User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

Nice Work

Jeff, it seems like every time I check the history of an article I see your name. Thanks for all of the hard work. If you want me to collaborate on any articles let me know, my favorite topics are 50s'-60s jets.Ratsbew (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I mainly work on aircraft from the 1960s to present. The main articles I'm working on are listed on my To Do list on my user page (maybe F-111 & XB-70). Let me know me know if you have other articles in mind. I may be able to help. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I recently created an article on the Lockheed XC-35, it is a start, but I'm sure it could use a lot of polishing. Ratsbew (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I did a little formatting on that article. Did the XC-35 have a legacy? For example did it lead to another airplane design or something. That'd be something good to mention in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Airwolf (helicopter)

Jenkins was the creator of the second ship, which was the half of the reason for his ego (more so than Hawke beating him out as the original test pilot).

Also the rocket tube fired much quicker than Airwolf's, even with it's 3 deployment tubes on the ADF pod.

Lastly, it was developed secretly, without Archangel's knowledge (away from his section -- the section that usually commissions these black projects)

So, I think the above three points are very relevant to the article and need to be put back please.

Surge. SurgeFilter (talkcontribs) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sorry I missed some of your changes. The part about the external modifications need to be made clearer. Like was Redwolf a different Bell 222 helicopter, etc. Discuss further at Talk:Airwolf (helicopter). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I realize you mean well but yes, Redwolf was just a standard Bell 222-B variant [remember Airwolf was an original 222-A) - leased temporarily by McKernan Snr at Jetcopters for the late August 1985 shoot - with a paint job (this same ship was used in the 4th season premiere episode of The A-Team "Judgement Day" but it had been painted purely Phantom Gray Effect Black). The single rocket tube was only on the studio miniature. The scene that the 1st Unit shot over at Indian Dunes (where the test run for Zeus and the Secretary of Defense was staged) cut multiple pyro mixed with opticals FX from the miniature's soundstage-mounted rocket tube (which wasn't ADF enabled unlike the original Lady). Hope that clarifies?  :) SF SurgeFilter (talkcontribs) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I remember bits and pieces of the show, but that's about it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Puff the Magic Dragon" reference in Minigun

Why did you change the reference to "Puff the Magic Dragon" to point back to the song? Don't you think that it is better to point directly to the Douglas AC-47 Spooky gunship than to a Peter, Paul and Mary recording from 1963? And why the song instead of the "film"? In my opinion, the previous link to the "Douglas AC-47" points to the correct page, so the "Puff the Magic Dragon" link should either point to the same page, or have the link removed entirely... not point to a page with nothing in common with the article except for the name. Quebec99 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As said in my edit summary, AC-47 is already linked in that sentence. Puff the Magic Dragon is not explained at all. How is someone unfamiliar with that supposed to figure it out without a link or some explanation?? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed that mention from the Minigun article. It was just minor trivia. It is more fitting in the AC-47 article anyway (where the song is linked). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my first attempt at changing a page. Thanks for the help. Sorry if the response seemed curt, but I didn't think the way that it was when I saw it was correct, so I thought I would sign-up and make the change.

I notice little things all the time... now I can correct them. I don't know if I will delve into a new topic, or expand old ones, but I have a general knowledge and interest in many things, not just military. ;-) Quebec99 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello. As a frequent editor to the 777 article, it would be nice to get your opinion on the topic mentioned on the 777 talk page. It's about what qualifies for an incident and accident. Chergles (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep watch over the 777 article over Thanksgiving! Happy Thanksgiving! Chergles (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure that and some 350 others. :) Thanks Chergles and have a Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Saw that the article is about the 1867th most frequently viewed article, seen over 2000 times a day. That gives me some incentive to work on the article more next week. Chergles (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On V-22 comments

I fear I may have offended you on the V-22 talk page. My apologies for not being clearer. I appreciate all the work that you and other editors to the article have put into the article. I've left a comment on the talk page trying to give context to my request. I would appreciate the help of the article's watchers/contributors toward resolving the outstanding tags. I have done some gnomish edits. Thanks for your help. — ERcheck (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It looked like at first you were asking for expert help with a couple fact tags. The ones I fixed last night were not difficult to find. I could not find anything reliable on the emergency landing in June 2008. That is probably just a minor non-notable incident if real. I'll try to write on JVX stuff and do what I can during Thanksgiving break. However, don't expect other editors to jump on this with a short notice, especially during the holiday season. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. No problem that it is a work in progress. Any JVX info would be great. If controversies can be integrated into the relevant sections, as per your proposal, that would be nice. I've left my comments on the talk page in support of your proposal. — ERcheck (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversial page question

While reading this page, I came across what I believe is an error, but due to the controversial nature of the page, the members cannot see the forest for the trees.

