User talk:BilCat

Sikorsky H-53

Could you look at Sikorsky H-53? I think it was supposed to be a disambiguation page, but it has a stub tag. I don't know how to correct it. Thanks. --Colputt 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a DAB footer in place of the Stub tag. There is supposed to be some sort of "NA" assesment rating that can be added on the talk page within the WP:AVIATION/MILHIST tags. I've also expanded the links to cover the Super Jollies and the Super Stallion variants. - BillCJ 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bell 214ST

Dear Bill: No problem on the 214ST photo! When I found the article I knew I had some photos. That photo is one I took two years ago. I find the best way to get photos for Wikipedia is to take them myself. I have about 10,000 aircraft photos that I have shot since 2004, so I put them into articles when they look like they will be of use. I have more photos of that 214ST, but that is the best one. Ahunt 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey

Please, give your opinion on the discussion page. I believe that it would be relevant to add information about:

- The V-22's lack of autorotation (information not present on the text)

- The V-22's light armament (information not present on the text) EconomistBR 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bill, if you have a reference or can point me to one about its armaments, that'd be great. I really doubt they would bother to put a .50 cal gun on it, more likely a 20 mm one. Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on that. I would think the 50 cl would be prefferable as it would weigh much less than the 20mm system would, and be less expensive, and easir to retrofit. But as they say, necessity is the mother of inventions, and I don't doubt the ones flying into combat might come up with a jury-rigged solution to the whole problem that works well. - BillCJ 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, don't want to add too much weight. I did find a presentation by Bell and GD mainly on the .50 cal turret. Looks like it weigh under 500 lb. -Fnlayson 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Thought you'd want to see this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Want to...?

...split an article? Take a look at the Hughes H-6 Talk page. --Born2flie 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done! If we never get it to A/MH-6 Little Bird, that will be okay. You and Jeff do good work. --Born2flie 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A Bridge Too Far

Thanks for linking that for me... Didja read the copy? I just barely skimmed the cream off of the letter, which runs 3/4 of a page, at least! He talks about the airborne units that participated in the jump, and all kinds of marking and code details. I thought I would just began to add SOME of the data that The Battle of Britain (film) has been accorded for a LONG time... For some, reason, a Bridge has received considerably less input.

Mark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Another copy edit request

Bill, I'm finally done with an article that became a lot longer than I originally anticipated, U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal. It could use a good copyedit, if/when you have time. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I was wondering if you are up too it if you could take a look at this and if you can please leave a comment.Sparrowman980 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [[1]]

Air Dominance

Good compromise.141.155.128.109 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and airship stuff

Thanks for watching my back on the vandalism overnight! And thanks for adding your comments in. I've left a message for the editor that got a bit carried away with the del noms. Also, I left a note and offer of help on the uploader, User:Airshipman, probably wouldn't hurt for others to do the same. Hopefully he hasn't been too discouraged...be nice if he checked in and at least saw that someone around here cared. Well, off to work. We're flying a bunch of reporters around this morning, so I have to go clean the grease off the rotor head and make things look pretty! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CH-124 Sea King photo

Sikorsky CH-124A Sea King with blades folded for storage.

Thanks for thinking of me on this issue! I have only one Canadian Sea King digital photo and, while it is a nicely exposed and detailed photo, it was shot at an airshow of a static display aircraft and so has general public in the forground of it. I am currently going through my old (1975-1994) 35 mm photo albums and will see if I can find something better there. Ahunt 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked the S-61L photo! That one turned out well when I shot it back then. I am still looking for a reasonable CH-124 photo for you! Ahunt 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I found one that isn't too bad and posted it to the article (and here). I will keep an eye out for more as I work through my books of 35 mm photos. Nothing better to do today - the rain is coming down here in Ottawa! - Ahunt 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Braves

Sorry, I got a little impatient when twice in two days someone (different ones) questioned this well-covered story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about being well-covered or not, at least for me. Per WP:ATTR, we need to have sources for just about everything, esp things like this. But I understand the frustration - there's plenty of things that get to me, like new info not being cited! Anyway, you should see what I took out when I added the tag! - BillCJ 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why isn't every line in the article cited? Meanwhile, you were right to remove that editorial about the "dominate" Mets, posted by someone who apparently missed the news flash that the Mets failed to make the playoffs after one of the biggest September flops in history. But it was funny stuff to read. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My Our stalker

this was an interesting edit...especially since that's a really old address. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! I wonder if your stalker realizes we turned over his complete address to the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security on that first day he became a problem? Last I heard from CIA on my old stalker was his cell number (And I don't mean a mobile phone!) at Gitmo, but I don't think he survived there long ;) - BillCJ 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's time to stalk back. Do you have Google Earth? The vast majority of the IPs associated with Wikzilla show the location of use at 1880 Campus Commons Drive, Reston VA, 20191. So I called it up on GE...or friend is at N38.943262, W77.333439, which appears to be a dorm or other college building. Remember how you supposed that he was about 12, and I guessed 14-15? Looks like we're both wrong...a very immature college kid. Probably a freshman, because his comments clearly show that he hasn't taken any higher critical thinking classes. Interestingly, though, the OR comment on your user page that you just reverted comes from a different part of the campus, located at 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive, same zip, which can be seen at N38.950032, W77.377746. Not sure what this building is, though it looks like a medical facility (mental ward would fit the "Reston Stalker's" profile. It would be interesting to find out what Virginia's laws on stalking and internet abuse is. It would be further interesting to find out what this college's policies are, since the Reston Stalker is clearly using campus internet services, and I'll bet that students have to sign the standard form agreeing not to misuse the system, and I'll bet that students who do misuse internet services are subject to disciplinary action and possibly even prosecution. If so, a formal report to campus security, with exact times that the Stalker made his edits from the different locations might help identify his real identity, and might result in some real-world consequences for his choice to be obnoxious. My initial reaction to this guy was ho-hum, boring. But, this could prove to be quite interesting. If the Reston Stalker demonstrates such behavior online, I wonder if he's like that in real life, and I'll bet Campus Security would be quite interested in the fact that they have a stalker on campus, especially with how security at all Virginia campuses is heightened.... Thoughts? AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting. Doesn't Air Methods operate in DC? Maybe someone there knows an agent in the VA State Police or Investigations that can give an answer on the legal part, and even do some follow-up. Might mention the stalker appears to spend alot of time with video games, possibly ones featuring the F-22 and/or Typhoon. - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta airport article

Check out my comment on that article's talk page. Also, check out Ahunt's gallery on my talk page! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Autiger did some work on it, including adding in the references. Sorry he took away the fun for you ;) - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great (big) Book

I managed to get a copy of this book by Spick too. I started looking for books by David Donald and modern aircraft books and ended up finding that one. It's almost too large to read in bed and stuff. I expected in to have short entries on many aircraft, but it's several smaller books put together. Take care. -Fnlayson 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

elix / helix

Just so you know, I had actually done all the background research myself, and was going to go along with helikoeides, even though we have not established it as the actual word used, when Appleyard made another change and only sourced it with the lexicon. He has that problem. He made the first change without the "h" three weeks ago and then he makes the other change stating he "knows" Greek. He knows it so well, that he allowed his own mistake to exist for three weeks. I can easily find references to elikoeides that are Greek references, so I didn't have a problem with the first edit. It also came up in the web translators.

