User talk:Stingray, the Helicopter Guy

Hi there
Hi Stingray - well, you seem to have caused quite a stir here :)

I hope you won't be discouraged by this shaky start - you're clearly passionate about helicopters and eager to improve Wikipedia's coverage.

If I can offer a little advice - probably the three things you need to take away from this experience are:
 * 1) Never copy-and-paste material from elsewhere directly into Wikipedia (unless you know for sure that the site is copyright-free). Simply re-arranging a few words isn't any good either - you really need to digest the facts and then express them again in your own words.
 * 2) Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles about separate subtypes of aircraft unless there's a lot to say about that particular variant. Usually, variants are noted in the main article about the aircraft, and if and when that section becomes too big (for aircraft with many variants, like the Mi-24), we use a separate "variants" article (or even two, like Supermarine Spitfire variants). Only in exceptional cases will an individual subtype warrant a separate article (like F/A-18E/F Super Hornet).
 * 3) Don't overlink. Only link terms that are going to assist the reader in understanding the subject of the article. For example, ball and window and even fuselage are common English words - they don't require a link.

Like I said, I really hope you haven't been too put off. We were all beginners once, and I hope you'll stay with us. Please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions or need any help. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mil Mi-7
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without either resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Erechtheus (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats all the information available. Im sorry for removing that. Won't happen again.Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's my hope that by highlighting the issue, somebody will come along and add to the article. That's the biggest point of the maintenance template if you ask me. Erechtheus (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I hope there is a smarter person out there to fill it in. I am also hoping more pictures will be released of these new helicopters I'm adding, as well as info. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Variants" articles
Hi again Stingray - it's good to see you being bold, but please don't go splitting the variants sections out of short articles like you've done with the Mi-1, Mi-2, Mi-4, and Mi-6. This kind of split is saved as a last-resort, "necessary evil" strategy when an article grows unmanageably large. There's no hard and fast rule, but we start considering it with articles above 30 kb or so in length (you can see the length of the article in the "History" tab), and even then we usually hold off as long as we can. The articles you've been splitting up are nowhere near that point. I've reverted these - so no harm done.

You might like to join in at WikiProject Aircraft - the group of editors who look after Wikipedia's aircraft coverage and try to achieve a uniform look and feel to these articles.

Tip: You can "preload" the standard page layout for aircraft articles by typing into a blank page and hitting "save". If you do this, be sure to save the page again very quickly with some actual text in it, or one of the New Page Patrollers might mistake it for a test or accident of some sort.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm...thats a good idea. I also like the new tables that have recently been added to my articles. Great.

PS: I'm thankful the new designations in the Mi-6 article weren't removed when you reverted.Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Facts
Please be extremely careful when contributing facts to Wikipedia. I've spent some time today cleaning up your recent contibutions, and I've come across some very strange pieces of information - so strange that it looks to me like you've simply made things up.

For example: your contributions on the Mil V-5, V-7, and V-16 each said that these aircraft had a Mi- prefix, and that they were "sometimes known" under the V- prefix. Until very recently, Mil projects had a "V-" prefix while in development (which I assume, but don't know for sure, stood for Vertolet - "Helicopter") and were given a Mi- prefix when in mass production.

As another example, you stated that the Mi-44 was a Russian version of the Eurocopter Ecureuil, and the Mi-54 was a Russian version of the Agusta A109. While it's true that these machines had a resemblance to each other, they were purely Mil projects.

Wikipedia has strict policies that all information entered here must be verifiable and come from reliable sources (click these links to see the policies in full). Entering made-up information, as you appear to have done, is taken very seriously.

Sorry to come across all heavy - I'd really rather not - but you really need to understand that this kind of thing won't be tolerated here. This isn't a web forum - it's an encyclopedia with a reputation to uphold.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I messed up on the designation system. But the information I gave is true, and I just said the Mi-44 appears to be a Russian Squrrel helicopter. When I find more information, Ill see what I can do to fix it. Oh, and the V-5, it is also known as the Mi-5.


 * That's the problem right there. It's simply not acceptable to say that something appears to be something else - that's your own analysis or own opinion, and has no place here. Your comment that the Mi-54 "is said to be related to the Agusta A-109" is just as bad - is said by who?


