuf. Thanks a bundle! Trekphiler (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, took your advice: Thomas-Morse Aircraft got some help. For starters. Trekphiler (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
In fact, I think it was more constructive to say in wich aircraft articles you don't want to see the template than speaking about the C 130 (so bad exemple).

Look F-16, you can see a United States tri-service fighter designations post-1962 template. Like the C-130 the F16 has many opérators (didn't exist template for them). It's very hard for me to understand why my Template have too be delete from french vehicles articles like Rafale when I see the number of Us army template at the end of C-130 article.

You can prefer Category than template for it but you have to delete all similar templates (like the C-130's template) before. I don't see anyone speak about this and for me it is a problem. Look Aviation navale or French Army Light Aviation (...) It appears that some users from the Wiki project aircraft are boss of (unjustified and inappropriate) Revert.

After 3 days of discussion, i'm so disapointed to see stubborn users who didn't like change. Of course my template doen't respect the (non-editing) rules of aircraft template but i found it is so easy to demand deletion with this only argument. --Toubabmaster (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can see that Eurocopter Dauphin is a French helicopter.(Not Brazillian...). And You can see that All american aircraft have their own army box.
 * WikiProject Aircraft uses Templates to link together articles about aircraft by the same manufacturer, or in the same sequence of designations. You have forgot so important things. These designations are the US military designation. Maybe you have to adding UK designation (and others) on many articles.
 * Look:Template:ADF Aircraft Template:British military aircraft since World War II (...) Be objective, There is no reason to delete the unfortunate template with this existing pracice.
 * --Toubabmaster (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good arguments to be in a POV situation. Adding the Us army designation template on British aircraft article is unreasonable (Like here). You can defend the curious strictly rules of the WAP but i'm not sure that Aircraft articles will win at the end. I will never be aggree with you and you will never be aggree with me (...) it's a sterile discussion. You can look that my others templates Example Noone tell me about the existing practice or about the others country. Reverting is a speciality of few users of the WAP. You can delete all the templates on aircraft article if you want I prefer to continue my way somewhere else...--Toubabmaster (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with vandalism
Have a bunch of images which are being threatened - all came from US Government sites - a lot are from WWII US aircraft, some are from USAF museums (ie gate gaurdians) / air force base museum posting - some are from USAFM files of aircraft at air shows (ie Texas Raiders, nine o nine)

Also, these images: Image:B-17_483575_nine_o_nine.jpg, Image:B-17_483735_Mary_Alice.jpg, Image:B-17G_483872_Texas_Raiders.jpg, Image:B-24_42-40557.jpg, Image:B-29_Enola_Gay.jpg, Image:Whitman_AFB.jpg, Image:45-21739.jpg, Image:Little_king.jpg, Image:44-86891.jpg, Image:44-86843.jpg, Image:430761.JPG, Image:Hubert_Field_B-25.jpg, Image:Hawg_mouth.jpg, Image:Berlin_express.jpg, Image:485643_F-BEEA.jpg, Image:AM262.jpg, Image:AM259.jpg, Image:Liberator_I_assembly_line.jpg, Image:FAC861.jpg, Image:XB-24B.jpg, Image:XB-24.jpg, Image:AM927_Civilian.JPG, Image:AM927_long_nose.JPG, Image:AM911_aft.jpg, Image:AM911_-_2.jpg, Image:AM911.jpg, Image:AM929.jpg, Image:AM920.jpg, Image:Am910.jpg, Image:Am916.jpg.

Have posted that these are US Government releases and the rest, and tried to make these vandals happy but I am losing this battle - can you block and get these idiots off my case.

