User talk:BilCat/archive8

March 2008

KC-45

Wow, sorry about that. I was a bit confused since you edited immediately after I did so I thought you were doing something else. Thanks for setting that straight. Kevin Rutherford 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem! WP:AIR does tsome things a bit differently then the other articles on Wikipedia, and it takes awhlie to get used to that. Also, it can get pretty hectic after news such as this comes out, with everyone rushing to update the articles. Truthfully, I try to read some defense news sites every day, but the KC-45 selection was late news, and I didn't even realize the selection had been announced till a few edits in the the KC-X page move circus! I hurridly put up {{inuse}} tags so I could get the KC-45 page started, and even then we crossed edits a few time when I took them down. You've done well today for a relatively new user - Keep up the good work! - BillCJ (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-30 Source

Info released today. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ...but hey, I could be wrong... — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

...and it appears I am...

F-4 Operators

Bill, it seems I overlooked discussion and consensus. I've merged both pages due to mess with F-4 related articles. For solution... I think that for such significant, well known and widespread aircraft we can (should?) make separate articles not only for Operators and Variants but also for Operational history. With new Operational history of F-4 Phantom II separate article we can take some text from main article as well as from List of F-4 Phantom II operators making both articles smaller and keeping all F-4 related articles more logically divided. What do you think about it? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Refuelers

You said that the A-4 and A-7 were used as buddy tankers, so why didn't you remove the 4 other aircraft that were used for that role? When I created the category, I meant for aircraft that even were minorly used in refueling to be included. I can see your point though.Kevin Rutherford 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on Template talk:United States Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft. Let's try to keep all the specific talk together, if possible. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Scetoaux's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A380

Hello BillCJ, please compare the versions, mine is not longer, and adds correct information. I undo your undo, but forgot to log in again and has no name on it, sorry, Cirrocumulus (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By longer, I mean the file is longer, at 79,104 bytes, while my revision was at 78,606 bytes - I wasn't mesuring the page legnth with a ruler. Second, my point was to make the section contain less information, not more. That is why we have daughter article, which I see you've been adding info to, and rightly so. We don't need the same info on the main page too. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: SH-2 Seasprite

Hi Bill, I agree that chunks of press releases are almost always unsuitable for articles and I've just added the article to my watchlist. Given that the defence minister at the time the decision was made to stick with this project last year is now the leader of the opposition it's inevitable that there will be political comments over the issue. Hopefully they'll die down in a few days. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All the M1s were delivered last year and the 1st Armoured Regiment is now fully qualified to operate them, so that program can't be cut. The defence minister and parliamentary secretary for defence procurement have recently made statements which heavily hint that the Super Hornets will survive, albeit mainly due to the high penalty clauses in the contract. In my opinion, the programs which are in trouble are those which introduce new capabilities to the ADF's ability to project power and haven't yet started. I suspect that the Canberra class large amphibious ships will be cut (either entirely or to one ship) and the Army should give up on its odd dream of operating tracked self-propelled artillery. Good riddance in both cases, in my opinion: the Australian Defence Force's current projected budget isn't high enough to operate all the equipment it has on order, and there's no real prospect of it getting an increase in the current financial and security environment. I'm a Labor party supporter, by the way, and would argue that they do a much better job of defence than the Liberals. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you're a Labor supporter, but I also know you can look neutrally at such things, that's why I've asked for your help on this, even though aircraft aren't your main stommping ground. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Irkut or Irkut/HAL

From the Irkut website the name given for the programme is Indo-Russian Transport Aircraft. Further details from the website The international project on joint development, production and sales of twin-turbofan Tactical Transport Aircraft envisions solidary cooperation of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (India), the IRKUT Corporation and the Ilyushin Aviation Complex (Russia), with their design teams to be merged into a virtual enterprise.''. So the design work will be done by teams from Irkut, Ilyushin, HAL with their design teams to be merged into a virtual enterprise. So I think the right name for article is Indo-Russian Transport Aircraft as stated in the Irkut website.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why change it. O.K since it's a joint venture and company name is necessary it will be made. Irkut/HAL ... Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the name is - I care about keeping the history together. Please stop moving it that way, and allow an admin to move it properly. Please! - BillCJ (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was searching for an Admin who is interested in Aviation. I leave the job to you. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlandmann is a good admin in WP:AIR. I'm heading to bed, so I'm just going to add a {{tl}db-move}} header to the new page. It should be deleted in a few hours. - BillCJ (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of UH-1 Iroquois operators

Bill, I have problem with List of UH-1 Iroquois operators article and edits made by User:ANigg. He removes formatting what makes article quite senseless. According to MOS rules I'm using italics for terms in foreign languages - all are deleted. The same with structure of military forces - here is mine taken from reliable source:

• Comando de Aviación de Ejército
  • Agrupación de Aviación de Ejército 601 based at Campo de Mayo
    • Batallón de Helicopteros de Asalto 601 operates 16 UH-1s.
    • Escuadrón de Aviación de Exploración y Ataque 602 operates six UH-1s.

That how it looks after "cleanup":

• Comando de Aviación de Ejército
• Agrupación de Aviación de Ejército 601 based at Campo de Mayo
• Batallón de Helicopteros de Asalto 601 operates 16 UH-1s.
• Escuadrón de Aviación de Exploración y Ataque 602 operates six UH-1s.

I don't want to make revert after revert because it's senseless and is kind of edit wars. Unfortunately without admin's intervention this article is senseless. Can you help? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to talk to him. I've done some work with him in the past, specifically on the new AH-1Z Viper page. He can be a bit over-eager at times, but he's still a fairly new user. He came on board WP:AIR while you were away, and so may not realize he's dealing with an exprienced user. I'll see what I can do. - BillCJ (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This list needs some clean up, big time. There is Italics with Bold & non bold print. Some structured some not. Phases like "UH-1s operated by JGSDF being replaced by the UH-60 Black Hawk." in a list of UH-1 OPERATORS. Keep it simplified, no need to mention UH-1 everywhere. I would like to initiate a process of setting all lists of operators, of aircraft follow a simple understandable concise format for our reader. I know its fun to put in your 2 cents, but keep in mind the reader or student who may be getting information off this site. I think it is important not to over inundate people with to much (trivial) info So bill where dose something like the AH-1 operators stand? I'm not going to make any other major changes, to the lists but it would be nice to see some basic format for all.ANigg (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sir!

