Jump to content

User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9


DYK for General Dynamics F-111C

Materialscientist (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced warning / help, new book

Oops!! Sorry about that! I meant to warn the IP, not you. - BilCat (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping that was the deal. No problem, carry on. :) -fnlayson (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill, if you have the sources, can you add to or reference info at McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II? I've done about all I can on it. -fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have Strike from the Sea by Tommy H. Thompson, which has a chapter on it. I'm caught up with worrking on some Pratt and Whitney articles, but if I need a break from that but still want to do some work, I'll see what I can do. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Su-35

I am an administrator, and please dont abuse the rolleback feature. Im trying to improve that article, because its in a dire need of improvement. And yes SU-35 is used also in some official papers. GP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralPatton (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I have not done any rollbacks except for vandalism/unhelpful edits. Rollbacks can be used on an user's talk page, but have only done so very rarely. Use Talk:Sukhoi Su-35#Su-35BM_Big/Deep_Modernization. -fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I hope both of us can helpfully contribute to that article, I've been here for a long time, just haven't been in a position to contribute that much in the past few years, so im a bit rusty. --GeneralPatton (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay about the non-validity of other wiki links, sorry for that. The Sukhoi exclusion, however, was really a matter of controversy between Brazilian pilots and analysts. I'll search some references on the subject in the media in English. Regards. 201.36.232.9 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. Note I did not remove any text, only the 2nd reference, which was another wiki page. Please use Talk:Sukhoi Su-35 for any further discussion. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 767

Thanks for the number of edits on Boeing 767. As for the pictures under ===Design===, I formatted it as "center" because there's a text sandwich; I don't know if you'be seen it or not. I'll be only for the next few hours, so I want this to improve this article (with you) until it's GA-, and hopefully, FA-standard. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing images actually sandwiching text the way it is now. That only becomes an issue for narrow screens/low resolutions. I narrowed my window down to check that. Peer reviews provide suggestions. Take them with a grain of salt sometimes.. -fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with the dead refs for Boeing 767. Can you provide some suggestions, please? Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Use the article talk page as requested at the top. Thanks. And I could not find any dead links last night, btw. -fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been nominated for GA, just to tell you. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This article passed the GA review. Good work everybody. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330

I'm currently expanding the page Airbus A330, perhaps you could help me as well, with your second-to-none expertise on airliners :) Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 10:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing other stuff now, but will try to help some. For additional help ask at Talk:Airbus A330 and at WT:Air. -fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Some sources say that the A330/A340 program was launched in June 1987, while others say in November 1987, given your extensive knowledge of aviation, can you please tell me which one is it? Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, ask this type of stuff on the article's talk page. That's its purpose. The Frawley Civil aircraft book lists June 1987 as the A330/A340 launch date. Copies of the entries are available through airliners.net. See A330, and A340. -fnlayson (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind having a look at my good article nomination for Airbus A330 at Talk:Airbus A330. I'm currently participating in the WikiCup competition, so I'm just trying my best to see how many points I can get. Thanks Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Night fighter and Talk:Night fighter

J, take a look here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

BillZ what am I to look at there? Things appear handled on the talk page. I don't know much about WWII era planes and they are not a real interest for me. -fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, it's the appellation of "all-weather" fighter in the postwar years that I'm interested in seeing what its usage was. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a little before my period of interest. The F-104, F-105, and F-4 are some of the earlier mil aircraft that I know much about. I may have a book or two that covers that timeframe though. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

