Jump to content

User talk:Fnlayson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.236.218.36 (talk) at 22:36, 10 June 2008 (→Airwolf... junk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm Jeff and I spend most of my time on WP:Aviation articles.

Notes: Discuss issues with an article on the article's talk page (most likely on my watchlist) in most cases. To keep conversations together, I will try to reply to posts where they start (here on others' talk pages). Personal attacks will be removed. Unfair and improper criticism will be ignored.

A-4 Skyhawk & A-4SU Super Skyhawk

I'm not so good with adding references but I tried. Anyway, I was also expecting Jane's reference from online source but I found none. To my knowledge and if I guess it correctly, they had it only in print because A-4PTM was retired back in 1993/4 following delivery of their BAE Hawks. I ought to know because I stay in Singapore and I follow the region's procurement of aircraft types very carefully, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia. Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was, I have Jane's Defense Weekly in print since September 1989 and Jane's Handbook for Aircraft / Ship recognition since 1997. Flight International is another good source too (have it in subscription since 1993). But that one thing that bugs me is a lot of their past data are now available online only if you are a paid subscriber. You take it easy too and I hope I didn't get on Bill's nerve too much today. BTW, I run a check and found this ==>>> List of A-4 Skyhawk operators#.C2.A0Malaysia. Oh boy... the amount of stress I had to went through when the reference was actually so close at hand. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two artwork of A-4PTM patches as given by Grumman to Royal Malaysian Air Force;

  1. patch 1,
  2. patch 2.

--Dave1185 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you can find anymore of these around as it was shot by a professional photographer - Peter Steinmann (who had been commissioned by MINDEF to shoot the photos on several occasions since the late 1990's) and was published in the MINDEF's "Pioneer" magazine somewhere during the year 2000 and only those two were selected for use in the online version - "Cyber-Pioneer". Do you mind reverting the image back now OR do I have to do it again? Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see what the 2nd Blackknights image adds. It's basically the first one turned 90 degrees with different lighting. A different A-4SU image would be good. Bring it up on the article talk page if you like. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You got it right! But wait... I've just added two more images, one from as far back as 1988, which was a mock up during the Asian Aerospace exhibition. Wait till Bill sees this, ha! --Dave1185 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gripen wording

Hi, Fnlayson.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the expression "A decision by Croatia".

First, I don't think "by Croatia" is needed for clarification, since they're the only party in the context that has to take a decision (at least in that paragraph). Saab has made an offer, Croatia will take a decision. Right? (Not very important point though, I can live with Croatia being mentioned again.)

Second. I don't think it's good English, although I realize that, in the present company, you should be the expert. How about "A decision from Croatia is expected ..." or "A decision is expected from Croatia ..."?

LarRan (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native English speaker but far from any kind of expert at it. Just seems some clarification is needed there. The Swedish Defence Material Administration and Saab are mentioned right before that sentence. I tried rewording some more. Change to something better if you want to. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. There's something strange with the references section on the Gripen page: suddenly all text - apart from the headings - has become much smaller. It wasn't like that before, I believe. Does it appear the same to you? LarRan (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only noticed a reduction in the size of small font such as the reflist template used in many Reference sections. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. More language issues: "The Gripen NG's empty weight is just 200 kg (440 lb) heavier..". Shouldn't it be more rather than heavier? "How heavy is the weight?" is not a question that can be asked, is it? Also: "Due to relocated main landing gear...". Shouldn't it be "Thanks to ..."? It's an advantage, not a disadvantage, right? What do you think? LarRan (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavier" seems fine to me, but "more" is fine too. "Due to" seems more neutral, but either is OK with me. I will work on rewording the NG section so the text is longer a copy of the article. Help where you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We ran into each other at M16 rifle. Links to common units of measurement are in the top most frequent links in Wikipedia. The guideline at wp:overlink says In general, do not create links to ... Plain English words, including common units of measurement. and has footnote giving some examples of these.