Your essay The Really-Free Library describes exactly how I feel and what I've seen. I've even listed it under my favorite articles. Leobold1 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Be sure to make clear it's an essay, not a mainspace article. - BillCJ (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Leobold1 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

T-6 Texan variants

As requested please find T-6 Texan variants - still needs a bit more work. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

CAC Wirraway

Hi Bill, An IP editor and I are reverting each other over the inclusion of material on a court case concerning the troubled sale of a Wirraway over eBay. I object to this material as it is based entirely on primary sources (the court transcript) and seems to be a minor incident anyway, even if some reliable third-party sources can be found. This is especially the case as it concerns living people, so WP:BLP applies. Could you please have a look at the article and provide a third opinion? (this diff: [1] concerns all the material) thanks, --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look and see what I can do. You might also post to WT:AIR about this, as we have several good editors who are good on WWII-era aircraft (BZuk, Milb1, Rlandmann (an admin in Australia), and some others), and they may have more familiarity with what this is about than I do (I have none). THanks for thinking of me! - BillCJ (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Forest Rights Act

thanks for informing... I'll take a look at it and try to improve it. My friend did a bit of work in this area, so I'll ask for his help if he ain't too busy. Cheers. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

KC-767 Photo

I am completely sure that there is a better category out there for that one but thats the best I can think of at this time. There was another site that actually said that the weren't copyrighted. I'll find it and put it on the photo when that occurs. Kevin Rutherford 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted images are not something to fool around with. Big companies have big lawyers, and WIkipedia is not as big as Boeing. THere are image help pages, and people who can help you do it right the first time. Please take the time to learn how first, THEN post your image. You'll need to use a fair-use rationle on the image you have posted. WP:IMAGES should be a good place to start. - BillCJ (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/corpid/ The photo was taken out of an image gallery so I should be okay with all issues. I don't think Wikipedia is considered commercial even though it is a legitimate business. Kevin Rutherford 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tristar pics

Bill, have a look at my Talk page for your reply (I do have more pics) - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The pics are now available at my Talk Page - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Operator Lists

Bill some of these list needs some clean up. There are Italics with Bold & non bold print. Some structured some not. Phases like "UH-1s operated by JGSDF being replaced by the UH-60 Black Hawk." in a list of UH-1 OPERATORS. Now I know this is the Proper English Grammer with regards to the Italics, but we don't have this on lists for the Bell 212, 412, F-16, C-130 etc... I would like to initiate a process of setting all lists of operators, & their aircraft to follow a simple understandable concise format for our reader (probably impossible). I know there are many out there who like to put in their 2 cents (including my-self), but keep in mind the reader or student who may be getting information off this site. I think it is important not to over inundate people with to much (trivial) info. Your thoughts PS Thanx for the Trans. Chinese for the AH-1Z Viper updateANigg (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You should take up the issue at WT:AIR, where it will get the most comments and input from the most people. - BillCJ (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pop goes the weasel

Now, I'm confused, I've seen Popular culture placed above the spec sheet on Wikiproject:Aviation articles. See: P-51 Mustang. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

No doubt, since you evidently missed the WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. ;) Yes, we do have guidelines - they aren't policies, of course, but they are a better guide of how to organize articles, than other articles which don't follow the guide! :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see: P-38 Lightning where the "See also" section looks to be in wrong spot, don't know if there are others, but I used the P-51 article as a guide, obviously, it was flawed. As I said once before, I work Blanche Dubois style, "depending on the kindness of strangers" (present company excluded, although I am sure we are both quite strange after all...) Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

UC-26C

Thanks for helping with the article! --Enric Naval (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi, Bill.

I'm not sure if the following is vandalism, or just an overzealous editor, but when I saved some fine-tuning of a paragraph of Accidents and incidents involving the JAS 39 Gripen, I suddenly discovered that User:Otolemur crassicaudatus had deleted almost half of the article! He claims that much of it was unsourced. I think there are better ways of going about that, for example there is the possibility of using "citation needed"-tags. What do you think about his actions? When I dicovered his deletions, I had already done a couple of saves, so I couldn't undo his update.

What do you think, should this be reported to some instance somewhere? I feel pretty pissed off. I've put in quite a few hours of work into this article (as it takes me longer to write in English than in Swedish).

Regards, LarRan (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Officer

Hi Bill,

This is the disambiguation guideline I was following in removing the disambiguation link on Officer (armed forces):

While there is no specific prohibition against it, adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section.

It seems odd to place a link to the disambiguation page on Officer (armed forces) as the title distinguishes itself so completely with its qualifier "armed forces". Anyone searching for any other type of officer would simply type "officer" into the search bar and go automatically to the disambiguation page. As for your suggestion to ignore all rules in this case, I do not see how this rule "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia," which is the only proper reason for doing so as stated on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you disagree, please feel free to continue this discussion.

Neelix (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the guidelines (not policy!) don't recommend this is no reason not to permit it. This is an encyclopedia. People often follow topics of interest that don't quite fit the subject, at least that's the way I've always read them. Someone reading on military officers might just decide to read on police officers to learn the difference between the two, of becuase the DAB link caught theire interest. Or perhaps they were searching a term from Google or another search engine, and selected the military topic from the search page, not knowing exactly what they article they wanted, and a DAB link at the top would help them more quickly. Remember, Gendarmerie officers are both police and military, and the could be confusing to some readers from countries whish have such officers like France. If allowing for this doesn't qualify as "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", then I don't know what does!

Anyway, I'll just place the link in "See also" instead, although I'm sure there's a guideline or essay (not policy, of course, as I never "IAR" those) against placing DAB links in that section somewhere, and someone will remove it too! - BillCJ (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your explanation. Placing the link in the "See also" section makes sense to me.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RSAF Bell 212

Hi Bill~! Sorry to trouble you but I really need your help on this matter. As the heading implies, the Republic of Singapore Air Force did acquired Bell 212 and not the UH-1N, so why can't I place it under Bell 212? It is stated clearly in a un-named publication 25 years ago and in a recent 1999 article stating that it was solely used for the purpose of airborne Search and rescue (encompassing both civil and military cases) missions around Singapore and parts of South China Sea. Sri Lanka's stock of Bell 212 was from RSAF, which had retired it in 1985. -- Dave1185 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a hidden note right uder the "Operators" heading. The relevant portion reads: NOTE: This list is for non-military operators. I know it's a bit confusing, but many UH-1s later served in civilian service, and many Bell 212s were ordered of-the-shelf by militaries. Rather than try and disern which models were actually ordered by which users, we are just listing all the UH-1N/Bell 212s by operator, rather than strictly by model and type. ANy military operator will be listed on the UH-1N page, while all civilian and non-military goevernment operators are listed on the Bell 212 page. Thus any auir force usages are on the UH-1N page. - BillCJ (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, that clears up a lot of thing. Will read carefully next time, still new to so many of wiki's hidden note thingie, its driving me nuts sometimes. Thanks and cheers. -- Dave1185 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

EH101 RE:Translation request

Hi BILL, sorry for the delay, I did not log for a while here on en.wiki and I missed your last posts in my talk page. For the future I strongly suggest you to post in my it.wiki talk page in order to have a faster answer I am eager to give. Well! Let's do an actual point check on articles you kindly highlighted to me.

it:Aeritalia vs Aeritalia

Yes ! Aeritalia with Selenia (now Al–enia) were among the most important or THE most important Italian defence technology companies during seventies. I can easily translate the Italian article and put it somewhere out of ns0, ready for copyediting. I will create a new sandbox User:EH101/Sandbox2 as I don't dare to directly write in the mainspace before having made practice enough. I will appreciate your suggestions and corrections on the draft page I will prepare. Stay tuned.

