User talk:Trevor MacInnis/Archive 06

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello it's me in Prince George! - 207.216.152.84 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello its me at work!-209.121.220.198 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for editing Alaska Airlines Flight 1866 (placing a tag ont the talk page). Feel free to make edits on the article page! Archtransit 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello its me in grand fork. - 64.180.155.186 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Glider and gliding task forces
I didn't even know that there was a Glider Task Force! I have no objections to them being merged with the Gliding Task Force. JMcC 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I have no objections although I am no longer an active member and thus my 'vote' hardly counts.Francisco de Almeida 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 03:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor
Trevor, check out the F-22 Raptor article and talk page. A new editor has begun an edit war with two or three editors over some meaningless point about air dominance over air superiority. Rather than waiting for a resolution on the talk page, he/she has already gone over the 3R rule and is now "ragging" on others who insist on a consensus, while s/he claims facts and accuracy on his/her side. Good figure?! FWIW Bzuk 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Beechcraft Super King Air
Hi Trevor, I am hoping the get the Super King Air article to the same state as the Beechcraft King Air article, on which I have expended many hours of work. I am in a bit of a quandary as it appears that the Jane's you are listing as a reference in the article is incorrect. One of the books in my collection is Beechcraft - Pursuit of Perfection which has a full production list of Beech aircraft up to the time of publication in 1992. The list shows that 108 Model 200s were built in 1981, along with 83 B200s. Production figures for 1980 do not list any B200s. I have verified the info by searching various online databases, including LAASdata.com; the US, Canadian and UK Civil Aircraft Registers, which list the year of manufacture; and the Australian Register, which lists the date of first registration. To give some examples, the sixth-last 200 ever built according to Beechcraft was BB-853; it is registered in Canada as C-GADI and is listed as a 1981-build Model 200. There was apparently some overlap of serial numbers and the final production Model 200 was BB-912 which is also registered in Canada, as C-GFSH. Compare with s/n BB-891, C-GHDP, a 1981 B200. All the serial numbers I have looked at tie up with the info in Beechcraft.

I removed the reference for first flight from the infobox (and didn't include it in the text) for two reasons; first, because Beechcraft lists the same date and it and Jane's are now both listed as Sources, and second because I made my edits without reference to that particular Jane's, which is not in my collection or otherwise accessible to me. I am still fairly new to this and if you have time I'd like your thoughts on references versus sources, as many of the articles I have edited or created are broadly sourced from one or more particular publications, with added detailed info from various websites, books and magazines. It seems to me there is enough work to do without listing the same reference for thirty or forty different pieces of information in an article; is this not the generally-held viewpoint? Perhaps I am going into too much detail? YSSYguy 03:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed 1981 as the date for introduction of the B200 (the FAA Type Certificate was approved on 13-2-81), and have changed the article accordingly. YSSYguy 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

B-52
Trevor, I tried to keep the look and feel consistant with a little emphasis on the first model, with today's changes. You had left it with a huge white space... taking your idea of adding another image, I thought I had improved it to keep it in line with your previous input. Guess I was wrong. The way it looks now is even worse with the text going between the TOC and infobox.... well, just rechecked the article, and it now looks better, HOWEVER you've eliminated the subsection breaks of the variants to reduce the size of the TOC... thanks, NOW all the internal links that I've had with the "#" pipe link in many articles linking back to the specific link are now broken. Plus, you justified using the guidelines (suggestion only) to remove the Requirements secition I added today.... which was totally logical as the paragraph was "USAF requirement". Ya know, I am trying to improve the article and other articles that reference the BUFF, and you have disregarded my input. My input to the BUFF is no less or no more important than yours. I do not know how much experience you have with classic aircrafts, but I have been restoring USAF aircraft and preparing various exhibits at the Wings Museum for over 20 years, and I am the Volunteer Curator of Military Aircraft and do know a little about the birds physically and historically. I think I have something to contribute to Wiki but you revesrting my work makes me suspicious of your intent. I may not know everything about Wiki rules, (do not believe you do either), but my input and style is well within the over goals of Wiki. Please return all the variants reverts back to the triple = format, so all my piped links are still functional. Also, this a collaboration of WikiProjAV members, not just your input. Thank you. Lance.....LanceBarber 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mini Nimbus
Hi Trevor,

I noticed you dropped by in the Mini Nimbus article, what do do you think it needs? I have been working on it. Cheers Nimbus227 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For the barnstar
Thanks. It's always nice to know that others appreciate my contributions. -- Zyxw 15:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Albert Tissandier
I'm fairly surprised you rated the article start class. Why might this be? - Oreo Priest  17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the article is a translation of a single public domain biography, do you think it would be useful to add citations to the major points? I will do so if you think so, though I'm not actually particularly concerned with the assessment. - Oreo Priest  17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

B-52
Nice bunch of word edits all through the piece. PRRfan 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, its me in Dawson Creek. - 24.65.160.249 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Curtiss R3C-2
Hello, I just want to say “thank you” and draw your attention to my page User:Cyfal/Trivia and the “real pilot” link there. Best regards Cyfal 22:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Airport collaboration candidates
Hi. Can I ask why you deleted the above category redirect? As you will be aware, the category proper Category:Airport collaboration canditates contains a typo in it's title, and the redirect was designed to stop the cat article creator looking foolish. He once more looks like an idiot who can't spell "candidates". Not to worry. Perhaps you might sort it out from here? Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 11:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

List_of_commercial_airlines_in_India
Hey Trevor,

I worked on this article. Could you see if the List_of_commercial_airlines_in_India unreferenced and other tags can be removed?

