User talk:Towpilot

Page Blanking
On 11-May, you blanked JAS 39 Gripen. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry! I temporary lost my internet connection in the process, and then I completly forgot about it. I was correcting the designation for JAS 39, wich should be written without a dash, like all other Saab aircraft and all airplanes of the Swedish Air Force, and when I was trying to move the entire page it refused because JAS 39 Gripen allready is a redirect. Then while trying to figure out who to write to and ask how to do, my earthlink connection took an sudden break. Anyway, to have it all correct, JAS-39 should be a redirect to JAS 39! Not the other way around. --Towpilot 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. That happens. To reverse the direction of the redirect, list it at Requested moves and, if there is no disagreement, it will be taken care of. -- JLaTondre 14:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've looked at that page, but this move is nothing that even have to be discussed or voted about. JAS-39 simply doesn't exist! JAS 39 is the correct designation! --Towpilot 07:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is at JAS-39 Gripen & the redirect is at JAS 39 Gripen. You want want to reverse that, correct? If so, you need an adminstrator to do that. Requested moves is means of requesting that. It's a trivial change and should go through without a problem, but you still need to post it there so people see it and act upon it. While Requested moves is used for moves requiring discussion, it is also used for non-controversal moves requiring an adminstrator. What you want to do fits that criteria. -- JLaTondre 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos
You have an amazing collection of photographs - thanks for making them available here --Melburnian 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Melburnian! I've seen that you uploaded some nice pix yourself. It's interesting to see how different some other people think about pictures on Wiki. I've worked with lay-out myself, and it's my firm opinion that pictures here should be a graphic part of any article, not threated as an external link shuffled in to a corner with a stamp sized thumb! A half empty screen with a small thumb is a waste of space and picture! To upload pictures and use them as in the article about Fantasy of Flight, to give an example, is just ridiculus! (I'm thinking of replace those myself with some real pictures!)
 * Anyway, nice to know that there are some others not thinking Wikipedia is a text only web encyklopedia!--Towpilot 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

B-17 myth
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The only source I have on Sweden's B-17s is this one. Could you tell me where I can find information of the planes being given to Sweden for free? Until such a time I'd prefer to take Sweden out of the article entirely. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've checked the other webside and realized the source of this unfortunally quite common missunderstanding about the Swedish B-17. It's using Scott Thompsons otherwise excellent book "Final Cut", and I've noticed the incorrect info about 1 $ airplanes in his book before. It also claims that those airplanes were flown by the "Saab Airline". No such airline ever existed! They were all operated for a short time only by SILA, today a part of SAS. Saab only did the conversions.


 * A Swedish historic aviation magazine called "Kontakt" published in the early 80's a copy of the bill of sale for all the Swedish B-17. It clearly stated that the aircraft were given away for free! There's accually much more to the story of the reason why, than the circa 300 crewmembers (who by the way never were POW's!) that were allowed to return to England. US gov had a high interrest in the courier traffic from Sweden to Scottland to be uphold. This was the initial main reason for the deal, and not really to fly regulary pax. Those courier flights had earlier been done with DC-3, wich turned out to be to unsafe.


 * I think it would be a good idea to divide a list of "Operators" into military and civilian ones. Present list is missing big postwar operators like the French IGN, and all the US tankers. For that, Thompsons book would be an excellent source!--Towpilot 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Viggen
The Saab 37 Viggen page has recently been expanded, could you have a look at it to check the information added? --MoRsE 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw that you were fixing the article. Do you might have some information on the RBS15 too? Is the correct designation Rbs 15? I've tried to check Saab's web pages, and they use the foremer, but still....I have a feeling in my stomach that it is the second one that is more correct. --MoRsE 04:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not knowing anything about this robot itself, I still think it's safe to asume the correct Swedish designation should be RBS 15, not RBS15 or RBS-15 since there is no indication (or reasons) given anywhere that the system of military designations in Sweden have ever changed. I know it's confusing that official websides for Saab or SwAF sometimes write in different inconsistent ways, but remember that the sites are designed by webmasters, not the people working with the hardwhare itself. I've just read the RBS 15 article here for the first time. It defenitely need some cleanup from the big mix of all different ways of spelling Swedish robot designations!--Towpilot 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the base and aricraft designation names. I would, however, appreciate a nicer tone in the comments. Capital letters and several exclamation portray shouting.--T96 grh 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