Fiat_Aviazione and Fiat vs  ?

Fiat Aviazione article situation is a little bit more complicated. According to Avio website quoted in it.wiki article it:Avio (azienda) , Fiat special engine division was renamed Fiat Aviazione in 1976, later Fiat Avio in 1989, eventually ending in Avio in 2003. So it seems Fiat Aviazione article is naming Fiat Aviazione something known as simply Fiat during world wars. A good idea is to analyze better desired structure of Fiat, Fiat Aviazione and Avio articles we want to obtain at the very end. Be aware that It.wiki authors merged historical Fiat Aviazione data into it:Avio (azienda) which en.wiki equivalent lacks completely of historical info. Which article should inherit Fiat aviation history ?

it:Aeritalia_G-91Y vs User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Aeritalia_G.91Y

I have several sources on G91-Y, but unfortunately no 100% sure free pictures as I have no way to certify they were taken before 20 years ago. I quickly translated Italian it.wiki article (which quotes no sources unfortunately) in a third sandbox of mine ->this<-. No specific source citation was made, but data are correct AFAIK and I will look for sources confirming that. You can now merge data from my translation to your draft copy in your sandbox, then I could add sources confirming data there. How can we manage this multiple editors work ?

For all my sandboxes, visit my user page that will resume all of them. Bye --EH101 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Update. As I wrote before, I fully translated it.wiki article. Now, I added in the same sandbox a copy of your draft G.91Y article and I started to work on it fixing too much "brutal" cut and paste from G.91 main article and adapting the structure to actual Y version data. In the same time I have started the effort to retrieve sources that can confirm data on it.wiki article step by step. Now it's up to you to merge somewere, somehow what I am doing in my sandbox and then we can continue togheter article development. --EH101 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this for me. I'll try to do some more on them in a few days. On the Fiat Aviazione article, I'm not sure what to do about that one. I chose that name from a reputable source, and the history there too. The Fiat aircraft business definitely needs to be separate from the auto company page, but what else can we call the page that would be more accurate? - BillCJ (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

VFC-111

Hi, have you ever come across a free photo of a Northrop F-5N/F of VFC-111 Sundowners at NAS Key West, FLa.? Hope you are better, soon! Greetings - Cobatfor 16:16 UTC 18 March 2008

Sitara - Urdu or Sanskrit

Hi. Thanks for the attention you're giving... its really amazing that editors like you and S3000 are diligent enough to care about these issues, even though you don't speak the language. I hope the debate is solved.

Btw, I noticed that you're not an admin. You deserve to be one, and I'm sure the whole community would agree... I would like to nominate u for adminship, if you're willing, and I hope you are. Please let me know if you're ok with it. Thanks. Cheers. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL... looks like chanakya really has u pissed off and irritated. Dont worry. He's a guy with strong opinions, and takes some time to convince. Better not to get irritated.... its self-destructive. There are two ways to break a rock... u can either blast it, or use a chisel and slowly carve. It takes a lot more time by the second method, but you dont blow urself up, and unlike the former, instead of a heap of rubble, you're left with a beautiful statue. Anyway, take care. Dont worry and lose your cool... I'm on this case. Cheers. Sniperz11_{C ^@ S} 06:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and the help. Also a good reason I don't need to be an admin, but thanks for thinking of me! - BillCJ (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess who's back?

I won't give it away but check out Kawasaki Ki-61. Write me if you guess who it is. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

I reverted its pooping. If it poops again, I'll just stop watching the page.

I have other outlets now for some pages, so I'm not too worried about WP's accuracy anymore. When Jimbo starts putting the accuracy of WP content ahead of his own financial portfolio, then perhaps we'll see some changes. (An old rule: when you don't understand why an illogical situation is allowed to exists, just follow the money - the people who can make changes won't becuase it will hurt their income.) Until then, I'm not fighting unarmed battles with IPs who get free reign, while those of us who follow the rules are harrased if we express any emotion about the status quo, or don't hold our nose right when reporting vandals/trolls/etc. Anyway, I've never contributed to WP financially, but the day they ban IP editing permanently, I'll send them a check. Not holding my breath though! - BillCJ (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Braves / Cy Young

I suppose there is a point to what the IP address is saying; yes, Maddux won 4 in a row. But the last I checked the 1992 Cubs were not the 1992 Braves. If they insist on listing his 4-game streak directly, maybe the other 1990s winners should be listed, with the Braves' winners highlighted. But the IP address is making much ado about not much. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"much ado about not much" indeed! Well said! - BillCJ (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NFOs with dual controls

Hi BillCJ; I thought one part of your change to the article on Naval Flight Officers gives the impression that NFOs in the co-pilot seat of the S-3 Viking are qualified to fly the aircraft. I thought the COTAC had a similar relationship to the flight controls that an F-15E WSO has. Can you clarify this? -Father Inire (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the passage you're refering to?

NFOs differ from Naval Aviators in that they never pilot the aircraft in which they serve. Most Naval Aircraft do not contain dual-flight controls, and in the unlikely event that the pilot may become incapacitated, the crew is to eject, if possible, as NFOs are not fully-qualified to fly the aircraft. One notable exception has been the S-3 Viking and ES-3 Shadow, dual-control aircraft where NFOs replaced co-pilots.

I checked the history, and I didn't write that paragraph, and I don't think I even edited its content at all - I just moved it higher in the article. It seems to be referring to the NFO being in the co-pilot seat on S-3s, but it is poorly written. I really can't tell exactly what it's saying, but without a direct source, the only thing I know to do is to take out the confusing parts completely. I'm just an editor here, with no direct experience or knowledge, so I can only work with the material tha'ts there, or find a better source to work from. I will see what I can do to find some sources. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Il-96

Hi there, that line drawing gives the best perspective of the plane of all the images in the article, I really think it should be in there, perhaps we can find another place for it? (although I dont see how it squeezes the table, it stays in exactly the same place with or without the image) What do you think? Acer (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I use 1024x768, and it squeezes the table. At 800x600, the image moves above the table. I'll play around and see where we could put it, but there's really not enough text for any more pics., so I kept all the real ones. That's why Commons is a good thing - overflow! - BillCJ (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wrath of TWOK

Replied here FYI. :) -Mike Payne (T • C) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

OK. I am actually not sure about the correct use for that speedy deletion criteria anyway. But as soon as I placed it I realized that wasn't it! :P Sorry about that. — scetoaux (T/C) 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:MHcabin.jpg

Hi~! I'm sorry if I had disturb you but I really could need a hand here as I call to your attention with regards to this image, which is deemed as a posed shot for a Malaysia Airlines commercial advertisement more than that of a self-work. Question is, how am I going to put that into the image page and mark it for speedy deletion. Thanks and cheers. -- Dave1185 (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Federal Europe

I've opened Talk:Federal Europe#POV challenge as I think it more productive to debate it there than on our respective talk pages. --Red King (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref box on HAL Tejas

Hi Bill,

Needed a bit of clarification regarding this edit on the HAL Tejas page. You mentioned in the edit summary that it is according to [{WP:MOS]]. Unfortunately, I was unable to find this in both MOS and WP:Footnotes. Could u show me where this thing is... I've looked everywhere, but cant seem to find it. Plus, I dont really understand the logic for this. Is it because such a scrollable list will not render properly on some browsers??