RAAF F-111 operators in the main F-111 article

Hi Fnlayson, I might be being a bit Australia-centric here, but there seems to be no reason to leave out the RAAF units which operated the F-111 from the main article on the aircraft as it covers all variants. I'm not going to edit war with you about it, but it seems a rather inconsistent approach to exclude the RAAF units while including the USAF units. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just list the Gs as opearated by the RAAF. The usual pattern for variant articles is to cover the operators of the variants on those pages, not the main page, though this is inconsistently applied, and not every agrees with me on it either! Note that the US Navy isn;t listed here either, and probably wouldn't be even had the F-111B entered full operational service. - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be for adding whatever USN test and development squadron(s?) operated the aircraft as well. It seems a bit artificial to only list the RAAF as operating Gs (particularly as these aircraft were modified a bit in Australian service so they had more common features with the Cs). Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Well RAAF F-111 has its own article and I was trying to follow WP:SunmaryStyle. There has been other articles, like the AH-64, where users kept adding details to the main article instead of the more appropriate variant article. The list is short and doesn't seem like a problem with these articles so I restored the RAAF squadrons. Bring it up on the article's talk page if there's more. -fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Boeing T-43 Bobcat

A discussion is in progress in renaming article to Boeing T-43. LanceBarber (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help. I don't know anything about the T-43. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II, a possible GA candidate?

Hello Fnlayson, I thought I would express my opinion that the A-12 is very close to the level of GA quality, if you have more sources to make the finishing touches to it, I could nominate it and hopefully the GA Reviewing process will create more positive changes, rather than it just being a status badge and an end-result. If you're interested in this, drop me a line on my talk page. Kyteto (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess. But I'm not sure if the article is truly complete. Given that it was highly classified, details are hard to come by. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put that idea on ice. Messing around in secretive programs is likely good for nobody's heath; :P I really don't want the suits deciding I've taken too much interest in one of their 'interests' and whisking me off! Some things truely will be never complete. Kyteto (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the aircraft to be a politically important peice, much like the Nimrod MRA4 being a sign of its times, it would be nice to pay better tribute to it. I've always been a little apprehensive working on 'secret' projects, hence why I stay quite far away from the B-2; it isn't wise to tempt fate, I really wouldn't want to accidentally discover a document that wasn't supposed to be released and ending up answering for an innocent mistake around a sensative issue, I suppose I can break that policy for a 'dead' project from 20 years ago however. I've performed a few more tunes and citation additions; it is getting closer. I'll be happy to work with you on it, and when you think it's ready, we can see how it performs at GAN. Kyteto (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You're found all kind of good sources on this. I had better luck finding info on the Northrop/MD YF-23. I guess we'll see what other notable details can be added and polish/tune the wording. Then go for GA. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
All that's missing from the current content is a cite for the estimated per unit price; though an additional cite for the specs would be good (especially if it is in list form, the current is prose). I'll ease off for now, let the article settle for a while. Kyteto (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Since I've got hold of Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft by Paul Eden, maybe I can collaborate with you at artcicles such as B-52, B-1 Lancer, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, with the ultimate aim of promoting them to GA/FA statuses. What do you think? Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the B-1 and B-52 articles are already GAs. I like the Eden book. It has good coverage for a lot of aircraft, but not a lot of specifics on each. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
My point is, if you want to work with me, I'm ready to help. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Right. I am a little burned out with GA reviews now and have had less time to really work on articles lately. Maybe if a couple weeks or so.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A330

Hello! Very good. Could you also change the wording to show that the A330 is not entirely manufactured in Toulouse but that only some components and final assembly is done there. Many major components are wholly manufactured elsewhere. The wings, for example,come from the UK. Hudicourt (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not sure how much component manufacturing is done in Toulouse. Will check for sources to cite that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Joint Multi Role Collaboration

If you like, we could work on JMR together as more info comes out. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I must have missed about this program. Looks like there is a wiki article on it already Joint Multi-role Helicopter, but it needs info and work. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the article I'm talking about. I know some folks that are directly involved, and hopefully publishable info will become available. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

KC-X infobox

Jeff, the infobox shows "Round 1" and "Round 2", whereas the article body has "Initial competition", "Expedited recompetition" and "Round three". --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not fill in the new Infobox. But the "expedited recompetition" got canceled, so that was not really a round. Your point seems to be about the Round 2 in the Infobox corresponds with the Round 3 section. The Round 3 section label also looks overly simple to me. I changed the Round 3 label to "Restarted competition". How is that? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeff, "Restarted competion" is a better label and addresses my nit pick. Thanks. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessments: Boeing X-37

Hi

Is it normal for someone to update a projects class when someone from the project has just assessed it and left a note for other project members to assess at a later date?

