November 2007

Re. user:Caveman 07

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

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

Is someone angry at you?

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

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

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

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

F-86 Sabre specifications

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

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

You're probably not old enough to remember , or else your mind was somewhere else, that the Canadian Orenda-powered Sabre Mk 6 was bigger and faster than the US versions (it's about a foot thicker, top to bottom). Which is why some were sent to Korea to take on the later Mig-15s BomberJoe (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't mind legitimate comments on topics discussed here, the snide remarks on my age versus what I do or don't know is not appreciated. I am old enough to read, so my age when those events happened is really irrelevant. Most of my knowledge of events today is from reading reports on them, not from first-hand experiences, so does that mean I haven't been born yet? - BillCJ 07:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Canadair Sabre article, the first Orenda-powered production model, the Mk 5, first flew on 30 July 1953. Given that the Korean War ended on 27 July 1953, it would have been pretty hard for Orenda-powered Sabres to - Oh, never mind, I hadn't been born yet. - BillCJ 07:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are invited on a proposal at WP:MILAIR

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

Limited availability

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

Re: F-16 users

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

States_Reorganization_Commission

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

Generally, verbatim reports should not be posted on Wikipedia. If they are, you need to include the source information for the report (print is fine if online sources are not available), and the copyright information of the material. If this is a Public Domain or copyright-free report under Indian laws, then you might consider posting the report to [1], which is a better place for such reports. While I am not an administrator on Wikipedia, I have asked one for assistance, and he may remove the AFD, and recommend a more sutabiel approach to the problem. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have created the page Para_369_to_389_of_SRC in which I have included scanned images of the report. (I also referred this page in States_Reorganization_Commission ). What is the process to make the page Para_369_to_389_of_SRC as wikisource? Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to think about

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

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

oops

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

Hughes 300 pics

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

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

Thank You!

(Moved award to my userpage)

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

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

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

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

Commander stuff

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

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

RoAF 2007 crash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments on the ip-socks

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

Communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born2flie/Helicopter

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

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

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

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

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

He-111

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

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

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

Flightsoffancy 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry about the problems not discussing directly has caused. I'f you'd lke to post a (hopefully-shortened!) version of your above post on the article talk page, we can discuss the particulars of how to handle the section on the article. I get used to looking in edit summaries, both on my watchlist and in the edit histories, so I sometime forget that not everyone eagle-eyes a page like that. When I first saw your post, I had to double-check the talk page to make sure that I hadn't posted something - it's not that I doubted you, but I have over 3000 articles watchlisted, and it takes a bit of time if I'm posting (often-verbose!) explanations on every article talk page, so I usually just sticck to using edit summaries.

As to new articles and deletionists, I TOTALLY understand. I generally work in the WP:AIR project, and we fight regular battles with the deletionist cabal, especially due to the fact they think an AFD is a "light discussion of issues", so there is no need to discuss anything before hand. We can work with a few of the other editors on the Serenity talk page to craft a short, simple paragraph on the initial event and floow-ons. We can then begin work (preferablly on a userpage sandbox - mine is fine if you don't want it) on more expanded coverage of the event and its follow-ons using multiple sources, and being carful to make sure notability is both claimed and properly cited. THat way it would have a good chance of not only being deletion-proof (post-AFD), but may even AFD-proof too.

Thanks for your kind words regarding my health. I have intestinal problems that preclude keeping a regular job, so I spend alot of time on Wikipedia each day, when I can. Again, sorry for not approaching you first, and I hope we can come up with a solution that is workable to both of us, and the regular editors. - BillCJ 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're very welcome. I've had problems in that general area before (albeit not actually the intestines, though we never did find exactly what was going wrong...). It's one of the most frustrating and potentially painful areas to have something go wrong in. You definitely have my sympathies on that! :(

I'll very probably start a thread for this at the Talk page, as you suggested. For your convenience, here is the current version of the section, which I edited a little while ago to try and reconcile your version with mine as best I could (copy-pasted from the page history view):

Beginning in January 2006, fans (with Universal's blessing) began organizing charity screenings of Serenity^[1] to benefit Equality Now, a human rights organization supported by Joss Whedon. By mid-June, 41 such screenings had been confirmed for cities in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States, and as of June 19 2006, there were 47 scheduled screenings. The project was referred to as "Serenity Now/Equality Now" on the official website, is often referred to in shortened form as "Serenity Now", and was coordinated through Can't Stop The Serenity(sic), where a full list of screenings is also available. The event was repeated in 2007 (where it reportedly raised considerably more than the original 2006 screenings); another repetition of the event is planned for 2008 [2].

I'd still like to include just slightly more, such as the actual estimated totals of year one vs. year two, but this would cover the absolute most important and notable parts, so I'd be willing to settle for this or something very similar, considering it's meant to be a very brief summary. How about you?

I think that since there's enough material on the event (including, if you know where to look, quite a bit of local coverage on individual screenings), we could definitely get a page out of it. A good idea in this case would probably be to get the WikiProject Firefly folks involved from the beginning; I remember starting Companion (Firefly), and having almost instant help (and an instant rating) after making sure to note I'd created the page. I think it's still only Start class... but it's a pretty good Start class article, and it had several properly-formatted cites added pretty quickly (I always have trouble citing things with the ref tags, partly because I've yet to bookmark a page that actually explains how each one is formatted, so I don't know how to make them). Also, a lot of the WP Firefly editors are pretty dedicated, and I'm positive they're all familiar with the event and would be willing to help out; they probably even know of more news sources that reported on the screenings that we could cite. Don't think notability should be too hard to establish if we really do some digging and pull up a lot of articles, and I'm sure the thing's organizers would be willing to point us towards a few news articles too, as I think they tend to be really happy when it gets press, and therefore tend to keep relatively good track of it.

I've never used Sandboxes before, actually. We'll have to see how it all goes. Anyway, I'll post a (brief ^_^) note on the film article's Talk page and also over at the WikiProject Firefly pages, and we'll see how much support and help we can pull in. Sound good? Oh, and on a sidenote, we obviously can't use Serenity Now as an undisambiguated title; it's apparently the name of an EP. :P Although, the name of the article certainly has to be figured out, as I think they're moving away from calling it "Serenity Now", but I'm not entirely sure what they're calling it now, though the website's at the same URL. I'll double-check though, as I know a lot of folks liked to use the Serenity Now variation...

Sincerely, Runa27 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, posting on WP:Firefly sounds like a good idea, once you have something ready to go live with. The text you have above is good for the main Serenity page for now. It can be tweaked later when we get the new articel up. - BillCJ 01:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw that Companion (Firefly) was AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companion (Firefly), and made a redirct. At least your info is still there,a nd you can add most of it to the Inara page. Sorry! :( - BillCJ 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using "user sandboxes"

By user sandboxes, I don't mean the usual sandboxes you see liks for around, but just a page on your user space to work in. Place /Serenity Now/Equality Now or /Can't Stop The Serenity on your user page, and save it. THen click on the redlink, and the page to start a page will come up, put in your text, and save. I'f you're not sure haow to do it, and are afraid you might lose your work before saving it, I'll be happy to start it for you.