 * Do you have a reliable source that the V-5 ever gained a "Mi-" prefix? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

as it was said here before, but that was long ago. Its probably gone now. So, no I don't have a reliable resource any more. I would still like to keep the mention that it was also called Mi-5.
 * I wan't to say yes and give you this link:


 * Without any reliable sources to confirm that it ever gained this prefix, we simply can't keep that information there. In any case, web forums like secretprojects are specifically disallowed as sources for Wikipedia articles.
 * In fact, under normal circumstances, the aviastar website that you've been citing would also be disallowed. The only reason I'm not challenging it is because I know that whoever runs that website actually plagiarises their material from published works.
 * The short version: the types of sources that are acceptable on Wikipedia are published books and magazine articles (except for self-published "vanity press" books), and a very select few websites (those belonging to, for example, aircraft manufacturers, official air force sites, official museum sites, and the like). Blogs and forums are definitely out (except in articles about that blog, or forum, or celebrity that an official blog belongs to, and similar cases). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... I always thought aviastar asked permission to use that stuff. Okay, anyway, I guess I should delete the mention about the Mi- prefix. Thanks.

Mi-24D image
Hi Stingray - could you please tell me what graphics program you used to create this image - Image:Mi-24 with Hawk head.gif? Since it's lineart, if it was created in a vector-based program, it would be better to export it as an svg. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Im sorry, I only use MS Paint. Thats the best I could do and it would be a lot of work to redo it to make it have a higher resolution. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right - it would be a lot of work to create/re-create something like that in MS Paint! Are you sure that you drew that from absolute scratch in that program and didn't just use MS Paint to alter an existing image? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, why? If there is an existing drawing similar to it, I would like to see it. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Only that MS Paint seems to me be a strange and cumbersome choice of software to create such an image! Can I recommend Inkscape? Very nearly as powerful and flexible as Adobe Illustrator, but available as freeware. I'd love to see what someone with your evident skills could do with a real drawing program! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been using MS Paint for years and Im just so use to it. And I am an artist: . But its best that I expand myself, so I'll go and give Inkscape a whirl. Thanks. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, it also looks a lot like this image may have been used as the starting point for both Image:Mi-24 with Hawk head.gif and Image:ATE_SuperHind_Mk.2.gif. I haven't done a detailed comparison of the images yet, but it's interesting to note that, in particular, the "with Hawk Head" image has been flipped horizontally from an original image where the nose of the aircraft was to the left of the picture and was not created from scratch "nose right" from the start. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, I've now completed a detailed comparison of all three images, and the overlap conclusively proves that both images uploaded by you were edits of an image that you helped yourself to from the FAS website. If you like, I can upload the evidence, but I trust that won't be necessary.
 * You've already been cautioned at length about copyright issues. The next time you violate copyright here, you will be blocked from editing.
 * I'm especially disappointed, of course, that when I asked you about these images, you lied about creating them from scratch. That's the very worst part. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That picture has been on my system for a while now. I thought I drew it all myself. Aparently it was a download and modification. I do not remember doing this, but I will replace the images with updated ones. My deepest apologies. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And how was this image created? MS Paint again? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sorry I couldn't use the other program. Its to complicated for me. I was also in a hurry to replace the violated image and maybe put a little style in the new one. It looks like someone deleted the originals before I did. Thanks. Maybe when I have more time I'll use the new art program. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have to say that I doubt this very much. The picture shows strong evidence of having been scanned from a printed source. That aside, it's problematic for other reasons, most especially since the aircraft markings don't match the (unreferenced!) information you have provided about it.

Oh, and its not a print and scan. this was all my work. I swear. It is, though, based on this picture. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Can you explain that again?


 * Sorry - I'll try to be more plain. There are certain features of the drawing that make me think that it's based on something that's been originally scanned from print. I can't prove that conclusively, so all I can do right now is express my doubt.
 * The other problems are that the picture is not accurate. It does not match the written description that you provided (you say that it carried the tail code "98+31", but this is not visible in the drawing) and it does not match the photo you just linked to (the camouflage pattern is completely different). Inserting wrong information into Wikipedia in the form of a picture is as much a problem as providing wrong information in the form of text. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Im not sure that the camo pattern really matters or not, but thats just my point of view. Anyway, I don't know where the code should be on the tail. can you give me a visible example? --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're providing a colour profile of an aircraft, then illustrating a colour scheme that's completely inaccurate does indeed matter. If, as you claim, you drew this whole profile from scratch in the matter of an hour or two yesterday, then correcting the inaccurate camouflage should be trivial for you. As for the tail code, the "+" in German tailcodes represents the national insignia (in modern times, the Iron Cross), so the tailcode of this particualr aircraft was "98", then the marking, then "31". You can see a good example here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Okay, thanks. Im modifying the image at the time. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If you're going to do this, you're probably best off sticking to a black-and-white image and omitting the camouflage, unless you have other photos of the aircraft in question that show the camouflage pattern of the tail - or maybe if you want to create a colour image, just stick to the front section of the aircraft and crop the tail off - the modifications of note were apparently only to the nose and cabin window anyway.
 * The only other option would be to look at pictures of other German Mi-24s and see if you could find another example with a pattern that exactly matched the nose section of 98+31, but which also showed you the tail section. Military aircraft are often camouflaged according to precise patterns specified by the air forces that operate them, meaning that at least some aircraft types belonging to some air forces will all have exactly the same camouflage applied (rather than just random splotches of colour). --Rlandmann (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS you also drew the aircraft carrying weapons pods under the wings, and these are probably best left off too, unless you have evidence that it flew armed while in this test configuration. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should just save myself the work and ask if I can use the actual photograph. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That would only be possible if you could contact the person who originally took the picture and if they were willing to let go of all their rights to the photo (it's not enough for them to allow Wikipedia to use it; they must allow anyone to use it or alter it for any purpose, even commercial purposes). It's almost always easier to stick to pictures that you've taken or drawn yourself. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Can I use this image for the Yak-EG page?


