User talk:Kyteto

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kyteto! I am Yousaf465 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

yousaf465' 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

Do you want to help me improve this article? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do what I can. I'm best at references and digging stuff up, I'll keep my eye on this article. Right this second I'm working on British Rail Class 373, but I'll make my way there quickly enough. Thanks for contacting me :) Kyteto (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Orginal Research of Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

Can you find the orginal researches of Docklands Light Railway rolling stock. Can you also find some info regarding the max speed of the rolling stock as I'm having hard time pinning down that information. A passanger service agent told me the max speed of the DLR rolling stock is 100 km per hour and the fastest speed traveled is 80 km per hour. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

British Airways article improvements

Greetings Kyteto, thanks for your help in improving British Airways. As part of the effort to get it to GA class, I've been trying to get the references converted to the same format, it's a time consuming process of aligning dates (to the year-month-day format), aligning publishers (italicised Flight Global preferred vs. FlightGlobal.com), etc. If you are able to help with this, that would be greatly appreciated. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Concorde

Do you know what a hybrid is, and why these were important? (TSR-2 is the usual poster child for them) I'm disappointed that you've seen fit to remove this important note - as far as I can see, it's not noted anywhere else in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what a hybred is, in this context. Is this regarding the first statment of the 'Avionics' section, or the second? If it is about the first, I'm sure we can incorporate it back in under 'General Information' (it has the same ref there already, all it needs is a little more elaboration therefore), but if it regarding the second, I struggled to prove the connection in all my searching, and with the long standing tag there was little point in keeping it alround for another year lingering for editing out/otherwise resolving. I'll admit I may have been too hasty here then, but I don't think we need a whole Avionics section for two sentences, one of which isn't really very noteworthy or apparently easy to to verify as factually correct. Kyteto (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the desirable section of the content is back under General Information, I've merged it with an existing paragraph on the avionics. Sorry about the distress. Kyteto (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a bit unreasonable of me to complain about this being removed, when WP doesn't even have an article (yet) for hybrid (electronic construction)! (I'll see if I can get a stub together). Before Concorde, there was already a reluctance to add any more avionics to aircraft because system complexity was outstripping reliability. The military could afford maintenance to cover this, but civil operations had become concerned that aircraft were already missing slots due to electronics failures. The solution was to find a technology that was more reliable, especially for extremes of vibration, and that was the hybrid (NB not a hybrid circuit or hybrid coupler, as that's different). These are effectively tiny PCBs, but based on a ceramic substrate technology that allowed numerous of the simpler passive components to be formed in situ and baked into place, without connecting wires. The reduction in connectors meant better reliability, and once the manufacturing technology was established, the price dropped too. Concorde couldn't have flown without them - it would have become too complicated to ever have enough of itself working at one time. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The journal template you have in the article does not properly identify the publisher/journal. I have tried to alter the template but you have to understand why. The choice is to eliminate the MCB UP entry so that the journal is then identified in italics or to lump the journal title into the publisher line because the formatting only allows one entry to be identified in italics. Make a decision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC).

Incomplete GA nomination

I have noticed that you have nominated AH-64 Apache for GA, but neglected to complete the nomination procedure. To complete the procedure the only thing you need to do is paste this to the article's talk page (this must be done by the nominator only because of how the template substitutes): {{subst:GAN|subtopic=War and military}} Good luck with the nomination! -MBK₀₀₄ 09:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry! I shouldn't havemade a mistake like that. I must be getting senile! :) Thanks for prodding me on this, and thanks for the support. Kyteto (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Want backup?

Hi there! I just noticed your comments at Talk:EasyJet/GA1. It is always nice to have additional feedback on GA—the main "problem" of GAN is that there is only a single person who is doing the reviewing, and they usually overlook something. Since you are new to reviewing, and perhaps you are a bit unsure about everything, perhaps what could be interesting is that I could quality-control a few of your reviews. Just an idea I got, and I think has been done a few times before. I could look over the article and review to make sure you havn't overlooked something crucial (though your comments at EasyJet tend to make me thing you've got it all under control). Just a proposal, if you're not interested, that's fine. Just ping me on my user page if you want me to look over a review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of High Speed 1

I have done a GA Reassessment of High Speed 1 as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be informative and well-written. It does not however, fully comply with the GA Criteria. As such I have outlined my concerns here. I have also put the article on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying you as a primary editor of this event. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of High Speed 1 relook?

Hello, you made some very constructive comments on the GA Reassessment of the High Speed 1 article. Would you be willing to look at the article now to see if it meets the comprehensive issues and any other concerns you may have? I don't have the expertise in this area to address your concerns and it appears as though the editors are ready for another look. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you for your support in helping with the Boeing 777 FAR last November. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I had almost forgotten about that, thanks for remembering me. :) Hope to see you out there! Kyteto (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Orignal Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Presented to Kyteto (talk · contribs) for an significant body of contributions to aviation-related articles on Wikipedia, especially your "overhauls" and on fixing and adding references to a plethora of articles, and for your generous willingness to lend us your expertise in these areas, I award you this Original Barnstar. You, sir, are most deserving. Thank you, LanceBarber (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have earned the Joureyman Editor badge, which you can copy to your main page, along with a copy of your Barnstar.

This editor is a
Journeyman Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

With over 2100 edits within the past year... thank you again. LanceBarber (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of BAE Sea Harrier

The article BAE Sea Harrier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:BAE Sea Harrier for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination of Concorde

Hello Kyteto, I'm Airplaneman. I'll be reviewing Concorde, an article you nominated, for GA status. As it is quite long, it may take a couple days for me to crank out a full review. I look forward to working with you, Airplaneman ✈ 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a most appropriate name for the task :P I hope that you enjoy reviewing the Concorde article and the results ofthe involvements I have been making to it over the last five months. Kyteto (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my name does fit it, I guess :). I have left a comment, and will do more tomorrow. Looking forward to reading it! Airplaneman ✈ 02:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've run into a few sourcing issues. I've made it halfway through in about an hour and a half (currently just finished reading up to the "Operational history" section). Link to review: Talk:Concorde/GA2. Airplaneman ✈ 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer you leaving my comments alone (don't strike them, please) and instead leaving a reply underneath, as you have done with one of them. Striking them makes it look like I have somehow removed the comment or have retracted it, which I haven't. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I am sorry for that. Some reviewers are okay with the addressed stuff being struck, but as that's a problem I won't do it here. I'll address the discussion now. Kyteto (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is some discussion on whether or not to remove some content in the "additional comments" section. Airplaneman ✈ 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there. I've also continued to find unsourced statements. I'm stopping at the "impact" section for today and will continue tomorrow. Airplaneman ✈ 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can (for the record down the road when others read the review), may you either strike the comments (I am fine with that on second thought but prefer a response) on unsourced content or respond when done? Otherwise, it's hard for me and others to keep track of the progress (I can look in the history now, but in, say, a year, many edits will effectively bury your improvements). Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 21:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that much of the improvements I've made will be effectively perminant; I have more than doubled referencing, most of the stuff was from 2006! So it'll never become as bad as what it was, unless the anti-vandalisers all go to sleep. I'll do a better job of noting what I'm up to though, I hadn't really finished so I wasn't going to make a comment until the end of the weekend on my goings on. I'll keep snipping away at the article though, we'll get it into shape. Kyteto (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've completed the review. It's a great article, and with some fixes, will be GA status :). I'm putting on hold for a week, until May 22, for changes to be made. Airplaneman ✈ 21:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - there are a few more things to address. Airplaneman ✈ 23:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've passed it!!! Good job :). Airplaneman ✈ 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For all your time and efforts improving Concorde to B-class and through GA review, I award you these wikiwings. And well done on BAE Sea Harrier, AH-64 Apache and others. Keep up the good work! -Fnlayson (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Panavia Tornado