From looking at the Can't Stop The Serenity webpage, it seems they are fairly interconnected with the "Serenity Now/Equality Now" drive. Perhaps a combined article under the title Can't Stop The Serenity would be the way to go initially, as your original text seemed to overlap with both anyway. At some point, it the "Serenity Now/Equality Now" movement grows much beyond the screening outreach, then a new page could be spun off. Serenity Now/Equality Now would seem the best page to start with, and have a DAB link on the current Serenity Now page. Anyway, it doens't matter a whit what you call your "sandbox" page on your userspcae, as you can always choose another name when we go live in the mainspace. Perhaps the Firely Project will be helpful on the best name too. - BillCJ 01:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TougHHead

ANI discussion.

O's

I am sure I can find any number of sources that reference this long tradtion at O's games, but since your real complaint is that it's "unecyclopedic", why should I bother? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At best, it's trivia, and certainly shouldn't go in the Lead of the article. You're a good editor, but you need to remember this is a (supposed to be) serious encyclopedia, not a fan site. You're welcome to try to gain a consensus to include it, however, since consensus trumps just about everything around here. I'm not going to edit war about it though. It might be OK in a start-class article (Which is what the Baltimore Orioles page is), but I can't see it being allowed to stay before it ever reaches FA-class. But I could be wrong. - BillCJ 06:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue that it belongs in the lead. It's more like an item that belongs in the section about fan-related stuff, like mascots, Wild Bill Hagy, etc. [3] [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons and LCAC

Hey the explanation of what was going on here. Nothing for you to worry about now ;)--Nilf anion (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't doing something that need to go to the Commone equivelant of Deletion Review first. - BillCJ (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox/LCAC

You made this in the wrong space, I moved it to User:BillCJSandbox/LCAC. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for catching that! - BillCJ (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we all make mistakes. The proper location is User:BillCJ/Sandbox/LCAC - I hope! - BillCJ (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek, highly likely. M'bad :)Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 01:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK! I put {{db-nouser}} on the interim page. I don't use CSD tags much, so I think this is the right one. - BillCJ (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A330 image

Just wanted you to know that another user has replaced the Emirates picture on Airbus A330's infobox (history). I have reverted the picture change. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 01:51, 18 November 2007 (GMT)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli closed

The above-linked arbitration case has been closed. Stefanomencarelli is banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry it came to this, but I'm not sorry his dispruptions are gone for now. I do hope he'll take some time to reflect on the real problems here, but I somehow doubt it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

(Moved award to my userpage)

Thanks a ton for all your edits, Bill. Just wanted to jazz up the award a bit, hence the language... you can change it if you'd like. Thanks again for your 19000 improvements to Wikipedia. Sniperz11^talk|edits 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers Wellington

Hi there, I'm the guy who changed the aircraft Commons links to Categories. You were right to change them back to the way they were, I should have kept my nose out. However - you also changed the Vickers Wellington page to point to a non-existent page on Commons. I had already created a Category for it and perhaps it should be changed back to point to the Category so at least it points to something on Commons. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for catching that. THere was one other that I caught, but I forgot to double check the Wellington. Feel free to correct it, or I'll get to it later tonight. THanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Braves

You beat me to it on the reversion. As far as I know, there are no officially recognized "final standings" in 1994. However, I was not able to find anything about that on MLB.COM. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious assault ships

OK. Thanks for the info. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for reverting vandalism and harassment by an account with an offensive username. However, in the future it might be better if you did not link to vandals' names in the edit summaries, as this just calls attention to them. Please see WP:DENY for related discussion if you are interested. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always put the names of users that I revert in my edit sumamiers so other editors will no from the edit histor/user contributions lists who did a certain edit that I reverted, and this includes vandals. The only reason I linked it in this case was that I din't want the highly offensive user name showing, so I piped the link. I don't usually include the links, but had SineBot not ruined my ability to revert the edit with Undo, it would have been linked anyway. Maybe your time would be better spent trying to get that feature disabled,as I use it very frequently in reverting vandals, rather than bothering me about doing something that is already done automatically. No offense meant. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPelink

Hay BillBC, Thnkx fur yur comunts o' ARBCoM. Jest wan ta insure nobdy tinks spellin namess wrung wis 'nentional. Cheeerz, BZak. Bzuk (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It QK, dho I yusally dont let odders do modifics of mine posters. - BillCJ (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden doit normlly butt ths ws kuntentious isue wit Stepphie. Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

hi

You have a lot of barnstars! I usually don't edit military aircraft, just civilian but in my brief foray into military aircraft, I've seen your name...and your editing of my edit. That's ok with meArchtransit (talk)

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the change to the template, I'll see what happens when an [aircraft] article gets nominated for FA.

On an unrelated note, what was the issue about the image-spam with Middle East airlines? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:40, 24 November 2007 (GMT)

Nothing has happened before - there are a couple of FA articles right now, and it was not an issue for them.

As to the image spam, every so often, we've had users whogo around changing El-Al airliner pics to those of other Middle East Airlines. ANd once in awhile, the opposite happens too. I've seen the same thing with Pakistani and Indian airliners. This last spate was just replacing all the lead pics in the airliner pages with primarily Emirates images, tho I think there are a few others used too. In most cases. the new pics were not an improvement over the existing ones. My take on lead images is to use the best pics avaliable, no matter who the user is, in both military and civil aircraft pages. Some users - not in this case, I believe - want the lead image to be of the airline with the most aircraft. THis doesn't make any sense to me, as I beleive the lead pic should be the best pic, preferably a in-flight image, and one that shows the aircraft to the best advantage visually. Bright, colorful Livery schemes are good too. A sorry if this is more than what you were asking, but I wasn't sure exactly what you were asking, or already knew. - BillCJ (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalise in Sukhoi Su-35 you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Peter johnson4 (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Clean-up on aisle 4! - BillCJ (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Looks like someone is confused here. When has Bill gotten a first warning?? -Fnlayson (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Ok, I apologize for being a bit rude, because there is no need for that so sorry. However, the removal of the citations is just plain wrong.--Historian info (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after further reading your comments about keeping the cited comments - this shows Reasonability in you - so I further apologize. I'm always dealing with vandals so I guess I just get in a negative mindset - sorry.--Historian info (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna Skymaster Revision of 25 November

I would like you to reconsider the revisions I made on 25 Nov. 2007. I have a Master's degree in Engineering from Caltech, spent 30 years in aerospace/aviation firms, have owned two Skymasters for 10 years, and I am a webmaster of the Skymaster Owners and Pilots Association (see rsume at www.consultresearch.com/resume.htm).