really getting fed-up with these games -- thanks in advance Davegnz (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Script help
RL, I'd like to ask you to look at User:BillCJ/Scripts/Revert tools-uw, and see if you can answer a question for me. A few weeks ago, I found WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Revert tools, and it is the only set of tools I've found that works well with IE. Unfourtunately, it was created before the "UW warning system" was in place. I have tried tewking it a bit, and I've been able to change it to use the UWs in some places. My main question at this time is concerning adding a function to include the name of the article fom which the warning is being issued and issued for. DO you know how to add a page name function to such scripts? I'm not asking you to take time out of your day to trouble-shoot the scripts for me, unless of course you could do it in 5 minutes! I really would like to be able to add a few more functions to the scripts, as it has really been a time-saver for me in issuing stock warnings for vandalism. Perhaps you know of antoehr editor who might be able to help me with this script. Thanks for whatever help you can give, in any form. - BillCJ (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my French
I notice you pulled the French a/c cat from the LUSAC-11. I'm not going to argue it, but I do wonder if there is, or should be, a cat for where/who designed it. Trekphiler (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'know, if I'd just bothered to think about it, I'd never have asked.... :D It is pretty obvious. Trekphiler (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships
Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Soviet Navy ships
Category:Soviet Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:United States Navy ships
Category:United States Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Hi. Does it mean, that we must list aircraft under only one category??.. I hope not. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a role of categories in a different way. If I'm looking for, say, Romanian trainers of 1930-39, I just check a category and hope that I can find there all trainers of this period, without checking all aircraft in other categories. I believe there's nothing wrong, that a plane would be under three or four specific categories, because it helps us to find it, especially, when comparing categories of the same period among different countries. That's why I've always tried to place articles under all appropriate categories. I agree, that many aircraft can be used for sports flying, but the only way in my opinion is a common sense, whether being a sports plane is an important feature to describe this plane, or not. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised I'm still getting it wrong; I've just recently figured out I should add them at all. =] In future, I think, I'm just gonna cat them & let somebody better qualified straighten it out. But thanks for the info anyhow.
 * One thing I do wonder is, if the cat comes back red when I use it (cat:general aviation, say), will it come up on the general "cats" page & let anybody who looks know they can fill into it? Or am I hoping for too much? Or should I try to be more specific? (As is, I'm lifting cats from other articles.) Trekphiler (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...So, do you mind, that I still be adding all appropriate categories to articles? In a case, when we have many specific categories regarding aircraft role (in my opinion, too many), multicategorization helps people to find aircraft they want (and that's the reason of categories at all, in my opinion). Overcategorization is not exactly a problem we have, because these categories already exist, and they are not to be deleted (I'm not talking about categories like "propeller aircraft", of course). And since they exist, they should be used, IMHO. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 10:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could this guideline be changed? I think, that it's too strict and it's worth to be discussed, for a sake of usefulness (and it should be main goal). In my opinion there's nothing wrong, if for example DH Mosquito would be listed under bomber, fighter and reconnaissance categories. It helps people find articles, and gives a good view at first glance, what were all British-built fighters in a given period. Possibly we might limit number of categories to three-five most important? Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries on the slow reply, I've been a bit busy at planespotting. Congrats on the good work. As for "lifts", I'm thinking just the obvious ones: biplane, single engine, propeller, & not get too tricky; the mission-specific ones are a headache to use & even more trouble to find, without knowing them, & I'm not so connected I know where they are, nor need to know, usually. I figure somebody will notice the new page(s) & add what needs adding, or take out what's misdirected, eventually; so long as the content's pretty safe for the average reader, I figure the rest is for superusers & admins. Trekphiler (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As you wish... I must admit, that I'm less enthusiastic about aircraft articles in the English Wiki now. In my opinion, that's the reason categories are for - to help people. Too specific categories make no sense, if we must limit ourselves to only one (and isn't a choice arbitrary?... Why primary design purpose, and not most common purpose? Which of several primary design purposes in case of multirole aircraft?). Multicategorization is the only solution, that makes sense in my opionion, especially in case of little-known aircraft and minor countries. I don't think, thare's a real danger of abusing categories - it's quite obvious, that throwing grenades from a trainer does not make it a "bomber". But even if, I think it's worse to omit an important category, than to add unimportant one. I won't start formal voting or discussion - I have no time enough (and additionally, a heated voting in the Polish Wiki discouraged me from votings at all and from writing on naval ships there, despite it was my main activity..). Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 11:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Halberstadt D types
The article on the Halberstadt D.II mentions the D.I, D.III, D.IV, and D.V. In fact it would be hard to imagine the article without those mentions of these other types. The subject of the article is currently the D.II, however - the only Halberstadt single seat fighter to be manufactured in series. If you want to change this then it is the main title at the head - not the upper caption to the picture, that needs changing. Perhaps move the article to "Halberstadt D types"?? I think not - but this would at least make sense. But the caption over the infobox - even in this case, would refer to the exact aircraft type illustrated. At least that is what happens everywhere else. Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New Articles
If I see a new article being created that is completely inappropriate, how do I report this to the proper Admins or can I recommend it for speedy deletion myself? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MilborneOne RfA
Thanks for the nomination and support during my recent RfA with a succesful 73/2/2 result. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding!!
Rlandmann, I am very familiar with the guidelines I know that not just any business can be posted, I've posted lots of notable businesses (as well as artists, writers etc before). NawlinWiki deleted my entry when it had two sentences in it and had a "underconstruction" tag. NawlinWiki claimed it had a hangon tag which it did not. How could you tell if an entry was notable or not on two sentences. You couldn't. And then this second user managed to delete the entry so fast that I think they must be working together or the  same person. Please see my contribution history, I don't include anything that is spammy or advertising.