Almost every other historical reference that I've found besides these two (Leishman, Century of Flight) do not mention d'Amecourt by name. If they do, they appear to have used the dictionaries' etymology of heliko + pteron, and one reference even claimed that the word was formed as helic + o + ptere (helik + pteron, needing a "connector": o). Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.

Judy Rumerman (Early Helicopter Technology essay on Century of Flight) used Leishman as a reference for the essay, so that can only mean that the source of the word, misspelled or whatever, comes from one of Leishman's sources:

• Liberatore, E. K. 1998. Helicopters Before Helicopters, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL.
• Wolf, A. L. 1974. "The Vision of D'Amecourt," Vertiflite, 20 (5), pp. 2--6.

However, if you want to argue WP:RS look at Leishman's reference list. Most of his references are primary sources. Here is a guy who is thorough in his research and in sourcing his statements, I mean, he has a PhD and is a professor after all. I, for one, would like to get a hold of the paper by Wolf.

How long have you edited with me, and you don't recognize that I only want the article to be as accurate and of as high a quality as possible? It doesn't matter what I know or what I suspect, I source everything I can. I actually do not like disputes but I won't be walked all over, either. Some people push my buttons, and Appleyard's philosophy of editing on Wikipedia is one of those things that irritates me. I mean, take a look at the history section, it is atrocious; but he thinks it looks better than it did. It is an eyesore on this article that should be one of the crown jewels of WP:Air, as should any general article about aircraft. That is my goal. That is always where my edits and comments are aimed, towards meeting the standard of WP:WIAGA and attempting to reach WP:TPA. --Born2flie 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Born, I know you just want to make the most accurate article - I've never faulted you intentions. It's obvious to anyone who has studied Classical or Koine Greek at any level that you have no formal experience with those languages, just as it would be obvious to you I don't have a clue about how to fly a helicopter if I tried to edit/correct the Helicopter article's specifics about flying. That doesn't make either of us stupid, nor does it mean we can't learn about the subjects. My concern is that both of the internet sources you have provided are identical in wording, which tells me that they most likely have a source in common, or that one copied text from the other. I have suggested that we contact Leishman though his e-mail address to confirm what is in his book, since no one has access to the printed editions. Dictionaries and lexicons are reliable sources - we can't just pick which sources we want because someone else provided them, and they disagree with our preferred sources. If there is an obvious contradiction, then further research is required, and i've never opposed that.

One thing about your statements above: your wrote:

Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.

However, all the illustrations of helicopter-type devices I've seen from the 1800s show an actual spiral-type structure, not modern long, thin, articulated blades attached to a rotor mast. Thus, it's not describing a modern rotor in action, though the despcription is apt. That's not Original research on my part, but merely an interpretation of the data available. I shouldn't - and won't - ever try to put such analysis into an article, as that truly is original research. However, I would be foolish to ignore something that doesn't seem right to my understanding of a topic, or that contradicts both my personal knowledge/experiance and other reliable sources. That is the case with the Helix/elix issue. - BillCJ 07:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not thinking clearly here. d'Amecourt is the point of origin, not ancient Greek language. Prior to d'Amecourt, this word helicopter did not exist. His invention does not look like da Vinci's screw, so it would not imply that he meant a helical shape, but rather a helical motion through the air as the aircraft moved, i.e. spiraling. Some clarification, I did not originally put the Greek word in there, I simply found a reference for it. It met my requirements, it had the date, it had the individual, and it had the Greek words that were currently in the article. Now, if one or both Greek words are wrong, this author attributes the wrong words being used to the individual who coined the phrase. Simply saying that it is the wrong words and then changing the words because you know better, is OR. The lexicon doesn't help because the source claims that d'Amecourt used those words. I can also find sources that don't have the year he coined it and claim that he used words you would be totally comfortable with.

So, the issue becomes, which words did d'Amecourt actually use? Did he use an incorrect transliteration because he was unlearned in Greek? You can't say that "this" word is the correct one according to the lexicon and pronounce it so. You have to document that d'Amecourt used that word. As far as references, when you have one that you like and one that is more descriptive but appears wrong, it bears some more investigation rather than to pronounce the one correct and the one you dislike because of error as wrong. I've seen nothing but speculation from Appleyard and yourself about d'Amecourt, and I'd just like some proof. A source, a reference that says he used the wrong word, or that he used the correct word.

I prefer Prof. Leishman as a reference because he lists his two sources that he got his information from, and I can use that to track it down. Or, we can email him as you suggest, but until this issue is resolved, I have removed the reference to the Greek language and attributed it solely to d'Amecourt, which almost any reference will support. --Born2flie 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually seen a reference to d'Amecourt's words in print form, not on the internet? As far as I can tell, the answer to that is No. Maybe you found a print edition before leaving on you assignment, but if you did, and said that, I missed it. What I am saying is that you cannot trust an internet copy of a printed work for diacritical markings - both Appleyard and I had red flags go up on the word, because it doesn't look right with everything we've seen before ont he word, or our knowledge of the Greek language. I assume Apple changed it in the article without checking the source because he assumed it was a simple typing error. I probably would have done the same thing had I noticed it first. It just din't fit our understanding of Greek spelling or noun/adjective declension. Once I realized the source had that spelling, I speculated on why I thought it could be a copyist error, but I also have asked for further research on the original sources, including contacting the professor. If the printed copy shows a spelling/marking that is different from the internet copy, including using the "h" or rough breathing mark, then the issue should be settled. If it contains the exact spelling, then I'd prefer seeing the sources for that source, but at least that source will have been verified, and acceptable for the article. If that's not clear thinking, then it must be 5am EDT! - BillCJ 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the German article has "helikos", and French "helix", but without sources. I'll keep checking the other interwikis in the latin alphabet, and see if one has some different sources we can check. - BillCJ 09:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be the Holy Grail: La Conqûete de l'air par l'hélice. Exposé d'un nouveau système d'aviation, the 40-page work by d'Amecourt where he coined the word. - BillCJ 09:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The web document is on Professor Leishman's website area (www.glue.umd.edu/~leishman) for the university at which he instructs. If that isn't accurate to anything else he's written, I don't know what would be. That webpage mentions that the essay/article includes extracts from his printed text, whether that includes that portion of the history discussion or not, again, we'll have to contact the Professor. Once again, I'll point out that he directly references where he acquired his information from in that essay, "...see Wolf (19681974) and Liberatore (1998)." I've not seen any other reference online (or in print) do that for where they received their information.