Although I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor -- and my revisions may lack the rigor you are looking for -- I believe that my revised article is vastly superior to the unrevised one currently active. For starters, the current one spends a significant amount of text on something that is wrong: that there is no tendency to depart the runway if an engine fails on the takeoff roll. Because the two engines counter-rotate, failure of one and the P-factor of a single propeller will indeed cause a torque. Second, I reintroduced two items that had existed previously and someone had deleted. The two items (which are not mine and, although negative in tone, are fair and should be there) are these: a) although they should be safer, accident statistics are comparable to other twins, and b) fuel management has been the source of many accidents despite an unremarkable fuel system.

Aside from this, and perhaps because of my limited Wikipedia experience, I don't understand your continued insistence of clarifying why instruments are critical in determining the failed engine. The reader already knows that there is no asymetric torque, that the pilot can't see one engine, and that there is no left-right engine noise as a signal. Seems enough to me, but I tried to see if I could help by a rewording that apparently didn't meet your standards.

I would be happy to help further, but I'd like some flexibility. I'd rather end up with an accurate article that hits on the major factors of a topic, than one which adheres rigorously to Wikipedia protocol but has errors and omissions, and spends excessive text on unimportant matters.

Ernie Martin

I'm sorry if I come across as harsh - that's not my intention. I'll try to answer in depth later, and will ask for help from another editor who edits alot of light aircraft pages here. My main contention is that you are making unsourced assertions and claims. I don't doubt your personal knowledge and experience, but that is considered original research. We have to have attributable, reliable sources, though the aritcle does fail in that regard in many places. Please feel free to remove ANY unsourced claim in the article that you know is erroneous - that is where your personal knowledge can be used. - BillCJ (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill: No problem, I am happy to help out on the Cessna Skymaster article. Overall the article looks okay, although perhaps the tone needs to be cleaned up a bit to make it more like an encyclopedia article. The biggest problem is that it lacks sources for most of the content there. I do have some books on the 336/337, so let me dig those out and attribute statements that I can and tag the rest so that they can be identified as needing references.

Ernie: The key thing in Wikipedia, as Bill has mentioned, is that Orginal Research isn't permitted in the encyclopedia. We can write just about anything on topic as long as it is written in a tone befitting an encyclopedia and that there is a verifiable source for the information. It can be the type club website history info, other reviews, magazine article, books etc. I hate to hold up my own work as an example but the Pterodactyl Ascender article may give you some idea of a thickly referenced article - when I wrote it I ensured that every paragraph was footnoted, and the list of references shows the diversity of information that can be used. Basically everything stated in an article has to have a source or it can be removed as "unsourced".

I hope that helps! - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - okay I have given it a run through as noted in the summary. I found some refs for the statements in there, cleaned some other statements up (including correcting some dates to the refs cited) and tagged where references are required. I hope that helps move the article along! I actually have some more info in the refs and so may expand the article a bit to bring that info in when I have a chance. - Ahunt (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're making progress, but as it exists now -- even with the latest changes by Hunt -- there are still errors (e.g., the aircraft does not tend to depart the runway if an engine fails on the takeoff roll) and we're missing important points (e.g., although designed to be safer, accident statistics are not better than that of other twins). I believe I understand now the need for referenced (not original) material. My suggestion is that you let me go back to my revision of 25 November (which corrects the errors and includes the missing points) as a starting point, and I will then add the necessary references. I also note that the existing references in the article don't seem to lead anywhere. Ernie Martin.

Ernie, just in case you read here before you read your talk page, I did a text dump of the 25 November edits you made to a sandbox article in your user space (User:Emartin1/Cessna Skymaster). You can reference your edits here and then move them back into the mainspace article when you're finished. --Born2flie (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie: You are right - the refs were dead ends - my mistake I forgot to add the {{reflist}} tag to the article. I have now fixed that and the refs appear in a "References" section at the bottom, just before the external links section.

If there is unreferenced material there that you think is incorrect then by all means go ahead and remove it! That is where we can benefit from your experience on type! - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Here I have some pictures for you. :) --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Bell 206LT TwinRanger Bell 427 Bell 427 again[reply]

I hate to butt in, but did you get Modry's permission to take these from Airliners.net? That permission needs to be documented. If you need help with that, let me know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are great pics, Tigre! Thanks for finding them. I think all you need to do is post the eamil he senst you, but Alan will know for sure.

Yep, I get the permission from Modry when I get pics for the Sukhoi Su-25 article (actually I have permissions from more than 10 photographers). Alan, I do not know how to post an email here on wiki, but would it be enough if I'll forward it to you? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that part. But do add the bolded permission note to the other images like you did on the Bell 206LT one. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, meanwhile I received permission from another photographer and here's his pic which might interest you. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Image:Bell 427(3).jpg[reply]

Details of how the process works are at WP:ERP, but in a nutshell, all you need to do is forward the permission letter to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, and be sure to include the file names of images. What will then happen is that the OTRS volunteers will tag the talk page of the images with an OTRS ticket number that serves as official confirmation that permission is secured. If you have any problems, drop me a note, or you can also talk to User:Lar, since he's one of the OTRS volunteers. Oh, and BTW, that's awesome that you've gotten these...many thanks for doing this to improve the project!! AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quite complicated to do that and I'm unfortunately quite busy in this days. I'm going to forward you those emails and you can do what you think is necessary with them. Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Army Bell 214A: Image:Iranian Bell 214.jpg. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet tag

Probably not worth another thread, just letting you know I've semi-protected your userpage for the time being, to hopefully discourage further attacks. You should still be able to edit it normally. If you'd like this removed, feel free to let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much apprecisated. Also, can you do anything about the do-gooders adding notices to my page over my edit summary here? I honestly don't believe it can be considered a personal attack - what sould I have said, "lovesick schoolgirl"? He's a guy! I hardly think it needs thinly-veiled warings for 2 admins who totally ingored these comments placed by my stalker. - BillCJ (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned that vandal's crap off fast. Try to get away from here for a while Bill... -Fnlayson (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you when you get back

I hope it isn't related to the illness and that you're doing well. Best Regards, Born2flie (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hovercraft request

yeah i know a fair amount about hovercraft and how theey work. here's a list of ship names of civillian transports AP.1-88 military i think and most hovercraft are used by britin (civilian) and the u.n. (Military)i think oh and if you want to know how they work let me know because it is to much work to explain for noreason or to somebody who already knows how it works.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the help and names of types. The Hovercraft page explains how it works well enough right now that I won't need to explain that in the new article. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

United States Navy

Can you please explain why you've done this reversion with the edit summary 'POV comments'? I don't see the slightest bit of POV in calling the Es and Fs 'heavier' and 'slower' than the As/Ds as, according to the numbers at F/A-18 Hornet#Specifications (F/A-18C/D) and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet#Specifications (F/A-18E/F), both of those are true. Am I missing something? Maralia 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Becuase it's unnecessary info that doesn't need to be there. It was more than likely added by an F-14 proponent who dislikes the SUper Hornet, but even if I'm wrong on that, it just doesn't need to be there. That sort of detail belongs in the aircraft articles, not an oveview page on the USN in general. - BillCJ 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, it's OR analysis. It's not quoting a source that says that, it's an editor looking at the different numbers and coming to conclusions. WP:OR makes it clear that it is not our job to analyze unrelated source information and come up with our own conclusions and judgements, it's our job to report what others are reporting. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I agree with you that it's not really relevant and doesn't need to be there. I was really only wondering why you'd call it 'POV', which you've answered. Thanks.