Hi. You removed a big chunk of text but the edit summary didn't justify it. Could you explain your reasoning? Many thanks Mark83 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was rearranging many paragraphs to the more appropriate areas. For instance, the German Navy section under the Variants was not justified as that was an operational dividing of the aircraft, not a Variant in itself, and thus was better dealt with by the already existing duplicate in the Operational History. The fact it was a duplicate was reason enough to ditch it. Same goes for the Italian Airforce, there's no need to state their operational record under variants when it is under Operational History, they have no unique variants on the aircraft whatsoever, thus don't need mentioning under Variants, what little technical upgrades can suffice in Operational fine enough. Nearly everything else is entirely there, but moved around, information on the basic design of all Tornados was moved for the leading paragraph of Variants into Design, or Operational History as fitting, information on the Tornado that was more to do with national operational issues was moved to Operational History. Beforehand, the Variants and Operational History sections had become blurred and pretty much intruding into the same territories, this is more destinctive and true to their normal role on most aircraft pages. Ditching the subsections on Italy and Germany's Navy under Variants was rational as they simply had no justification to be under Variants, as they simply weren't variants unique to those fields. No information should have been lost, I only ditched duplication and moved info around. Kyteto (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your rationale for reverting my recent edit to this article [1] - could you point me towards the part of the MoS you refer to in the edit summary? Thanks, Letdorf (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

I believe it is one of the subsections on Paragraphs, by chasing through links I arrived at Wikipedia:Writing better articles which has lots of information about the structure; but the base of the reasoning I deployed for that edit came from operational experience in preparing articles for GA; other editors don't tend to like the layout that uses:

Big section; text; Small section 1, textand so on

I was always told to format the information as follows:

Big sections; Small section 1, text; Small section 2, text and so on within that series of subsections, with no text out by itself.

This approach is consistant, and doesn't leave a title-less generalisation that fits nowhere hanging around above a series of section on a subtopic. Note that there's no problem when it's a Big section on its own with no use of smaller subsections, but it seems unusual to have a miscellaneous line by itself with no seeming topic to itself; and although I can't be as helpful as my teachers, I can only conclude that one method is not just more common, but preferrable to the other in properly formatting articles. Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also the paragraph largely involves Tornado GR1s and them being upgrading to other variants. Maybe a brief summary is in order for the RAF variants above that. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Hello Kyteto. I'll be reviewing the above article for GA status at Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress/GA1. I'll begin in about a day! Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 05:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get started. Know I know not to pick up two GA reviews at once . I think I have a big block of time Thursday where I will try to complete the review. Thanks for responding to the suggestions quickly! Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 03:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I have adopted the practice of striking comments that have been dealt with (first introduced to me by you!) so feel free to do that on the GA review. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 03:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm directing my full attention to this review now. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 20:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the review and put it on hold for seven days for some small issues to be addressed. Airplaneman ✈ 04:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been passed. Yay! Airplaneman ✈ 00:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This was an enjoyable experience! I hope people make heavy use of the improved article that has come out of the process, I also look forward to working with you on another project some day. Right now, I guess I have to find myself a new article to throw my efforts into, let's see what takes my fancy/grabs my interest and who knows, another GAN in a month or so? Thank you for reviewing it in depth, its what is needed to make a real difference in the long term. Kyteto (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done Kyteto, & Airplaneman! -fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete GA nomination (2)

I have noticed that you have nominated Rockwell B-1 Lancer for GA, but neglected to complete the nomination procedure. This is not the first time I've had to remind you of this... To complete the procedure the only thing you need to do is paste this to the article's talk page (this must be done by the nominator only because of how the template substitutes): {{subst:GAN|subtopic=War and military}} Good luck with the nomination! -MBK₀₀₄ 10:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I am getting quite incompetent aren't I? Kyteto (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw this at GAN, and I quite enjoy reviewing aircraft articles… so here! Airplaneman ✈ 01:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's on hold now. Airplaneman ✈ 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing these reviews. I feel it really does work in generating perminantly improved articles for the community; else I wouldn't spend so much time doing articles up for these review to take place! I'll get on what remains at once. Kyteto (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem; it's fun :). Airplaneman ✈ 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing left; it's here. Airplaneman ✈ 23:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Listed! Congrats :) Airplaneman ✈ 17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats also. Thanks for all the referencing work Kyteto! Finding references to cover existing text is much more difficult that writing the text from the references. -fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For doing an immense amount of hard work down in the trenches on the Avro Vulcan article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Avro Vulcan/GA1

Looks like I have a bit of free time this Labor Day weekend, so I've picked up the review :). I should have comments in by the end of tomorrow. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 22:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not completing it as planned; Thursday is the next time I have a good amount of time. I hope to add more comments then, Airplaneman ✈ 23:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no pressure, no rush. :) I work hard on weekdays, so I do most of my work here on weekends. I look forward to working on the article together, something good always comes out of these review efforts. Thanks for taking a look at this. Kyteto (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now I (most likely) have some variant of influenza, with the fever, body soreness, and all that good stuff. I don't feel like editing right now. Next good slot of time: this weekend :). Airplaneman ✈ 17:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Health always come first :) Get better soon, the review can wait until your recovery. Kyteto (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm feeling better :). Comments are slowly appearing… Airplaneman ✈ 23:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the review; sorry for keeping you waiting! Airplaneman ✈ 04:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Passed! Good work, Airplaneman ✈ 19:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah! Another aviation milestone passed, one of the most important and memorable delta-wings has been vastly improved. Thank you for you thoroughness; now to look for a new project to undertake! Kyteto (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It truely needed this review, even after the cleanup I undertook it was still in a great mess. Kyteto (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

The article Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow for things which need to be addressed. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

The article Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow for eventual comments about the article. Well done! WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the Avro Vulcan revisions

Please see clarification: here FWiW, the other article in which I had a not-too-delightful experience, was the Avro Canada CF-103. Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

I remember a similar experience, when Concorde was auto-failed for having too many flaws in the reviewer's eyes to be fixed within seven days, in spite of the fact I fixed them all and took the message to heart in my editing sweeps of the page within three days. Naturally, it did gets its GA one month later. But I do see the process sometimes as pointless, unless you get a talkative and intensive reviewer, who really tells you what is right and wrong in long prose and discussions, like there was on the B-1 Lancer for instance, then it isn't as good, because real benifits come from real engagement and involvement, the reviewer should become involved in the article and be interested by it. A long post, but I'm glad the poor experience you've had wasn't at my hands, I am not a well behaved editor at times, but I do reflect and regret things when I get them wrong, leaving someone else disheartened is very harsh, not the type of intensity I want to be emitting and spreading at all. Thanks for talking about it with me. Kyteto (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the Vulcan revisions, you have chosen some style guide that does not correspond with either a Harvard citation or other style that I recognize as well, the template introduces errors in formatting. Likewise, the APA template style chosen for the bibliography has a number of errors in it. I do not understand the predilection for rewriting citations that are correctly formatted by replacing them with templates that are not, or that have errors. Just one thing that drives me batty is the use of templates to replace correctly formatted citations and bibliographies. That was never the intention of templates which was merely an aid for those editors unfamiliar with or unable to provide reference sourcing through "scratch editing." If you wanted to do one thing to improve the referencing- look at any of the bibliographical notations and try to correct the numerous errors of omission and formatting. Start with the simple precept that titles are written in "title" form not sentence form. Due to my "wanting" to start all over, I respectfully will not participate in the rewriting of the article and wait until the process of review is finished. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