SwAF required and Saab built the Viggen for having STOL performance according to what is listed as STOL by NATO. Perhaps only a clean Viggen with minimal amount of fuel onboard can meet those requirements, but it was developed as such. T96 grh 10:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it was not! SwAF required that the airplane should be usable in the already developed system of using narrow relatively short public roads and highways. That's not necessarily the same as asking for STOL performance per definitions! I asked a very good friend of mine about this, who flew the AJ version more than 2 000 hours during its entirely period of service. He said neither the word STOL or the definition were ever used by SAAB or the SwAF themself in anything that had to do with the airplane, definitely not in any manuals! According to him, at MTOW (some 18+ metric tons) on a "good day" (not to warm weather and some 10-15 mph head wind) he could rotate at no less than 500 meters! That is, as you understand, before clearing any 50 feet obstacles. At MLW (13 ton) in a so called "direct landing" (no flare), with an alfa of 15,5 degree (otherwise normally 12), engine on full reverse and using full wheel brakes, he could sometimes stop in slightly more than 400 meters even with no wind. This was very seldom done. A normal landing took at least twice the distance. Again, this is without any obstacle clearence given.


 * The performance of this aircraft is still very impressive. But a STOL aircraft per definition it is not! --Towpilot 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a good look at the STOL requirements. It says 450m with 15m obstacle. A clean Viggen can do this landing as you say yourself your friend told you. Now, in peacetime, this was rarely practiced since it put a lot of wear on the tires, wheelbrakes and the entire ejector/reverser. But it could be done! Rotation at 500m at 18 ton will give you (with a rough calculation) 13/18*500=360m at 13 ton (not to speak of that you could probably rotate a little earlier with smaller weight). Besides, no Viggen in SwAF flew without the throttle restrictor, so that would have also helped takeoff performance. Your own numbers speak for themselves. Viggen was capable of STOL. T96 grh 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, take a good look at the STOL requirements. It says 450m with 15m obstacle. That means, in reality, that the actual roll on the ground have to be much shorter, in both take off and landing, in normal operations. Therefore the take off roll itself of 500 meter before rotation already disqualify the airplane as a STOL! To clear a 15 m obstacle at take off you probably have to add another 100 m or so. The fact that a Viggen can be slammed into the ground and stop rolling in slighly more than 400 m means that to also clear a 15 m obstacle in the same process it needs much more than the 450 meters! In other words, neither take off or landing fit the definitions. And even if one of them, either take off or landing, would do it, both have to fall inside given numbers to be a truly STOL airplane. Also, to say "But it could be done!" is kind of a stupid argument. I have seen myself a Fokker F28 land and roll about 400 m after touch down on the ground before stopping. As far as I know, no one claims it to therefor be a STOL aircraft only because "it could be done". Same thing with, as an example a B-25. Only because the Doolittle Raid proved that it could take off in a distance way shorter than the STOL definition, no one have tried to say it was a STOL aircraft. Yeah, the numbers do speak for themselves. Interpret them correctly and you will realize Viggen was not a STOL aircraft! Also, if neither SAAB, SwAF or the pilots who flew them called it, or agree it was a STOL aircraft, why should Wikipedia?


 * On a side note: In 34 years of flying myself, I've always been told that a definition of STOL included only "about 1000 feet on the ground", not 1500 as per a "NATO definition". But maybe it's because the SwAF, where I once commenced my flight training, never have been a member of NATO. :-) --Towpilot 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The STOL-like performance of the Viggen is an aspect of its design that is unusual. I think since there is some contention that it was not a "true" STOL, it may become a topic on the article "talk" page that has to be resolved first on the discussion page. On the other hand, if you or other editors have some reliable and authoritative reference sources then it is a suitable topic to be introduced into the article, with an edit note that a further discussion is found on the talk page. I think your conversation above shows the best of Wikipedia- a collaborative effort by two individuals who have interacted with knowledgeable yet courteous exchanges. I commend the both of you! FWIW Bzuk 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC). Comment added by Bzuk (talk FWIW Bzuk 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC).