Akra - I respectfully disagree on principle here; we are allowed to use common sense, and I can't fathom calling it 'analysis' or 'judgement' or 'OR' to compare two very straightforward numbers provided by the same source. Heavier and slower are very clearly defined words; we're not saying 'clunkier' or 'worse' or something obviously judgmental. That being said, though, I imagine there's probably a fair amount of fans trying to push peacock language for their favorite aircraft (or the opposite about other aircraft), so maybe you're overstating your case out of the irritation of cleaning up blatant peacockery? In any case, I didn't mean to start some great debate, and I truly don't care about this instance, although I'm now curious about your views on OR :) Maralia 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy lists their max speeds as fairly similar. Probably not much difference given the Super Hornet was intended to generally match or exceed the C/D's performance. Certainly not enough difference to state it in the Navy article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Areskaratepe

Thanks for the heads-up. I've taken a look and will spend some time trying to bring him around. Cheers --Rlandmann 19:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. - BillCJ 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Cavour can operate as LPH, with 2 eliassault from 6 EH-101 each can land all marines.
A very bad translation. I was barely capable to understand the sense, but we are lucky and it seems it is the it.wiki article weird translation. There it is written:
"La nave è predisposta per lanciare in 2 eliassalti, condotti da 6 EH-101 ASH/TTH, le truppe anfibie che può alloggiare"
that means:
Cavour can operate as LPH, being capable to deploy all her 416 marines crew, sending all of them in two consecutive attacks taken by her 6 EH101 helicopters fleet.
The "two consecutive attacks" concept could be better translated with "sorties" which is an aviation term or "... her 416 marines crew by means of two subsequent air attacks made with her 6 EH101 helicopters fleet.". Also the "marines" concept could be improved by writing "...to deploy all her San Marco naval infantry ...". Hoping you have now a better situation awareness, I am very interested in seeing how you will make plain the paragraph . --EH101 04:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Air attack" may be the literal translation intending "air assault". Assault=attack in English, although militarily they have a different connotation. In the current U.S. Army vernacular, it would be one air assault with two lifts; each lift comprising 6 chalks (aircraft). Sorry for butting in. --Born2flie 08:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Different countries and even different armed forces use particular words depending on their doctrine books and terminology. Assault(a), lifts(b) and chalks(c) are typical "airborne" words, mostly the last one. The best could be to listen to a U.S. Marine member due to the specific equivalent environment. I guess he will suggest Assault(a), ship to shore deployment(b) and platoons or companies(c) as translation. Things are becoming more and more interesting to me. Let’see. --EH101 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange aircraft

Last night walking back to my room, I heard an aircraft approaching from the west. At first, I thought it was an Apache, but it did not go anywhere on the airfield I expected it to go. It slowed and made an approach to a different location and then my mind clicked and I thought that this might actually be a different aircraft with different capabilities. Three guesses. --Born2flie 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My three guesses:

An A380 - everyone knows this is the most important aircraft in history, because it wasn't designed by Boeing, or built in the USA.
The latest Iranian aircraft built HESA, the 209-5 Teheran rotary-wing Mach 3 stealth attack fighter that looks like a cross between a F-5 and an AH-1J, but was soley designed and built in Iran and only resembles the US aircrafts, or is a simple upgrade of old F-5s and AH-1s - we're not sure which.
A V-22 - but it might have been hard for your to tell if it didn't crash while autorotating, wasn't shot down from the front or side, and didn't have Bell-Boeing PR people running around instisting that it actually can fly. (No intent to make fun of crashes or shoot-downs here, as this may be sensitive issue over there.) - BillCJ 09:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! I knew you'd enjoy hearing about it. :) --Born2flie 09:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelowna Flightcraft

Copyedit from my page:"Bill, I was following the Kelowna Flightcraft link from the Convair CV-240, and saw it redirected to Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, which is set up (correctly) as an airliner page. There seems to be a little info on Kelowna Flightcraft's other activities there, but not much, and nothing whatsoever on their being the Convair type certificate holder, their CV5800 conversions and similar activities. Would you be interested in setting up a dedicated page for the parent company that covers a braoder range of its activities? I figure you probably have some first-hand knowledge on the company to work from, and better access to local sources. If you can't, just say so, and I'll try to throw a stub togother in a few days. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Hi Bill, I actually have my offices in a buliding owned by Flightcraft Maintenance Services, an offshoot of Kelowna Flightcraft. I'll do some quick research and see what I can do. They are an interesting concern with a number of projects that are sited in my part of the world. FWIW Bzuk 19:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bill, I'm having an odd discussion with the editor who redirected the original article who obliquely insinuates that my information is wrong. Oh well, I think the easiest thing to do is rewrite the original article into a Kelowna Flightcraft Company piece and then provide some sub-articles to entities like the Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter, Allied Wings and their various maintenance and support operations. FWIW, I may need an admin to allow the article to have the redirect's name. Bzuk (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As long as you have reliable sources attesting to the notability of the main company, we shouldn't have any problem keeping the article. The original page was not AFDed or protected as far as I can tell, so I can't see that he has any authority to stop you from putting in the new article where the old one was. That doesn't mean he won't protect it now anyway. You should probably talk to Alan or John, and get their take on this. As to daughter articles, we can probaly cover everything on the main page, except for the Air Charter division which certainly seems notable on its own. (And it already exists, meaning we don't have to create it!) As for Allied WIngs, if you find enough sources to put something together at the same time as the main article, then it would make sense to split it off them. Otherwise, it can probably survive as a section on the main page for now. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Kelowna Flightcraft appears to be the company's preferred title per their website, so I wouldn't think we'd need to title the article Kelowna Flightcraft Company. There will be links to Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter in the main article, so I can't see any reason to make Kelowna Flightcraft a DAB or redirect page at all. - BillCJ (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the name being Kelowna Flightcraft and I only referred to the company because I was using a company template in my sandbox article. I had styled it loosely after other company articles I had written or edited. I'll keep working on the article(s) till they are ready to go then get some advice as to how to make the changes. FWIW, I found some interesting tidbits about Kelowna Flightcraft and their role in supplying aircraft for the short-lived Greyhound Air (an offshoot of the Greyhound Bus company) Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Curious and curiouser