I'm sorry to hear the style of the article's citation is disagreed upon. What I was doing was keeping the references written consistantly, in this case consistantly wrong, and I have done some twaeking and a little bit of reading, it doesn't appear to be excessively out of line as the standard information sought in citations is included. Sometimes it is impossible to complete some citations 'properly' as the information simply isn't there, but that isn't the case with most. I'll keep tuning the titles for now, lets see what comes up. Kyteto (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that most of this "guff" is coming from a reference librarian with 30 years+ in the trenches, as well as a lengthy stint as an editor for publishing houses as well as being an author of 10 books. The titles have now been correctly written but if you are following a consistent: "Author, Title, Place of publishing, Publisher, Date (ISBN is entirely an aberration of Wikiworld)" style whether MLA, Chicago or even the quasi-APA style guide which the templates are using, then you are still missing information. The reason I abhor the templates is that whoever wrote them has introduced their own version of a bibliographic style guide which does not correspond exactly to any that are already in use but closest to APA, but with numerous errors built in. FWiW, if you want to use a consistent style which uses a templated MLA guide (the common style guide for the social studies), I will refer you to the SNCASE Armagnac article for an example. Bzuk (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

As to the templated Harvard citation style you have chosen, how about using: Brookes and Davey 2009, p. 9. instead of Brookes (2009). p. 9. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref>, the {Harvnb} which at least formats properly into a Harvard citation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

Now that the article has passed its GA requirements, I would like to revise the referencing to correct multiple errors, most of them imbedded in the cite templates that were used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

I tried multiple times to get {Harvnb} to activate and operate, I don't know how. I need to see a working example to understand how to lay out the code, because my trial and error methods are both unproductive and ineffective at generating the result desired. If you wish, you can impliment the coee yourself, that was I can at least see how it works and then help you adopt it across the article. Kyteto (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take the following comment as constructive criticism not "carping." I have been slowly laying out the parameters of a Referencing 101 primer for you in various edit comments. I come by this knowledge by dint of 30+ years as a reference librarian and for neophytes to attempt to master the vagaries of bibliographic notation, it is almost an impossible task, and that is why templates have been used for decades in cataloging. However, these templates were scrupulously developed and contain none of the multiple errors in the Wikipedia citation templates. I have tried for years to get the developers to make a stab at dealing with the formatting errors. The response was a steadfast refusal to even discuss the issue.

In a few words, the issues are:

1. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers.
2. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and newcomers (certainly not you!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
3. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
4. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
5. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
6. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.

Please contact me for more information on the @%$#*# cite templates which I tried fruitlessly years ago to have their developers revise into the more standard publishing format of the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide, most often used in the referencing of biographies, histories (aircraft profiles such as the Bristol Britannia) and social sciences. I established the MLA style guide for the bibliographic notations of the Bristol Britannia article so that further submissions would have a consistent style guide to follow. The actual cites themselves are written in Harvard Citation style of "author(s) (last name only) date (most recent publishing date), page accession format."

BTW, I can rewrite the cite templates into proper formatting, but it takes so much editing that it isn't worth it, so I find that writing in text is the easiest and most efficient solution: simple, identify all the key elements of the reference notation: author, title, publisher, date. FWiW, I really appreciate your efforts to append and revise significant aviation articles and consider myself "in your corner." Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

de Havilland Comet

See comments on WikiProject Aircraft. Repeat, and please take this comment in stride, I am not "carping" on you. Comment: As you might surmise, I do have an interest in this topic and have a great deal more resources that were never fully utilized in the development of the article. One of the drawbacks I feel in K's approach is a heavy reliance on electronic sources, which is not altogether bad, but I do have access to Canada's largest collection of aviation books and periodicals, so I typically rely heavily on more traditional reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your assistance, I don't have the same level of access or availability that you have, living in a rural area does not lend itself to getting formal materials to use. I keep doing my best with the material I have available on the topics that interest me. Kyteto (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do you domicile? FWiW, the Vickers Valiant and Folland Gnat are a ^&*()#$ mess! Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

I used to go to University in Swansea, in the United Kingdom, but following my graduation over a year ago I spend my time usually in Shropshire, the only county in England without a city if I recall correctly. When I visit Cardiff I sometimes visit their university library to look at what I am interested in. Just last month I took myself to RAF Cosford's museum, where I saw many of the aircraft I've been working on since, the Britannia and the Comet, as well as both of those you just mentioned. The Gnat is in a terrible state, and is quite demotivating to examine, but the Vickers Valiant is a little cleaner to my eye. I've yet to decide on a 'big undertaking' to do after the work on the Comet. Perhaps the Valiant, or the Westland Sea King; I'll think on it and eventually something takes my fancy. Kyteto (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reference sources on both the Valiant and Gnat and when I get some time, I can work up either. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

I'll give the Comet article a good read over tomorrow, and probably nominate it for reviewing, provided I don't see obvious flaws. I'll also look up what material I can use on the Valiant, previously I've found it impossible to do much on some articles because of a lack of material available, I just couldn't do much with the Sea Vixne or the BAC 1-11. Kyteto (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the Comet article, whole books have been written about its history and I have been trying to hold back on flooding the article with too much detail. As it is now, it's probably ready to go and only requires some minor touch-ups which will become apparent as the article is reviewed. As for the other choices, I Looked at the Vickers Valiant article and it is "fixable" although a great deal of the text seems related to some personal knowledge rather that secondary or tertiary sources. The Folland Gnat article is so bad, that it almost might make sense to start all over, albeit, that is a lot of work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

If you're looking for an area of the Comet article to write more about, it would be nice to have more details on its service after the crashes and redesign, that area is still a little thin in my eyes, thought it'll float as it is. Kyteto (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The period after the introduction of the Comet 4C can be expanded. I'll get on it tomorrow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Design studies for the DH Comet 1944-1947

See this image:

Design studies for the DH 106 Comet 1944-1947 (Artist's impression)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you have been up to? I was not expecting you to create images for the article! I'm guessing you found the drawings in one form or another in your research, drew them out on pencil, scanned them in to neaten using something like Photoshop? It whould make an excellent addition to the design section, as it is easily missed by readers how wildly the early imagined forms differed from the the final product. Kyteto (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was in the United States (I almost wrote the Untied States, as it is undergoing an enormous metamorphosis into "crazyville", but that's another story...) on another search for resources for my latest writing projects, on Amelia Earhart and Transatlantic flights. I did happen to see the preliminary reviews of the DH Comet article where a reviewer indicated that the preliminary designs of the aircraft might be worthwhile. Well, guess what, there are no definitive drawings of the design studies but lots of detail in the form of written descriptions. I did find three drawings in two different sources, none of which agreed with each other as to proportions, and then like you already surmissed, I began to draw out "my" interpretations of the designs, photoshopped them using an ancient CS. I had used the Vampire as a starting point, as it represented 1943 ideals including wing shapes and boom designs. Building onto that, I did some reverse engineering of the Comet 1, using Walker's book drawings and created what I think the designs would have looked like. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Did you already guess, that before writing and photography, I had been a commercial artist... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