 * You know, the phrase "The STOL-like performance...." followed by some text about the still pretty impressive performance might be a better way to solve this! Maybe we simply should copy this discussion and paste it into the article's discussion page and see what suggestions of editing that may popup? Meanwhile, I will have my own brainstorm and see if there is a more interesting way of editing the subject than just remove the word STOL like I did!--Towpilot 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the naming of the Talk:Saab_37_Viggen and whether the Vigg(swedish)=duck=canard(french) was official or coincidental. Do you have access to any published info about this? I do remember reading about it in a book in Swedish about the Viggen, but I don't have it here in the US. T96 grh 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fokker C.V/VL Tuisku
Hi there, Towpilot. I understand you are of the opinion that the image I found at Backwoods Landing Strip marked as a Fokker C.V is really a VL Tuisku. Can you be so kind as to tell me how it is that you can see that the image is of a Tuisku and not a C.V, and thus why Backwoods have gotten this one wrong? Manxruler (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there Manxruler. Well, it's not really an opinion, it's a clear and easy fact! I can understand in a way if your not an airplane buff, all biplanes may look the same. I do understand people who can not see the differences in, let's say a Boeing 707 from a DC-8, or a Martin 4-0-4 from a Convair CV-240, but in this case the differences are bigger and more obvious. First, the entire empennage is a dead-give-away! Compare the vertical fin and rudder on the picture of the VL Tuisku with my picture of the Fokker C V-D on display in your museum in Norway! Then, another easy detail is the landing gear. Compare the standard attachement of the gear under the belly on the Fokker with the very unique way the landing gear is attached to the side of the fuselage on the  Tuisku. Beside that, the wings and the struts are very different. The entire fuselage has a different shape. The engine installement is very different (I don't think any Fokker C V at all flew with a NACA cowling). In short, we are talking about two, in my opinion completely different looking airplanes! I will remove the picture of the Tuisku again unless there is a good reason to mention it in an article about the Fokker C V!  --Towpilot (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation, Towpilot. I now see the difference. Pretty weird of Backwoods to make a mistake like that, but I can see your points. The landing gear really looks different to that of the Fokker C.V. I'll give Backwoods a pointer to the fact that they seem to have misplaced that image.
 * A couple of things, though; You might want to ease up on your use of exclamation marks, they make it seem like you're yelling all the time and doesn't exactly make for civilised communication. Just a bit of friendly advice from me to you. Also, when you're editing on Commons the "Source" part of the image template isn't for "this is where I have my info from". It's for "this where I found the image". Just cause Backwoods appears to have mislabelled the image it's still from Backwoods. I'll go make the necessary adjustments in a minute.
 * Thank you for the information and have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My comments on Commons was more a frustration over not be able to correct a lot of all the incorrect info I found there. The picture of the Tuisku is not in any way a single mistake. I also do them sometimes, but it should be an easier way to correct them. As for now, a lot of it is carved in stone.
 * I see no reason to ease up on my use of exclamation marks! To say the use of them should be considered yelling and not "exactly make for civilised communication" is obtuse! THIS IS YELLING, but this is not! I checked your wiki link and nowhere does it say that all of a sudden using exclamation marks should be the same as yelling!
 * You are welcome, and have a nice day too! --Towpilot (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merlin Take-Off power
Just in regard to your comments on this; for the article P-51 variants I used the power ratings figures from Gruenhagen 1980 Mustang, which, for the V-1650-3, are the same as that quoted by Tom Reilly: 1,490 hp, low blower, 61" Hg at 13,750 ft. I forgot to check the actual T/O ratings before lending the book out. On the Merlin 63/70 series engines used in Spitfire Mk VII/VIII and IXs the British specify +7 lbs boost for normal take-off, with a maximum of + 12 allowable (no hp is given). I would assume that if in normal operational service the USAAF was using similar boost pressures to the British Merlins the T/O power rating at about 45" Hg (roughly similar to +7 lbs) would be around 1,100-1,200 hp. A problem with quoting such figures is that someone will find fault with them and quote something else, without realising that (for example) the fuel blend used might have a major impact on how an engine performs. The Merlin 66 was capable of 1,720 hp but that would have been through using 150/100 grade fuel which allowed a maximum boost of +25 lbs ie 80" Hg. Using 100 octane fuel only allowed +18 lbs (67" Hg) which reduced the rating by at least 200 hp. Minorhistorian (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff! Few people realize that "Max Take-Off Power" actually is a kind of floating term depending on referenses. It's good that this fact can be pointed out more at Wikipedia. Another thing in a similar subject here is the to my opinion completely useless information about kW as a power referense on different engines. In 5,000+ hours of flying in everything from J-3 Cub to military jets I yet have to see at least one pilot manual with a kW referense to the engine! I can live with having both hp, or shaft hp, or kp/lb trust and adding kW in paranteses for those who thinks anyone care in Wikipedia articles, but it irritates me that some people sometimes removes every referenses but kW! As a pilot 1,096 kW doesn't tell me a f-ing thing, but 1,490 hp all of a sudden gives a referens to real life! I've been thinking of bringing this up to discussion and see what consensus that will bring. What's your opinion? --Towpilot (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos of James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd
Hello, I work for a Canadian Television production company and we are making a one-hour documentary on James Cameron. I noticed you have some great photos of him and of his producer ex wife Gale Anne Hurd. I wanted to know if we could use them in our show. We could discuss further details over email, my address is julie@triconfilms.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Julie208.124.206.234 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure! Give me a day or two more and I will e-mail you. I have, as you may suspect, more pics both color and bl/w.--Towpilot (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos of James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd
I also have a Wikipedia account, User:Jdaprile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaprile (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sptfire Site
This was a functioning link to a legitimate site; why did you remove it? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are going to remove these links I suggest that you explain why you think they should be removed before erasure, rather than later. Both have been restored and I await an explanation with interest. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft in Fiction
You've made a number of edits in this article. You are changing sourced entries without a source that says different. This is not productive and some of the edits appear to be WP:OR. Please stop making alterations to reliably sourced text without having a reliable source to support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, your source are obviously not really reliable at all! I can list the exact airplanes flown in the movie BoB with serialnumbers and registrations, they can be found at several places, but you can also check the article about the movie itself here at Wikipedia and you will see how embarresing much in this article that contradicts what's already written there!! All numbers there are correct! That's not the case here! Same thing with Wikipedias article about Tora! Tora! Tora! Read it and then change the BS here about Zeros, or I will do it. Also, why not compare the article about James Stewart first, before changing facts here? It's a wellknown fact that he never flew again as a military pilot in command after WWII. Aircraft in fiction could be an very interresting article but have way to much other incorrect facts right now, obviously based on very unreliable sourses! --Towpilot (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can tell everyone how much you know....and you might know it. But until you provide reliable sources, you can't change it. And Stewart may not have flown as a command pilot after WW2, he did fly again. Anf again, you need a reliable source to say that, not just your say so. BTW, his article here in WP doesn't say that in the manner you do. So you all the exclaimation points you want, until you provide reliable sources, it's unsourced and, when altering sourced entries to do it, vandalism. Also, you made changes and left the source in place, making it misstate what the source says. That's nothing short of vandalism. Have you ever read WP:TRUTH? Maybe you should. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I wrote before, read the other Wikipedia film articles about the same subjects, either your source is incorrect or you have a lot of work to do to change in all other well sourced, well researched and correct articles. I dare you to change the numbers of flyable Spitfires, Messerschmitts and Heinkels in the article about Battle of Britain to your incorrect numbers and source and see if that would be accepted by anyone else! If you don't do it, I take it that you agree that my numbers and not yours are correct. See also IMDb, one of sources with correct numbers. There are several incorrect facts in Mark Burman's article about the BoB movie besides the number of flyable Spitfires. Example, nowhere will you find Connie Edwards listed or credited as a "chief stunt pilot" for anything or that he "flew alongside Sqd Ldr Ginger Lacey" anywhere. He was, besides to young to have flown "alongside Lacey", just one of four cropdusters from the Texas based Confederate Air Force under a contract to let the producers use their flyable Spitfire in exchange of hireing the four american pilots for the movie. Nor did he ever go "down in flames for real when the engine blew up on his two-seater ME 109" with a passenger. What he did have to do though was a bellylanding during one of the film sorties in a two-seater Spitfire Mk IX (RAF's MJ 772, civil registration G-AVAV) at Little Staughton airport on July 9 1968 after an engine failure probably related to the use of a spare metal propeller from one of the Spanish Messerschmitts in lieu of a wooden Spitfire propeller. No passengers were allowed on any of the airplanes during filming. The aircraft was never repaired again in time for further use in the movie, which reduced the number of flyable Spitfires to eleven. Sorry, but your "reliable source" isn't really that reliable at all!