 * Only if you know who the person was who took the photograph and can prove that she or he died more than 70 years ago. Since this helicopter must have been photographed around 1947, the earliest this could be would be 2018, if the photographer died soon after taking it. Of course, if the photographer only died last year, the photo won't enter the public domain and become available for Wikipedia use until 2078. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that clearly. Im just asking if the picture was given to the public domain or not. I have a strong feeling it wasn't. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Unless we have some actual evidence that this photo was "given away" by its photographer, we have to assume that it's still protected by copyright. Without that evidence, we also have to assume that the image tag on Vietnamese Wikipedia is a mistake. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, thats too bad. I could sure use it. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Kamov V-60 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Chetblong ( talk ) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Im recreating the V-60 page. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone just got rid of the original page of the V-60 and replaced it with the Ka-60 page. The original conception of the V-60 had nothing to do with the Ka-60. Why did this happen?


 * I redirected it based on your claim that the V-60 was an early point in the Ka-60's development. Apparently Kamov thought so too. For now, I've left it as a separate article, but for it to remain, you really need to provide some reliable sources to support what you've written.
 * The same goes for much of what you've been contributing on the Mi-24 variants page (and elsewhere). You really need to start referencing your claims, because without references they can be removed by anyone at any time.
 * On a related topic, please be careful of your facts. I'm very tempted to mark the Yak-60 article for deletion, since the only suggestion that I can find that such a thing even existed is a speculation in a paragraph from a book plagiarised by aerostar (read it again). And what do you mean when you say that the Mi-24D fitted with a Hawk missile nosecone had an "unidentified modification"? Unidentified by who? Whatever it was, I'm quite sure that the people who put it there could identify it. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Iv'e recently visited this page at the SecretProjects website and I have been given a link in which I can ask what the modification is. Just give me more time to find some reliable resources to support that these aircraft actually existed, which they did. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You see, the problem is, that even if you received an answer from the unit that carried out the modification to the Mi-24 telling you exactly what it was, you wouldn't be able to use that information in a Wikipedia article. That would qualify as Original research. Your information must come from a published text, such as a book, magazine article, or an "official" website of some sort - a museum, a manufacturer, or similar.
 * To clarify - the issue here isn't whether these aircraft existed - it's whether there are reliable sources that say what they did. You can read the relevant policy here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, I just wanted to contribute more information to Wikipedia just so people know that these aircraft existed, which many probably never knew about and now do. All this is sounding like a problem more and more I contribute. Im not even sure its worth it any more. Just my point of view again. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, and these are good aims, which is why I hope that you will stay and contribute more. But there are some very real problems with what you're contributing. The way it looks to me, you're gathering up any scrap of information you can find, regardless of where it comes from, and creating articles based on it. All I'm asking you to do is to be more selective. Don't create an article or add information about a variant unless you found the information in a book, magazine, or "reliable" website ("reliable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word).
 * Why is Wikipedia so fussy about sources? Wikipedia frequently comes under criticism for its lack of reliability (since anyone can add or change information here). This means, that in order to be taken seriously, the information we provide has to be of the highest quality. If you were writing an article for a traditional, paper encyclopedia, you wouldn't include information about a helicopter because you were talking to some guy in a bar last night who seemed to know a lot about helicopters, so you took down what he said and included it in your article. Yes, the guy in the bar might have known exactly what he was talking about, but the point is - we have no way of knowing for sure. Inserting information into Wikipedia from internet forums and people's personal web pages is exactly the same thing. Sure - they might be right. They're probably right. But at the end of the day, we can't be sure they're right. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said :). Okay, I'll stay and contribute. I am creating my own book encyclopedia in wich should be the biggest, most illustrated one in the United States. Everything is in it. So far, progress is just a little scrap book but I hope in transformes. In that little scrap book, I have every true rotorcraft ever noted on paper. So, from now on, if I want to add one of those aircraft here, I'll find more resources to support them. --

A thank you and an apology
I'd like to offer a very big thank-you for this great image and a sincere apology for having doubted the originality of your revised "Hind with Hawk head" picture. This project really needs people like you who can produce high-quality images of obscure aircraft that we're otherwise never going to get copyright-unencumbered pictures of!