The section titled 'Early history', first paragraph says:
"Several of the many groups of early immigrants to the American colonies were there motivated largely by the desire to worship freely in their own fashion, particularly after the English Civil War, but also religious wars and disputes in France and Germany.[1]"

It doesn't read right. I think someome edited the section and left in an extra "there". See if this reads better, and if you think I should change it:

"Several of the many groups of early immigrants to the American colonies were motivated largely by the desire to worship freely in their own fashion, particularly after the English Civil War, but also religious wars and disputes in France and Germany.[2]"

Thanks for the advice. Quebec99 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that is trying to say the immigrants came to America [there] for religious freedom. Maybe: "Several of the many groups of early immigrants to the American colonies were there largely by the desire to worship freely ..." -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Here goes... Quebec99 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. Just be careful with text that has a reference following it. Rewording too much may alter the intended meaning so the reference does not fully support the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


That's fine, the other editor changed the whole meaning of the phrase to refer to how tiltrotors are configured, which is covered elsewhere, rather than simply the nature of operation of the tiltrotor's rotor. Especially, considering the previous portion of the paragraph dealt with horizontal and vertical position and function of helicopter rotors (main vs. tail rotor). Revert was simply easier than deciding which of his edits I liked. For instance, in the same paragraph there isn't a discussion of configuration of tandem rotors. In fact, we could probably eliminate the whole sentence, or else change it to be a clearer comparison in contrast to helicopter rotors. But the discussion should be about one rotor and one nacelle and how it functions in comparison to the singular subject used to discuss helicopter rotors, and to distinguish it from discussion about tiltrotor configuration. --Born2flie (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see where the meaning was really changed. Just looked like some rewording to me. No detail was added. This does not seem to warrant a paragraph of discussion from me. Change, delete it, whatever... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear to the other editor that the discussion was about different rotor locations and orientations, then perhaps it needs revisiting to make sure that other editors won't have the same perception? --Born2flie (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That wouldn't hurt anything. I see the point of that mention better now. With the tiltrotors covered in the Antitorque configurations section, the rotor orientation thing could be removed without really losing anything. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I tried to edit it and it wasn't really working out, so I just removed it. For now, anyways, unless someone else has heartburn over it being cut out. Then I'll try and figure out how to edit it a little better. --Born2flie (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

2M articles

2M articles and we have to edit conflict on the MD-90! Take it away. I'll come back another day. Suggest keeping the V2500 photo as it is a little unusual and is what makes the MD-90 different from the MD-80. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I kept all of them. I messed up the link there for a minute. Sorry about that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The previous version only said that there was one hull loss. I added some details (passenger brought gasoline aboard the plane). I once thought of doing the same thing for about 2 seconds. I saw some 94 octane gas, which is higher than the 91-93 found in the US. After 2 seconds, I thought that was a stupid idea. Looks like someone actually did it and with tragic results (1 dead, an MD-90 destroyed). Chergles (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a L-1011 was destroyed when a passenger was trying to cook something using a lighted portable stove! Chergles (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC) No it was a Pakistan 707. A cabin fire due to a leaking stove brought aboard by a passenger. Chergles (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistake found (omission)

An airline article (Air Nostrum) is missing a 2003 crash. Must fix it! Chergles (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I have photos of the crash. I was there, same airline, not the same flight. Chergles (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you running a news wire here with up to the minute updates? :)) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, gee. Is a F50 a Fokker 50 or something else? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Formating Dates

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, either dates are acceptable, I would recommend though if you are going to change the date format according to the WP:MOS then please make all the dates uniformed, for example; in the MH-53 article, the information box at the top still has the date formated in the American Style. -Signaleer (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Most all full dates in the MH-53 article use International/US military date format already. Check first... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Keyword most, if you intend to change one, you should change all of the dates in the article, namely the information box. Maintain the uniformity throughout the article. That should be the editors unwritten responsibility. -Signaleer (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe all full dates uses International/US military date format already before today. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Off topic, you have to admit, to be a faithful Wiki editor, you have to have a degree of OCD. -Signaleer (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If that were so I'd go around fixing date formats All the time. There are better edits to make. :) Good day.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