I agree that the document by d'Amecourt would settle all. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online reference of it and a library search would do me little good. --Born2flie 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to translate the French for you? :D --Born2flie 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the Professor. I will let you know his response. I also emailed the Staff at AHS' publication Vertiflite to ask them if Wolf referred to the Greek words in his publication. In the introduction to his essay, Professor Leishman describes Liberatore as one of the most authoritative sources on early helicopter developments, including, apparently, the period during which d'Amecourt coined the term. --Born2flie 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No response yet, but, in these days of Spam filters, my emails might've been trashed for the sake of sanity. --Born2flie 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you helping Appleyard with his patience. I resent the email using a more official email and received a response back almost immediately. He is going to try to track down the original d'Amecourt article, saying that it may be in the Liberatore collection, which is now at the NASM. If he finds it, he'll let me know. He also says that Liberatore has the same word in his book (p.224) that was originally included in the Helicopter article (elikoieoas). Thus, the need to get closer to the actual source in order to resolve the issue. --Born2flie 05:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The d'Amecourt paper is in the Library of Congress. I obviously don't have access, but am contemplating paying for a photocopy or digital reproduction. No feedback on the Wolf paper in Vertiflight Vol. 20 ed. 5. Prof. Leishman also says that he spoke with a colleague who is a native Greek speaker. The colleague spoke with his friends back home and came up with:

It is true that this word cannot be found in any of the modern or ancient Greek lexicon. For this reason we had to dissect the word. After a lengthy discussion over the phone with colleagues in Greece we came to the following conclusion. "Elikoeioas" is probably an old epithet that describes an object in which its main devise has a helical shape. When it is joined with the Greek word “pteron” (wing) then it produces the composite word “elikopteron” (helicopter), which describes the entire object that incorporates wings of a helical (or spiral) shape. The word “elikoeides” or “helicoeides” is more popular but it only describes the shape of an object, period.

I'm not sure if that will meet with your criteria, but it sure does explain why the professor included it as is. --Born2flie 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Including that once it's confirmed is fine with me. Anthony's pushing his view a bit much even for me. In the end, I think including boht sources, with the dictionary version in a footnote, may be workable. After all, anyone who picks up a dictionary and compares what we have may be confuded as to the differences. Including both sources is usually the way Wikipedia handles competing reliable sources, and the dictionaries are generally considered reliable. I'm not gonna make a bigger issue of it if you don't think that's the way to go though. - BillCJ 07:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's being worked right now, apparently. Although, I will warn up front that any attempts to link the Greek etymological references to d'Amecourt will be edited until a verifiable historical source is provided. And the minute I have any proof that Anthony and Where the Sun Doesn't Shine were incorrect, I will not only happily point it out to them, over and over again, I will forward the information to Dr. Leishman so that it can be propogated to the point of no contestation.

I understand your point of view, however dictionary etymologies are sometimes developed by looking at the word and guessing, albeit an educated guess, what the origins are. I admit I was wrong on the transliteration versus transcription issue, the "h" would be present in an English transliteration of the word today, but I also believe that the issue is more than that, it is also what d'Amecourt intended. Considering that the A.L. Wolf article in the 1974 Vertiflite magazine was his translation of the pamphlet by d'Amecourt (I have a reprint of Part 1, courtesy of AHS), d'Amecourt was a reader of Classical Greek, familiar with a Greek scientist/philosopher that he refers to as Theophile.

The French word for propeller (or screw, as in the screw that propels a ship) is "hélice", which Wolf translates directly as "helix". As near as I can tell, where Wolf has translated the article as d'Amecourt describing what helicopter means ("hélices comme des ailes"), it is essentially, "propellers as wings", since he envisioned more than one main rotor in his description. It is possible that d'Amecourt's use of hélice is what brought about the etymological description of helix being the basis of the word. However, even if we assume the direct correlation, it is possible that elikoeioas isn't a single word, but two or more words, as Classical Greek didn't use spaces, punctuation, or diacritics.

The English phrase "helix as wings" looks like this, "ελικα, οπως φτερα" in modern Greek (a la Google Translate). Certainly looks like a lot of extra characters if you saw it all close together (ελικαοπωςφτερα). Granted, the Classical Greek would not be the same exact words, based on the current discussion. Essentially, what I'm saying is that it looked something like "ελικοειοωςπτερων" ("elikoeioaspteron" or something similar), and instead of separating it into a phrase of more than two words, the uninitiated simply separated the one word he could recognize (pteron) and assumed that the rest was as Dr. Leishman's colleague and friends did, a form of helix to describe pteron.

I'm going to suggest the same to Dr. Leishman and see what his Greek friend thinks of it. --Born2flie 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The paper by d'Amecourt was published in 1863, yet Liberatore credits d'Amecourt with coining the word some two years earlier. I am no longer thinking that La Conqûete de l'air par l'hélice. Exposé d'un nouveau système d'aviation is the holy grail and that the source is some other correspondence of d'Amecourt's, perhaps with one of his contemporaries or some other worthy. I still feel that the paper has served as a clue of sorts (through Wolf's translation) to getting closer to the truth. --Born2flie 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

XF-104 AFD

Thanks for sticking up for me and I was shocked to see that tag to be honest, not sure what the process is but hopefully if there is enough support it will stay. Unfortunately if that article goes then so do I, I have tried my best to wade through the editing minefield. Thanks Nimbus227 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the editor who proposed the Afd is apparently coming back from an indefinite block as a sockpuppet and has a very ? history. FWIW, the action to go directly to an Afd is very questionable. I do not think that there was either much research done other than a cursory look at the Lockheed XF-104 article. What I also see is a pretext to do something "splashy" but I fear that it is also outwardly provocative for no reason. Bzuk 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Experienced Editors

Thats smacks of elitism if you ask me12.43.60.50 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it smacks of maturity. How long has this battle been going on on the Typhoon page? Several weeks at least. THat is called edit-warring, and it's not the recommended way to solve problems. Several editors, including you, have not exhibited the maturity to discuss the issue, and wait for a consensus to be agreed upon. Instead, you all throw out quotes and arguments to back up your claim, then you unilaterally make changes with no regard for others. Each side claims to have ALL the facts right, and that the others are wrong. Problem is, you can't all be right. Because this edit waring has shown known signs of ending, we've had to protect the page to prevent editing by unregistered users, who are the ones causing most of the problems. But as soon as the block comes off, you and others go right back to the same methods.

If you truly believe that your version of the facts is the correct one, then make your arguments and state your facts on the talk page. Try to convince the others editors that you are right - that is what building a consensus is. However, there are ususally at least 2 points of view in every argument, and often neither side is totally correct. When this is the case, it's best to present both views, with sources, and let the readers decide. THat is what mature editors do, otr at least try to do. We are still human, and we still make mistakes, but at lest we try to get along. THat is all we ask here: It's your choice. Make the right one. - BillCJ 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ping

Bill, check your email...article on the Bell 429 which might have good info for the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pete Carpenter

RE: Pete Carpenter

From http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0139432/ :

"The Sopranos" (1 episode, 1999)

   - Pilot (1999) TV Episode ("Theme from 'The Rockford Files'")

David Chase did the Sopranos, he met Carpenter and Post with Cannell on Rockford. Then Chase used the theme on the Sopranos pilot.