Anyway, one good thing thats come out of this is that I finally read through the MOS... it was a long due thing on my part. Thanks for that.

Cheers Sniperz11_@^CS 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got me on that one! I've seen it removed in the past by other editors (including on this page) with that reasoning, but I just took their word for it that they knew what they were talking about. There are many pages with far longer reference lists than one the Hal Tejas page, including aircraft pages, and they don't the scrollable lists. I'll ask around and see if there is a guideline or policy against it, and if so, why. If we can't find one, then I'll restore it back to the page. Will that work? - BillCJ (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a few discussions related to (not) using scrollable lists:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Table (sortable?) vs bullet list: Not every system or browser uses the Java based sort function, which is the reason that scrollable reference sections aren't permitted.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour#Kirill Lokshin: The scrollable footnote box is, frankly, a horrible idea, as it makes the article unprintable. Even a collapsing NavFrame would be better than this.

The last comment is (apparrantly) by User:Kirill Lokshin. He would probably be a good person to ask for more details on why we don't generally use them for reference lists, and he may be able to point out a relevant policy or guideline also. - BillCJ (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.. that answers it. Only thing is what we'll do when a page has 100-150 refs. We should find a way of collapsing reflists so that it can be printed and used with Java... anyway, I'll leave that to the developers. Sniperz11_@^CS 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

US Military Aircraft Naming Conventions

In your 00:22, 29 March 2008, edit summary of C-130 Hercules, you referenced WP:AIR regarding titles of pages versus topic names. I didn't find relevant information specifically at WP:AIR, and the information I found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) did not indicate that a topic name would differ from a title. It's possible I've missed something. Can you direct me to the conventions you cited, or offer further information on this matter? Thanks for your help. ENeville (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually an "unwritten" convention based on the naming conventions. This is the general pattern found in the majority of articles falling within WP:AIR's purview, covering over several thousand articles. It's just the way things were done even before I started editing 19 months ago, and it seems to work best for aircraft articles. I don't mind explaining my reasoning and application of the naming conventions to the issue, and we can discuss the particulars at WT:AIR, and perhaps even reach a compromise with the project (one I may or may not agree with, but I will follow) that finds a middle ground between the two ways of doing things. Or you can just do whatever you want, especially if you will anyway! It'll save me a lot of wasted time arguing an issue I'll never win. :) - BillCJ (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We may be closer in attitude than you think. I just want a convention: a clear, accessible, rational, and consistent convention. Not interested in an argument. If there's an unwritten rule, let's just get it codified so it can be looked up. Then, whatever the convention is, I can point to it in the future with whomever and obviate unproductive debate. ENeville (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at WP:AIR Talk. ENeville (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rays Ballpark

Hey there! Thanks for putting that warning message on User talk:Justin Elza. This user, unfortunately, is trying to use WP for his own gain. I'll admit I have a differing opinion over the controversy he's talking about with this article, but I have not tried to push an agenda for the stadium on here. Those belong on blogs and message boards. You can see here, here, and here (as "Justin E"), that he is very biased against the stadium. If you check his contributions, you'll see that he has contributed nothing but to try and push his cause. I may have an opinion, but I certainly will not express it here.

It also appears he is harassing me via my e-mail now, so should we consider blocking this user? Is there any ground to stand on? EaglesFanInTampa 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Bobby Cox

Sorry about the slightly catty remark. Meanwhile, I thought I had too many things on my watch list, at just over 1,000. I've found that too many things on the list gets me into trouble. If you're more even-tempered, you can probably get away with it. As long as you don't value sleep. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

XTB2C

If you want to merge with the -1, I've no sweat with that. Just post me back a link to the page, k? I'm going to export it to planespottingworld. Trekphiler (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. (I'd have answered sooner, but I confess I missed your reply. Trekphiler (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Objection to vandalism warning

Hello BillCJ,

I cannot but object to the vandalism warning you gave me. Could you please indicate what articles did I "vandalize"? I did perform several modifications lately, but I would hardly qualify these as vandalism.

--landroni (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I, too, am thinking of filing a frivolous ANI against you. The grounds are that I don't think your user ID should have an even number of letters. That ought to get some quick action, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still thinking of filing one against you for not apologizing enough above - "catty" wasn't a strong enough word for you to use! ;P Thanks for the laugh - I really needed it! And for the support too. Glas to know editors can have small disagreements and stillget along well enough to support the other. Much appreciated. - BillCJ (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll fight you to the death. On second thought, I won't. I can't do anything to the death. Doctor's orders. (Apologies, now, to Woody Allen). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm considering filing against that user for this diff]. He reverted my comments on his talk page, and I think it's an improper use of the edit feature. You think maybe I can get User:J-stan to warn him for me? All this while actual vanadals and trolls are out there actually vandalizing and trolling! What a waste of good adminships. - BillCJ (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found that trying to fight guys who delete stuff from their talk pages is wasted energy, unless it's part of a larger behavior pattern that you can zing them with on ANI. Deleting from their own talk page is impolite, but within the rules, although when they start zapping block notices, the admins usually revert and protect. (Sounds like the LAPD, eh?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons deletion

Aagh, sorry. I always double check the file on Commons to make sure it exists, and if the file names aren't the same, I typically change it from one to the other. I must have looked at the file names and not noticed that one had spaces and one had dashes. Since I didn't notice this, I thought they were the same, so I deleted the file assuming it wouldn't affect anything. So it's really my fault. If this happens again, just let me know about it and I'll fix it for you, rather than you using your editing time trying to find my goof. I'll take greater care to check dashes versus spaces in the future.