more 777

Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. The 777 article was rejected for FA a while back. I have been fixing it over the past few weeks, also addressing the concerns. Would you have any objections to listing it for GA or FA? If not, I think FA is the way to go since the comments from before were FA comments. Chergles (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanksgiving was good. Hope yours was too. The 777 article did not have a chance at that FA review last year. I say go for Good Article first. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I put it for FA already. If ok with you, some changes have been made above. :) Chergles (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright. Most every paragraph has a reference. Let's try to get all them referenced. Most lists will probably need to get converted to paragraph text (not incident/accident entries though). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This FAC is getting hard than I thought. I don't think the changes really improve it but they are technicalities that have to be done. Chergles (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea. I'm staying off that FAC page until later when things are calmed down. I'll try to reference what I can at night when I can get to my books. Try explain why you're removing stuff better in your edit summaries. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, keep up the good work. You're been real busy addressing FAC concerns. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that the FAC process may have the unintended effect of shortening articles. One can avoid controversy by cutting out a sentence and then get the FAC passed. An example, might be a discussion about some minor part of the plane. Removing it doesn't make the article poorly written but it then passes the technical standards easier. (After passage, the part can be inserted without controversy and additional references would probably be found by then.) The really long articles have a harder time of FA passage, which is too bad. Chergles (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not really noticed that, but don't doubt that could happen. Like playing some kind of shell game. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"The MD-11F is another comparable aircraft but with less range than the 777F." That's in the article. I wonder how much we should observe the no original research rule. Comparable? According to me? The range we can look up. But saying it's less than the 777; is it my own conclusion or just math? Luckily, most of us editing the article are nice to each other so we don't get into fights about things like that. However, if people start to complain, then I suppose it will be very difficult to find a magazine that says "the MD-11F is comparable" even though we all know that it is comparable in some ways and not in some ways. Just some random thoughts about original research. Chergles (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was probably the one that added that a couple years ago. The MD-11F and 777F have similar payload capabilities. There are plenty of comparisons to Airbus models also. Nobody has challenged those either. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope the 777 gets FA. So far, there's been several implied support votes but nobody has used that word in bold. There are some other articles that I want to work on but I want to get the 777 out of the way. The next few projects will not be FAC's. Too difficult to do one after another. Need some breathing space! Chergles (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is way better off now. Need to start getting some support votes. Hopefully overall this will go smoother than FAC Boeing 747 did a year ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked that FAC up. What going on (rather wtf)? That editor who submitted the FAC seems productive but he was banned for sockpuppetry? Yet none of the socks that I saw did anything except for blanking the page or similar, which was quickly fixed by that administrator who then blocked them. If there's punishment then a temporary loss of blocking and counseling might be in order but not banning. We need that kind of person to help us write/fix articles particularly since making an FA is hard (lots of fixing references and addressing minor things that people view as problems.) Either that or force the people who voted for a ban to help us fix the article. Those people, even if they lack aviation knowledge can fix references. Chergles (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New idea: form a reference fixing squad of volunteers! Chergles (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I remember the hoopla about the MD-90T having a dual tandem landing gear. Upon researching it, I looked at photos of MD-90T and MD-90's. They have the same appearance. Upon researching it, I found a reference that says that they decided not to use the special landing gear for the two examples produced. On another topic, do you want to vote support for the 777 FAC?Chergles (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On the MD-90, you might change the tandem wheel part to planned and say they decided to leave that off. Since I'm involved a lot with the 777 article I don't think I should vote for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-86

Jeff, I could use a second opinion on the Ilyushin Il-86 specs table. It only covers one variant, and is also trying to function as main text. Should we just replace it with a standard specs template? Thanks. Btw, I did notice your new quote you added recently. Very good! - BillCJ (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee, too much text in that table. At least move the paragraphs from the table to a Design section or something. After that either a table or the spec template will work if there's only 1 variant/version. I'll watch that article and try to help some. I liked your edit summary in L-1011 when you removed the pop culture cruft to other day. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved the design type paragraphs out of that table and into a new Design section. You might want to check the wording. I tried to add wording to make complete sentences out of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Section formatting

Do you know how to shorten the line going across the screen, like 'Section formatting' above and also on this page where the line goes to the right-hand edge, and through the Ingredients box running down the right-hand edge of the page? Quebec99 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it a little by keeping that Twinkie image above the table. Don't know about the line thing. That table allows the text to go around it. A white background to the table might help. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it by setting the background-color of the box to white. page Quebec99 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!

Remember the reason for the season. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Would you e-mail me? Chergles (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes and infoboxes

Placing a right-justified infobox at the top of a page with a left-justified hatnote arranges the page with both the hatnote and the infobox at the top. I think this results in a more attractive page. Please see Alabama. --Buaidh (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Slight difference but nothing major. Those templates can get accidentally deleted if not at the top, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Placement, "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates)." The previou discussions on the talk page are pretty clear that this is to be the very top above everything. Buaidh, it would probably be best to wait for further response at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote before you implement this change further, as you did at Tennessee, which I reverted per WP:BRD. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My discussion of this issue can be found at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnotes and infoboxes. I believe that right-justified infoboxes are no infringment of our hatnotes at top policy. I think we are being a tad overzealous. Please cool the reverts until this issue can be discussed. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Further discussion goes on the hatnote talk page. We're done here. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