 * No one said Stewart did not fly as a PIC after WWII again, but the way it's written now it seems like he kept flying as a bomber pilot (or pilot at all for that matter) in US Air Force after the war, and that was not the case. The statement in Dick Kleiner's article about F4F Wildcats being repainted as "Zeros" is just laugh-out-loud incorrect! There are other incorrect facts in his poor text that, thank God, have not been copied over to Wikipedia. Again, read the Wiki article about Tora! Tora! Tora!, that's where all the fake movie Zeros originally came from until three genuine Japanese Zeros were gathered for the movie Pearl Harbor. (BTW, the other three (or four) "Japanese" real airplanes in Pearl Harbor were also "left-overs" from TTT. But the majority of all airplanes in that movie are, well, to say the least, not-so-good CGI work) I can go on like this, but frankly, I don't think you care.


 * I understand by now that Aircraft in fiction is your baby, not for anyone mortal to touch, and that's why you are so damn stubborn. I really like the idea about the subject, but I squirm in my chair reading all the incorrect facts from your "reliable" sources that very obviously have not in any way been double-checked! The article right now glows in the dark of text written by people not knowing so much about aviation movies in general, and specifically nothing about the aircraft used in them. A good start to improve this way-below-wiki-standard article would be to compare with the actually very good aerofiles website that has already been discussed elsewhere and change accordingly! Start with facts about the BoB movie, or Midway, and continue. Also, it's nothing short of obtuse to accuse someone for "vandalism" unless you can point out real vandalism, i.e. obvious attempts to really destroy and not improve an article. It doesn't do anything but take the credibility out of your own work here! --Towpilot (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, where do I start with all that. Chronological seems best:
 * "Like I wrote before, read the other Wikipedia film articles about the same subjects, either your source is incorrect or you have a lot of work to do to change in all other well sourced, well researched and correct articles." The source may be incorrect, newspapers and books sometimes make mistakes, but it passes reliable source guidelines. You, on the other hand, have produced no reliable sources to the contrary. Your say so isn't sufficient.
 * "I dare you to change the numbers of flyable Spitfires, Messerschmitts and Heinkels in the article about Battle of Britain to your incorrect numbers and source and see if that would be accepted by anyone else! If you don't do it, I take it that you agree that my numbers and not yours are correct.". Dare me to do whatever you want. I'm not interested in editing that article. This one takes up enough of my time.
 * "See also IMDb, one of sources with correct numbers." IMDB, especially in matters of trivia, is not accepted as a reliable source. This isn't my proclaimation, but the consensus of literally dozens of discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
 * "Sorry, but your "reliable source" isn't really that reliable at all!" It is more reliable than the source you have produced. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "No one said Stewart did not fly as a PIC after WWII again, but the way it's written now it seems like he kept flying as a bomber pilot (or pilot at all for that matter) in US Air Force after the war, and that was not the case" Apparently you don't know how Wikipedia works. If nobody ever said it, then you can't put it in an article. Ever read WP:OR? You should.
 * "The statement in Dick Kleiner's article about F4F Wildcats being repainted as "Zeros" is just laugh-out-loud incorrect! There are other incorrect facts in his poor text that, thank God, have not been copied over to Wikipedia. Again, read the Wiki article about Tora! Tora! Tora!, that's where all the fake movie Zeros originally came from until three genuine Japanese Zeros were gathered for the movie Pearl Harbor[2]. (BTW, the other three (or four) "Japanese" real airplanes in Pearl Harbor were also "left-overs" from TTT. But the majority of all airplanes in that movie are, well, to say the least, not-so-good CGI work) I can go on like this, but frankly, I don't think you care." Oh, I care. I also care about WP:RS. IMDB is not a reliable source. Kleiner is. Where is your reliable source that contradicts it? What I think you don't care about is following policy. I've looked at a number of your edits and you often rely on what mechanics have told you, what is allegedly in your log book or other things you "know", but from your repeated assertion of IMDB trivia as a reliable source, it appears you have a pretty fuzzy understanding of what a reliable source is. Let me clear it up: You are not a reliable source and neither is IMDB for trivia matters.
 * "I understand by now that Aircraft in fiction is your baby, not for anyone mortal to touch, and that's why you are so damn stubborn. I really like the idea about the subject, but I squirm in my chair reading all the incorrect facts from your "reliable" sources that very obviously have not in any way been double-checked!" As User:Ahunt has already pointed out below, this is far from being MY baby. Several editors took it upon themselves to transform an article that was a mess, filled with mainly uncited or non-RS entries about Go-bots to something coherent and useful. The things you contradicted in the article weren't only entries made by me. They were from other editors, several of whom are part of the Aviation project.
 * "Also, it's nothing short of obtuse to accuse someone for "vandalism" unless you can point out real vandalism, i.e. obvious attempts to really destroy and not improve an article. It doesn't do anything but take the credibility out of your own work here!" Apparently my friend, you've never read the policy on WP:VANDALISM. If your edits are good faith, then they aren't. But I've noticed you do this a lot. You go into articles and say, in effect, "you're wrong because I said so". You've cited "I've never heard of it", "no mechanic I've talked to heard of it", "Dr. So and so said so" or just "wrong" as justification for making changes to sourced material. "I've never heard of it" Isn't a reliable source. Neither are the others. Every source used in the article AiF DOES pass WP:RS. We've made sure of it. Not me. Not Ahunt. All the regular editors. Until you publish in a reliable source, you aren't a reliable source for jack. What is obtuse here my friend is your refusal to acquaint yourself with and follow policy and guidelines, instead choosing to rely on WP:IHEARDOFIT or WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT as your basis to edit articles. Read some policies. Read some guidelines. And maybe read WP:TRUTH. Your entire "logic" above is without basis in policy. My response is based on policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Towpilot: I would suggest you read WP:CIVIL, skip all the insults and provide some sources for changes to the Aircraft in fiction article. If you can find better sources than what we have there, then great, but "I think this is wrong" is not a citable source. You can also note that as per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source so quoting Wikipedia articles to change other Wikipedia articles is not acceptable. Wikipedia is all about verifiability so if you think that the cited refs are wrong then please do cite a better ref.