A well-deserved and belated recognition

I award you the wikiwings in recognition of your earnest and knowledgeable contributions to aviation articles. Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

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

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jaguar

Just to let you know, I've passed SEPECAT Jaguar as a GA. Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This is the first GA I've handled where there's been quite this level of development during the review (and from multiple people, too, which is unusual) - it's been a real pleasure to handle. Good luck with the next one! Shimgray | talk | 02:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your effort to clean up my mistakes and improve the Airbus A330 article in general. I've got one request; do you know where to get a picture of the A330/A340 wing? They're essentially the same, making it pretty unique in the industry. I've gone through Flickr but I can't seem to find any image about the wing itself? Do you have any idea what I should do? Best regards Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)} 22:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no ideas on where to get any image from. You could try looking through issues of Flight International, they might have detailed diagrams of these sort of things, but you'd have to link it in a special way if you did find something (I can help with that bit). I'll do some hunting on my own, but I can't promise any luck. Kyteto (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you have such a long edit history concerning aviation, do you mind telling me what is missing from Airbus A330 that is blocking it from FA status? Please be frank and comprehensive, because I dearly want the article to be promoted to FA. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 07:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Stylistically, I'd recommend studying the existing 'modern plane' FAs, such as the Boeing 777 and the Boeing 747. This would be the first Airbus plane to reach FA status, and only the second GA; the average editor seems to pay more attention to the Boeing aircraft, hence they have three FAs ready to go. You've done extremely well with the development, and the work put into referencing the existing material shines well. If I apply the Gold Four sections of a WP:Aircraft article (Development, Design, Operational History, and Variants), Airbus A330 currently lacks an Operational History section. To see recent, good quality, Operational Histories from my own editing trail, I'd recommend examining SEPECAT Jaguar and De Havilland Comet. They embody different ways of conducting an Operational History, subdividing it into major operators, significant events (unlikely to be any with the A330), or progressive eras of the plane's operational life. In a way, a lot of stuff that would normally be in Operational History can be currently found under Variants, thus I suppose one could argue that an OH isn't necesary. But there would likely be some FA commentors who would be complaining for one.

I've only once tried to take an article to FA, and it was a horrible experience, several editors who enjoyed sniping and slamming down my efforts to carry out their requests, I could swear one person was doing it gleefully, yet prepared to do absolutely nothing to do the simplest and most pointless stylistic changes (but of course, create an enourmous amount of hostility about it, to the point where'd they appeared to be putting more effort into the attacks than the work they wanted done themselves). In short, I found it to be de-motivational, destructive, immature, and pointless; and I vowed never to take an article into an FA Review again; I can't bring myself to risk encountering the same jerk again, not as a volenteer anyhow. So perhaps I'm a bad person to talk to about the FA process, I know about how to drag an article up in quality from years of mediocrity, but I can't put up with the horrible treatment and the amount of bile that some of the 'reviewers' that frequent the FA system see as appropriate to behave it. It almost made me snap, so I just let the review go; better that than spend another second putting up with that individual. Kyteto (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lancasters and Canberras

"for many nations the Lancaster was their last piston-propelled bomber as jet-powered bombers quickly rendered them obsolete"

Would you care to name some of these "many nations"? Even ignoring the sizable delay of six years between the Lancaster being first replaced by Lincolns and the Canberra entering service, all the major operators of the Lancaster followed it with the Shackleton, another Lancaster-derivative. Whilst the Canberra certainly marked the obsolescence of such piston-engined bombers, it's unwarranted to claim that the Lancaster in particular was the last of the line. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well okay, I'm sorry then. I wasn't counting the Shackleton, a maritime patrol aircraft, as a bomber. I wasn't trying to claim that the Lancaster was the end of the line for piston-powered bombers as an end-of statement; but that in terms of several nation's bomber devisions, it was the last type of their aircraft in that role. The RAF retired them for Canberras and the V-bombers, no sign of another piston powered aircraft in service in the bomber role I believe is fair to say. The RAAF should have no more piston-powered bombers after the Lincoln, nor should the RCAF. I believe that there wasn't one in Argentina either. Discounting the Shackleton, was there another? I wasn't trying to say it was impossible, and that there may have been a minority of operators that did adopt another piston-powered bomber after that, most seemed to have gone over to jets after that point. I was only trying to illustrate how for some Air Forces, it was a transitional aircraft or an insurance policy, a reliable development upon an existing and trusted airframe, while more advanced and sceptic-challenged planes were developed, both turbo-prop and turbo-jet, for those operators to consider adopting. Kyteto (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The RAF operated both Lincolns and Washingtons between the Lancaster and the V bombers. The Shackleton was also operated, although you could argue that it's maritime patrol, not a land bomber. The Canberra is also much closer to being a Mosquito replacement than a Lancaster replacement - in particular, from looking at their allocation within the RAF. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's a been a little bit of a misunderstanding; I wasn't trying to suggest that the Lancaster was the last piston-powered bomber for some nations, but that the Lincoln was. I do agree that the Canberra was much more of a tactical fighter-bomber in practice, especially considering it couldn't fit nuclear weapons for a good part of its front-line life, and even then only tactical ones compared with the strategics on the V-bombers and the submarines. The Washington I see as a rather odd fluke, the Americans made an out-of-the-blue approach to the British government, and it was loaned out for the nuclear delivery role; not that this means it doesn't count, but it certainly was one of the more 'odd' aquisitions. Kyteto (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Northrop N-3PB

Looking for another GA-type article that is semi-related to the RAF ?! I stumbled on this stub last night, spent two hours on it and brought it up to spec. See what you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You've obviously noticed my edits, I've made some additions to the references and operational history, and rewritten the intro. In my opinion, it is good enough to GAN right now. I'd never heard of this place until you mentioned it, any special connection to such an obscure critter? Kyteto (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi K, absolutely none at all, but I noticed that the savaging that Baugher had taken recently on a related article, the Douglas C-33 and traced some connection to the story of this little-known fighter/bomber. I like to do some out-of-left field research at times, `a la AFVG and this one was intriguing; it also spawned a bio on Kristian Østby, the Norwegian military officer who was involved in its procurement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jumping in to the conversion here. I don't believe it is quite ready yet. I have more sources on the aircraft and will add them pretty soon. Please wait with the GAN nom a little longer until I've got the missing stuff in place. Manxruler (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I can still juice it up quite a bit but it was not a really significant aircraft after all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For outstanding work finding hard-to-locate refs for BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4