I only ask as it seems that most projects state "anyone who is a member of the project can assess"?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I copied the ratings from the other project banners. That's the same as an auto assessment by a bot. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Do bots do that sort of thing automatically? I know Xeno has one that is by request, but I was not aware of one that does it without being asked to.
I am asking as there was an issue where a project gave B class rating to an article that was definitely a stub/start or, with a massive stretching of the imagination, a scrape through to C class. I asked them to reduce the class but there are only two editors involved and they refused point blank replying "why do you care what the rating is, it doesn't matter anyway". I was a little annoyed as there seems to be nothing I can do about it. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Some project banners have a setting that can be set to "=auto" for a bot to inherit the assessment from another banner. I've worked on the X-37 article and updated the assessments for this article in the WP:Aviation and Mil History as it has improved. If you think the article is not a B-class or something, please bring it up on the article talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 717

Hello!

I see you have been reverting a lot of changes to the "current operators" section of the B717 article. I have just made an update there myself, so in case you like to revert it, I'd like to hear your word on why you revert, since I'd rather correct my numbers and sources accordingly instead of having the section once again reverted to a by now 8 months outdated source. This isn't meant to be criticism of your work, merely an inquiry to help get it right and up to date this time. Glad to hear your comments on this! Cainamahs (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have provided edit summaries for my reverts. Generally no reference was provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, I've read your summaries, I was just curious wether you'd approve of my update and if not, why, so that it wouldn't be reverted but could be corrected accordingly. Thank you! Cainamahs (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You added a reasonable reference, updated all the numbers, and updated the date in the sentence. The list provides a fair comparison of fleet numbers at a given time. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Boeing 707 TOC

I can't get the TOC to display on Talk:Boeing 707. I'm using IE8 on Win7, btw. Is it workign on your system? - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

<delurk> Sorry to borrow Fnlayson talk page - bit of experiment and the toc appears hidden inside the comment field in the aviation banner - the cause was the level 2 header - when I removed the level 2 (==Foo==) in Talk:Boeing 707/Comments the toc appears on the main talk page.! MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I use Firefox mostly and Google Chrome some. Looks like Milb1 fixed that. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry me again - I have raised it at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Hidden TOC so we can leave it to the experts! MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You're fine. Thanks for the update. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Joint FAC nominators

With your edits to the Airbus A330, I feel obliged to ask for your wise comments on whether the article should be nominated to FAC. In case you say yes, I'm wondering if you'd like to become co-nominators for the process. If not, that's okay–I'll try to give the article the best recognition by myself. However, I hope you agree with me. No pressure! Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 09:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to avoid the article talk pages for some reason. Why not ask about nominating the A330 on the article's talk page? I doubt if it is ready, but will have to check the recent reviews on the article and improvements... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a guideline/policy that an article had to wait a month before it could be nominated again for FA. But I do not see this mentioned at WP:Featured article candidates now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind on that. Good luck.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Since you're a valued editor on this site, do you mind commenting, supporting or opposing at the A330 FAC page, please? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the article A330 behind, would you like to nominate the article Boeing B-52 Stratofortress for FA status? Airbus A330 is being nominated at the moment, so I can't actually nominate another article. The article is classed as an A-class, so I reckon it will have any major problems achieving the star. Anyway, aren't you the most active contributor, according to [1]?Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the B-52 article is ready. What makes you think it is ready for an FA nom? If you think it is almost there, then spend a couple weeks touching it up first. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I an idiot?