Thank you so much for answering!! Drewhamilton (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right it's late at night and I am over-reacting. Thanks so much! Drewhamilton (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What the..
I hope you know Googlism does exist. Not constructive? Come on, have some sense. Just deleting my work like that? Not cool dude.--Fallstoofast (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, respond !--Fallstoofast (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Howard DGA-8
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. – ThatWikiGuy (talk|I feel like I'm being watched) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it had no context and looked like a test page when I added the db-test tag. – ThatWikiGuy (talk|I feel like I'm being watched) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * RL, perhaps an inuse or underconstruction tag can pe added to the template you use to load the new pages. That might help avoid such situations as this in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Subcats question
I have just corrected an edit at de Havilland Hornet and noticed the lack of cats at the bottom, they have all been moved to a subcat. Not seen this before I am not sure a single entry cat adds any value and lengthens the route to the main article. Is their any reason the Hornet is an exception, apart from the need to display some images. (side point - photography Charles E Brown worked for DH so are the images free use?) MilborneOne (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are human after all
This is a backhanded compliment, a tongue-in-cheek comment, prompted by you forgetting to sign a talk page message. As a regular, if somewhat gnomish, editor I have had very, very few occasions to find fault with administrators. Considering how minor your oversight, it goes to show the high standard upheld by Wikipedia. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of references
Recently, an editor has been removing reference notes in the bibliography section of Polikarpov I-180, with the edit notes that the additions were made by a non-contributing editor. The main contention was that the reference source had not appeared in the "notes" section and therefore was automatically suspect. Citing sources does not make this distinction although I do know that a number of editors firmly believe that if a reference source was not used in a citation then it should be eliminated, or failing that, put in a "for further reading" section. Bibliographies are intended to be a listing of all reference sources that were used in formulating an article, and therefore, an editor who "fact checked" by finding a corollary source or who read material from that source in order to better understand the topic, can list that source as useful. The particular deletions of reference sources added by a very experienced editor, and a reputable researcher and contributor to the aviation project group, is also problematic. What do you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

American Coed Pageants
This article was deleted for G12: Blatant copyright infringement: http://www.floridapageants.com/history.shtml

FloridaPageants.com is owned and affiliated with American Coed Pageants. There is no copyright infringement. All American Coed Logos and material are either trademarked and/or copyrighted. They are all used with consent from American Coed Pageants, inc.

Lostjedimedia (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a difference between my article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_America, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_usa except that they are larger pageants. I can add winners lists and queens, but I'd like to get past all of this deletion stuff. As far as information being the same on another American Coed website, that would make sense sense the history pageant doesn't change from state to state. It's the history of the pageant and I believe that that is pretty straight forward.


 * regards Lostjedimedia (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Convair GD
RL, I noticed we don't have a manf. template for General Dynamics as yet. Given that they produced very few aircraft under that name (mainly F-111 and F-16), could we expand Template:Convair aircraft to cover GD, perhaps renaming it to Template:Convair/GD aircraft? - BillCJ (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I was just following the pattern of Grumman having NG on its template too, but I hadn't noticed the model number connection. I don't think NG has produced any new aircraft designs since the merger, other than UAVs, so I don't know whose numbering system they've followed. - BillCJ (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder
Thanks for informing me. Check it out yourself i have done those edits just twice on two different days.Which means that I am not even close to 3RR. The matter which I have edited, I have given reference for the same. It was just a minor edit and was constructive enough. So before you send those FALSE warnings make sure your have verified the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil555 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

yup i know that. All that was doing was trying to improve the article.I changed those specifications after making sure that my reference was authentic. But you are correct, I should have told that user about it. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some1 seems to have deleted my reference I'll get back to you shortly with the reference. Daredevil555 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made the necessary changes with the reference, check it out. Daredevil555 (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

de Havilland Hornet images
Seeking your guidance on these; I have spent some time adding what I hope is the information required;

Summary
This is a photo of the de Havilland Hornet prototype. It is believed to have been taken by Charles E Brown and has been attributed accordingly, as such it is used on Wikipedia under fair-use guidelines. The use of this image is believed to be Fair Use in the article de Havilland Hornet as it is a photo depicting an important and unique aircraft, in this case the first prototype, and is being used for its educational value. The image has been used in other articles outside of Wikipedia.