You have an initial review at Talk:BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4/GA1. There are a few isues I feel need to be addressed before the review can go any further, so I've placed it on hold for a week. If you'd ping me when you think you;ve addressed those points, I'll revisit the article. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to help with this, Kyteto. I'll try to stay out of your way though. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be afraid of getting in my way Fnlayson, you've most likely a better copyeditor than I am. I'm not exactly good at addressing these kind of problems in an article, but I'll be trying my best to bring it up to scratch. Kyteto (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, but I'm not that familiar with the Nimrod. The article is much better now. I'll look over it some more to see if more needs to be done. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you have more of a clue about the Nimrod than the guys at BAE who designed a wing for it BEFORE examining the aircraft and finding out they weren't all identical, requiring a redesign and a three year delay! :P I'll keep staring at it to see what changes I can make as well. Kyteto (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Handley Page Victor

Excellent! Thank you for the link. I'm sorry if the links I added were unreliable, although RAFweb seems to be linked in several RAF articles. Harrison49 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, it is an easy mistake to make, especially with other articles setting poor examples. Many articles on Wikipedia are yet to be reviewed, and a good portion would fail the specifications of WP:GA quality-articles. I tend to select one or so articles a month to fully overhaul and refurbish to the higher levels of quality; last month's Hawker Siddeley Harrier went exceptionally well. I like to think I've helped make a difference here, and continue trying to do. I like being able to help and learn as I go. Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Harrier

Just checking up on progress, really. Do you think you've got much left to do? When you think you've addressed all my concerns and anything else you wanted to tweak or fix, let me know and I'll read through it again and then probably support it for A-class. Once you've got it to A-class, I think you'llo have a good chance at FAC. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Harrier variants, that should really be discussed first, or at least a link to a dsicussion elsewhere provided on the articles' talk pages, as there are other ways to split the articles. It would be helpful if you'd revert the split until a clear consesnus is reached. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Reverted. Kyteto (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up and finishing the variant entry shortening, Kyteto. I was not sure how to group the training variants and it was getting late. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sorry to see the ACR was closed as unsuccessful. I guess that's the problem with relativvely late reviews and a strict 28-day limit. Still, you can renominate it as soon as you like and I think it's close, so don't be disheartened. I'm going to go back over the prose and MoS compliance in a few days and I might recruit another copy-editor or two, after which it should be ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Harrier, er, II (ha-ha, injoke)

I'll dig up a source as soon as possible - if they really want a source quickly, Isby & Kamps 'Armies of NATO's Central Front' (for full details see the NATO article) can be appended to that sentence. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hawker Hunter

Hi mate, belately completed my ce and posted my (relatively few) comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got some comments as well, if you'd like to know them, but first I need your all-important permission, because I'm not the reviewer. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to make input into the GAN. Kyteto (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330

Just to let you know, following the failure of the WT:AVIATION's noticeboard to show it, the article Airbus A330 is again nominated for its third, and hopefully final, Featured Article Candidate. Hope you can spread the message to others, because the two previous FACs noticeably lack input from other editors. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded in recognition of your very positive response to all the comments in the ACR of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article. I'm looking forward to seeing this article renominated. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

AgustaWestland Apache

Hi Kyteto, I've started the GA review of this article and left comments at: Talk:AgustaWestland Apache/GA1. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Kyteto, keep up the good work with this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best, she's become a hot topic with this Libyan war; it's a good thing I overhauled her when I did! Kyteto (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

Apology Kyteto I reverted your edit on Saab JAS 39 Gripen by mistake, I have changed it back. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No harm done, all is fine. :) It is easy to get those button clicks wrong, I've done it in the past as well. Kyteto (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kyteto, this article passed the GAN today. Thanks and well done! -Fnlayson (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Hi Kyteto, I saw some of your exceptional and tireless work on a number of aviation-related articles, such as Saab JAS 39 Gripen, so I thought it was really fitting that you are awarded the original barnstar. Keep it up, buddy Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Kyteto, I'm wondering if you can overhaul the article McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet prior to my mass addition of text in the next few weeks. Please ignore the banner if you choose to give it an overhaul. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I typically steer clear of aircraft articles like the Hornet, for the same reasons I stay away from the Eurofighter and especially the F-35, they're very 'political', and extremely extensive, perhaps overly so. The Hornet is already bigger and as developed as most articles are post-overhaul; though I do notice it could use some very strong improvements in referencing and wording.

I'll think on it, and keep looking at the article: which is the basis of all my overhauls, getting a feel for the article and its existing content. I've already got the GAN of the Kestrel, possible work on GANing the Gripen and A-Reviewing the Harrier, and I was considering doing a full-out tear-out and overhauling of the F-20 Tigershark, which I feel I really have got a feel for now. Take this as a maybe then, I won't rule out my attention, but is probably going to be less extensive than others if it happens. Kyteto (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to go it alone then. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For outstanding work in removing unsourced material, trimming and referencing in Northrop F-20 Tigershark. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

YF-23 GAN

Hi Kyteto, do you mind reviewing GA candidate Northrop YF-23? In return I'll review one of yours. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about it over the next few days. I don't usually do review-trading, but if it takes my fancy and I think I can do an apt job, I'll do it. Kyteto (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hawker Siddeley P.1127 review's at Talk:Hawker Siddeley P.1127/GA1‎. ‎Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, do you think the review(s) can finish in under a week, since I'm in the CUP? Round 3 concludes at month's end. No pressure on you, since it's totally my fault I nominated them late. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, do you want Northrop YF-23 to be reviewed with haste, or for me to respond to the P.1127 comments first? Just want to know which one is the priority, and I'll focus on that. I've already been reading the YF-23 over a few times, I can start commenting soon. Kyteto (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, I reviewed this evening but don't let that stop you commenting as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please concentrate on the P.1127. I'm willing to pass it, but first you need to make some minor changes as indicated on the review page. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please update your progress on the P.1127 GAN, so I can properly assess it. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Harrier

Congratulations on the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article passing its ACR so easily - it's well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I plan to put it through a FAC soon enough. Let's see how it does at the most vicious levels of scrutiny. Kyteto (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time to nominate it for FAC. One a different note, do you have access to any of the books below?

• Eden, Paul (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft. London, UK: Amber Books, 2004. ISBN 1-904687-84-9.
• Gordon, Yefim and Peter Davison. Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker. Specialty Press, 2006. ISBN 1-58007-091-4.
• Williams, Mel (ed.). "Sukhoi 'Super Flankers'". Superfighters: The Next Generation of Combat Aircraft. Norwalk, Connecticut: AIRtime Publishing Inc., 2002. ISBN 1-880588-53-6.

You might not have realised it, but lately I've been stuck into Soviet/Russian aircraft, which don't receive a lot of attention from our fellow Wikipedians. At the moment, I'm working on Sukhoi Su-33, and I plan to nominate it for GA, which itself would be a first, since no contemporary Russian fighter jet articles have achieved the feat. The books above a lot of detailed information about the Sukhoi aircraft; if you have access to one, please help me out, particularly at Su-33. Life for me will be so, so much easier. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Book Previews available I wasn't able to find the books you asked for, but there are dozens of book sources available for viewing online. Just clicking on one, reading a page or three until you find something relevant, then cite it in, is the method I come across a lot of texts and citations to add to articles. It isn't very advanced, but it works well often. Kyteto (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I noticed that you supported the Airbus A330 during the FAC; Sandy just restarted the FAC, which I think is a first, so do you mind going there once more? --Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Skyhook drawing

Sure, I'll give it a try if you "hook me up" with some reference sources. FWiW (pun intended) Bzuk (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

Assistance injection

Hi Kyteto, as you might be aware, I've expanded the article McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II during the last 24 hours. I think I'm done, for the moment – please take over and, if you will, expand the "Design" aspect of the aircraft, as well as US operations. I want to maximize the effect of the momentum I've built up over the last 24 hours, so, please do anything you can. I'd like to nominate it for GA at the end of the week, and, if successful, take it to ACR. Regarding your edits with the Su-33 and MiG-29K, great work; I'll be expanding the latter during the next day or so.