Thanks,

WikiDon 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what my research showed, and why I removed Cannell as creator of the show. I think somewhere along the line someone mixed up Cannell with Chase, as they did work together on other projects, just not the Sopranos. - BillCJ 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Now it's the time. I call ARBCOM to decide this amusing staff. It involve you and Bzuk. When it's enough, it's enough. See EH101.--Stefanomencarelli 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Skycrane crash PD images

Bill, this link has several public domain pics of the Skycrane crash on the day fire. I'm not gonna have time till at least tomorrow to harvest them and get them uploaded and used. Feel free to do so yourself if you need something to distract you from the Stefo fun! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Schweizer 330/333

I only have a 300C in digital format, but let me check and see if I have any 35 mm ones. Still looking for a better CH-124 photo too! - Ahunt 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CH-53K

Found some more specs on the K model on Sikorsky's page. It's supposed to have a MTOW of 84,700 lb with 3 x 6,000 hp engines. Payload peaks out at 36,000 lb on their chart. The H-53's capabilities have come a long way from the A model in the early 1960s. I'll keep working on it. -Fnlayson 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. ANd thanks for shepherding that and the other sandboxes for me. My health has been such that I just have'nt had the energy to work on them, and I'm thankful you are working on those that you can. Today, I've had to work on Stefo's ARBCOM against me and BZuk. Major fun that, but perhaps we will be able to rein him in at last. We'll see. - BillCJ 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, I'm using that sandbox for older CH-53 dev work too. Dang, that Arbitration thing looks rough. His text dumps mainly in F-14 and to a lessor degree in F-4 are the only ones I've had to deal with thankfully. Hang in there. -Fnlayson 00:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The CH-53K sandbox article is coming along. I'm working on some E model upgrade stuff now. In a few days I should be able to move that over to the CH-53E article. The K article should be ready for main space in a couple weeks. Although it'd be better to wait for preliminary specs out of Sikorsky, I think. -Fnlayson 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's looking great, Jeff! Concur on waiting for specs, or perhaps for some big announcement that gets some attention. THere's a user who does some work for Sikorsky who might be able to help with Specs, if they've been released publically. And though he works primarily on the S-92 and X2, I'll also see if he can find out if the K has an S-model number. - BillCJ 15:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• That'd be good. I like the K's new stub wings. -Fnlayson 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

EH101

I wish to support your decision to revert this unreferenced and grave NNPOV contribution on EH101, in which some confusion seems made on maybe hostile press rumours (written as rumours) relevant to Canadian structural problems with facts (thousands of flying hours so far). Moreover, in the same contribution it seems it was reported as a fact some Canadian EH101 project opponents complains sometimes used as a pretext in order to show too high maintenance figures. I think everything can be written on wikipedia, but when grave accuses are made to present day projects, I think clear and point by point references should be cited in order to lessen Wikipedia responsibility. I am following all the story since the beginning and the recent days spin-ups. I strongly agree with your choices. Feel free to contact me at will for what I can help. Regards --EH101 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, BillCJ. I saw you revert vandalism a few seconds ago, and I would like you to suggest you warn vandals using the following templates:

{{Subst:uw-v1}} {{Subst:uw-v2}} {{Subst:uw-v3}} {{Subst:uw-v4}}

Thanks, and happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I do warn occassionally, esp. registered users who are becoming problems that need to be dealt with by an admin. However, I generally do not warn for the following reasons:

1. I find the process to be tedious.
2. I find that too many admins are reluctant to block to IP vandals promptly enough to be effective, if they block at all.
3. I have not found a script or help program that is easy to use that also works well with my OS (WinXP) and browser (IE6)
4. I find a reluctance by admins to punitively block consistant vandals, yet they use punitive blocking measures agaisnt regular editors for offenses such as 3RR.
5. After having a multitude of problems related to IP vandalsim and harrassment, my attempts to approach Jim Wales to ask for help fell and deaf ears, and I was threatend with punitive action if I continued to object to to Open IP editing.

• As such, I refuse to waste my time cleaning up the Foundations messes in regards to most vandalism, when I know from experience that the Foundation does not back its editors if an IP gets vindictive. If a given user's vandalism becomes annoying, I have a couple of admins who are willing to help me out directly in blocking or in page protection. I'm sorry if my refusal to warn causes trouble for you, but I assure you it's far less trouble than the Foundation is causing both of us by their refusal to contemplate policy and other changes that might make it easier to fight vandalism and vindictive IPs. - BillCJ 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New words to live by

Aircrafts, planes, aerodromes, datas, fanatism, Irak, pullute, omosexualiy, unjustice, couvered, proposte, machted, outrageus, shxt, cleary! FWIW Bzuk 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

I think those are the "best", tho no doubt we'll see some new ones in the next few days. So I'll have to give some local attempts on some "native" words: Baloney, feducheeny, lazawnya, rigertony, regerleto, Petesa, and of course, their greatest export to America in the last 40 years, Gee-adda deLoreantess - BillCJ 01:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we got Nigella Lawson (yummy!); but howzabout this then:

In the local-speak, "Hoots mon, Ah dinnae ken jes whit ye're bletherin' aboot."

Or as my late Geordie father-in-law would say, "Waye-aye man, tha's gannen lost tha liggies doon woor nettie."

To which my late "black-country" grandmother might reply "Yowm b'aint wrong there ahr khid."

But my son would probably comment "Is it that yu is dissin' owr langwij? No respec' innit!"

(Sigh) Where did we go wrong? --Red Sunset 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (Translations available on request.)

Ah, you are all such full of herrors! <g> AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a few modifics are needed! --Red Sunset 19:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Typhoon

I think you're an admin. As I wrote on the Typhoon page, I think we need an admin to settle the issue. I understand you're on wiki-break and I respect that, but if you have time and are interested, that would be great. If not could you drop me a quick note and I'll seek another admin.