Am I an idiot, imcompetent or stupid? When you summarily revert my edit on S-67 the way you did, that's how you're treating me. You even removed my ref. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No. That was not a simple revert, it was an edit. The AH-56 was still on going in 1970. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for stepping on your toes. I'll try to step around them in the future.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I'm looking for, but you could have a least discussed it. I made those changes for a specific reason, not just general wordsmithing. I don't expect special treatment. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. -Fnlayson (talk)

Rolls-Royce LiftSystem

LOL, you added my ref from the JSF page ten minutes after I added it. Great minds, I guess... It is an excellent article though. I will name and fix. Ng.j (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to simply delete your add in the F-35 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkey S-70 edit

Hey would you check this out, I think it's wrong or contains errors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, I trimmed much of the T-70 stuff from Sikorsky S-70. The T-70 info is already covered at Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk#Turkey. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much about what's up with Turkey, but I figured you did. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It'll be a license built version in Turkey is all. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Vought Model 1600

I just received a new source, American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors 1945-1978, by Tony Buttler. This is an excellent resource on unbuilt US fighters, escecially some limited specs, including the Vought Model 1600. (Note the new sandbox title at User:BilCat/Sandbox/Vought Model 1600.) I've added specs now, and I hope to get some original text added this week. Hopefully I can move it to mainspace soon! - BilCat (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done! - BilCat (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. The Huntsville area has been without power since last Wednesday afternoon when the storms/tornadoes came through. We should get it back Tuesday or maybe Monday. I am out of town for work now. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why the change from Model 1602 to 1600? Model 1600 looks simpler to me and does not matter much all in all.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Because that's the basic model that all others follow, and the version I have specs for. :) We could name the article/Lead "Model 1600 series", if that will help. - BilCat (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. Series or something similar would help. I'll copy this to Talk:Vought Model 1600 in case someone else wonders this too later. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

USAF abbreviations

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Abbreviations_of_USAF_units - Would like your input Ng.j (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I noticed that, but have no real knowledge of which is right. And is not too critical to me.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

F-15E revert explanation

Apologies but I have reverted your edit. The information in the cite is incorrect as later reports show. The incorrect info has been repeatedly added by an editor with some sort of obsession, resorting to multiple sock puppets. See Talk:Friendly Fire for the true story. It really is a tragic accident with no-one really to blame. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, but that's the wrong talk page. That's a disamb. page with no discussion on it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Talk:Friendly fire#23 August 2007, I have no problem if you wish to remove the incident entirely or add the correct info. But please don't add the incorrect information back. Again sorry for the screw up, editing in a rush is never good. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Updated the entry using the coordinates miscommunication/confusion article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind if I copy edit the whole thing? The outcome of the inquest made it plain there was no one to blame really and I don't think you've captured that. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Skanderbeg's Italian expedition

Hey Fnlayson. Skanderbeg's Italian expedition was just promoted. I'd like to thank you for help and support. Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Great news and well done! I was hoping that article would not get delayed and not promoted. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330 A-class review

Hi Fnlayson, as you might have known, Airbus A330 is nominated for A-class status. Any comment from an experienced editor such as you is warmly welcomed. Any also, I want to move this article along, so it can reach that coveted star (if you know what I mean).

I can be found at [2]. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 10:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Try posting a link to the review on the WP:Aircraft's talk page (WT:Air). WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Airbus A330. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330 FAC

I've bypassed the A-class, and headed straight for FAC @ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul of AgustaWestland Apache

Hi Fnlayson. Thanks for lending a great deal of your time to the improvement process of the HS Harrier, it was appreciated. I've just completed a fairly big batch of changes to the Apache's used in the UK, I'm even considering GAN'ing the article in the future, could you take a look over it and see what sticks out as wrong to you? Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching and trying to help a little. I'll give it a going over later. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Did some work on it last night. It seems to be in good shape. My AH-64 books are at least a few years old and have little details on the UK Apache. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll take that as a positive sign for going ahead. Thak you for your expertise, and time. I'll put in a nom shortly. Kyteto (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Extra blank lines on Airbus A350 article