 * I should add too that Aircraft in fiction is by no means User:Niteshift36's "baby". Like me he was initially in favour of AfD for the article. But, like me too, he has come to see it as a valuable tool to keep fancruft out of the aircraft type articles. Currently the article is being actively worked on by about a dozen editors who want to keep the article as a means to prevent the aircraft type articles from getting choked up with cruft. This means that the article regularly is subject to dumping of lots of unsourced text, by various editors. For that reason we have a consensus agreement on Talk:Aircraft in fiction to be very sticky about referencing on this article and apply WP:V very rigorously. To that end if you want to help improve the article with corrections then please do join us on this article, but you will have to cite reliable refs for changes, moreso on this article than most others. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Desmond Llwelyn
Hi

I was hoping to contact you with regards to the picture of Desmond Llwelyn you have placed on the article about the actor. Is there anyway that I can contact you privately? Aadams16 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi self,
 * Try with e-mail: the.towpilot@yahoo.com and we can go from there! --Towpilot (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:86.124.215.108. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. Ok, been here for five years now but thanks anyway. Never "attacked" anyone exept sometimes maybe answering people the same way they argue since that's most likely the only way they understand. --Towpilot (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but even then WP:CIVIL still applies. I try to "nice" them to death instead, otherwise I might get a warning! - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Air Force Wing
This template does not exist, please stop adding it to articles. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Until it does, please stop adding incorrect templates to articles!--Towpilot (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image was used in an article
Just thought I'd point it out to you in case you would be interested by such a thing: Link. Dismas |(talk) 23:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Swedish Air Force
Hi there. I see that from your Dragonfly edit this morning, and from others over the years, you say that there was never a Royal Swedish Air Force. I'm confused as there appears to be some evidence suggesting that there was. For example their own article begins Flygvapnet, tidigare Kungliga Flygvapnet, and there are other references to this name. On the other hand you, a clearly competent editor  (and possibly even Swedish yourself, to boot!) , obviously think that this isn't right ... where do we go from here? (And yes, I know that in the global scheme of things it's not exactly the no. 1 priority! I'm just being a bit pedantic ...) Any ideas? Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * PS sorry about my snarky-sounding ES there - it came out sounding all wrong! Please reread but inserting better manners for me! Cheers 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)