On a slightly different note, I think it's the time to nominate the Harrier for FA. It's a terrific article, and it really deserves the star. Furthermore, do you reckon you might be able to do a really quick, but comprehensive, review of GAN YF-22? I know that's conflicting, but the article's not that long. Sorry I can't do the same for the F-20, since I've edited at the year's start. Lastly, you might laugh at this, but it doesn't say a lot about my character, do you think I deserve a barnstar for my work? I mean, I've been busy editing, and I didn't realise that I've got through so much. Anyway, all things said; cheers --Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid right now I don't have the time to dedicate to a rush-content filling of the MDD Harrier II, the next few days are extremely busy in the real world, I'll be lucky to spend half an hour online at all. In my opinion, a plane like the Harrier II should be given some time before nominating; many aviation editors like Fnlayson have had long term intentions to expand it, and giveing them the notice + chance to input could make a substancial difference to the article. I would contribute more to the effort myself, but I have very important things on for now. Not to mention, my Wiki time is being soaked up by 'putting out fires', dealing with the existing stuff that is pressing onwards. Probably early next week, I will FAC-nom the HS Harrier through, it would be interesting to see what happens. I won't be able to do a quick Review of the YF-23 though. On that final note, you do deserve some praise for your efforts: One way to get recognition is to inform the WP: Aircraft discussion board of an activity you're doing. I once got thanks from a senior editor for asking the community a question about an aircraft I was working on, which in turn got my work to overhaul it noticed. I'll be sketchy for now, I don't know when I'll even next have internet access. Kyteto (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do hope that everything is alright in your life. I'm on school holidays right now, so I'm very active this time of the year. To maximize my free time, I'd like to get through as many GAs as possible, and so any assistance will be greatly appreciated of. Do you really think Su-33 and MiG-29K can reach FA status? Soviet and Russian aircraft aren't that widely covered in the aviation press, although Yefim Gordon did a fantastic job of collecting all the rare into; I'll get my hands on his books if I can.

Another point, what books do you have access to at the moment? You seem to be resourceful; if we both have the same books and material, it will be much easier to get stuck into an article. After seeing your work on the JAS 39, F-20 and MiG-29K, would you like to pair up with me? You're good at "tweaking" and "fine tuning" as well as knowing how to judge which bit is non-crucial and so delete it, while I'm prolific at expanding articles. I think, if Fnlayson, BilCat and the likes are willing to support us, this partnership may go very far.

Lastly, if you'd like to chat to me directly, please go to [2]. That is, if you've got some free time and not busy as you are at the moment. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Harrier FAC

I'm glad you decided to nominate it. I think it deserves a star. I'll keep an eye on the FAC, but if you need anything, don't hesitate to ping me. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping me out at Sukhoi Su-35. I think it is very self-less of you to still edit on Wikipedia although you have other more important commitments. Thanks

Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period April-June 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

AV-8B

Hi Kyteto, the article McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is almost done now, and I've nominated it for GA. I'd be really dependant a lot on you if the article was to reach FA, fiven your past experience on the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. Please do what ever you can to it, using the Nordeen source, which is available in preview at Google Books. Thanks a lot for what you have done so far. Let's do this! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Saab JAS 39 Gripen a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

HMS Hood FAC

Sandy's moved your comments to the talk page as they were made before I properly transcluded the FAC to the main FAC page. I'd be grateful if you could copy your comments back over to the main page of the FAC with whatever further thoughts that you might have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Apache article

"The Apache did not conduct any combat missions over Kosovo due to fears over the risk of causalities, thus authorisation was never given; in addition, none of the pilots were qualified to fly with night vision goggles, preventing nighttime operations" <<<< Does this make any sense to you, even if the ref says it? The Apache has PNVS, the pilots don't need NVGs. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It does make some sense, but not looking back from today's mature Apache platform with hindsight. The PNVS and other targetting systems on the AH-64A may not have (back then) been judged suitable enough to provide all the capability necessary for the nighttime operations anticipated; remember those systems have been significantly readdressed and boosted twice over to today's current day technology. There are also multiple sources condemning the Apaches/pilots as lacking the training/equipment to conduct the very nightime operations they were posted out there for. The book explained it in quite lengthy detail as well. Apparently, according to the book, the NVG wasn't needed for most functions, but the Apache's own systems weren't able to do the full 360 degrees of compatilibity with every possible thing they could or might ask it to do, so to 'fill in the missing blank' NVGs were viewed as a necessary by command, and a very rushed programme to train up the pilots commenced; it was quite detailed on this, several pages. Taking a quote from a completely seperate, but less reliable source, so take it with a pinch of salt: "The relatively old-technology infra-red sensors on the Apache are not suited to detecting and displaying obstacles such as power lines, so Task Force Hawk had to start a night vision goggle (NVG) training program...". From a very reliable source back in 1999, the same era, (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HhzA3wTmdP8C&pg=PA46&dq=Apache+NVG+Kosovo&hl=en&ei=j-w1TpKKNMix8gO3-ZGGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Apache%20NVG%20Kosovo&f=false) backs this view up, that the both the pilot and weapons officer had to wear NVGs to see any obstructions or finer terrain details, and that the Army had to crash-course it, they were not ready to go at all. The use of both PNVS and NVG equipment was also noted in an issue of Jane's as baoth happening and !@#$%^&* difficult (My phrasing there!). It does look like it did happen then; thought it probably wouldn't now, as modernised systems have probably taken that poor experience into acount and plugged the holes that made the usage of NVGs necessary back then. Thanks for questioning me though, it made me triple-check my reasoning and learnt a few things on the way, including a detailed explaination I could add as a note perhaps. Kyteto (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I will have to remember to ask some pilots when I have an opportunity about this. NVGs on an already large helmet would definitely cause some issues. Trying to use IHADSS and NVGs at the same time would also be an issue. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that today, the problem has been resolved, the PNVS is now capable of providing the full resolution necessary to see things like aforementioned powerlines and wires that pose a serious threat to low flying helicopters; upgrades like the Arrowhead have greatly enhanced the system. You'd likely have to find pilots at least ten years back, maybe only those in the AH-64A, to find those who had to use the NVG as well. It could be that most pilots were never trained/usxed NVGs, and simply were never prepared for this eventuality, as per Task Force Hawk; strategically it may have been decided to wait for upgrades to the PNVS instead, and live with the deficiency by avoiding low-flying at night. The Jane's references did mention that pilots were unhappy, and in some occasions disorientated, by having to deal with both systems, a botched-combination basically. The weapons officer didn't even need them to do his job, so it was written, it was just to provide an extra lookout to obsticles in support of the pilot. Kyteto (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Hi there! I'm here to tell you that, if you're interested, please come along to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II and voice your opinions about the article there. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful GA nomination

	F-20 Tigershark award
	Congratulations on developing the Northrop F-20 Tigershark article to GA standard. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Future plans

Hi Kyteto, I'm posting this message out of curiosity regarding any future plans you might have for the encyclopedia. As you might be aware, the last two months saw a large number of aircraft articles being promoted to GA status. I did some of that work, with assistance from yourself, Fnlayson, and a few other guys. I'm beginning to slow down the process of expanding articles to GA status, and have instead focused on working on articles that are already GA status with the ultimate aim of seeing them to FA status.