Hey, just a question: I edited that article, and took out what appeared to me to be unneeded lines, and you promptly put them back in. I have looked at both versions of the resulting format, and I can see no difference. Would you mind explaining the need for those extra empty lines? If they really are necessary, I will not expend my future efforts in peeling them out of Wikipedia pages. Thanks in advance.--Raymondwinn (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The blank lines around the image links seems to help on the edit screen. Otherwise I mainly just remove repeated blank lines, which is poor formatting. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The IPs that have been making strange edits to the See also sections of fighter aircraft pages appear to be the same person, despite that they come from different IPs. Geolocate shows that they have the same ISP and location. Should a WP:SPI be filed? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No idea. I have never dealt with SPI before. Do that or we can start adding user warnings. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the IPs can be blocked as they are solely used for making disrputive edits. The IPs do not intend on engaging in community discussion to gain WP:CONSENSUS, and their edit warring is nothing short of disruption. I'll try to bring this to the attention of a sysop. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We'll see if they come back again. Once they've made 4 reverts using any of their IPs on the one page we can take them to 3RR; SPI is too slow to have any significant impact. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New article in USMC family

I noticed that you are active at the USMC page. I just wrote a new article, one still being expanded, about desegregation in the United States Marine Corps. If you have any suggestions for direct article content or for helping it find interconnections to the larger topic I would be grateful. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have detailed knowledge or sources on that subject. So about all I can do is look it over. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, no sweat. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder

True, he is really missed. Hey, it looks like Singapore's S-70Bs are not yet in service. Aviation Week's source book did not list any in Jan. 2011. Is that still the case? I'll keep an eye for media reports to update. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Cite book

Hi, re [3]: I changed the citation format from {{cite book}} to {{vcite book}}, since some editors for some reason had put the years of publication inside the publisher parameters. The vancite template puts the year in the end of the cite, so there is no need for abusing the cite book template by using wrong parameters. I am aware that the article is at FAC, and I couldn't find any inconsistensies in the version I edited? --Eisfbnore talk 16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any abusing; the dates are all in the year fields. Just trying to use consistent templates/formats per comments at the review. If there are further issues with the article, use the article's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No, not anymore, but if you take a look at this diff, you'll see that some books had their pub years stuck inside the publisher parameter, which is not necessary. I don't know your preferences with this, but the point is that one can use vancite templates to get the pub year in the end of the cite, and need therefore not abuse the cite book template. Also, the version you reverted here was consistently formatted. --Eisfbnore talk 16:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I remember that. I'd rather have the dates after the publisher, but the cite web and other cite templates put the date before the title. That was just an edit, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been bold and used vancite for the other refs as well. Please revert if you disagree, but they are much less load time expensive than the {{cite ...}} family (per Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates (technical)). --Eisfbnore talk 20:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft in fiction images

I am bowing out of the ongoing mudfight about Aircraft in Fiction image removal. It seems to me that there is too much ego involved in this dispute, although the incipient combatants are busy trying to deny it. It is sad that editors who have done nothing to improve the article over the last year or two are now trying to ramrod their notions of what is appropriate for the page. As I learned many years ago, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig." For the record, I support having the images, but I have better things to do with my time than argue with Hammersoft, who clearly has no interest in a real dialogue to reach a consensus... Mark Sublette (talk)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk)

XF-104

Do you have access to a book about the F-104? At the moment, I'm improving XF-104, but because I don't have a book about it, I cannot quickly find sources for uncited comments. Also, what aircraft do you have books for? Just wondering to see if you can help me with a few things. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any books specifically on the F-104. 1960 is about as far back as I'm interested. Ask for help at WT:Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My main aviation books are listed on my user page, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

XF-85 Goblin GAN

Hi Fnlayson, I've just finished expanding McDonnell XF-85 Goblin, which is now at GAN. Do you mind reviewing it? McDonnell XF-85 Goblin seems like an article you've never been greatly involved in so, yeah, just a small request. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with that aircraft. I'll look at it. Don't know about doing a review though. I have not done any before. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Northrop F-20 Tigershark