(I agree that a commons-filename migration bot would be really useful. Maybe the functionality could be added to MetsBot.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox title

Hello just a question on your removal of manufacturers names from the aircraft infobox (just noticed it on Kellett KD-1). We appear to be interpreting the same rule differently! I was under the impression if the aircraft did not have a name but only a number or designation then the manufacturer name remained or to quote the guide Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers.. Just seeking clarification, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was invovled in adding that caveat to the guideline. What we had in mind were the Boeing 7x7, Bell xxx, and others that only used numbers in there company designations. Just using "747" in the infobox title looked wierd, so a couple of other editors and I appealed to have the caveat added. We've also had to make an exception for the Airbus A3x0 series becuase the Airbus fanboys (I don't recall any regualrs pushing for this) object to Boeing's "unfair" treatment! Oh well! Anyway, "KD-1" uses letters and numbers, not just numbers. To be honest, I prefer having the Manufacturer's naem in the title field, but that wasn't the concensus, so I go along with it for the sake of peace. However, I won't revert you in this case if you add it back, but somewhere along the line someone else is likely to remove it again. - BillCJ (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange I interpreted that KD-1 was a model number, and that number was not literal! but meant an aircraft that did not have a name! Perhaps I should bring it up again for discussion. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see how it might be interpreted that way, but we specifically meant numbers. I couldn't find the discussion on the WT:AIR/PC page, so it's probably on the main WT:AIR page, in the archives. You probably want to read those discussions before bringing it up again, just so you know what's gone before. I'd try to look for it now, but I'm headed to bed. - BillCJ (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For whatever its worth I've seen this clause as a disambiguous thing. Model 209 or 209 might not be recognizable where Bell 209 might be. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling reflist

Hi Bill: valid point; I hadn't considered that the whole list might not print out, but hey, it looked good for a while! --Red Sunset 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. See #Ref box on HAL Tejas above for further comments and links to other discussions on the issue. - BillCJ (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming an Indian Citizen

LOL Bill... It would be great if you were Indian. Anyway, thats probably just some jingo kid from some deadbeat Defence Forum whose idea of an insult is to call people Indian. The pity of this is that I was the guy who welcomed him. Aah well, thats one plate of cookies I should have eaten by myself. You're right to step back - take care of your RL. I'll try and keep an eye on this shit. If it poops again, all I have to do is hit the little Revert button on my Twinkle box ;-D. He's been doing similar stuff on other pages as well... I'm stalking him along now, to see if he causes any harm.

As for the comparable aircraft thingy, its a stupid Jingoistic crap that dogs India-Pak, Turkey-Greece and other similar pages. No worries... its easy for us to simply keep rv'ing till he grows tired. Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Telangana site. Please help!!!

There is vandalism on Telangana site. Can you please help me stop it. How can I stop it? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly looks like a content/POV dispute to me, not the normal nonsense vandalism. As I am not an admin, there is not much I can do in this situation. You can try WP:AIN for help with that, or WP:AIV if you still feel it's vandalism. - BillCJ (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no issues if others presenting different point of view. But the user 143.43.212.174 on 09:49, 8 April 2008 deleted bunch of stuff which I restored immediately. I am open to discuss the different point of view. This user is new to wiki community and the user intends to delete all the info which he/she does not like. Since this is explosive political topic there is always a chance for vandalism. I wish only responsible editors are allowed to make changes to this article. Ramcrk (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. :) - BillCJ (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :p --Dave1185 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tu-70

Regarding your hidden comment, I have added a hidden and contrary remark in the text. I see you are also an aviation fan. In my opinion, the Tu-70 was the most significant USSR aircraft of that decade, not because of what it did, but rather what it implied in terms of Soviet capability vis-a-vis the Bull. Best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's not what hidden notes are for, so I've removed my comments. - BillCJ (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S State

I disagree with your position that such details aren't relevant here, as this is not about PR itself, but the possibility of a 51st state. The root cause that Puerto Rico is next in line is that are disfranchise U.S Citizen that Pay federal taxes. Taxation without representation is tyranny. The educational/Encyclopedic reason to add the detail is to help to understand the readers the root cause of why Puerto Rico is in light of recent events, the most likely candidate to become a new state. Just like the See also: District of Columbia voting rights section do for the District of Columbia. Why is relevant just to the District of Columbia and not to Puerto Rico if both pay federal taxes and not have fully representation on the federal goverment?

The Republican Party 2004 Platform indicate the following: "We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the Constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the United States government. The Democratic Party 2004 Platform indicates the following: "We believe that four million disenfranchised American citizens residing in Puerto Rico have the right to the permanent and fully democratic status of their choice. The White House and Congress will clarify the realistic status options for Puerto Rico and enable Puerto Ricans to choose among them". (Seablade (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

The article is not even about the fifty-first state - there's one about it already at 51st state. Put your info there, as there is a main tag at the top of the section. The US State article doesn't have to be comprehensive,a nd shouldn't really, as it's just a summary page. And there's nothing wrong with linking to the Political status of Puerto Rico article either, just that no one has done it yet. That's a much better solution than adding more info to the States article. By the way, the DC section used to be even longer than the PR section, but now it's shorter - I wonder how it got that way? ;) - BillCJ (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The root cause that Puerto Rico is next in line is that are disfranchise U.S Citizen that Pay federal taxes. Taxation without representation is tyranny.

— Seablade

I beg to differ. Puerto Ricans do not pay federal taxes, they pay taxes to the government of Puerto Rico unless they earn money/profits from another location (i.e. in the state of Florida, they would pay Florida state tax and Federal income tax). You can reference the webpage of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to the United States House of Representatives for more information. Bill, sorry to interrupt your talk page. Good to see you around. --Born2flie (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob, Born, and it's good to see you around too. Anyway, I pay taxes with representations, and I really don't see how it's that much beter! - BillCJ (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is so true! --Born2flie (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Segregator236

Hi, I notice that you're always chasing after User:Segregator236. What type of person do you think he/she is? Do you think he/she has an agenda or something? Did you notice he/she always add 2-engined aircraft to single-engine comparable aircraft lists? Do you think he/she knows what he's doing? Do you think he/she'll stop doing this one day, if he/she wants to stop at all? Should someone speak with him/her in his/her Talk page about his/her irrelevant/incomparable additions? Have you tried speaking to him/her yet? Do you think this cat & mouse game with you and him/her will stop one day? Anyway, I just want to congratulate you for being alert when obviously-wrong additions are being made to the various aircraft articles by other people. --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 06:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinda hard for me to chase someone editing on aircraft articles, when I have well over 3000 of them in my watchlist! ;) Anyway, I've not seen him engage in discussions with any of the other editors who have contacted him (there have been a few) when he's added some unsourced info to some of the articles. In fact, I did contact him about some unsourced material he added to Aircraft carrier, with no response, of course. So I don't hold out much hope for him discussing the "See also" section additions either. - BillCJ (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MAVSTAR link

The IP editor (149.171.6.249) seems to be placing the link in particular articles as a promotion of the achievement expressed in the website rather than to relate to anything discussed in the articles, at least as far as the Rotorcraft articles go. --Born2flie (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. It seemed relevant on the Coaxial rotor page, but given the "spamming" method of addition, we should probaly remove all of the links. - BillCJ (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy renaming/merging of categories