Bill, I trust your antenna and radar is more finely tuned than mine; whatdoyathink about the pattern here: [5]? Seems suspiciously like a friend of ours? FWIW Bzuk 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The IP is registered in NJ, and his pattern seems different. I think it's just a teen and/or Russian immigrant trying to "improve" Russian-related aircraft aritlces, but who either doesn't understand RS, doesn't care, or is adding false info on purpose. Still, who knows!! - BillCJ 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for the latest heads-up. Sigh. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Don't ya just love Whack-a-Mole? :) --Rlandmann 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MRJ

RE:your health tag. I hope it's ok! About the MRJ, "However, backlog for all medium sized jet makers including Airbus A320's , Boeing 737s, and Embraer E-Jets are over 4 years, with my expanding airlines eager to get their hands on any new aircraft.". I'm not sure it's true. If so, orders of CRJ1000 should be higher than they are. I started the article and thought "I don't think I'd wrote that, especially with no citation." Looking at the history, it's confirmed. I didn't! Archtransit 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a long-term chronic, though not life-threatening, illness, so some days are better than others. I usually try not to be more specific in an open forum, esp as I have a vindictive wiki-stalker that doesn't respect people's privacy.

As to the MRJ, I checked the cited article for the item in question, and it really doesn't bear out the conclusion, tho a hint of it is there. It's possible the user added the thought from another source, or it may just be OR conjecture. I left the VS tag in to give others a chance to look at it.

I know what you mean about seeing things in articles we wrote or heavily expanded, and going, "Did I write that?" :) Sometimes I actually DID write it!

Btw, the MRJ article is good for one about an aircraft that has just been launched. It is amazing to me how many companies are entering the RJ market right now. I've thought for years that the Boeing-Airbus duopoly wouldn't last as long as some, esp Airbus, seem to think it would. With Bombardier, Embraer, and others now trying to break the 100-seat limit, this is being borne out on the low end. I do think this will have a great influence on the natures of the Boeing 737RS/Y1 and AIrbus NSA, to the point where they might not even try for the 100-seat end, and go more for the 130-200 range. Of course, as these other manufactures learning curve for airliners grows, I think we'll see them take cances with larger aircraft in the next 10-20 years, and be willing to be more innovative. Personally, I think Boeing can handle the competition, but Airbus at this point seems to treat Boeing as the the only one to beat. An analogy would be a sports team designed solely to beat a rival: They usually have one or two good years, and ofetn to best there rival, but soon another team with a different style of play and personnel comes along, and they aren't ready for the challenge. I guess we'll see what happens! - BillCJ 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downmight10

He's a sock of a guy named Roadcrusher who has been uploading non-free images onto Wikipedia for over two months now (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Roadcrusher. Got repeatedly blocked for copyvio so now uses socks. Started to pick up his scent about a month ago and sadly now he's kind of the Jean Valjean to my Javert. I knew it was him but decided to see what would happen if I tagged the vios and fixed the legit FUs (not the first time, mind you), but he's back to his old tricks so I reported it to WP:AIV. Kelvinc 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that he is a sock, so I don't have to worry about 3RR (or at list a block sticking for long). THanks for your help in this. - BillCJ 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Makes sense from the way he repeatedly removed tags & stuff off the CRJ 1000 image page. -Fnlayson 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge template

Hi! I were who removed the merge template, because the two article title were same. If they weren't same, what was the difference between the titles? Nbuda (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Please answer to my talk page. Nbuda (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USN Commander Crowley

FYI: The only "Commander Crowley" I can find with internet searches was a Lt Commander John D. Crowley of the USS Flier (SS-250) during WWII. USS Flier on Navy.mil omits the Lieutenant part. In any event, looks like the youngest Commander Jim Crowley (USS Cavalla) thing is probably fiction.-Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you saved me a search! I kinda figured that was the case, esp since he was 23 in the first three posts yesterday! - BillCJ 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I saw you remove it that yesterday. I figured I'd check to see if there's any truth to it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Blue World Spitfires

What was your problem with noting the different Spifire marks used in Dark Blue World, or were you just having a bad day? BomberJoe (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that it is commentary, and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopdia article. Find a reliable source which gives that info, and cite it, and write it in a formal style. And, no, this is one of my good days :) - BillCJ 06:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Post

More info there now, for those who are unfamiliar with "blue" as a synonym for police. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why can't a link be made to a section in a Talk? LanceBarber (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit in question)

I only said I didn't think we're allowed to do it, but I can't cite a policy or guideline on it. The main reason for me tho would be that it isn't a content page, but a talk page. It should either go on the main page or in a separate page. Tags can link to talk pages for discussions on moves and such, but I've never seen an link in the text to contnet placed on the talk page. I'm going to ask a few admins, and see if they know of a guideline or policy explicitly forbidding it. - BillCJ (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't immediately find a policy which forbids it but rather than unhelpfully cite common sense, I suppose a link to talk fails WP:RS; a talk page can be edited by anybody and is intended for discussion about improving the article. It is not for linking to from mainspace with certain exceptions that you mention. Sorry I cannot be more helpful at the moment, but obviously I agree with you on the issue. --John (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we try to limit or discourage trivias and popular culture sections and sub articles, creating a section in the Talk seems to be a viable solution. The B-52 or various automobiles is one of a hundred plus aritcles that have this situation. We do not want all the uncited crap that we have dealt with, but there is a lot of pieces of information is an integral part of our society... way of life... language and slang... all part of documented history. I'm try to find a common ground for all of us, and this seems to be a solution.... not the perfect solution, but viable. Lets find a viable solution here, and get it into our Wiki projects as guidelines. Thank you. LanceBarber (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think it is a viable solution, and there is probably a rule against it somewhere. I admire you for trying tho. This one really needs to be discussed at the Wikipedi-wide level, such as at Village Pump, if you really want to try to make this a viable option.

- BillCJ (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. One of the big reasons for no cross-namespace linking is the fact that Wikipedia is mirrored and forked all across the Internet, and many mirrors only copy the mainspace, so such links would be broken. See also Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. In addition, the reasons for keeping trivia out of articles apply equally well to putting the trivia on the talk page and linking to it. It's not that there's something special about the mainspace that needs to be kept trivia free. We don't want trivia sections on Wikipedia, period. TomTheHand (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also cite Wikipedia:Layout, which governs the See also section, and which says that this section "provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia" (emphasis added). This is a very narrow range of what's appropriate in an SA section. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that by linking to the talk page, we give validity to the list of trivia that is on the page, but lose any control over the content of that list. Talk pages don't have the same restrictions for verifiability, notability, and such that we have in the article space. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is been an excellant learning session, thank you for everyone's input and references. I've created a few Talk links, and will go back and unlink them. Should an update to Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid with an explicit note to include in its examples? LanceBarber (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for noseing in but wouldn't the link be redundent?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible class photo