Hey there Fnlayson, as you've probably noticed I've been "boiling down" and condensing the F-20 article, in preperation for re-referencing. I hope you don't mind, as I noted it was on your Long Term list of articles to cover. I'm going to knuckle down on it, until I get a bite on the Kestrel GAN or your upcoming work on the Gripen is completed. Sometimes it is hard to keep all four of the ongoing projects straight in my mind! :D Kyteto (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have worked a little on that article here & there. I have a small 100 page book for the F-5/T-38/F-20 family. But it does not cover much of the details in the article. Do what you can for it. Let me know if you need help. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
GAN still not started yet. I did not find anything that needed citing there that I could with that book. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BillCat

Looks like Bill thinks he can just sneak out of here and retire. Go over there and tell him a guy like him needs a going away party. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted something on his talk page about a week ago. He went from Retired to Semi-retired a few days ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously that's your fault. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It's progress. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FAA editing dispute

Could you take an independent look at the editing dispute between BillCat and DeeJay (and myself), and give your opinion on how this styling issue could be resolved? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The FAA article itself or where? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes sir. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So? I saw your comment, is that it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem like a big enough deal to really argue over. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Still would have been nice for you to reply, thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If there was some guideline or essay, I would argue. But I have not seen one. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

747-8 GECAS

Please see here and here - neither 747 nor 777 order are firm. Flightglobal is just overambigious with their news coverage. --Denniss (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I had not dug into it deep enough yet. Yes, FG was over-something there. Corrected wording to say it is an agreement, not an order. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the 747-8 page an its maybe not here yet. Its still firmed by the 777 or the 747. I do not know what time it will begin services this time. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

B-1

[4] Thanks for this... It's not really my usual subject area, and I'm probably being overly-precise as a result. I do try to be cautious is such areas. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling to arms

Same post at WT:WikiProject Aircraft#Calling to arms

If you check the edit history of those articles, you'll see I have already been working on them for years.. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This was more of an advert, please don't take any offence out of it. I was expecting this kind of reply, and I know full well your excellent contributions to these articles. But, I'd like to make a special concentrated "edit window" during which everyone chips in, instead of having one person work by themselves. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I did not take any offense there, just wanted to state my position. The Su-35 article is way better now than a couple years ago when I started on. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for helping me out with various articles, most recently Sukhoi Su-35. I am very grateful for your effort, and I do hope we can get something out of this. Here, enjoy my home-made pie! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Blogs as source?

  • I just tagged the blogspot references there. I don't think anybody in particular needs to be notified now. A lot of those entries appear to be outdoor, aircraft on a pedestal things. So maybe some can be removed as non-notable/minor. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

I saw all your userspace drafts and I saw 2 problems on each of them, which is that there is no lead and normally, in an article, there's not a level 1 heading, and youfr userspace drafts shouldn't have them. Thanks for making articles, ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Does not matter for what I am using them for. They are places to work on text mostly for already existing articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Userspace drafts from August 2007

I just came across Category:Userspace drafts from August 2007, and all 3 pages in it are yours. Are they still needed? Seems a long time to have a draft! :) Also, this edit of yours is unnecessary, as {{userspace draft}} noindexes the page. cheers, Rd232 talk 23:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the "Userspace drafts" section above, I use them to work on text for existing articles. I dated the user pages based on when they were created. On the no index thing, I figured it could not hurt to prevent the pages from being archived. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Need an extra set of eyes here

  • User talk:JetBlast#Question
  • This user has gotten me mighty suspicious of him right from the start, please help if you can because I need to know if there's anything or something that I've missed. On another note, the IP vandal on DC-10/MD-11 and here was reverted, reported by me and has since been blocked for a duration of 1 week wef today. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I have not seen enough of or remember enough of User:B767-500 and JetBlast edits to really say without checking their contributions. Thanks for reporting the vandalism. The DC-10/MD-11 edits are the same old crap by the same people and/or copycats. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Air crash template formatting