Fair-use
How does that look? Minorhistorian (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JF-17
You are correct defencetalk is not reliable source. But Aviation Week & Space Technology by itself does not mention anything about the weight of JF-17. Not even about the specifications of JF. I have checked out 2 sites which may not be reliable as per wikipedia terms but faily reliable in general. May be we should check out more sites for reliable info. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks for your note. I am very flattered that you would ask me to apply to become as admin. I have to say "no thank you", as I would rather spend my time writing on Wikipedia! Thanks again for asking though. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those kind thoughts - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Cerberus.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Cerberus.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BlueAzure (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-90
The Kamov Ka-90 article has only one source - a message board. While I admire prolific enthusism, this is getting a bit ridiculous! I know you've tried guiding him in the past, but I don't think he's getting RS at all. - BillCJ (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!. - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

An admin baiting/edit warring
RL, would you mind taking a look at this? Anyerverybody/Anynobody is a good editor, yet User:Crum375 seems to have baited him into an edit war on Arrow Air Flight 1285. Imagine my surprise to find out Crum was an admin! He should clearly have known better than to contuinue to revert Any-body after his first revert, even "admonishing" him to discuss it his moves ont he talk page, when ANy had aleady discussed them. Were my health better, I'd follow up on this myself, but I've had a rough week, and don't need any more stress. However, I didn't just want the issue to be dropped eitehr. Thanks for whatever you can do, even if it's just forwarding this on to another andmin or a 'crat. - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I would be happy to take this to any forum. I think the most logical place would be WT:NOR and WT:NPOV, because this is a generic point that impacts both policies. The way I see it, for a Wikipedian to create an image out of his imagination, in an accident article where what exactly happened is in dispute, and often in litigation, is taking a specific position in a dispute and manufacturing evidence, which violates both NOR and NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been stable for months. An editor comes in and forces in his own self-made artwork, violating NPOV and NOR and 3RR in the process. I don't see why a "truce" has to freeze these violations in place. I do agree to sort these issues out in a wider forum, such as WT:NOR and WT:NPOV, but not while the violations are in place. Crum375 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That those are self-made images by him, that he's trying to push into the article is not in question. That the article has been stable for months, based on reliably published material only, without his self-made images, is also clear. I suggest we take this issue up on the relevant policy discussion pages I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying :)
It's nice to know that others are looking out for disputes, even though the page ended up being protected I just wanted to say thank you for trying to broker a solution. Anynobody 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and redid the image as a generic view of the airplane only hopefully that will be a sufficient compromise. Anynobody 06:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on template
I noticed that you created most of the templates in Category:United States Navy aircraft designations navigational boxes, including Template:USN fighters. Looking at the title, I though that it should say "USN/USMC fighter designations pre-1962" like a few of the other templates do (it currently is titled "USN fighter designations pre-1962"), especially considering that some of those fighters were indeed used by the Marine Corps. I was wondering if you did that intentionally, or if that was just an oversight. Please let me know!
 * Great, I will look into that. I also wanted to know if you had any objections to me converting them from Template:navbox to Template:military navigation.
 * Well, it's actually colored somewhat different than the standard navbox, which is the point: consistancy with WP:WPMILHIST infoboxes and the like. But you make a good point, that it would look inconsistant with non-MILHIST navboxes, which I why I refrained from doing it in the beginning. I suppose I will leave well enough alone. ''' bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I wanted to say that you are hell of a lot more pleasant and cooperative than some other editors have been about my project to convert military-related navboxes to template:military navigation. It's nice to reach a consensus without hard feelings.

Images
Look great! Yes, it was an amazing place, and almost completely unadvertised. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Allison T38/T40
RL, Do you know of any good reliable sources on aeroengines? I need to axpand and andd sources to the Allison T38 page, and I've not been able to find anything worht using. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to find both a comprehensive encyclopedia-type source covering almost all aeroengines, and a more detailed one one the major engines. - BillCJ (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a 2006 release of Gunston's book on Amazon, and I'll check around on other sites for the best price/condition on that one. Also, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines seems very interesting, even tho the T38/T40/T56 are well out of the "small" range, and not likely to be covered n the book. - BillCJ (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft
Greetings,