I know {{cfr-speedy}} isn't ideal, but there isn't a separate template for speedy merges. Therefore, following the instructions at WP:CFR I didn't have the option of an alternative! --RFBailey (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very confusing! I went a completely different route, and looked for "soft redirect", as I had seen tht used last week. That's how I found {{category redirect}}, which automatically assings a bot to change the cats on the article pages. Anyway, I'm new to this situation myself, so new I'm not sure what I did was correct either. Anyway, an admin should show on for the speedy, and sort it out. - BillCJ (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<rant>Noah Webster has a lot to answer for.....</rant> --RFBailey (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I blame William the Conquerer: He ruined a good Germaninc language with his version of French! - BillCJ (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Miles M.52

Bill, I am no newbie to Wikipedia and therefore need not be welcomed or any advice from that sort. I should have been clearer about what my edit was about and and accept the criticism. However, your edit summary ("warned user") is somewhat in contradiction to the amiable nature of the actual posting. I do not need "warnings". Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my revert, "Unexplained deletions are indistinguishable from vandalism." Btw, I totally agreed with your removal of the UK portal link from the "See also" section. - BillCJ (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to explain myself. No hard feelings. In the future I will always explain the removal of this link. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Antoine de Saint-Exupry

F-5B or P-38? I have sources that disagree on the model he flew. See: [2] and [3]. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

Most sources don't seem to distinguish between the types, as they are all basically P-38 airframes to them, the main difference being what's in the noses. If a souce specifiacally says "F-5B", then I'd go with it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The photographs clearly show a F-5B but sources all over the Internet keep referring to it as a P-38. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

I'm sure if you asked those sources, they's say "all Lightnings look alike to them"! - BillCJ (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Your Request

Per your request its now sprotected! Please let me know if you ever wish for it to be removed.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Schweizer

Bill: Thanks for diving in on this new template - I was hoping that you and others would see it and make improvements. I think there are some other models that we have yet to track down! - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: etc

No worries, I was mostly basing that on the fact that they're clearly descendants of their predecessors in the same way that the 727 and 737 are developments (albeit extreme) of the 707. See also probably makes more sense, but they definitely needed to be linked in some kind of prominent fashion rather than in collapsible footer boxes! Anyway, I'm here off and on, but I'm keeping a low profile and mostly doing minor tweaks to things rather than contributing to full-on articles. Glad to see you're still involved as well. Take care. ericg ✈ 06:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Joint Heavy Lift altered/renamed

Bill, JHL has been renamed Joint Future Theater Lift. It's not supposed to be limited to helicopters now. There's a little more info at "The Program Formerly Known as Joint Heavy Lift". Take it easy... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Heads-up. Also, thanks for cleaning up after me, esp. for double-checking the source on the F-117 page. - BillCJ (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. I'll copy the notice over to the RTF tak page so others will catch it too. Actually, I had checked the F-117 edit, found Feest/Bandit 261 in the reference and left it alone. I missed that Bandit 123 was just a general example. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Saab/SAAB

Hi. As far as I can see, your issue is with capitalisation. My argument(s) over that article was that someone kept removing AB from Saab AB in the title - they couldn't understand that AB was a company type abbrev. and not part of the name. My solution was to go by the Saab website, which is what you have done re. the capitalisation. I don't see a problem with that approach at all. Mark83 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted move

You reverted my move of "North American YF-107" to North American F-107. However, you cited a Wikiproject that does not support your reversion. Both the Air Force and NASA designated the aircraft in question the "F-107" and did not use the "YF" designation. Look at the side of the aircraft in the pictures, look at [4], look at [5], look at [6]. Boeing uses the incorrect YF-107A and many have used the reverse-applied "YF" prefix as many other prototype and pre-production programs around that time had them... THIS ONE DIDN'T. Could you please undo this? At any rate, you moved the page to North American yF-107 which is more wrong. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've explained my moves at Talk:North American yF-107, and will discuss why I oppose your move when you make a formal move proposal. The "y" was a typing mistake, should be corrected shortly. - BillCJ (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect. Please make sure that you have consensus with what to do with the article. I wasn't sure what to do with the talk page, so I left it alone. You can have that page speedy deleted if it should be, but it appears to belong to something. Royalbroil 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page was cut and pasted to Talk:North American F-107, then I accidently moved it to a mispelling,.. We'll have to do a histmerge with Talk:North American yF-107. The original move was nonconsensual, and I messed up the revert. Consensus is needed to move it to a new location, but not to revert that move, as I understand it. - BillCJ (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't do history merges, they're usually pretty confusing. I mainly update the DYK on the main page. Royalbroil 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. I've added a db-histmerge tag, but I'm not sure which page it should be on. Right now it's at Talk:North American yF-107. - BillCJ (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RAH-66

Hey Bill, do any of your books have any early/background info on the RAH-66 Comanche? Frawley's Mil directory has a page and touches on that. I asked about this on the WP:Air/RTF talk page too. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the Frawley Mil bookalso. I do have some older helicopter books, but I think they are pre-LHX selection, when the designs were still in flux. I'll look around and see what I have though. - BillCJ (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Whenever you get a chance.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

F-117 Retirement Date

Look down in the retirement section of the page. CNN reported that the F-117 would retire on the 22nd. Do you think that this might be why no one has not heard of anything yet? Kevin Rutherford 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time the USAF is saying that it will depart Holloman today and go into recallable storage. Maybe retirement was already past? In the end I think CNN is wrong because of te amount of facts against them. Kevin Rutherford 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The 22nd is supposed to be when they land at Tonopah. The AF may have done the retirement ceremony beforehand like today or tomorrow. We'll find out soon either way.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

YF/F-107/F-107A

Sorry I couldn't join in on the fun but being bereft of reference sources, and out in Mexico for a week and in Toronto twice on business and pleasure trips, I finally got a look at Steve Pace's X-Fighters: USAF Experimental and Prototype Fighters XP-59 to YF-23, Nico Sgarlato and Franco Ragni's U.S. Fighters of the Fifties and Robert F. Dorr and David Donald's Fighters of the United States Air Force. All of the sources agree that the aircraft type designation was the F-107 while the three prototypes were designated the YF-107A. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Typo on your main page

Sorry to bring this up. I noticed a typo on your grievance/main page. I take it you meant "stress", not "strees".

Sorry. Dapi89 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

• A-4 Skyhawk & A-4SU Super Skyhawk

Sorry Bill, I apologise if I sounded all so rash with those comments of mine, please do not take ofence, I was doing those edits like fire-walling because I was so focused on finishing it ASAP. Hope you don't mind. Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User boxes

Hey I borrowed the following user boxes from your page, if you don't mind.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC) {{User dst 3}} {{User:Aerobird/GW Userbox}} {{User:BillCJ/UBX/GWSun}} {{User:BillCJ/UBX/Taiwan}} {{User:Yahel Guhan/Pro death penalty}} {{User:BillCJ/UBX/Death to Vandalism}}

No problem. Glad you liked them. - BillCJ (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

KC Oops

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like somebody rewrote to take it out altogether. (I meant to summarize the quote & I really didn't notice more got taken out. Serves me right for not reading the edit preview, first... 8[ )

On an unrelated issue, is there a guideline for somebody removing a vandal warning tag? I posted one here recently, & he deleted it; I've since reverted it, but I wonder if I should, or do something else.