I'll also repeat my encouragement to get your head around Inkscape. To understand why I'm so keen to see you head in this direction, take a skim over the article here on Vector graphics to see the difference between what raster-based programs like MS Paint and Adobe Photoshop do and vector-based programs like Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator do (the introductory image pretty much sums it up!). Vector art is almost infinitely scalable - you can change the size of the drawing and have it remain absolutely razor-sharp without any pixellation taking place. You might like to take a look at a "getting started" tutorial here; and there's plenty more tutorials if you Google for them. Yep - there will be quite a learning curve, but I guarantee it will rapidly pay off. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you and your welcome :). I hope to draw more pictures of aircraft that we may never get pictures of, such as the Mil Mi-24B Fenestron experamental, the Kamov Flying Tank, etc. I'll even try the newer art programs. I may be 14, but I have big dreams for Wikipedia's recognition twards aviation. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mi-44
Do you have a reference to support the idea that the Mil Mi-44 was based ont he Ecureuil airframe? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Only this. Its a translated page. this is the original english page. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right - which states that the Mi-34 (and Mi-44) are in the same class of helicopters as the Ecureuil, but nowhere states that one was developed from the other. Was the P-51 Mustang developed from the Messerschmitt Bf 109 airframe? They were in the same class of fighters. As I said once before - be careful with your facts. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know hardly anything about fixed-wing aircraft. Anyway, I see your point, but the illustrations at aviastar all show an Ecureuil airframe being used and it was also stated. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No - the pictures show that the Mi-44 strongly resembles the Ecureuil. and nowhere on the Aviastar site (as far as I could see) does it say that an Ecureuil airframe was used. If I've missed something here, perhaps you could point out where it states this? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gladly. I'll see if I can point it out on a translated version of the Russian page, seeing how thats the only page rich in information on the Mil Mi-44. I can't figure out how to highlight stuff, so Ill just show you quotes:

However, studies conducted in OKB in 1986-1987, have concluded that the replacement of piston engine M-14V26 for gas turbine TV-O-100 would entail changing the helicopter airframe.

After that, another paragraph says:

In spring 1987, was prepared draft prospectus-new machine. It was fundamentally perekomponovana and was a lightweight multipurpose vehicle class French AS-350 "Ecureuil".

It sure sounds like they gave it an Ecureuil airframe to me. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh - no. The first quote says that Mil had been considering developing a turbine-engine version of the piston-powered Mil Mi-34 but eventually, in concluded 1986-87 that the original airframe design would be unsuitable. The second quote says that the result of this was a virtually all-new design for a light, multipurpose machine in the same class as the Ecureuil. Nothing there about using an Ecureuil airframe; indeed, quite the opposite, since it emphasises that this was a fundamentally redesigned version of the Mi-34. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-90
I thought that by now you had come to understand what is required as a reliable source and that web forums are explicitly not acceptable as sources or external links?

I've added a proposed deletion tag to the article. Since you probably haven't encountered this before, this is how it works: Anyone here (including you) now has five days in which to object to the deletion by removing the tag. If, however, the tag is removed without any reliable sources being added to the article, I will be taking it through the formal deletion process.

As a separate issue, if you continue to disregard the need to only add information that you can back up from reliable sources, you will be blocked for disruptive editing.

I have no doubt that this is a real, genuine project, as displayed at the recent Heli-Russia 2008 show. However, being real is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Something must be verifiably real, for the quality control reasons we discussed earlier. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone did put a resource there. Flightglobal seems reliable enough to me. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, which is why I've removed the prod tag. I've also removed a lot of material that could not be verified from the Flight International article. The most concerning part of what I removed was the "submersible" part - you've taken people kidding around on a web forum and reported it here as fact. The second most concerning is the part about it being an attack aircraft - the individual who made the original post to secretprojects stated himself further down that he didn't even know why he had said that; and again, you reported it here as a fact.