There are two points I'd like to ask you:

1. if, you have any intentions at all, what articles would you like to expand on before nominating them for GA status, and
2. what aviation-related sources (books, DVDs, magazines, etc.) you have access to. The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if you and I have common sources so we could work on a particular article. I have access to a large book collection, including the Warbird Tech and Airliner Tech series, in addition to X Secret Project books by Tony Buttler. Any comments? Do you think this collaboration would work at all? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the large number of GA reviews going through, it has been some effort for Fnlayson to keep up I believe; thus I slowed down my own nominations in response. There has been some articles that I would have liked to have done further work with: Panavia Tornado ADV is a good candidate for re-writing and eventual GANing; the Vickers VC-10 article is a complete tip and should be re-written at some point. I'd like to get deHavilland Comet (the first jet passenger aircraft) and Avro Vulcan through a MilHist A-level review; Boeing AH-64 Apache, Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow and SEPECAT Jaguar are three prime candidates for A-level reviewing I have heavily rebuilt in the last six months. I try not to overwhlem the resources/attention of Milhist, and thus only send one at a time, I would like to send the Comet/Vulcan in next (I had been meaning to message you abut withdrawing your WP:Aviation a-level nom of the Vulcan so it can be conducted on the far more active Milhist forum (I also feel that the Mil Hist establishment is extremely good at their copyediting role)). Dragging articles upwards, bit by bit, has been my long term policy, I've recently done a few chips on the AH-64 Apache.

Unfortunantly I own no books, and have extremely limited access. Those sources I do use, I find online through resourcefulness, knowing where to look, and pot luck. It has allowed me to make overwhelming improvements to some articles, but very little to others. I've enjoyed being able to collaborate as we have done, I do already keep an eye on where you are editing on and on occasion join in where our interests mesh (or I find an article particularly suited to my editing 'teeth'). You are lucky to own Tony Butler's work, he is supremely good at delivering detailed and well-explored accounts being project development and research efforts. I've been meaning for some time to break out the shears on the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, it would be nice to bring that down to more nominal levels of detailing. I have lots of ideas and thoughts, some of which I'll be able to impliment. But as mentioned, putting either the Comet or the Vulcan in for Milhist A-reviewing is my next probable move. Kyteto (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response – we're getting closer towards a business-like atmosphere. Just in case you don't know, if you type in "flightglobal.com/pdfarchive" as your URL, you will arrive at a gem, if you will (if you already knew, I'm just putting it out there!) Regarding your point about the Vulcan ACR, please feel free to archive it as failed – after all, it's your work!. I've got this electronic version of the Volume 26 Warbird Tech, which is about the Vulcan. If you like, I'll email it for you. To address your F-14 point, I have thought about re-working the article as well, but what has prevented me was primarily the lack of hard sources. I have access to the books British Secret Projects: Jet Bombers since 1949, British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters since 1950 and The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft, which have some mentioning about the Tornado ADV, so, if you wish, we could work on it. I also have access to Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 & Vickers VC10 by Stewart Wilson, so I can probably work on the VC10 as well.

Below, could you please lay out your plan listing the article you wanna work on, what you wanna do with it, and give it a timescale. For my own plan, please see User:Sp33dyphil/Master plan. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

OK, here's my timeline for out work on the above-mentioned articles. You can change the specs to fit you if you want.

Article	Goal	Date
Panavia Tornado ADV	Bringing it up to GA standards	30 September
Vickers VC10	Bringing it up to GA standards	31 December
Grumman F-14 Tomcat	Re-writing	30 November

---

I've got the VC10 book, now, so if you wanna give the article a head start, please go ahead. I'll back you up, there's no doubt about that. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Kyteto. You have new messages at WT:MIL.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vulcan B.2A myth

Hi. The pages you want are: Laming p 64 and Bulman p 154. XJ784 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup submissions

Hi Kyteto, since you were the GA nominators of F-20 Tigershark and JAS 39, I'm just popping in to say that I'll be submitting these articles as part of the WikiCup, because I think I've played some part in their developments. If you object, especially regarding the F-20 please say so. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• No hard feelings :) Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Kyteto (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a heap. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Avro Types

Hi Kyteko

There are many instances where 'Type' was used in official documents. See here for example. Bill Zuk is Canadian I guess and Avro Canada probably had a different system. Cheers XJ784 (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that is pretty conclusive evidence that the Type prefix was in use. For consistancy with most Avro articles, it would probably be best to keep it free of Type for now, but a policy challenge could be launched at WP: Aviation's naming conventions to formally override that convention and establish a consensus for implimenting project-wide change; if you're interested in improving the wider picture as well. Kyteto (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dhruv page

Certain errors cropped into the article and I have removed it and replaced with the correct aspects. 1. The cost of the Dhruv is now at 44 crore. Don't know which variant is that, but that's the latest price reported. 2. Kept the EAF chief comment and also included the latest press report by EAF regarding the performance of Dhruv in EAF service. 3. Defencenow is an arms dealer company and hence their link is removed. Similar attempts were made through the news agency AFP and it got busted with the EAF criticising those reports and claiming that the performance of dhruv is very good. 4. The WSI Dhruv is the Mk.4 variant and not the Mk.3 is just the one with the Shakti engine. Mk.4 is the weaponized version of mk.3 (with the same engine), but with slight modifications to the airframe and is known as mk.4 or Rudra.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The cost can gladly be readded, with evidence to that account. 2. Even if they were an arms deal company, they're still a valid source for inclusion. Any proof that their article was directly denied by the EAF? If one report saying they're happy in one month is included, it only seems balanced to include an oppositing announcement at a different time as well, to avoid WP:POV. 4. A cited source says otherwise, is there proof or rival accounts stating the opposite? Kyteto (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Signficant disputes of the suitability of content should be discussed on the talk page, hence I have moved this discussion there. Kyteto (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto, i find you running a propaganda against the Dhruv helicopters in Wikipedia. You're hiding many facts and fudging some to project your own conclusion of the Dhruv. This is not good. Especially those capabilities of the Dhruv helicopters are hidden and the propaganda articles are projected as correct even their verifiability can be questioned. If the Home ministry is still continuing with the Pawan hans maintenance, that do have a very poor record of maintenance of helicopters, and ministry indulging in corruption and making way for some Mi-17 it's not Dhruv's fault. They way you put it is like it's because of Dhruv. It's maintenance issue of Pawan Hans that's at fault.Diahel (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I reported the facts given in an (Indian Broadsheet) news article, which didn't make one mention of a 'Pawan Hans' - I've never even heard of this organisation before, so I did not leave it out intentionally. The Newspaper gave no such explaination for the Dhruv failures, thus the reason none was provided in my revisions was that the source used did not provide one either. There was no blaming of the Dhruv or any assigning of reason/blame because the gathered sources did not attempt to do so either. Kyteto (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will point out another stupidity by you. It's about the Propoganda article published in support of some foreign vendors by some newspaper in Pakistan and got carried away by others. And what's that you did. You wrote that propoganda stuff without pointing out who has complaints. When the Government of Ecuador and Ecuador air force object to the article being a propaganda, you go on to keep it with malicious intent, the same as that of the agency, may be the American embassy in Ecuador that tried to put out such articles. Diahel (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"I will point out another stupidity by you." "you go on to keep it with malicious intent" - I'm not going to put up with abusive behaviour and hostile language - I do not appreciate slander. Either tone down the personal insults or don't participate on my talkpage, please. Kyteto (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The complain was kept in on the basis of two arguements: 1. That the allegations and subsiquent public rebukement are noteworthy in and of themselves. Similar to major allegations of misconduct and substancial problems at BAE Systems (for example), even if they aren't subsiquently investigated or eventually validated (see the BAE System's article's Controversies section for a ton of examples of this) this 2. Substantial weighting was given to the subsiquent rebukement of the claim by officials, both sides of the claim were fairly given in a NPOV manner. Why, if I were favouring one side, would I support a revision that gives a great deal of coverage to the rebukement and dispute of the claim - AKA the other side of the issue I'm supposed to be against? - It could be considered POV to erase negative mentions on the basis that 'you support one side and have concluded they are right, and the other side must be poopy and wrong and spies and lies' - and to be honest, blaming an individual national embassy as having manufactured the report without a hint of evidence isn't exactly showing your position as being free of a POV-ish agenda. Kyteto (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MilHist IRC