And a technical question, if you can answer it. (If not, no big.) I found a "blink" script (see my page), & I wondered if it can be set to "blink" an image, or if there's something around that can. (I couldn't get the script as written to do it.) Thanx. Trekphiler (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't wory about the KC-45 thing - it happens to all of us!

As to vandalism warnings, as far as I know, it's OK to remove warnings from one's own talk page - that's generally considered as acknowledgement of the warning. As long as you've warned them, it'll show up in the talk page history, and any half-competent admin should know to check there for previous warnings.

Finally, "I don't know nuttin 'bout 'ritin no scripps!" All I can do is copy and tweak, and hope it works! - BillCJ (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cessna Citation

I know you have been involved in sorting out the Citation pages just been adding infoboxes and found this Cessna 551 which it a Citation II/SP and covered in Cessna Citation - any thoughts. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! Wow, it's amazing the articles that get missed on here! I found some old history at Cessna 550 Citation II, and I think I'll reconvert that page into an article. If you could move Cessna 550 Citation II to Cessna Citation II, we can convert Cessna 551 to a redirect there. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Army Aviation

Nice start on this one. I added some "Further reading" and some bits about "Tasks" although I am not altogether happy with the wording. Fancy having a look at it? Ekki01 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just thought the Lead together to enable me put this into the mainspace, so feel free to tweak or rewrite it too. I have to go for a few hours, but will check your text later tonight. Thanks for the "Further reading" section, those look like good sources, none of which I have. I'll have to add some to my (already very long) list of wanted books! - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Take your time, mate. I am off to bed anyway. I will try to cobble something together about the general history of army aviation (eventually). Ekki01 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi Bill: I am having a little trouble and thought that it seemed to be an area that you have been interested before (i.e. in the Cessna 162 article Chinese controversy). I thought you might like to have a look at this. There is an IP address who insists on putting tons of detail (mostly unsourced) on the insolvancy of Theilert engines in the Diamond DA42 article. I have pared it down several times saying that that level of detail doesn't belong in the aircraft article, but it should be in the Thielert article. There is lots in the Thielert article, as I have added it all and more with refs there. He keeps putting it all back in and it overwhelms the rest of the aircraft article. Recently he has put irrelevent quotes from Cessna into the DA42 article. I would appreciate it if you could have a look at the Diamond DA42 article, its recent history and see what you think is a reasonable amount of text on this subject within the aircraft article. Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

About the Airbus Infobox

Sorry about the A400M. I forgot that I already added it before. After adding it, I realized it was exclusively for airliners. Plane nerd (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

F-16 cleanup

This should really be an FA article and it's languished far too long. I'm going to be out of town on business travel this week, but when I return I'm going to propose a collaborative clean-up of this article at WP:AIR and WP:MILAIR. I hope you'll contribute to the effort. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Emirates "daily"

Bill, would you mind going over to the Emirates Airline discussion page to comment on the anon who wants "double daily" and "7 (Daily), please. I'm "nervous" that perhaps I'm wrong and I'd like lots of opinions. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tri-floats

Bill, could you double-check this diff for me? The user added info (unsourced, of course!) on "tri-floats" now being used on float planes, but it seemed dubious to me. Any insights on this? - BillCJ (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the seemingly authoritative tone of the submission, something immediately struck me as being odd, "bombardier float aircraft" which can only mean Bombardier (nee Canadair) CL-215 and Cl-415 amphibian aircraft. These water bombers do indeed have a central hull which is in the water and two outrigger floats although the configuration cannot be considered as a "tri-float" arrangement. Check this edit history: User talk:24.138.160.2 and you will have an appreciation of the expertise of this editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Having a Tim Horton's addiction myself, I can see how that could cloud your reasoning. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Like a maguffin, I actually phoned a few float manufacturers both in the United States and Canada with a question about latest technology and the possibility that a tri-float design was being contemplated. After the guffaws subsided, the engineers tackled the topic with a bit of alacrity and indicated that not only was it unnecessary complexity but that there would not be any advantages to a third float (besides even trying to find a place to attach it, presumably under the fuselage). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

Tweaking, tweaks, tweak

I have noted that a number of editors are using my copyrighted "catch phrase" and to let you know that intellectual and propriety rights are involved. I am willing to lease you these rights, however... FWiW, LOL Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

May 2008

Start class help

first of all I hope you are feeling better... question, on the Boeing B-29 survivors talk page I have noted the it has been tagged with the boxes "start Class" (Military history WikiProject) & "list class" WikiProject Aviation. Opening the boxes reveils several questions that need to be answered:

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: |B-Class-1=yes/no |B-Class-2=yes/no |B-Class-3=yes/no |B-Class-4=yes/no |B-Class-5=yes/no

Help how do I do this and where is the template call? Davegnz (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Those fields go in the WP Project banners. Look at Talk:F/A-18 Hornet or Talk:AH-1 Cobra for an example. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it - thanksDavegnz (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Dassault Rafale

Hi BillCJ, the good number at Number built is (at end 2007) 55. 20 Rafale M, 27 B & 8 C from french gouvernement. --Toubabmaster (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Then add the right number, and don't just delete the wrong one. Also, please remember to leave an edit summary when you delete or change something, other wise no one will know why you did it, and may revert you like I did. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the intercept :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is an {{inuse}} tag built into the template (which was, as you noted, in place in this instance). In practically every instance where there's been a problem, it's been with someone using Twinkle or similar. In any case, I've started literally hundreds of articles this way now, and I can think of maybe three instances like this... nothing more than an occasional annoyance. But your support is, as always, appreciated! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Harsh1125

I've put up a message on his talk page... its not very strong right now; I dont want to bite this newbie, who has less than 50 edits. Check it out to see if its ok....

In case he doesn't reply, it might also be a good idea for you to take the initiative and put a message on his talk page.