In reference to the GAU-8 article, I just thought I'd mention that were doesn't necessarily indicate plurality of the subject when used in the subjunctive. For example, the clause "If I were a rich man…" is a perfectly correct use of the subjunctive were, despite the subject obviously being singular. Read more. --Inquisitus (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Can you please comment Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop -Signaleer (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that and have never edited that article. I can't see what was there since it's been deleted. Not sure if this is a notable thing based on this Army news release. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested on link tags


Assistance requested relative to tag "Very few or no other articles link to this one. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics." for "Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft" Tagged since January 2009. Are the links provided above useful to this task, if I under this properly?ASIMOV51 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the CAMAA link to the C-17 article. I don't know of any other related articles to add the CAMAA link to. Sorry. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Jeff, consider the following links... ASIMOV51 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC) ASIMOV51 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC) ASIMOV51 (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to internal links, wiki links. The Orphan tag is asking for more wikipedia articles to include the CAMAA link. I've already told what I can on that. More web links aren't helping. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Jeff, a possible internal Wiki link; This is the Father of Myron D. Stokes173.10.35.254 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeff: Had a power outage and shut down everything. Still not totally on but basically functional. Thanks for the edits on Wynne. ASIMOV51 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Department of Commerce Study

National Security Assessment of the C-17 Globemaster Cargo Aircraft’s Economic & Industrial Base Impacts. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, November 2005

Jeff: I have access to an uploadable copy of the above study that was released for designated period of time on their site. It is profoundly relevant to this discussion, and should be made available.

How might this be handled?ASIMOV51 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You could upload it at That's a sibling site to Wikipedia. The report need to be free/not copyrighted per Wikisource:Copyright policy. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a government doc. ASIMOV51 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Right. Some gov docs may have limited release for export control or something. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff: Tried as I did, I couldn't find the mechanism for upload of this large document. I only saw reference to original text. Am I overlooking something?ASIMOV51 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an Upload file button on the banner on the left after logging on. It allows png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, & djvu file extensions. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do thatASIMOV51 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I truly must be doing something wrong, because I click on the WS banner, and it just keeps me where I am. Also, I don't see an upload button. Probably need more coffee... (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

After logging on, the Upload button is below the Search box. There's a 100 Mb file limit just in case that's a big file. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Boeing-Vertol CH-46 edits


I am a Major in the United States Marine Corps Reserve. I am currently on active duty, but will demobilize soon. As a result of my longtime aviation interests and at the behest of Izzy Senderoff, the curator of the American Helicopter Museum, West Chester, PA, I am writing a book on the Boeing Vertol 107 / CH-46 / CH-113 / Hkp4 / KV-107, as no book currently exists. As a prelude, I have assembled an accurate production list of all BV-107/KV-107s ordered/built/cancelled. Concurrently, I am entering model & c/n data into an online helicopter database at <> moderated by Jorge Gazzola of Argentina. I have completed entries for all models except the CH-46D & F, as they are the most numerous. I am making headway. I estimate to complete entering all c/n data within three months. Maybe, I'll move on to the BV-114/234/414 CH-47 Chinook then.

My sources include a copy of the actual Boeing Vertol company production line "Firing Order" for the 107 consisting of airframe line number, Boeing Vertol tab number (aka construction number), and customer serial number or civil registration. It even shows the delineation of production lots, though Boeing nor the government stipulated this for the CH-46. This document alone solved many perplexing questions about missing or mismatched information on several websites, including Wikipedia! What it does not show is Kawasaki production, but I have done some extensive research with the help of a Japanese acquaintance, who has verified my data as accurate. I also have copies of US Navy Aircraft Data Crads from the Naval History Center in Washington, DC. As these cards are filed monthly from all naval aviation units, it is a tedious process to sift out the CH-46 unit transfer data. This is the primary reason I am only along as far as I am on the CH-46 production list. I also have several copies of magazine articles from 1959 to date on all 107 models, not all 100% accurate. As a trained historian, I always search for primary sources and those closest to the facts or events. I don't claim the title "expert." I prefer "devoted enthusiast" instead. I have shared my data with Mr Goebel (, Mr Baugher (US Navy & Marine Corps Serials), and Mr Gibbs ( whose websites contain some of the errors. They have agreed to edit their content when they have opportunity.

If you want a copy of my data in spreadsheet form, I'll be glad to send it along. It is an MS Excel spreadsheet, ~2MB in size. Again, I am still filling in CH-46 D & F data, but it's ~80% complete to date.