-Much Thanks Kitplane01 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SOrry, I'm not an admin, I just act like on on occasion :) Seriously, I'm just a concerned Wikipedia. However, User:Akradecki is an admin, and he's the one who's been protectiong the page. Let him know the problem, and I know he'll try to help in anyway he can. - BillCJ

Hello

Can you please help me sourcing of the Lavi pic?--Gilisa 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not tonight, heading to bed for my 8 hours of sleep. I will look into it tommorrow tho. YOu might post a note for help at WT:AIR, as we have editors around the world, and someone may be mor familarwith the copyright restrictions of the site the pic is from. That is a good pic, and I would certainly like to keep it in the article if the problems are worked out. Also, when adding a new pic, especially to the lead infobox, it's best to try to keep the existing pics in the aritcle by moving them down into the text. I was actually in the process of doing that when I realized your new pic had problems, so I just reverted it instead. Don't worry if your new at this; it took me several months beofre I was comfortable adding images on my own. - BillCJ 08:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but it seems that I will have to look for another picture which have easier license...cheers--Gilisa 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Concordeism

I've been playing around in your essays sandbox and added a couple of pics; I hope you like 'em. --Red Sunset 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Robset)

I've removed the poor-taste photo; it was an on the spur of the moment addition when I first saw the photo, but not worth any amount of humour at the expense of those lost in the accident or affected by it, and I dearly wish I'd never posted it. My apologies to all who may have been offended by it, and I trust that no-one will assume it was your own work. --Red Sunset 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Easier way

Hello, BillCJ. I noticed this. If you want immediate administrator action, here is a better place for that. Thanks! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, AIV is worthless. I prefer to go to admins who I know will actually do something about the vandal, not lecture me for not following preceedure correctly, and then ignoring the vandal. I appreciate your advice and all, and I know it's in good faith. However, I've been on Wikipedia long enough (over a year) to know what actually works around here, and what is a waste of time. Please don't offer me any more suggetions of this nature. Thanks, and I do appreciate the thought. - BillCJ 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on F-22 Raptor

BillBC, follow the edit history of the editor involved in reverts and comments on the talk page and it will take you to the ARBCOM? It seems the actions are malicious and unprovoked. I have asked an admin to look into it. Bzuk 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bill, sorry to hear you aren't feeling well. Hope things look up soon. As to the bizarre series of attacks, they seem to be related to the discussions revolving around the F-22 article and related discussion pages. I posted the following to Picaroon: "I don't know who the editor is either, someone else had tried to trace him down. He seems to be operating under the following IP addresses: 68.244.198.204, 162.84.187.178, 141.155.140.142, 70.107.171.151, Stoptheabuse, 70.107.173.5, 162.83.226.72, 162.83.226.119, 141.155.128.109, 76.102.190.6, 162.84.182.189, 162.83.254.13, 162.84.184.78 and 162.83.254.139. FWIW Bzuk 06:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)." What is the procedure with a widespread attack, can all submissions be removed at once? does it have to be by an admin? can pages be protected from anons? FWIW Bzuk 07:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Riddle: When is a sock not a sock?

[2] Hey, at least they guy has a bit of imagination. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've asked EH101 for a translation. It's creative, as is this, but at a college freshman or high school level. Reminds me of when young kids cover there eyes, and really thing you can't still see them! - BillCJ 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Xlation, thanks to babelfish, is "I cannot believe that all the group of this people in on on you, but does not allow that completely you explain your case. Excuses I pray the ignorance of all that one slanders you. They do not understand. Like the sheep, they are lost without they shepard". He's already asked for an unblock. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Having a word or two of encouragement is always useful. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

NotASockPuppetOfWikzilla

I saw the weird message in mencarelli's talk. It's a very poor grammar Italian message (maybe from a babelfish) titled "I declare". It continues with a very very poor grammar with something like: "I barely believe that all those people are against you and don't let you explain your case. Pardon them with their ignorance and all those calumnies against you. They do not understand. As sheeps they are lost without a shepard." It seems a taunt made from a non Italian troll aimed to raise the flame. Nothing everybody really needs. Next move ? Bye --EH101 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparable or non-comparable aircraft

Hi, Bill. I've noticed that you have deleted entries from the 'comparable aircraft' section of the article on the Gripen on several occasions. Maybe you could be a little more explanatory, I suggest on the talk page, on why certain aircraft are or are not comparable. I'm not an expert on the subject, in my world you could compare the Gripen with the new Airbus A380. The Airbus is bigger! That's a comparison, isn't it? ;-) LarRan 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's not what it means. per WP:AIR/PC: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. - BillCJ 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cobra pics

Bill, since you asked awhile ago about the USFS AH-1/209 Cobras, I thought I'd let you know that I got to get up-close-and-personal with one of them at Fox a couple of days ago, and have posted a pic to the AH-1 article. I've uploaded several more to Commons, you can see them on my gallery page, in the helo section. I didn't want to overwhelm the AH-1 article with these, but if you think one of the others is better than the one I posted, feel free to switch them out. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft Super King Air

Copyedit form my talk page: "G'day Bzuk, I've been working over in Beechcraft land for a while and have seen a couple of references to the Canadian Forces "CT-145 Super Kingair". Other than on Wikipedia I can find no evidence of the CT-145 in CAF service. Could you please confirm so I can make the necessary changes (of course you could do it yourself if you want to, there are a few different articles where the reference appears). YSSYguy 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the site's reliability, but you might look at http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/trainers/kingair/index.php . - BillCJ 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Now this is just off the top of my head (and you know how much that can hurt) but the Raytheon/Beechcraft (Beech) C-90B King Air (replacing earlier C-90As) used in training at Southport Aerospace (Portage la Prairie, Manitoba) by the No. 3 Canadian Forces Flying Training School (3 CFFTS) is probably the only use of the King Air in the Canadian military. I'll check to see what their designation is but I always thought it went by "Beech C-90 King Air." FWIW Bzuk 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)."

BTW, thought you might need this:

Seen this?

Per this, what happens now? Having never been through an ARBCOM, I have no idea what to expect now. It doesn't seem like he is leavibng en.Wiki, just the ARBCOM. I get the feeling he had no clue what really happens in the ARBCOM, but expected a quick censure of us. He's demanded apologies at least twice, and seems put out we haven't responded, or been made to apologize. - BillCJ 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Bzuk 03

10, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

This is a very disturbing development. I don't know what to think of the whole mess. This arbitration hearing cost everyone involved a lot of time and effort for what? FWIW, I reread some of the edit history that was accumulated and it just made no sense as some of the angry responses were what Redset called "feigned indignation." Other times, there were even attempts at mollifying other editor's concerns but when very little support was forthcoming, a reversion to unseemly and ill-tempered comments. Bzuk 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Re. user:GB-UK-BI

user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, --noclador 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. user:Caveman 07

Still producing nonsense! Paste 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've brought the user to an admin's attention, and he's pretty good about dealing swiftly with such idiots, when he is online. (He's quite busy in real life, but has been active today.)

Is someone angry at you?

Beware the Flag of the Rouge admin!

Hi, BillCJ. Do you suspect this user is a sockpuppet of someone? He repeatedly attacks you in edit summaries. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's User:Wikzilla, a banned user was using sock puppets to avoid a block for incivility in his edits on the F-22 and Typhoon pages. We didn't put up with it, and now the little pimple from Reston VA is spending his time reinforcing why he was banned in the first place by using dynamic IP addresses every time he edits, while whining about being blocked for "no reason". THanks for bringing this one to our attention. - BillCJ 04:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd...I thought I was the lap dog. And, it's rouge admin, not rogue admin!