Hope I could help. Thanks for informing me about this. Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 13:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

Was this really needed? That is an unfortunate side effect, yes, but snide comments generally aren't appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary, as the bot's owner seems uninclined to address the problems when approached in the usual manner. - BillCJ (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

VH-71

I haven't been keeping up with the VH-71 that well until the last year I guess. Just seems the development is backwards from normal. They are developing the VIP helicopter first instead of VIP'ing an in service military helicopter. Although they are militarizing a commercial helicopter too. The Navy moved Capt. Gaddis over to direct the VH-71 program a few months ago from the F/A-18 program. That should help. I'll e-mail you more on this. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Did you get my e-mail related to this? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I didn't realize you expected a response. Hopefully the program will improve now, but with a new administration coming up next year, there may be lots of changes to many programs. Be interesting to watch. - BillCJ (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not exactly. Just figured you'd say something about it; good or bad. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't mean to sound snippy. I am still a bit perturbed over the Wankel foolishness, which I just cleaned out. Aren't new users wonderful?! Oh well, we were all new users here once! - BillCJ (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• No big deal. A bunch of wankers huh?  :) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Apparently so! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Army Air Corps

A disambiguation page should list anything that is likely to be meant by that name, even when it is technically wrong.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, works for me now, but the DAB-page nazis may disagree. - BillCJ (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey I am a DAB-page nazi. I am currently disambiguating [[Army Air Corps]]. Look at this article. It says he joined the Army Air Corps in 1917. I'm going to fix it, but clearly people will continue to carelessly use "Army Air Corps" for pre-1926 and post-1941 references. The dab page should tell them where to go.  Randall Bart   Talk  02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Guru, but never nazi! You're actually care about what others think, and take the time to explaine yourself, rather than quoting MOS guidelines as if they were unbreakable poilicy. Besides, a DAB-page nazi would only have one link per entry! You realize that sometimes more than one are necessary. - BillCJ (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

IAR-95

Like the Novi Avion, the IAR-95 never flew due to the insufficient funds existent in the last years of the communist regimes in both countries. As no prototype was built, nor much information was available during the communist period, i'm afraid there won't be many sources useful for us. Also, as it was a project cancelled before the revolution, nobody bothered in our days to write/post anything about it. However, i'll have a look through the Romanian article and see if i'll be able to make some additions here. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

so you are around

I deleted that bec I couldn't read comments next to that.I assure you that I was going to restore that comment thats why i logged in again. I'have revised the comparable list of f-15 which was for long incorrect check it.There were great guns like Eurofighter, rafale and Super Hornet in that list.I'hv deleted them. And about the edits I do realise that it was my fault. I was typing this comment before you typed that comment on mine.

Harsh1125 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

F-15

check it out please. The moment I change it someone changes it again. I really fail to understand what is typhoon, Super Hornet , Rafale doing in that list.It dosn't make any sense. That aircraft list is misleading. Simple logic you cant compare 1970s aircraft to a modern 4+ gen aircraft. Harsh1125 (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

UH-1 Iroquois‎

Hi Bill: Just to let you know after the last edit he did, which you reverted, I left Hueydoc a note on his user talk page. He seems to have extensive knowledge of the UH-1, we just have to help him with the problem of WP:OR and refs! - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bell 206 image

Interested in why you think the existing image is better than the one I swapped it to? The LAPD one is higher resolution, sharper, covers the entire helicopter including complete blades and is a Featured Picture. Mfield (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the newer one: Image:LAPD Bell 206 Jetranger.jpg looks worse than Image:Chc bell 206.jpg because of the rotor blades are more blurry and the blurriness takes up more of the image. That's my take anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

it's pretty standard photographic practice to allow the blades to blur slightly if the aircraft is flight as else it looks really odd, some form of movement needs to be conveyed to show that the blades are spinning. Mfield (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's understandable. I was not suggesting 0 blurriness, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the LAPD image has too much blue with the fuselage and the sky, it seems to clash. I'm not going to edit-war over it, however. Btw, I had no clue what an FP was, so that didn't mean anything to me in your edit summary. - BillCJ (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

GD Template

Up to now, we've only been combining different manufacturers (or brands) into the one navbox where there's been a continuation of a model numbering system from one to the other; therefore it would be most consistent if GD had its own, small navbox. And we do have small navboxes of only 2-3 aircraft... a leaf I took from WP:SHIPS back in February (plenty of 2- or 3-hull classes with their own navboxes). Just 2¢ worth from the consistency Nazi... --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-52

Having had a look at your sandbox for it, it's clear Donald & Polmar & Floyd don't cover it fully, so some help would not be amiss. One thing, tho. They do clearly distinguish it from the H-19, which you seem to have conflated (or is that an artifact of how you're using the sandbox?) Trekphiler (talk) 11:51 & 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's how I start an article: I take an existing on a similar model, copy it, and then add new info, and take away the old. I usually leave the Lead text as a pattern to write the new Lead, and the specs for later use when I get ready to add that. Trust me, I do know the difference between the H-18 and H-19! Thanks for getting those main pages started, and I'll see what I can do to help out. I may have some Fair-use pics to add too. - BillCJ (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, you have a sense of humour?

I will have to appraise the situation more closely in light of your apparent sense of humour, newly installed? FWiW, note correct Canajan spelling of the word. Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

Comparable aircrafts: J10 / F-16 B50/52

Hi, recently Daredevil555 brought up the concern that these 2 aircraft are not comparable to the MiG-35. Me myself took these aircraft (MiG-35/J-10/F-16 B 50/52) as "contemporary" aircraft, but never realized that I actually have no idea why I had such a conclusion. As I am too, curious about this matter, can you explain the criteria for the "Comparable aircraft" section, for me and Daredevil555? Regards ChowHui (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PSW recruit

Got your mail. I'll happily false flag for you. Less disruption here & help there is a win-win. Trekphiler (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For diligent and amazingly fast work in merging two articles into Waco CG-4 Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Indian Navy Article

Couldn't agree with you more. Posted a response on the article discussion page. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators‎

Bill: thanks for your revert on this article! There is no ref for this on Operation Nickel Grass either! I left the IP editor a note at User talk:72.0.180.2. - Ahunt (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought! I didn't have time to check that page out, so thanks for following that up. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Television

Please do not edit-war on such a high-profile tempalte such as {{Infobox television}}. Please discuss your changes first on the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a discussion about changing the font size on the Infobox page, so how is it necessary to disucc reverting them? - BillCJ (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberals

Btw Dave, "Liberal" means somthing quite different in much of the wolrd than it does in the US, and is usually closer to a US "center-right conservative". The proper insult would be something akin to "hard-left labourite or socialist", not that many from those countries would think of those terms as an insult. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected ;))) - next time I will think-up a bloody good insult that means the same to the great unwashed but does not get me thrown off wiki Davegnz (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Beechcraft Premier II

Hi Bill, thanks for your note. They are both the same basic airframe, so personally I would call them sub-models of the same aircraft type and put them all on one page called Beechcraft Premier. If the amount of info gets too large then split them at that point into separate articles. - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

CRJ

The benefit was that it's not a dab page, and there is at least some content there. If you have a better, non-dab, destination, then that would be great. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an ambiguous title that "disambiguating - isn't that what DAB pages are for? Howefver, I'm sure there is yet another newly minted, obsure guideline that 3 people made up and think is a policy now that is against linking redirects to DAB pages, so whatever. - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oof. I'll put it back again, but do shoot me a message if there's a better place for it and I'll be happy to follow up. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of the links to the dab page came from a few redirects that were variations on "CRJ family" - which if I read you right is actually the 200/100 (and 440) followed by the 700/900/1000, so the CRJ section of Bombardier Aerospace seems like a reasonable starting point. Folks can then go to the 200 or the 700 if they're sufficiently curious. If there's enough context to say it's one or the other, then that's what I'll link to. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)