Regards, Vertol-107 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure your data is correct. I looked at current user data from Aviation Week and Flight International data sources. Changes/additions need to be properly cited. I'll try to clean that up. I look forward to a book on the V-107 / H-46. There are very few books dedicated to non-attack helicopters. Be careful with putting personal info on the web. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Good day Vertol-107 & Fnlayson, first off thank you both for your contributions to the CH-46, CH-47 and Model 360 articles. I happen to work for the only civil operator of the 107 & 234. I might recommend getting in touch with the marketing department of Columbia (they handle all public relations) who then may be able to help you in your search for at least finding the history of the civil Kawasaki Vertols that they operate. Plus CHI now owns all technical data of the BV-107 as of the TC transfer in '06. Technically, CHI operates BV 107's, KV 107's, 2 former CH-46s, 2 HKP4 (lost 2 to fatal accidents) and recently purchased most of the surviving CH-113s. I'm lower down on the food chain so everything that I've been able to drag up on the birds has been through public channels. It can't hurt to see if you can get a copy of the 50th anniversary book that came out in '07. BTW, with your association with the museum if you have any public information on the Boeing Model 360 we'd love to fill the article a little more. It is really tough finding data on such an amazing bird. Thanks again, --Trashbag (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning II

Well, someone reported me for harassment and posted it around some discussions despite what it says on the talk page. So I'll leave the article to you regulars then attempt edit it more. Here's some general things I noticed about the article that you might be able to look at. Many of the sentences are 'run on sentences' and unusually long. I found a few in the Canada section, but didn't get around to some of the other sections. There's quite a bit of repetition in the article. The word Canada came up too frequently in a section of the same name. Adding 'it', and replacing '(country) government' with government etc. will help take out some of those instances. Sometimes a simple sentence flip can do it too.

It'd be great to see the testing section read more like a paragraph than a news feed. I'm sure someone can think of a clever way to link them all together, especially since most of them are in the past. All the dates are unnecessary if they're there in the citation. It'll leave you the freedom to take the individual events and string them together like phrasing things, in early tests of various ground systems were conducted in September. In following months these tests proved the aircraft could continue to so and so test in December. etc. etc.

The pictures could probably be bigger. The resolution is there for it. Hope this helps. Mkdwtalk 08:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That was fine. Images are the standard thumbnail size per MOS:IMAGES. Try increasing the size in your preferences. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk archive

Could you help me with my talk page? I'm having problems displaying links to archived pages. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The archive pages need to be named like /Archive 1 (space before number) to show up as links in the talk header banners. I see a link for Archive 1 on your talk page now. Are you trying to do an Archive 2 page?
Also, I just manually move sections about 1 month old to my archive page. User:MiszaBot can do the archiving automatically if you prefer. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft has MiszaBot settings near the top of the page on the edit screen if you want to copy it. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I already have several archived pages, however links to them do not show up on my talk page. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Archive box copied to User talk:The Founders Intent)

Your setting for MiszaBot put the archive pages at User talk:The Founders Intent/Archives/(year)/(monthname), e.g. like User talk:The Founders Intent/Archives/2009/January. You'll either have to rename them to Archive 1 type format or set up an Archive box with manual links like this one -->
-Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've tried already. I'm not sure in particular what you want to do. Well I changed your bot setting and added all the links I could find to your Archive box like above. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
How dare you edit my talk page!!! Thanks a bunch.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of changes in Boeing 747

Hi Fnlayson, wish you're doing well. Just a comment that I disagree with the reversion to some of the changes I did (in good faith) to the Boeing 747 article, especially the removal of the section Comparison with other large aircraft. As per your "Notes", will raise the issue and discuss further in that article's Talk Page. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a featured article article. The Operation Solomon part is not design related and did not belong in that section. The image of nose loading door open belongs in the Design section to illustrate the text there. Bring up on the article talk page if you like. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Airwolf

Do you think you could have fixed the table coding without taking out loads of the new information I added?? It took me ages to do all that, but the coding is not my strong point. You have no idea how frustrated I was doing it, and then even more so when you undid it. Not very helpful.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not take out anything you added. See the difference in the edits here. Maybe you mean an edit conflict. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it might have benn a conflict; I think you undid one of my older, unfinished edits just as I was finishing up. I think I've got the hang of the coding now.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that happened. I'll let you work and do any clean up when you reach a clear stopping point. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush reputation

Hey dude, I removed the comment for two reasons 1.)It has no bearing on Lee's reputation (hence the title of the section) and 2.)It's kind of randomly thrown in there, don't you think? Anyway, it's different than Peart's section about lyrics because it's discussing fan/critic reaction. Wisdom89 (T / C)

I think it ought to be mentioned somewhere, but not sure where. Also that is just 1 sentence. I'll look to find a better place.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Been addressed/fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Perfect placement - not sure why I didn't think of it before deciding to expunge it : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I really just moved the reference there, and left the wording alone in the early history section. I should have taken the time and do that before. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Although starting a sentence with "And" is not the best form, it is not incorrect in some instances. I do appreciate the rewriting. :-) Rapparee71 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