Hi Kyteto, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at [3]. I'm getting some people to join it, and because you're a military historian, I'd like you to join so problems can be solved more quickly. Dank, The Ed17, Adamdaley, Ian Rose and a few guys are on it, so please join and tell others about it as well. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Vulcan PFCUs

Hi.

Re: The adoption of the AC power system allowed for electrically powered flight controls and electronic actuators to be introduced on the B.2.

The flying controls on both marks of Vulcan were hydraulically driven.

The control surfaces were moved by hydraulic jacks from the powered flying control units [PFCU]. Hydraulic pressure came from a hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump was powered by an electric motor. Hence the confusion. In the case of the B.1 the electric motor was 112V DC and the B.2 200V AC. So both marks had hydraulic PFC systems, the difference being the electrical supply to the electric motors that drove the hydraulic pumps.

The reason that the AC system was introduced is basically safety, but it is lighter as well. A higher voltage means a lower current which means thinner cabling with less heat being produced. The back-up for the DC system was battery only and was unsatisfactory, leading to two crashes. The B.2 had an AAPP and a RAT, both of which supplied AC power, backing up the four engine-driven alternators. Having said that, one B.2 did crash because of faulty RAT wiring so it wasn't perfect.

Extract from Aircrew Manual

I suggest that you undo the change and I'll expand the section on power supplies. XJ784 (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the wording needs changin in ntoe of your understand, but the core information such still be valid and good. I've read the electronic controls introduced on the B.2 to be of exception importance to the wider aviation industry; it should be vital information to include such an innovation in the article. The source doesn't claim that the electronic actuators replaced the hydraulics; in fact the diagrams still show those systems in place, but the renewed system for controlling said hydraulics was different between the Mark; and the source seems adament that the change wouldn't have been possible on the more immature D.C. system. The Intergrated Actuator Control effectively dismantled some of the mechanical control siganlling (though not abolished, the feedback link is taken back into mechanical part way between the control service and the pilot's controls). This is complicated stuff, but with work I think its merits can be proved. Kyteto (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

BA

Hi, I think 'violation' is a very strong word and represents probably the biggest threat to WP: established editors becoming over-zealous with their enforcement of (lets face it, in theory they're guidlines but in practice they're treated as) rules. What if that information was added by a new editor, toying with the idea of helping out the project, who returned to find their contribution struck out by a registered user that couldn't be bothered to verify their claim (something that took me less than 10 seconds)? WP is losing enough users as it is, scaring away new ones (or in my case disenchanting semi-established ones) for the sake of a mis-placed cite is just going to speed up the demise of WP as we know it. My reference to editors checking their edits was made after another editor was equally-lazy just yesterday and as such I make no apology at all if sounded even remotely snide. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you review a FAC?

Hi Kyteto, as a Wikipedia who has an intimate knowledge of aviation, and thus can judge whether the article involved is worthy of FA-status or not, can you please have a look at a FAC that is stalling quite badly? The article is McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, and the FAC can be found here. Please do not think what I'm doing here is canvassing (!), because Ucucha, one of the FAC delegates, says that I can ask some specific people like you to comment on the article, to get the ball rolling again. Can you do me a favour and either "Support" or "Oppose" the article? The FAC doesn't have any objections at the moment, but I hate to see FACs go down because of a lack of interest instead of the articles being non-FA worthy. Cheers! ;) Sp33dyphil © • © 04:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, as I was heavily involved in the article's development, especially in its sister articles, it may be construed as unfair or unbalanced for an editor with my level of postivie involvement to give a support verdict. However, I can provide commentary, either on this talk page or on the article itself, for you to respond to and further the article's development. This could be of benefit to instilling action in others, or in the simple goal of creating an overall better article. Let me know on your thoughts regarding this please. Kyteto (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As there seems to be a lot of interest in the article lately (!), I don't mind your suggestion. Thanks! (Hopefully we can get the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article to FA too!) Sp33dyphil © • © 04:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Kyteto! I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but I'd just like to inform you that there is an online webchat room where you can socialise and find help with experienced editors and myself. The room is at #wikipedia-en; a few people hang around there, so if you're interested, please come along. For more information, please see WP:IRC. --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Panavia Tornado, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Surge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 767 now at FAC

Dear Kyteto, as someone who participated in the earlier A-class review of Boeing 767, I thought you might be interested in contributing to its FA nomination. The review page is in need of comments--any input, no matter how small, is welcome. Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Gloster Meteor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stakeholder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne

The article Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne for things which need to be addressed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited AgustaWestland AW101, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rotor and Pitot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

AgustaWestland AW101 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pitch, Redundancy, Roll and Yaw

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Please could you explain with diffs where you suspect User:AirCraft has violated 3RR using multiple accounts? This would be pretty solid grounds for using CheckUser. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Three clear examples are located at: [4] [5] [6] The difficulty of pointing to an individual article revision is that the user is splattering their huge changes into dozens of rapidly made smaller edits, see as an example: [7], [8]. In terms of a total collection of revert edits as per each group, VHiTek has been used to revert the article twice and Laurent Simon once; Airplane has been used in minor 'muddying-the-waters' revertions via colelctions of minor edits adding back up to a restoration. In total, independent editors have reverted the article back to base four times: Twice by Ahunt, Once by MilborneOne (an Admin), Once by McSly; every time the suspected puppets have worked together to rebuild it identical to its pre-rejected state. 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AgustaWestland AW101 has been promoted to GA

Thank you for nominating AgustaWestland AW101 for Good Article, and for being prepared to work through all the suggestions that were put forward during the GA Review. I have promoted the article to GA and listed it at Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology#Air transport.

You are now qualified to volunteer to do GA reviews of other articles that are nominated for GA status. Regards, Dolphin (t) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Grumman F-14 Tomcat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flat spin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rudra

Somewhere i have read Rudra inducted as well. Surely a lot of confusion with variants.Diahel (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)