And I just found out I was a librarian! I know I used to praticlally live in them, but I never got paid! I'm sending an angry letter out tommarrow demanding my back-wages! Anyway, I only contribute keraias to Wikipedia - iotas are just a bit too big for my small snivelling mind. - BillCJ 04:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan, do they got one of those pages and userboxes for editors? Five evil pillars! Love it! - BillCJ 05:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

F-86 Sabre specifications

As you and I could have surmised, when the information from a verifiable and authoritative source was located, it varied appreciably from other sources quoted by a certain loving someone who went on a tirade in the talk page about his/her/its Ital sources which in many cases, such as internet articles, had been inaccurate. I consider the Baugher references to be very valuable as they are a compilation of various sources but in some instances, the original material may be suspect. Check out the specifications table for the F-86F-40-NA in the F-86 Sabre article and it now corresponds to the published charts from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics (S.A.C.) charts prepared by the U.S. Air Force and North American Aviation NA54-389 (revised 1 May 1957) provided in Wagner's landmark work, The North American Sabre (1963). Now even with these figures, it appears that the most capable F-86 variant is the (tadah!) Canadair Sabre Mk 6 with a maximum speed of 710 mph at sea level. You know I couldn't resist making a statement about our Canadian technology superiority! FWIW, isn't the ARBCOM fun, no manner of weird and wonderfuls appearing! Bzuk 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the Canadair Sabre was so good, that is scared the AMerican goov't and USAF so much, that, in order to suppress Canadian technology - like they did with the CF-105, ;) - they bought 60-something Canadian-built F-86Es for attrition replacements because of the Korean War, so that Canada couldn't keep the advanced technology for itself. Of course, remember, the pure-Canadian CF-100 wasn't ever as good as the American-derived Sabre! :) - BillCJ 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are invited on a proposal at WP:MILAIR

As an editor who has been active in working on air force-related articles, I’d appreciate your input on a a proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles. I’d like to get broader inputs and would appreciate your suggestions on improving the proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Limited availability

Hi Bill, After spending yesterday afternoon in the cockpit of the plane in the infobox of Douglas DC-7 and chatting with the crew, I got the go-ahead from the publisher of a periodical I used to write for to do a feature article on aerial firefighting, and the changes the industry has been going through with respect to the growing size of wildfires, and so I'll be concentrating on that for the next couple of weeks. I'll still be around Wikipedia, but just not as frequently. Feel free to still drop requests my way, but if you need immediate help I'd suggest User:John or User:Lar. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: F-16 users

Hello and thanks for the notice. I hope that I'll be able to carry out the mission satisfactorily. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

States_Reorganization_Commission

This is regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganization_Commission . This is part of the government of India report which was submitted way back in 1955. I am trying to find this content on govt of India web site but could not find it. We have hard copy of the report. If needed we can update the scanned copy of the report. Let me know what should I do to avoid the deletion. Thanks. Ramcrk 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, verbatim reports should not be posted on Wikipedia. If they are, you need to include the source information for the report (print is fine if online sources are not available), and the copyright information of the material. If this is a Public Domain or copyright-free report under Indian laws, then you might consider posting the report to [3], which is a better place for such reports. While I am not an administrator on Wikipedia, I have asked one for assistance, and he may remove the AFD, and recommend a more sutabiel approach to the problem. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is removed. Can you please help me undelete it thanks. Ramcrk 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the page is there, just the copied text has been removed. The older version can be accessed in the article history, when the time comes to retrieve it. I did try to stop the AFD process, but an administrator continued the process. The best place for the full report would probably be Wikisource, as long as the report is in the public domain. I will try to find out how to do this. If you can find out if the report is copyrighted or in Public domain, that would be good. The report copy you have may say whether it's use is restricted. If not, could you to check on the Indian copyright laws regarding government documents for us? If all that clears, then we can hopefully have Wikisource host the full report, and link to it in the States Reorganisation Commission and [States Reorganisation Act]] pages.

Next, we need to decide if the States Reorganisation Commission and [States Reorganisation Act]] pages should remain separate. Two separate articles could be better than one combined article. If two, then some material could be moved from the Act page to the report page. At this point, I honestly don't know the best approach to take, as it depends to some extend on how much more material exists that can be added to either page.

I hope this helps. I agree with your goal on improving articles related to India, and would like to see these articles expanded. I'll do what I can to help, as I have time. - BillCJ 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I found about Indian copyright laws: According to section 52.1.q.iii of Indian copy right act ...

"52.Certain acts not to infringement of:- (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely : --- q) the reproduction or publication of ---( iii ) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government"

You can also find the same info at page 36 of http://education.nic.in/CprAct.pdf

Also, States Reorganisation Act is different from States Reorganisation Commission. States Reorganisation Act implemented most of the recommendations of States Reorganisation Commission. Here is document on govt of India web site about States Reorganisation Act at http://india.gov.in/govt/documents/amendment/amend7.htm - Ramcrk 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill, in response to your question on Wikisource...my experience over there has been in posting documents directly, and it works just like editing pages here, except they require the green header. I'd be happy to put the text over there, just won't have time tonight. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Something to think about

User:Moreschi has a poignant essay on his user page. I may be heading in that direction (ie, the troll-free zone) myself, at least part-time. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is very interesting indeed. It really seems to basically be a repository for FA-status-type articles, but almost all of my work is at levels far below that. It doesn't seem to encompass much of of type of contribution, which is editing existing text, adding new info, expanding existing articles, and creating new one. I will keep on eye on it tho. If you would let me know (in e-mail) your impressions of working there after a few weeks, I would appreciate it. - BillCJ 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

oops

I have no idea how that happened; I can only assume that I hit rollback inadvertently. The section has now been re-instated. I take your point about the US abbreviation and thanks for the heads up on both counts :-) Grant | Talk 08:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hughes 300 pics

Bill, I put 8 pics of the 300 out in MSN, would u like any or all of these moved into Wiki for the 300 article as a "Walk Around Gallery"? A friend took them, I can check if he wants GNU noted or not.

My MSN Album: Hughes 300 Walk Around .... Lance.... LanceBarber 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that BilCat has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS Kentucky (BB-66), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't think it was that bad! But thanks! Besdies, its alote aseir to sopt ohter poepels eroor than onse own! Anyway, I only did the first main section, so there may be more. :) - BillCJ 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And you can even spell backwards! The alliz completely escaped me! I guess I was just trying too hare to AGF! Don't know if you noticed, but the 'zilla has been blocked yet again. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• It took me awhile on that one too! After seeing it on the screen for awhlie, I stepped away from the comp for several minutes, and realized it while pondering the issue - on the porcelain throne! Any way, the other edits seemed good, but a sock is a sock! - BillCJ 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you, John R and Alan, you saw through the subtrefuge quickly. Good on'ya. FWIW Bzuk 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

Commander stuff

Don't know if you're familiar with it, but Airliners.net has a nice series of refs on history/specs of different planes. I'd forgotten this, but the Aero Commander series became Gulfstream after Rockwell. See this. When the time comes, the 690 series, since their turboprops, might be able to be split off from the AC500 article. Also if interest to you might be the piston series and 112/114 series. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Alan. I don't think I'll be able to do much on them right away, but when I do, they'll be usefull. - BillCJ 06:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RoAF 2007 crash