These two references allow starting a sentence with a conjunction • Dictionary of Modern American Usage, by Bryan A. Garner • The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, by Pam Peters Evidently, it was common practice in the 18th century and has once again been accepted in formal writing. However, it is still a common belief that it is "incorrect" to begin a sentence with a conjunction and is probably best to avoid doing so. Rapparee71 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Allowing it does not make it formal or proper for an encyclopedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The point is that it is no longer "incorrect". It wasn't in the past and it is again being accepted, even for formal writing. Using a conjunction in the beginning of a sentence is a legitimate literary device. Do not be so hasty in the future. Rapparee71 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not call it "incorrect". So please don't misquote me. Move along.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to be rude! Rapparee71 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(Wasn't -Fnlayson)

777 article nomination

Greetings Fnlayson, and thanks for all the help with regards to the Boeing 777 article. I am about ready to nominate the article for GA review. Hopefully third time's the charm as far as nominations go! Please let me know if you have any additional concerns or issues with the article. Thanks again, SynergyStar (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have anything else. You found things I had not thought about. Thanks for all your work on the article. Hopefully it is all downhill from here. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The nomination has now been submitted; based on past experience it may take about a week; the article may be put on hold to address issues; i.e. any corrections that need to be made. Given the size and scope of this article, I anticipate there will be some suggestions made, and hopefully they will further the article's progress and enable a successful nomination. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll watchlist the GA review page once it gets created. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, seems it is taking a lot longer lately for the GA nominations to get processed than before. Boeing 777 is #19 in the Transport section and so far only one article in that section's queue is being reviewed (and currently on hold). When being reviewed, it can take about a week if corrections are done, but no one has started a review yet. In fact, the oldest nominations still unreviewed were placed on March 2, so it's been over a month. There are over 150 nominated articles for GA; by contrast there are 50 nominees total for FA status. Anyhow, I suppose patience is a virtue but perhaps if it is delayed further some steps could be taken--perhaps ask for a reviewer on WP:AVIATION, switch to FA nominee, etc? Regards SynergyStar (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I noticed 777 was well down on the list. We could try putting it up for A-class review on WP:Aviation if that takes much longer. But the review process for that has not been that active it seems. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help getting Boeing 777 to GA status! Looks like third time's the charm! SynergyStar (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. But you really did most of the work. The review was painless, but we felt it with the formatting work and all over the last couple months. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor bent on crusades

J, take a look at some of the edits taking place which remove large amounts of text complete with cites, see:this FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Yea, a bot fixed the refs and I added a lot of the text back.before and after diff The user had a point about redundant A-10C/modernization info to a certain extent. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

US Aircraft A-67 Dragon

Jeff, I just read the sources that you added to the OV-10 article. It mentions the US Aircraft A-67 Dragon as a possible candidate for the OA-X or similar programs. Might be worth adding to the Dragon article, esp. since the text is still very short. - BillCJ (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a few articles to the A-67's External links section last year that would be good sources also. Nobody has cared to use them and I have not had the interest. You might try adding the A-67 to the To-Do list on WT:AIR. I need to limit my involvement sometimes so this does not lose its enjoyment/fulfillment to me -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is better to have an article no one else edits than one everyone is edit warring over! :) I'll take a look at the sources and see what I can do. It might do some good to link to the Dragon on pages like the OV-10 and T-6, which do get more traffic. Btw, do you think there is enough info to cover the OA-X program on its own page? I honestly don't know. And with the Emperor's Men fighting to collect "scalps" (cancel DOD programs), it remains to be seen if any new programs survive, though OA-X is probably cheap enough to slip by. - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
True. That's why I like working on lesser known aircraft articles. They can be their own sandbox to some degree. I don't know squat about the OA-X program now. I'd have to read up on it specifically to give a fair answer. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you seem to run across more articles from Flightglobal, AFA, and such than I do, so I thought I would ask about OA-X before doing an internet search of the term. And I do understand about "enjoyment/fulfillmenmt". Knowledge has always been "fun" to me, so I've had to learn not to let other people or tasks steal that joy from me. That's one reason I've stayed in the background on this whole "return of Dave" thing. The daily interaction is just not worth it, and it's usually easier to wait till he stops editing for awhile, and then clean up his messes! - BillCJ (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea, wait out the storm, then clean up. :) Before today I only knew the AF was looking for COIN aircraft like the A-67 for Iraq. Didn't know program had a name. The AF has developed a related MC-12W ISR platform under Project Liberty recently I see.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Related aircraft: Navy trying out EMB-314 Super Tucanos (my title) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
and: Ecuador finalises big Super Tucano order -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