Some people say that links help with conversion but where the conversion is right there on the page, that rationale does not apply, of course. I just thought that I would let you know. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it just seemed odd to remove the Yard link and not the inch one. How many links are enough is a big gray area sometimes. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that 'inch' is in a similar class (i.e. common units) to 'yard'. The removal of the link to yard was not an endorsement of the link to inch. I simply overlooked inch. I also agree with you that the *correct* amount and the *actual* amount of linking for each unit term (metre, kilogram, foot, inch) are both somewhere on a continuous scale from 'none' to 'all'. This is not the most important issue for me. Lightmouse (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofighter (again)

Jeff, take a look at this article. There seems to be another effort to establish a "my fighter is better than yours" argument and I don't know enough about the relative merits to weigh in. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I know its very subjective but there has to be some way out, I mean its not completely ignorable. As regards the concesus I dont mean its outdated completely all that I mean is there are new aircraft being developed after the consensus reached, like the new Gripen demo being developed and proposed for sale to India and Norway. I am not aginst nor in favour Gripen or Typhoon, all that I want is neutral comparison. Daredevil555 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the comments together on the Eurofighter talk page. Thank you. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Fox/Blue Vixen

Jeff, I've noticed we don't have an article on the Blue Fox and Blue Vixen radars, so I did some checking for internet sources. All I found was this one from Flight Global, but it's a reputable source, and has some good info ont he Sea Harrier FA2 upgrade also. ALot of related radars are covered togetehr, so it should be no problem putting these two on the same page. I don't know when I might get to it, but I thought I'd give you aheads up on it. I've never done a radar page from scratch, but most of them are pretty slim anyway. Id just like to put something together to avoid having redlinks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about those. I'll do what I can copy editting though. Would you name the article Blue Vixon (newer one I think) and include the Blue Vixon info? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf replica

Someone just added this link to a story about the Airwolf replica being sold on eBay. It said it was in Georgia, but I think it was the same one for the helicopter museum in Pigeon Forge, TN. I'd been hoping to go see it some day, but oh well! Anyway, notice the Bell 222A link in the piece - seeing more of that around now, which is totally cool! Nice to know our work is being seen by more than vandals, huh? - BillCJ (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the userpage for that 747-8 guy. It says it all! If he contiunes to be a problem over it, we could bring it up at WPAIR, and get a consensus to bypass his objections. I don't think anyone would object to saying the A380 is the heaviest plane ever offered by Airbus, but thats a bit more obvious. Anyway, Boeing is pretty wordy in its PR releases - we can probably find a statement to support it there somewhere. - BillCJ (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KC-45

This is getting a bit ticky tacky, You cited other wiki pages are not valid references per WP:RS as justification for revision, but I cannot find that wording. Saltysailor (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any text, just the Druyun link "reference". See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. WP:VERIFY is related as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 777 images

Hi there sorry about that. I pushed the wrong button I still havent got used to the Twinkle feature yet and if you would like me to then I will happily change the edit summary. ILoveFran (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think old edit summaries can changed. In any event just letting you know for future reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf

I have seen a source on that junk that keeps being added - it's apparantly a recent news story. I honestly don't see how such an unverifiable claim - no one apparently saw the man "do" it - belongs in the article, and I'm not sure it's relevant even if verified! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds like tabloid content, not encyclopedic at all. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, someone added that stuff to the Airwolf (helicopter) article with a link this time. Seems like that falls under WP:NOT#NEWS though. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Leyte Gulf reverts

I am not inconsistent. Had you bothered to read aft as I suggested, you would know that after is the adjective form of aft, which refers to the rear of a ship. Thus, "these gun turrets are aft" but "these are the after gun turrets". The phrase "after gun turrets" is used twice in Battle of Leyte Gulf as well as in other Wikipedia articles. DES (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aft is adjective in most common usage. Same as aft cabin example in the aft article. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JF-17 Thunder

The aircraft's payload seems to be a bit controversial. someone has given the reference of Aviation Week & Space Technology which looks a bit odd as it it does not provide any speific info of JF-17 of its own. Article states that the empty weight is 6300+ kg but some well established sites mention it as 3800kg.I would like you to look into the matter. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what is right. The Aviation Week reference in the JF-17 Specs lists a 2008 Aviation Source Book, which appears to be AWST Source Book. Flightglobal.com does not have a profile on it either. That's all I have.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well these sites do provide valuable [click here ] and [here]. These sites provide authentic info but I really don't know if they can be used as reference. Daredevil555 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a reference that lists the JF-17/FC-1's empty weight (mass). One does list max take-off weight and normal take-off weight. Given those weights and its size being similar to the JAS 39 & T-50, an empty weight of 3,800 kg seems way low. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

same here.I think its way too low may be because its based on a third generation airframe Daredevil555 (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-111 edit?