Hey Bill, I've noticed the back-and-forth you're having with Kurt Leyman on Invincible class aircraft carrier. I warned him about violating the three revert rule; you haven't made three reverts yet, but I'd ask that you kick off the dialogue on the talk page instead of reverting him again. I'd rather not get involved in the issue one way or the other because I'd like to retain my ability to act as an admin if necessary. TomTheHand (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on USS Illinois (BB-65)

I'm sure there is some significance/relevance pertaining to the three being retained and disposed at the same time. But, until either myself or User:TomStar81, who I'm collaborating with can cite it, I guess it is best to leave the note out of the article. Hopefully when we finish our finals and implement the suggestions from the FAC, we'll be able to cite something. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not paying attention to who added the items. I do try to give regular editors the benefit of the doubt most of the time. I've reverted so much jusk today that I just assumed this was more of it. I'd rather leave it out, but if someone else adds it back in as-was, I won't revert it. Also, unless the item is related specifiaclly to the Illinois, it would probably be better in the class article to cover the Kentucky also. Of course, it depends on what the sources say, and the context for the whole item. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I've been in that situation as well. I imagine after finals we'll find a place for the information to reside. I could also be totally forgetting about an article where this is already documented (not likely as it isn't mentioned except for a line or two in the class articles and individual ship articles). The one thing I'm sure about is that sources exist, they just have to be found. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ADF questions

Hi Bill. The new Labor government has said that it will keep all the contracts which the previous government signed, so the Canberra class ships and Super Hornets will go ahead (though the decision making process which which led to the Super Hornet purchase will be reviewed). Labor is also committed to maintaining the 3% annual real increase in defence expenditure, so there probably won't be much change in the ADF's size, structure and procurement program in the short run. In the longer run, the new government is going to commission a new Defence white paper, which should lead to some changes. Labor will probably take a more disiplined approach to defence procurement than the previous government did, so things like the sudden purchase of Abrams tanks, C-17 Globemasters and Super Hornets aren't going to happen again any time soon. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US

You may not be aware that there is some discussion about the use of US and U.S. on the discussion page for "F-4 phantom operators". The current consensus view is that U.S. is being used. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there, and perhaps you can influence the consensus. There may be a simple explanation, but I am puzzled by your comments in the edit summaries. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter...look...please...

Hands. Cramping. Fingers. Tired. Can't type. Look. Article. Helicopter. Tell. What fix? --Born2flie (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Copyedit from my talk page: "Bill, what is the Canadian spelling of manoeuvre/maneuver? Thanks - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

You could already guess that Canajans (formerly know as the colonials) are typically psychophrenic and use both Amerispeak and Brittalk. Generally speaking, both terms are in vogue but most often "manoeuvre" is used in the Canadian Forces (notice we are no longer the Canadian Armed Forces, they took our guns away...) but get this: "The Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre (CMTC) is the premier Army training experience for all soldiers that will occur at the Canadian Maneuver Training Centre (CMTC)" which is a direct quote from a Canadian Army document. I did say psychophrenic, I should have probably added "dopey." FWIW, go with "manoeuvre" in an official Canadian document and "maneuver" everywhere else, especially in publications such as newspapers. Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Those are spelled different but pronounced the same, right? Good one on the guns part. Call it Canadian [Unarmed] Forces. ;) For that matter the US Dept. of Defense is not really accurate either. But we're all used to it... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're not unique in calling it the Dept. (or Ministry) of Defense either, even if the spelling is peculiar to the US. But at least we ARE armed! For a nation that so much wants to be out from the US's shadow, they'd up crap creek if they were invaded and the US didn't come to their aid! The USMC is over twice as big as the entire CF, btw. After all, what good is spending so much on healthcare and other social spending if there's no one left to spend it on? But I guess if I lived in a neighborhood where the guy beside me is armed to the teeth, I really wouldn't need to own a gun. Of course, I wouldn't be egging his house every chance I got either! :) - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey USe guys, stop making fun of us, it's not in the best interests of U.S. (remember, we own all the ice up north and when Global Warning really hits [I know it's Global WarMing... or is it Global Warring?]) and youse guys come to us for a drink o' water, then we'll see whose laughin' at us or US? I'm getting really confUSed here?! FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Renaming

Having a discussion about renaming of article on aircraft nicknames - Goto the Category:World War II notable aircraft you will see numerous examples of "Aircraft Name" with a subset added afterwards - need to standardise these articles. The best way is to identify the aircraft name "Enola Gay" then type aircraft (B-29). There was several Memphis Belle (B-17) & (B-52) as an example. Another point being, a name such as Enola Gay (Aircraft) tells you nothing about the article Enola Gay (B-29) tells you not only this specific article but might also direct you to the B-29 article.Davegnz (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Dave, why not bring them to the project group as they may be of interest to others. Bzuk (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AC-130 protection

Hi Bill - I would love to help out here, but feel that semi-protection would unfortunately be against protection policy, specifically that semi-protection should not be used

"In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. "

How would you feel about temporary full protection to see if some kind of consensus position can be reached? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with full protection, but I think it's a bit extreme for the case. As far as this being a content dispute, I have to disagree. The IPs seems to be random crufters from different IP groups, and who don't seem to care that there is/has been discussion ongoing. As I said, they even remove the warnings at times, which to me makes this more a case of vandalism. They are of course free to engage in discussion, and a few have, but for the most part this is just drive-by editing. I really don't see why we should punish regular editors for the actions of a few random IPs who don't care a wit about the rest of the article, or even about discussing it. However, I asked that you do what you feel is best, and I can accept that. If this is your interpretation of the policy, I'll abide by it. I asked you for help, so I won't try to bypass you by going to someone else at this point. Thanks again, and I do men that sincerely. - BillCJ (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I also just realised that you've already had your wiki-birthday while I was away. How do you feel about that long-overdue RfA now? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you an enmail. Hope it got through. - BillCJ (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't turn down a lynch mob, jest kiddin' (FWIW, {:¬∆) Bzuk (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Carrier Kuznetsov.

With such current events, why dont you help out & search for sources yourself. Also & try and edit 'poorly written' text, rather than deleting it.... Thats ignorance & stupidity at play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.t2006 (talk • contribs)

ignorance & stupidity - good description of the text I deleted - glad you agree with me that text like that shouldn't be left in the article. - BillCJ (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F4U Corsair

I saw your edits here-- given the length of time the material remained unsourced the deletions were appropriate. I do not think it was original research however as the points are made in a number of sources. (I was not the contributor of that material, but I do have a dozen of the listed sources in my library.) It has long been on my "to-do" list to add the appropriate references to those sources, and perhaps your edits will now give me the incentive I needed. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia class submarine external link revert

Hi BillCJ, I saw your revert on removal of the external link to Maritime geography. I did read the article, but I still think this is a big stretch to include this as an external link to Virginia class submarine. External links should have a close relation with the main topic. Virginia class submarines have as close a tie to the maritime geography article as they do to other topics like Navy, Commonwealth of Virginia, Submarine... yes, its a somewhat related topic, but hardly so important to warrant an external link. Otherwise, you might as well make an external link section that is 10 pages long, and include Maritime geography as an external link to every ship in existence. What makes the tie between Maritime geography and Virginia-class so exceptionally important?