F-15SE Silent Eagle

Thanks for jumping into F-15SE Silent Eagle and getting it cleaned up. I left it a bit of a mess after repurposing the framework of the F-15E article, and promptly signing off for the day... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. At first I thought it was premature to split that off now, but figured I should still help. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

fine point... I was pretty sure I was off target with that phrasing. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor difference in the phrasing. You did improve on what was there before. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention to the Cessna 180 article

Jeff, a quick note to thank you for your time and effort to reinsert some of the info I'd added to the C-180 article earlier today. Bill's hasty reversion caught me by surprise; you beat me to the punch in adding back the material. Moreover, I very much like the reorganization you've done and the point at which you chose to insert the maiden-flight sentence. See ya 'round, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. You're welcome. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a break from the flying world

Well, that's one way to put it. Is there any chance you could review User:BQZip01/RfA4? I'm thinking about applying for adminship and would like some feedback before/if I go "live". — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
^ OK. Maybe I mentioned something helpful... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tips

Thanks for extending a hand. WIkipedia was quite confusing for me at first (still is, especially the markup and it's editor; could be better :( ). It's great to see somebody with similar passions as myself around here.

Cheers Alexandru.rosu (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeff, there seem to be loads of 3view plane drawings in raster format. is it alright to mark them as Should Be SVG?! - Alexandru.rosu (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea. You can try tagging them like that though. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Jeff, according to Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon Yakovlev's final official designation for the aircraft is Yak-141. I've put a section in the article explaining the history of the name based on their publication. Would you be so good as to convert the article title over to "Yak-141" from the current Yak-41", and restore the designations to match that title? Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. That's confusing with the article named Yak-41. Can the article not be renamed to Yak-141? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed both. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank Jeff!! How does one do that? I've never been able to figure out how to modify an article's title, or disambuglate (sp?) when there are several titles attached to a single article and I want to break one off to make it's own article. Can you help explaine? - Ken keisel (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved Yakovlev Yak-41 to Yakovlev Yak-141 to rename it. There is a Move tab near the top of each page, next to the History tab. I used that. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I see!! How does one remove an alternate title away from an existing article to create an article under that name? - Ken keisel (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Only Admins can delete articles, but users can ask for redirect pages to be deleted by tagging or requesting on a board (requested move something). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeff, can you provide me with a redirect to that board? I've been looking for it for some time and can't seem to find it. Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Have no idea. Try a search for requested moves. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor image

You removed an image of an F-22, because it is "on-ground". Could you please explain what is wrong with "on-ground" images ? Is there some legal issue ? I cannot follow your rationale. Other Wikipedia aircraft articles have plenty of "on-ground" images. Coenen (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You removed good flight images and replaced them with on-ground images. Flight images are generally preferred for aircraft. This is a general WP:Air project guideline. It's better to just add images (within reason), unless the new ones are similar angle and better quality etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It was my intention to have pictures with clearly visible tail codes in the operators section to match the bases in the operators section. The WikiProject guideline and its preference for in-flight images is a convoluted line of reasoning , IMHO. The current Wikipedia page on the Raptor has not a single on-ground image (except for the assembly of the aircraft). There is not a single picture showing the Raptor's landing gear or open canopy, for example. Having only in-flight images is rather monotonous. Coenen (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
To me showing the tail codes only seems reasonable for images in the Operators section. I only said in-flight images are preferred and that's what the WP:Air page says. On-ground ones are not prohibited. You make a good point about showing the canopy open and landing gear. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this...

In this edit you asked if your ref might be helpful. Yes!!!. The FA problem was with Joe's articles (which, IMHO, I consider bogus) so if you can click-through on them and find similar statements in your book, we're good to go for FA. Note that I actually went to the Toronto Reference Library to find that exact text, but it was miss-filed and no one can find it again :-( Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what particular text you mean there. I will work on F-20 article this week to replace references where I can though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks! I'll go through the FA motions when the time is ripe. I would be nice to get another aircraft one on the FA ranks. By text I mean "book", BTW. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, of course. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas

You said: "cur) (prev) 05:27, 9 June 2009 Fnlayson (talk | contribs) (16,346 bytes) (Was based in St Louis. sources don't state Berkeley and hair splitting not worth it) (undo) "

The city names in the United States Postal Service's addressing system =/ the real location of a place. Do not necessarily rely on the USPS city name to tell you where a place is. For instance unincorporated locations and locations in other cities have "Houston, TX" - but those places are not in Houston. Same goes for St. Louis. Those sources that you mention as stating that the HQ is in St. Louis are basing it off of the USPS address city name, or are simply stating "St. Louis" as that is the nearest major city. - Notice how this source says Berkeley: - I used this one to back up Berkeley:

  • 1. Notice that the United States Census Bureau map is included
  • The source states an address

Put the two together, Fnlayson. Use a map program and you will see where the former McD HQ is.