I quickly made a notabilty list of facts for this with the info available for now on the AfD page. Also, your friend Alan was "very fair" by putting the article on AfD one day after the crash. I'll do everything possible to gather as much informations/notabilty facts I can, but come on man, the official conclusions will came out after 30 days!! --Eurocopter tigre 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So wait till then to write an encyclopedia article about it. This isn't a newspaper. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan genuinely feels the article is not "encyclopedically notable", and does not have the potential to be. He is his own person, and does what he feels is best. If he felt it had merit, he would everytihnign he could to save it, as I have seen him do in the past. I know from experience that it is not fun to see an article you believe in be deleted, but please don't take the process personally, or hold anything against those supporting deletion. I am purposely not going to participate in the AFD beyond adding neutral comments, as I am trying to be an advocate on your behalf in this matter. If the article is deleted, and then new information comes out about the crash that you believe would assert notability, then you can take it to Deletion Review. These could include findings that the aircraft upgrades are flawed, grounding the entire fleet, etc. Also, I'd recommend seting up a sandbox page on your userspace to continue to work on the article if it is deleted, and you can link to that in your appeal to DR at that time. Oh, if the article is deleted, we can put some more of the details, such as those on the pilot, back in the IAR 330 page, but we can't make it too long. - BillCJ 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Alan is somewhere above the notability guidelines. If Alan "feels" this article should be deleted, the notabilty guidelines doesn't count anymore, therefore the article should be deleted. The most important thing in this issue is what actually Alan "feels". I left some strong and sourced arguments on the AfD page and I'm waiting for a similar response. And oh, Bill please stop involving feelings here, as I also have extremely sad feelings for the crew members family - but I didn't use them as an argument to keep the article. Let's talk about real facts and arguments.. --Eurocopter tigre 19:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tigre, you misunderstood my use of "feels" re: Alan. Americans often use "feel" and "believe" interchageably, as I did in this case. I should be mroe more careful when writing to a non-native English speaker. My apologies. Also, please tone down the near-hostility just a bit. It's understandable your emotions are high regarding this subject, but neither Alan nor I are your adversaries here. Please be careful not to alientate the allies you do have, as I haven't seen anyone else even attempting to help you here. I wouldn't attempt to say this to our Italian "friend" Stephano, as it would fall on deaf ears, but I think much better of you. - BillCJ 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

- BillCJ 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Ok, Eurocopter tigre, that was just slightly out of line. I'm not above any guidelines. I believe in and honor guidelines...in fact, I'm the editor who started the crash guidelines. In general, I'm an inclusionist, not a deletionist, but we simply don't cover every crash, no matter how tragic. Bill once asked me if I thought 2006 Mercy Air 2 accident deserved to be an encyclopedia article. Three people were killed in this one, and I knew all three quite well. But, though I was very saddened at the loss, my answer was, no, it really didn't qualify. If someone nom'ed it for deletion, I'd probably agree with the delete. One of my wife's best childhood friends was killed several months ago in a Navy SH-60 training crash that killed all four crewmembers. Tragic? Yes. Notable in an encyclopedic way? No. We have to always remember that the core mission here is to write an encyclopedia. Will this accident, or any other, be considered equally notable a year from now? Five years? Ten years? If the answer is "no", then an article likely isn't justified. Lastly, address the issues, don't attack the editors. In another comment] on the article talk page, you essentially told another editor that his views on notability were not welcome. That was plain rude on your part, and I really think you owe that guy an apology. Everyone can participate in these discussions, and I know you've a bit upset at the situation, but you need to maintain your poise and not get uncivil. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan, when you made the article on Mercy Air accident you had enough time to gather sources and informations for it, as no one propose it for deletion after one day from its creation. That article is what it is because you had enough time and nobody disturbed you while editing it. Regarding that US navy tragic accident, if somebody notable died in it, or 5% of the helicopter fleet was lost in it, feel free to make a wiki article in my opinion. Bill, you can call as many friends as you want, as this weak threats doesn't have any effect on me. Threatening someone that you might call your friends isn't very civil.. Or is it, Alan?? --Eurocopter tigre 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tigre, I made no threats, was only asking you to be careful. For now, it's best you don't respond back on my page for the time being. I alos suggest you take some time off from the issue, spend some time with the people you love, or do something you enjoy that doens't involve Wikipedia. Get some perspective - this is a tragic event. Again, I am not your enemy here, nor is Alan. We are trying to help you, whether you realize it or not, but speaking for myself, I won't help if I'm not allowed too. Alan can speak for himself, as he does a good job. - BillCJ 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tigre, you missed the point. I didn't write the Mercy article.' That would have been COI, and as I said, I don't think it is notable enough to have an article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the same thing, you didn't put it on AfD because you knew very well the people who died in the crash. --Eurocopter tigre 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually did consider putting it on AfD, but ultimately didn't because I honor our policies, including COI. It would have been improper for me to have been involved in the process in any way. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on the ip-socks

I've responded on my talk -- normally I copy/paste conversations, but since there are three people involved it's best not to splinter the conversation and so I'm now keeping it in one place. Gscshoyru 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Communication

If I'm bothering you with comments on your Talk page, tell me. I'm more than happy to keep talking to myself in my own user space. If you (not others who may read my comments here), feel that I'm off-base with approach or content, I don't mind you telling me. Alan and Jeff as well. I know what my faults are, so, from those I work closely with (relatively speaking), I accept those kinds of criticisms as necessary. --Born2flie 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments here are fine - that's not a problem at all. If they were, I would have already removed them with something like "idiot comment" in the edit summary! I appreciate your willingness to accept criticism. Considering where you currently work, I try not to pile on any unnecessary comments/criticism, as this is your "stress relief", and there are other things in life that are far more important than Wikipeida, such as what you are currently doing. That said, I will speak up if I feel you're off base. I think the current editors discussing the heliko issue have the language background to back up what they sayYour questions to them bazsed on the original text of the French dude are valid. If they can answer you satisfactoraly, we should get an outcome everyone can agree to include, if if we aren't totally happy with it. Heated discussions are part of the process here on Wikipeida, and sometimes the effort to avoid contensious discussios means the issue will be back again, because it was never really settled properly. - BillCJ 18:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello BillCJ, and thanks for your diplomatic words. Maybe you can help out here - but as far as I am concerned, I'm afraid I no longer see how to get into a meaningful dialogue with B2f here. His insults don't help, of course. And with his speculation above about "ελικα, οπως φτερα" and all the rest we are now way past the "Limburger" stage of WP:CHEESE. You say you find his questions valid, and you'd expect satisfactory answers from us. What questions would that be? Sorry, but I can't see any that I could make sense of, as hard as I try. Can you spell them out for me? What would B2f expect? That somewhere out there there must be a source explaining Amécourt's actual thought process in coining the word, or where he himself actually cites the Greek word he was basing it on? As I tried to explain to B2f just now, such a document would be nice but it's unlikely to exist - the guy didn't need to explain how he coined the term, because it was obvious to anyone who saw it. And nothing in the texts we have so far gives us any ground for believing any of them ultimately used such a source. Or is B2f still concerned over the idea that the source of the first part of the word must be an adjective, not a noun, because the meaning of the whole is supposed to be "spiralling wing"? Well, no, it needn't. Greek-based neoclassical compounds simply aren't formed like that. They are noun-noun compounds. If Amécourt had tried to coin a word on the basis of a derived adjective, like "helikoeidēs" ('spiral-formed' or 'spiral-like'), the result would have been something rather bizarre and in any case different (helikoeidoptero??), but he wouldn't have tried doing that anyway. Amécourt used the French word hélice for 'propeller', which is transparently the same word as the Greek helix; it is absolutely obvious why that word would have been the choice for him to use in his coinage. There really is nothing more to explain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about his insults - that just means he like you :) Seriously, I think if you review his dialogue on the subject, you'll see he's come a ways from his original position, as he has learned more about the issue. He is in communication with the author of one of the sources, and is still waiting for some confirmation on the original text in the French document. He is honestly trying to understand the issue, and has done a fair amount of research on his own, which is hard to do where he is currently at. By satisfactorially, I was referring to him being satisfied, not me. Based on my 2 years (barely!) of Koine Greek, what you have stated is acceptable to me, tho I can't answer all of Born2's questions regarding the original source to his satisfaction either. You've done your best in explaining it, so that all you can do at this point. - BillCJ 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I understand the linguist issue. Still, I'm pretty convinced of what I can expect to find. I've never had an Admin stalk me, though. Is this what your IP stalker is like? --Born2flie 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no! :) Your admin is intelligent! - BillCJ 16:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie/Helicopter