I'm not big on revert wars, and hardly feel strong enough to revert again, but hope you'll give the appropriateness of the external link a second consideration.

Cheers, Warthog32 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we call a link to a page within Wikipedia an "internal link". "External links" are those to other websites. This is an important distinction, but one easily confused.

As to the link to Maritime geography, the Virginia class was designed explicitly for operations in "littoral waters", or green-navy type operations. The "x-water navy" terms are defined in the Maritime geography page, and as such do bear a relevence. THere may be a more-appropriate article to link to on the subject, and I'd be for changing the link if there is one. - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Schweizer 434

Oh, it was a misunderstanding. I think you forgot to type the appropriate code so the page didn't appear as a redirect. Its content was Schweizer 333 instead of #REDIRECT Schweizer 333, thus I mistook it for a test page. My apology. @pple complain 09:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you currently experience health issues. Be well soon! @pple complain 09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your post on my talk page. Sorry for the mixup! --jonny-m t 11:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-4

I have listed the target of the F-4 redirect page for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran's Stadium

Great point! I did not think of the disambiguation of that. I certainly would make more sense to edit the (now) multiple links to other stadiums with that name to be a disambiguation. I'll add that to my personal to-do list. Gwguffey (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V (The Second Generation)

Absolutely nothing worth salvaging there Bill - just a link to a YouTube video of an embarrassingly badly-made fan attempt at a trailer for the new series. Yechhh. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - no problem. It only counts as "re-creating" deleted material if the new article is "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." (WP:CSD G4) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-4 Phantom II

I see you have reverted the proposed change. That's ok with me because I seek guidance and finding out what the consensus is. The change is in the diffs for others to see and evaluate. If you have an opinion, consider placing it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Manual_of_Style_dispute

and/or

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747&redirect=no

The WP:aviation page may be a better place for policy discussion, the 747 for FA page for evaluating how it can become a FA. Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The drama is quiet for a few minutes...in that time, I'd like to say hello. I see your contribution list and there are quite a few articles that interests me. If the 747 article gets FA, then the pace of editing there may decrease and I'll find a new project to work on. Archtransit (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Hello, and welcome! Feel free to help out in anyway - help is always appreciated. And I'm sorry tha I was a little too contentious today - it was time for my nap! Really! - BillCJ (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, anyone, what happened with the F-4 redirect discussion? The F-4 still has the tag for Redirect for deletion thing, but it's not on current list there anymore (don't see archive page either). So I can't find the result. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, here's the answer! I'll remove the tag from the F-4 page per that diff - was just waiting to see if the closer was still going to get it. - BillCJ (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I missed the log link, but I wasn't sure of the exact date. Mtmelendez's edits of the redirect link on F-4 Phantom II reminded me about this. Have a Merry Christmas! (in case I forget later :) ) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L-23 Seminole

G'day from Oz. I just wanted to say I appreciate what you've done with the article; it looks a whole lot better now and to be honest I hadn't even thought about moving the images across. YSSYguy (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no prob! That is actually the kind of improvements I enjoy doing - doesn't require much research or writing-from-scratch! Oh, feel free to update the specs to an L-23 or U-8 model if you have the sources - I did it that way just as a starter. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the L-23D was equivalent to the E50, so it should be just a matter of changing the title; I will have a look at Beechcraft and see what it says. If you have the time and the inclination, do you reckon you could look for a PD image of one of the radar-equipped RL-23s or RU-8s? I couldn't find one and I think that it would cap the whole thing off quite nicely. YSSYguy (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDHAWK, Speed?

Hey Bill I'm quite sure the Speedhawk gose faster than Vne 167 mph, I don't have the magazine anymore, but they had an artcle in Rotor & Wing Dec. 2007 issue on the speed hawk & as I remember it was closer to 230 mph. I know, I know so w.t.f. just wanna to give you the heads up. If I can verify I'll up dated. By the way dose my artcle User:DREWNIGG/Copters in Pop Culture need to be in a more paragragh structure, to make it, or am I just wasting my time? Hope you feeling better - Happy X-mas/hanuka/KawanzaANigg (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 167 mph speed is for the SH-60B, as a comparison. When you do find sourced specs, start listing them under the X-49 heading, above the SH-60 specs. Once we get a full list of figures for the X-49, then we can add them in to the regualr specs table in place of the SH-60 specs. I hope that makes sense.

As to "Copters in Pop Culture", anything you have needs to be in prose form. Also, each appearance needs to be notable, and have a source of some type attesting to its notability. That's going to be the only way the article will be allowed to come back at all, and that will take alot of time to do. Anything less would be a waste of time, as it will just be CSDed or AFDed again. - BillCJ (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Financialmodel

Hi Bill - I haven't gone through the dispute exhaustively, but given the level of animosity developing, an RfC would be in order. However, an RfC must be brought by someone who who has been involved with trying to resolve the dispute, and seconded by another. You can find the instructions here in the "General user conduct" section. If you need any help with setting it up, please let me know. You will need to show specific diffs, as well as list the policies that you feel have been violated. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikizilla= Downtrip

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla

You will be interested in knowing that your suspicions on Downtrip were justified, a check user request has shown that the anon IP addresses that warred on the aircraft page were from Downtrip; more importantly the check user found Wikizilla to be the same user as Downtrip.Freepsbane (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He does seem to want to be productive, so perhaps an olive branch with strings attatched would be worth it. Probably need to find an uninvolved admin to do it tho, as I doubt he wants to hear from us. Perhaps the admin who "told" us not to re-add stuff a user deletes from their own talk page might be willing to help out. - BillCJ (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you indeff blocking him would only result in a new hidden sock account, however the fact remains he still is engaging in sock puppetry and edit warring. If he is to be a active editor he must halt these unsanctioned actions, not merely provide the appearance of constructive editing. Regards Freepsbane (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least he's not harassing me right now, following me around like a sick puppy, reverting all my constructive edits as vandalism, etc etc. You keep going at him like you are without conclusive proof (the kind even troll-loving admins can't ignore), and you'll have your very own troll folowing you around! Some things just aren't worth it - it's easier to just get the pages protected. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, thanks for the advice.Freepsbane (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email alert

Something in your mailbox today from that blinkety-blank Canajan fool up north in the land of ice and igloos. Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

F-15 edit

Thanks for fixing that edit involving the 1 air-air "loss" earlier. A Japanese F-15J was lost in a training accident in 1995.[6] Similar wording used to be there, but I removed it as that's not air-air combat. Just thought you might want to know more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aircontent