Priyankoo 17:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP Aviation bot work
I created the maintenance tables in use at WP:AUS. If you need help getting similar functional for your WikiProject, and the bot owner is happy to process them, I'm happy to help. -- Longhair\talk 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent article assessments (Shorts aircraft)
Thanks for the recent assessments. It would be useful to have comments on each giving e.g. the reasons for the assessed level, so that we know what needs to be done to improve the articles. --TraceyR 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request
Hi Trevor MacInnis I wanted to let you know that Bots/Requests for approval/Wpcat is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBot Talk 10:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Asseessments
Has the updating routine stalled when trying to work on this page WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance/Assessment. It hasn't been updated since change. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Year page formatting of multiple events
Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution (including whether you still favour the style you voted for or have changed your mind) would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Content Issue spilling into other things
Trev, can you look over the Eurofighter Typhoon article which is being presently rewritten. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Wait a minute. You locked it without reverting the section that is in dispute. We have only one user here that thinks it should be kept in. The arguments on relevance have been made ad nauseum. Please revert the Controversial Encounter section before taking any action. It should be clear that Financialmodel's sole purpose is to include it.Downtrip (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice?
I found that there are very few aircraft that are featured articles. The Boeing 747 is being considered ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747 ). Although you are free to support or oppose it, I'd like your advice. It seems like one editor objects to this section at the end citing that it is not in the Manual of Style - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Related_content. Others point out that WikiProject Aviation or WikiProject Aircraft articles have this.

I've suggested that this is a larger issue best discussed at the WikiProject level. I'm willing to modify the article once a consensus is reached because it's not clear which path to take (defy WikiProject or have a section that's not listed in the Manual of Style (even though I doubt that the MOS authors ever considered the section "Related content (or aircraft)". That seems to be a better way that having the same fight in every article.

Any advice that you may have for getting an aircraft article become a FA would be appreciated. Please answer here or at my talk page. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Airport articles using Airport Infobox template
I have nominated airport articles using airport infobox template for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Thewinchester (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your moving of pictures randomly around in the Gustave Whitehead article
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Gustave Whitehead. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Patronizing me won't help, your action of moving pictures around seemingly in a random fashion, destroying the connection between pictures and the text associated with the pictures was a very bad reorganizing of the careful layout of the Gustave Whitehead page. And you did it without discussing it with the other editors of this page. Therefor it is impossible to assume good faith in this case. If you do it again I will seek help from admins and administrators to stop you from destroying pages.

I see from your contributions list that you are passionately interested in flight and airplanes. This makes it likely that you intentionally change articles which do not fit your strong beliefs. Because the article about Gustave Whitehead is very controversial to a lot of people, and contains a picture which probably is the most important picture in the history of aviation pioneers, that's why it was inserted at double size, it is very likely that you are on the other side in this 100-years long conflict. Therefor you are not impartial in the issue this controversy is about, and you should not participate in articles which involve the Whitehead versus Wright/Smithsonian controversy. If you feel compelled to contribute to the Gustave Whitehead article again I demand that you at least get involved in the discussions on it's discussion page first. Roger491127 (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Woody" Vernon Crompton Woodward
A tag has been placed on "Woody" Vernon Crompton Woodward requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Jfire (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hans Farner on Avifiber page
""The most significant of these would be the report that Hans Farner, the designer, experienced a fatal crash in the design. Unless this occurred several years later than most all of the activity in the late 70's and 80's, it's simply not true. Although I lost touch with Hans at some point it was my understanding that he died of normal causes many years after all of the flight test programs and various iterations of the design.""   If Gary Osoba is correct in questioning the note about how Hans Farner died, then a change is needed on the wiki. Joefaust (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FMA IA 58 Pucará
I noticed you've created the FMA IA.58. Since the FMA IA 58 Pucará already exists, I thought I'd give you'd be better able to merge the new page into the old one (or vice versa), since you're already familar with the content. Sorry to be the one to tell you! - BillCJ (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the old page didn't use a dot in "IA 58". WHen I saw your new page listed at the new WPAIR articles page, I thought I had remembered seeing one on it before, so I looked on the FMA company article page. It might be good to add company pages to your pre-search, just in case. I've duplicated content on other pages, if not whole pages, myself, so I'm in no way trying to be critical here. I know mess up on here plenty enough for 2 or 3 editors! Btw, I added the merge tags just as a way of alerting other editors - I couldn't find an appropriate tag like duplicate that is used for images. - BillCJ (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)