That wasn't a subst'ed template, that was the same table that I built for Autorotation (helicopter) and for Aerial crane. Just sayin'. :P --Born2flie 12:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:p ! OK, wrong word choice. Funny thing tho, I built my template by cutting back the {{AIrcraft Infobox}} template, and when I checked yours, they were practically identical! Yours had one difference, I don't remember what, and I incorporated it into the mine. I should have looked at yours more carefully, and just used it in my template - would have saved me some work! I've used it on a few pages, but never got any comments, positive or negative, on it. I'm ready to start using it in more articles, and will probably mention it on WT:AIR and WT:AVIATION. - BillCJ 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I use your Aviation Infobox anytime I do a general article. I even think I've put it on Gyrodyne and Autogyro. It's perfect. --Born2flie 18:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though the original idea is yours. - BillCJ 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We can share it, since it isn't originally my idea, just part of the GFDL that is Wikipedia. I can't remember where, but I know I got the idea from somewhere. I just like your idea of making it a templated infobox so I didn't have to cut and paste that table code in there. --Born2flie 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He-111

If the citation with photo is wrong, then what? --Flightsoffancy 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then your're adding too much info! As previously written, the caption seems fine and accurate to me. Extra info on an image should go on the image page, but even there it's usually not necessary to source the info. Hope that helps. - BillCJ 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep it short, OK. Its just the caption is incorrect so am only correcting. BTW, felling better? I saw the note at the top of your page.

Flightsoffancy 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the Serenity (film) article...

I'll be the first to admit I do not always catch stuff on my Talk page for a few days or even a couple of weeks sometimes. And I don't fault you for wanting to trim a little, and I thank you very much for at least explaining exactly why you removed the given information.

But I would appreciate it if you didn't just "respond" to removal of a considerable amount of the content from my edit on a page only in the edit summaries, because unless someone is watching their Watchlist like a hawk AND bothered to stick the article on their Watchlist in the first place, it's extremely easy to miss, which can lead to misunderstandings and needless frustration on everybody's part. If you're going to remove [| this much content] from an edit, please, talk it out with the editor who posted it, especially when there are actual sources cited for everything, and the removal of content makes the paragraph up to a year or more out of date by implication.

I would have gladly worked with you and trimmed the section to something more reasonably concise, had you merely brought it up with me on say, my User Talk page, instead of deleting a large section of overly verbose but cited and up-to-date information and bringing it up nowhere but the edit summary. Instead, I went through about ten-fifteen minutes of frustration and confusion trying to hunt down the when and why of there being nothing about the now-annual nature of the event in the current article.

My main (really, only) problem with your edit is not that you simply removed information and prose that I spent a good deal of time writing and citing - I certainly know I tend to be verbose, so that's not the issue at all - it was actually the exact nature of some what you removed, just to make myself clear here. Considering the uniqueness of the "Serenity Now/Can't Stop the Serenity" screenings (I know of no other similar project with any film, let alone with that kind of international scope or level of success in achieving stated goals, let alone one that is repeated every year - do you?), I would say the following is notable enough to retain in the article:

1.) that it is apparently becoming an annual tradition (albeit under frequently-changing management), having already been done twice with a third event already planned.

2.) the actual amounts raised the first and second years of the event (and then only because amount raised was considerably greater in the second year, by tens of thousands of dollars. If about the same or more is raised in the '08 event, we could rewrite it as say, just "The event was repeated in 2007 and 2008, where in both cases the amount raised for the charity was above US$100,000", or something very similar. One sentence, that's surely not too bad, is it?).

Really, I would be happy just with those, if you don't (understandably) want it to grow too big in regards to the whole film article. I will gladly compromise under the reasonable suggestion that we don't really need to reference the dates chosen for the screenings and why they were picked, or who manages it each year (especially since it's changed every year so far), or the exact amounts for every year past the first two - I agree that beyond a certain point, it could indeed get ridiculous and would be better off seperated into another sub-article.

But, removing everything you removed implies to the reader that it was a one-time event, when it obviously wasn't and the fact that it wasn't (and that the event raised more its second year) makes it even more notable than it previously was, which was why I tried to add anything additional about it in the first place.

Saying "starting a seperate article on it might be a good idea" is of course reasonable, and I probably will try to do so, as there is certainly enough information for one and I believe it to be notable enough... but given the worrying number of fiction-related and fandom-related articles being put up on AFD by people unfamiliar with their subjects lately, for safety's sake I would also like the most important highlights of the information (at very least the now-annual nature of the event) to be retained in the main article's section on it, just in case trying to get a full article doesn't quite work out at this time, and just to make sure we're really representing the information accurately and up-to-date.

We can (and I fully intend to) cram the "annual tradition" and year one vs. year two final figures (and citations for it, naturally) into the last sentence of the section - as opposed to the original "extra paragraph or two" format I used previously. This I believe would still retain a very (appropriately) short length for it but without losing some of the facts (repetition of the event; increased figures for second year) that make it a more notable event in relation to the film it uses. I hope that by this - both the edit and this posting here - we can together achieve a nice balance between accuracy and brevity, with no ill feelings between any of us. :)

Oh, and good luck with your "health problem", I hope you get well soon. I've been sickish lately myself, and injured before, so I know how much that can suck. :(

Sincerely, Runa27 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)