The only way that I can see to do it would be to include an extra field called "Extra navboxes" or something - this wouldn't have to generate any text of its own; but would prevent the "See also" field from being called. I can't think of any reason not to do it, but it might be worth putting it to the project first! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. WIll try to bring it up this weekend/early next week. - BillCJ (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UH-1 Iroquois and UH-1N Twin Huey

Bill: Thanks for reverting the deletes of Canadian units flying these two aircraft. Someone seems to dislike that info being there, even though it is carefully referenced! I already reverted the deletes once! I'll be keeping an eye on those pages, as you are too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AH-1Z Viper

Bill I want to write an artical on the AH-1Z, since the UH-1Y Venom has its on page. Can you show me how to get past the AH-1 twin cobra redirect?ANigg (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I'll keep you postedANigg (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AH-1 SuperCobra article covers the Z model some. I wrote some development on all the twin engine variants but the Z. It's almost a new helicopter. Add to that article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill when you get a chance take a look, give me your thoughts User:ANigg/AH-1Z Viper thanx DrewANigg (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I'm helping with AN's AH-1Z article. The Modern Battlefield Warplanes book will probably be my main reference as least through 2004 publish date. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Mon, Irie Chrismus...

Everybody knows (sung to the tune of Chestnuts Roasting...)

When gungo cook an sorrel flow, Yu dun know seh de season brite, Gal an bwoy wid dem starlight a glow, Dem naw go waan fe sleep tonite.

Dem know seh joyride deh pon di way. Wit music rockin, rockin tru de day, An all de chicken dem a try fi spy, Fi see is which one a dem is gwine fry.

An so, we want to big up everywan. All kidz from one to ninety-two, Aldoah money dun, Have a hole heap a fun. Irie Chrismus, Irie Chrismus ... to yuuuu!!

To you and yours, the best this season. Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your edit to undo my correcting the h3 tags interests me. I woudl be interested in your rationale.

Currently the h3 lines are 100% incorrect because the tag is opened but not closed. Wikipedia is amusingly tolerant of incorrect HTML, but it remains that it is incorrent.

I use this template on another wiki, and the problems this incorrect html created ion internet explorer were immense. I came back to WP and corrected it, but you reverted my edits as if they were vandalism, despite my having posted a proper edit summary.

So I am interested in your rationale.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually describe vandal reversion as a "troubleshoot revert" or "troubleshooting" in three successive edit summaries. I usually call them "vandalism". That should have been a clue as to my rationale, or did you miss the summaries? :)

There were problems on several aircraft pages related to template, mainly one dealing with aircraft specifications, but the problems affected the aircontent template too. After various attempts to see if I could figure it out, I reverted your edits to see if it made a difference. The results were inconclusive.

I did ask User:Rlandmann, an admin who has experience with these templates, to look at the problem, ~~and I believe he fixed it~~ but they are still there. You may want to correspond with him to make sure the problems were not caused by your code changes. (Probably not, but he writes code, I don't.) Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. But do look at the HTML you are using. <h3> must be closed with </h3>. If not then the HTML is imperfect and creates errors. Those templates are far too complex because they require experts to debug, and my advice would be to simplify substantially. I am only interested insofar as there was a problem at Plane Spotting World which was formed from lawful copies of wikipedia material and whose stated purpose is to diverge form WP as fast as possible to make a place for the plane spotting community with WP look and feel.

Do feel free to pop over. Currently the articles will be wholly familiar to you, but that ought to change over time.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't find this either presumptious or banal and thus patronising, but W3Schools is a great tutorial site for HTML, and, even if you are knowledgable, it is a great reference point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link - I'll try to take a look at it. I got involved with computers in the mid-80s, and only got as far as some light programming in BASIC (no COBOL or PASCAL at all). HTML came after I was on my chosen degree track, so I never got/took the oppurtunity to learn it. I can do the basics in Wiki-mark-up, but that's it.So I will take a look there, and see if I can learn anything. In my present situation I can't work, and would love to learn some more about HTML and the like, and possibly later do some work from home to have a little income. As to the PlaneSpotting site, I will keep an eye on it and see how it goes. WP is becoming far to combative and accepting of "non-productive" users, and I may not last much longer. I just haven't found a good general-content alternative yet with the same strict encyclopedic content standards as Wikipedia "supposedly" has. Anyway, thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started with Algol in the seventies! If you could do Basic then HTML poses no challenges at all. It's a breeze! The point about WP and its challenging nature is well taken. It's why we started PSW. In terms of rigorous content there, that is a matter for the community that develops to decide. At present it is relaxed and waiting for simple rules to be determined. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General American

Hi, I noticed that you undid my removal of 208.104.45.20's edit to Talk:General American. I would like to clarify that this user seems to have civility problems and the edit that I removed was uncivil, assumed bad faith, and seemed to have no purpose other than to disparage another editor. I would have simply left a comment to remain civil and on topic but then I noticed this edit by the anon user. It seems very much like they are trolling; removing uncivil material is a proper response suggested (albeit with caveats) by WP:CIV.

We don't need to get into a dispute over this. My intention was to remove the comment before Homely or anyone else chose to respond to it. Now that I've given you my justification, I'll let you decide whether or not to re-remove the comment. Regards! Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your point, I do disagree with its removal. Granted, it's a differnece of interpretation of the rules: I perfer to remove only blatant vandalism or blatant personal attacke. Today, I read comments (a few nmonths old) where an apparently British/English user where he stated that he "hates AmE", but they were left to stand. It seems it's OK for non-Americans to express such things, but not Americans. To be honset that user is exactly the kind of attitude that the "rant" is in reaction to. Other than his use of the word "lies", I really don't find anything objectional. He used no profanity or slurs whatsoever, unlike the diff you've pointed out. Those are the types of things in comments that I find objectionable, but I see them everywhere. I'm sorry, but I don't believe an emotional rant rises such as this one rise to the level of uncivil behavior. His post on the user page certainly does, so ding him for that one! I agree that we should not edit war over this, tho, and if you still believe it ought to be removed, you may do so. - BillCJ (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian navy help request?

I tried to follow your link from the MILHIST talk page, but didn't find an "Indian Navy" heading.

You raise an interesting point, which is at the heart of practicing decent open source intelligence. I'm hesitant to say the government or the "reliable source" is always better. Sometimes, the government information has individual pieces that are useful, when crosschecked even when dealing with someone who is a true conspiracy buff.

Anyway, if you can give me a working pointer, I'll try to help. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the post is up now. It took longer than I intended to write it! - BillCJ (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FMA IA 58 Pucará

Dammit! I'm creating articles from this list, and I thought I'd searched all the various names it may have been under, but I guess not. Thanks, I'll merge them.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant information

Sorry about that. I saw only the Singapore Air Force listed and figured it wasn't needed since no other military branches were named. Again, sorry for causing you the extra work. :)

^ "Can't Stop The Serenity".

[1] "Can't Stop The Serenity".

[1]