Jeff

I'm an irregular wiki user, and I don't know enough about the F-111 to edit anything, but the paragraph titled 'Futher Developments' appears to be out of place. Since you appear on the history page as one of the editors, I hoped you'd be able to rectify this, or pass the problem on to someone who can. T Dietrich (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Yea, it does look odd now. But that text is best related to development. The Development section should address the aircraft's changes after the initial A and B variants (Air Force and Navy requirements). I plan to add a little on that with a couple books I have. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I award Fnlayson this barnstar for his wonderful work on aircraft and aerospace articles. Keep up the good work! Prodego talk 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits to B-2 Spirit (thanks for fixing that ref I removed, I had not realized it had covered the prior sentences as well) and I noticed what a superb job you have done. Thanks for your contributions, Prodego talk 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No big deal really. I was guessing it covered the earlier sentence. Being a little safe with that. That's good that removed the possible crash reason, since it was obsolete info. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf... junk

I recently made an edit at another terminal for the Airwolf article, and just because you hadn't heard of it, your "expert opinion" was that I had "vandalized" the article. You Wikinerds take yourselves WAY too seriously. I know there's a lot of crap being posted that tarnishes WP's reputation, but five minutes on eBay (which is where I obtained the ORIGINAL pre-recorded videotape of this, not an altered bootleg or fan edit) would confirm that this is real.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Cert. 18 (R-rated) version of the pilot movie DOES exist and was commercially released in the UK, so why is it not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia article? Do I need to e-mail you an MP3 file containing some of the alternate dialogue??? I specifically made a notation that I have a copy of this, so I'm at a loss as to what exactly is going to satisfy you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.10.180 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well when editors add unusual things without a reference (see WP:CITE it can often look like vandalism. I don't know anything about that movie thing. You should check the article's history before placing blame. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the history was where I *found* your name... you were apparently the "source" used to confirm it was vandalism, which it obviously wasn't. Secondly, deleting things you "don't know anything about" is hardly the point of Wikipedia. I've said it before and I'll say it again... the point is that no one person can be an expert on everything, so Wikipedia allows the public to contribute and edit. When a handful of people take it upon themselves to remove information solely on the grounds that it's something outside the realm of their personal knowledge and experience, Wikipedia ceases to fulfill its purpose.

Just so you know, vandalism is usually pretty obvious. A different cut of the pilot film being released on VHS in Europe is actually quite likely, so I'm still pretty baffled that it was considered "vandalism" simply because it referenced profanity and nudity, things which are more tolerated in Europe, making the Cert. 18 cut that much more likely to exist. I mean it's not like I posted that I had had sex with the helicopter.

Mechanical engineering

WP:MOS says to replace all the ampersands and slashes with words; can you reword it without the ampersand or slash? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mining and metallurgical are grouped together there. Will see if I can come up with something other than a slash. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I read the reference and decided that I'd like to pull in more specific information from the source, and that takes out the need for a slash; see what you think. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MXU-648 Cargo/Travel Pod

Hi Fnlayson, do you know if there is a travel pod wikiarticle? F-15 is certified to carry them on hardpoint 2, 5 and 8. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look like it. I searched in Wikipedia using a couple options (Google, Yahoo) and couldn't find one. If there are other sizes/versions of that pod and information is available, a new wiki article may be in order. Great, looks someone sells models of these pods: MXU-648 Baggage pod ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 $, gee that's why they are always so dented. BTW, beer is not purely personal belongings but also squadronal belongings ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fnlayson&oldid=218499638"