Now, you say that in this case the "hair splitting not worth it"

  • It is worth it, and saying that it is not worth it is doing the readers a disservice. You know that the last McD HQ is not in the city limits of St. Louis. The city never collected a tax from the McD HQ (while it was at that location), the fire service never had McD (while it was at that location) in its zone. In other words, McD was not, and never was (at that location, anyway), in the city limits. When I go on the Berkeley, MO website, I see the Boeing offices in the central pane. Also the bottom pane links to the Boeing website. This illustrates why we need to get the real location right: Boeing is a central part of Berkeley's economy, as its website shows. We include precise locations of places on Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind.

Regarding Yenne, does he use an address referring to a different location than previously? McD may have been based in the actual city of St. Louis at some point, but the last location of McD, by the airport, is definately not in the city limits of St. Louis.

As a final reference, here is a map of the city of St. Louis: WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like original research/synthesis to me. The source states St. Louis and the 2nd one was a map. Also, the map is current, not from pre-1997. This should be discussed on the article(s) talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
While I will discuss it on the talk page (See Talk:McDonnell_Douglas#Locations), I must re-iterate that the some of reasoning demonstrated in your reply above is flawed (referring to the first two sentences), and I will explain why on the talk page. I am also going to kindly ask that you read the entire post (referring to second sentence); I feel that you had skimmed it; I feel that you would not have said what you said above if you had carefully read my first reply. Now, the map is from 2000, but I feel the boundaries haven't changed in the three year period (also note that the source I mentioned said Berkeley anyway) - I'll see if I can find a 1990 census map. Found it. That should address the concern about the map being from 2000; since there's a 1990 map. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
My reply above was mainly about your original version of MDC's location in the article a few days ago. The company's main plant and offices were at the Lambert airport. Not going to argue about which city that's in.. The area at the airport was bought from St. Louis by McDonnell. -Fnlayson (talk)
Yeah, things are strange. Even though the city operates St. Louis Airport, the actual city limits don't cover the airport or the territory around it. It's very similar regarding Atlanta Airport, where the City of Atlanta only covers a small portion, but the city in reality owns the entire airport. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Future Combat Systems

I work for FCS Public Affairs Office. I am trying to correct the FCS Page. The program NEEDS some information deleted and you have undone my corrections. Do you work for the program.

Please contact me at jill.nicholson at Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernization (talkcontribs)

Deleting valid content like that was unhelpful and unneeded. A summary was added at the bottom of the main section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle six!

Thanks for cleaning up after me on Bell 206 and OH-58 Kiowa! I'm such a messy editor. I was trying to fix ref links because I noticed that was down. --Born2flie (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I checked the previous article versions to double checked that was stray text in the 206 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle sixteen!

Jeff, could you take a look at my comments here? They should be self explanatory. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems alright now. When I first ran across the Mounted Combat System article a few months ago, I wondered why all the manned vehicles were not covered in 1 article since they all share the same chassis. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You do make a good point, but all the user appeared to be doing was dumping all the articles in whole onto one page, including with the separate infoboxes! That kinda defeats the point of having them on one page!His user page says he's only sixteen, so that explaines a lot, especially the exuberance in which the mergers were done. Again, it would have been nice to have been able to find your discussion more easily, but that was in know way your fault, or mine. - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In case you might be wondering, the FCS Cancelled systems talk page section was started after another editor removed the manned ground vehicles entries from the Subsystems section. I re-added them in a Former subsection. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the "clubbing baby seals" story together

Hi Jeff, I noted you added an archiving bot to Talk:F-35 Lightning II. Since I’m not bot-literate and don’t want to mess up any article history, would you please archive the “F-35 fails against Sukhois in computer simulation” conversation in Archive 4, to precede “‘Clubbed like baby seals’ controversy – the back story”, which addresses it? I’m not clear why the one was archived and not the other, but for the ease of future reference, they should be together. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot should archive that one pretty soon. A couple months ago, I archived the older Sukhoi sim section cause I thought it was old & not needed, but wanted to keep some discussion so someone won't try to start it all over again. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand. My interest is in keeping the two together for the sake of future reference ... and you know it will come up again. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The bot should have archived that section by now. I just manually archived it and put it with the related section on the Archive page. So done. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I see you've extended the archive period on some low-traffic pages. Which is fine, but note that MiszaBot has a minthreadsleft parameter so, despite the notice that "Any sections older than [X] days are automatically moved", the page won't be wiped bare even if there aren't any new comments within the specified time period.
—WWoods (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the min thread left parameter (5 or 6 is default I think). Just rather be proactive and set a archive time that better fits the activity level. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ^ The Cousins' Wars, Kevin Phillips, 1999
    • ^ The Cousins' Wars, Kevin Phillips, 1999