Thanks for providing an edit summary explaining your rationale for hiding Category:Aircraft. I note that Wikipedia:Categorization specifies the __HIDDENCAT__ magic words for maintenance categories, that is to say, categories regarding an article, rather than regarding its subject. I'm happy to discuss the matter, but I strongly believe that the category should remain visible, based on the community consensus expressed at Wikipedia:Categorization. Thanks again, SSBohio 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin help
RL, would you mind looking at ACAC ARJ21? It seems to be in the midst of an edit war, and my attempts to mediate have been ignored and reverted. User:TestPilot, the main reverter here, seems to be defendinga legitimate link, but it is over 6 years old, and the info may be inaccurate now. Thanks. BillCJ (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I'm moving on. You should be able to figure out why from his comments below and on Freepsbane's talk page. Thanks for doing what you feel is right, as you always do. - BillCJ (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User BillCJ
Could you please somehow look at User:BillCJ behavior? As you might know by now, there was an issue with one source link in ACAC ARJ21 article. The link was actually broken. After I fixed link and issue was over, that user, BillCJ, came to to the article and placed "disputed" tag, obviously trying to resurrect an issue(or start new one, idk). I was trying to explain that to him, but he was ignorant. I decided to take an extra step, and provided additional source, but the next step that user, BillCJ, did - was placing nasty warning on my talk page. Something about 3RR in ACAC ARJ21. And I did not used even 2 reverts, not talking about 3 of them!!! I did tried to contact this user, but he decided not to comment on his 3RR obligations. I do have strong feeling that it is sort of personal attack, for whatever reason. And could that warring be somehow removed from my talk page??? The whole situation is sad and ugly.  TestPilot talk to me!  06:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also contacted User:Freepsbane about this issue. Thank you.  TestPilot talk to me!  07:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  TestPilot talk to me!  12:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the FN.333 Riviera
Sorry but I didn't see your comment on my talk page until I had already recreated the article. If you check the discussion page on the SIAI Marchetti FN.333 Riviera article, I've listed the reasons why this article should be kept separate from the Nardi article. If you wish to merge them into one more comprehensive article that would be fine, but it should include all the information from both articles, and not simply delete the contents of SIAI Marchetti article, which is longer and more comprehensive. In addition, a single article should be named "SIAI Marchetti FN.333 Riviera" as this is the name the aircraft was constructed and marketed under. For comparison, the Seabee article is named "Republic RC-3 Seabee" even though the plane was originally designed and built in small numbers as the "Spencer Aircar". It's just that the plane is far better known as the Republic Seabee than the Spencer Aircar, so too was the Riviera marketed exclusively as a SIAI Marchetti FN.333 Riviera (I know this because we looked at them several times in downriver Detroit while owning a Seabee). I am going to take a look at the list of aircraft you mentioned, though I'm attempting to take a whack at the planes our family owned, flew, or looked into, before moving on to unknown territory - Ken keisel (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ken keisel has dumped the text onto the original article without any regard for formating. I reverted the change with a request on the talk page that new material is not just added but included in the appropriate location of the original. He has now replaced all the original Nardi text with a copy of the original SIAI-Marchetti version. The "new" text is not the best written or encyclopedic in areas (a unique, though not unpleasant design) - should really revert again but can you have a look at whats going on please as you have been in discussion with him before. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've merged all the unique information from the Nardi FN.333 article with the more complete text of the SIAI-Marchetti article. The older Nardi article was little more than a stub, and focused mostly on the three pre-production aircraft built by Nardi, not on the actual production aircraft built by SIAI-Marchetti. As a result, the Nardi article comprises only a small portion of the new article, which is much larger and more comprehensive. It still needs a lot more information to be complete, and a photograph would be nice, but the new article is a significant improvement over what little information was contained in the old Nardi article. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Iranian Air Force aircraft
Would you like to work on List of Iranian Air Force aircraft and the Aircraft Inventory section of the Iranian Air force together?


 * Wow, you've done a great job so far.I'll place flag icons in the origin section. Would it be possible to seperate the retired aircraft with the active aircraft. I think we should create it so it looks like List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force and replace the aircraft inventory section in Iranian Air Force with infomation about each type of aircraft like the Indian Air Force--EZ1234 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-118
Hello, Stingray here. I was just wondering why no edits have been made by you or other admins in the Ka-118 page. Have I finally created a page without needing administrative assistance? Have I finally created a page with all the apropriate templates and categories? If there is something wrong with it, just let me know and I'll fix it. ;) --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

PUI
RL, I don't think I've made my case right, so could you check out Image:OCPA-2005-08-11-080331.jpg? I contend that the "Courtesy Image" on the source page means it is not a US aArmy inamge. The fact that it is unclear means we should not be using it, correct? THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding to the Gyroglider page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Talking Mac (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gyrogliders
Thank you for putting the B-6 and B-7 pages in the correct format and expanding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Talking Mac (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bensen-related articles
Thanks for the comment. I took your advice and moved the Gyroglider article to Rotor Kite. I also replaced uses of the word Cyrocopter with Autogyro, unless they were specifically addressing Bensen's work. Quick question though. Why did you revert my Midjet edits. It was a legit article. The Talking Mac (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)