 * Once again, don't contribute material here unless you can provide reliable evidence to show that it is actually true, and never use forums or blogs as a source of information (unless writing about that forum or blog). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it again and I see that those were just speculations. Thanks. Sorry for getting under your skin again. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no problem - and you're not under my skin. I really value your contributions here, because your enthusiasm and energy are an asset to the project. But that same energy can have destructive effects if it goes off in the wrong direction! :) You just need to be more selective about where you get your information, and more careful about making sure that what you write here matches what your sources tell you. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions and categories
Hi again Stingray - just a quick note about how we name aircraft and articles on Wikipedia: please don't use quotation marks around model names; and in particular, don't use them in article titles.

Congratulations on having successfully adopted Infobox Aircraft - your usage of this is now 100% spot-on.

I'm going to suggest that the next part of the standard article layout you try to adopt is to categorise articles you contribute according to WP:AIR's category scheme.

The main category that every article about an aircraft should have is a nation-role-decade category. You can find a full description here, but most people usually find it easier to begin by just copying and/or adapting from the categories that similar aircraft have been placed in. The things to watch out for here are:

1. Nation - you contribute a lot of Russian/Soviet helicopters. Up to the 1980s, we use "Soviet" as the nation element, for the 1990s, we use "Soviet and Russian" and for the 2000s, we use "Russian". (eg: "Soviet military transport aircraft 1980-1989" but "Soviet and Russian military transport aircraft 1990-1999" and "Russian military transport aircraft 2000-2009").

2. Role - this is probably the trickiest for newcomers to sort out, since if you don't follow the wording exactly, the category won't work. probably the ones you'll use the most are:
 * experimental aircraft <-- (not for prototypes - only for pure research aircraft)
 * military transport aircraft
 * civil utility aircraft
 * military utility aircraft
 * attack aircraft

3. Decade - this is the decade in which the first flight took place, or if the aircraft was never built or never flew, it is the decade in which the project was abandoned.

Finally, helicopters should also go in Category:Helicopters and aircraft from major manufacturers should also go in their manufacturer's category - but you already know this! :)

See how you go - and if you need any help, please feel free to ask. Cheers and keep up the good work! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll keep this in mind. It may be a little difficult, since I'm still new here, but I'll learn. :)

So, if I need help, I just drop a message in your talk page, or here? --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My talk page would be a better option - that way I'll get a "you have new messages" note; I might not see a question left here.


 * Also - sorry for making a few edits to your userpage - I noticed a number of aircraft that were coming up as redlinks there because of punctuation issues, and I didn't want to see you wasting time creating articles about aircraft that already had articles. You might like to take a look at the List of aircraft - this is Wikipedia's main list of aircraft (including fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and lighter-than-air). It's got gaps too, but it's a lot more complete than the List of helicopter models, is more actively maintained, and should help you find things that are missing from the helicopter list, as well as help you learn the naming conventions Wikipedia uses. If you find helicopters missing from the main list, it would also be really helpful if you could update that list as well as the helicopter list. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. :) --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-118
Well, yes, everything we've talked about so far is pretty much spot-on! Infobox, references, categories... All there! :)

The next and final major thing to master is the specification section. This should be mostly self-explanatory. I've added it to the Ka-118 article for you to use as a template. There are some intricacies to this, but for now, you should just be able to copy-and-paste it from that article to any new article you create and just input the new data for that type.

Well done :) -- Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Much thanks! --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

List of helicopter models
Hi again Stingray - I've just put a question to WP:AIR about the scope of this list. Since you're a major contributor to it, you might want to weigh in with an opinion here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifications section - some feedback
Just some feedback on the specifications section you added to the Kamov Ka-137 article - you've pretty much got it! Just remember to always include the English units alongside the metric ones (a tedious job, but an important one), and always specify something as the engine type. If you really can't find out what the engine is, then you can always put in something generic like "piston engine". This will avoid the strange output that the template will create if only an engine power is specified, but not an engine type.

You can find a summary of the most important English/Metric conversions on the project page here, or shoot me an email and I can send you an Excel spreadsheet to handle these.

If doing them manually, the only really tricky one is converting metres into feet and inches; there's an online calculator here that I sometimes use for that. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The calculator is sure gonna make this easier. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kamov Ka-35.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamov Ka-35.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kamov V-100.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamov V-100.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * These problems have been fixed. Thank you. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kamov V-100.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kamov V-100.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Kelly hi! 23:40, 18 January 2011 (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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DSH J-62


The article DSH J-62 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Plane never built, no claims of notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Rogermx (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mil Mi-22


The article Mil Mi-22 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No reliable sources to assert notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mil Mi-60


The article Mil Mi-60 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sources cited, doesn't appear to be a notable product, as it didn't get past the mock-up stage, most online sources are forums and user-created."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)