G'day from Oz; there is a reason for the 'strange' formatting of Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011, which is used across the air crash templates for all years. However there is currently a discussion concerning the formatting underway at Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011, which you might want to look at and express any opinions you have on the matter. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I had missed the note/legend at bottom of that template. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Apache

Might want to check out the massive edits going on. I haven't had a chance to check them over. I sent a question about one to the editor regarding NVGs. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 00:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen them, but have not studied them in-depth. Please use the article's talk page for any issues. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Northrop YF-23 A-Class review

I've closed the review as successful (congratulations!), but for our review tracking purposes can we count you as a co-nominator of the article? I think the answer should be "yes" as you seem to have been a major contributor to the article, but I thought I'd check with you first. EyeSerenetalk 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine to list as co-nom if you want. It does not matter to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Quick response! I was about to add that I've also asked Sp33dyphil's opinion, but I can't imagine there would be any objections. EyeSerenetalk 19:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for helping me out with GANs and cleaning up some mistakes after myself. You truly deserve praise. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Seconded! Well-earned! - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd rather have some time off from the near constant reviews.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Congrats, I'm totally jealous. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Leopard 2 comparison

Hey, sorry about accidentally re-adding the Abrams fuel comparison. I was going down my watched pages list (I think I didn't refresh it), and it showed the old edit by the IP user so I thought I was reverting that - didn't mean to undo your edit. Just wanted to clarify there--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was guessing something like that based on your edit summary. No problem. Carry on. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a plan...

Greetings Fnlayson from Oz(!), I'm posting this message out of curiosity regarding any future plans you might have for the encyclopedia. Thelast two months saw a large number of aircraft articles being promoted to GA status. I did some of that work, with great help from yourself, Kyteto, and a few other guys. I'm currently winding down the process of expanding articles to GA status, instead focusing on working on articles that are already GA status with the ultimate aim of seeing them to FA status.

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

  1. if, you have any intentions at all, what articles would you like to expand on before nominating them for GA status, and
  2. what aviation-related sources (books, DVDs, magazines, etc.) you have access to. The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if you and I have common sources so we could work on a particular article. I have access to a large book collection, including the Warbird Tech and Airliner Tech series, in addition to X Secret Project books by Tony Buttler. Any comments? Do you think this collaboration would work at all? Cheers! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I can probably work on F-15, F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F because I have a few detailed books at my disposal. However, it doesn't look like there are books written about the F-14 at all. I do have a book about the A-6, as well as the SR-71. For further info, please see User:Sp33dyphil/Master plan.
  • On reviews: The UH-60 article is probably ready for GAN, the V-22, AH-64, A-10 & B-1 articles are about ready for A-class reviews. I'd like to get the F-111, AH-1, F-15, and some other articles through GAN eventually. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"2nd Opinion"

Reference: WT:MILHIST - Spanish Civil War - GA review

I noticed you mentioned this in the first instance, but it isn't really a second opinion required, the GAN page says this:

"If you are unsure whether an article meets the Good article criteria, you may ask another reviewer or subject expert for a second opinion"

making it a (possibly underused) option for reviewers, rather than one for reviewees. I'll leave it as that, anyway, I can't imagine people will complain about hijacking it for this use. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a 2nd Opinion is the closest route GAN seems to have for unusual situations. I had to ask for a 2nd opinion with the V-22 GAN last year when the initial reviewer could not finish. I asked this on the GAN talk page to check. Hope that works for you.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maiden voyage, Maiden flight

Why did you say that? Although 'Maiden flight' has a bit more content than 'maiden voyage', the former is narrower than the latter, which would arguably include every flight on the article, as well as for example Titanic's fateful voyage. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was just a comment based on the length of the 2 articles. Though the flight article is mostly a list. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

AH-64 Apache article

Thanks for the neutral edit, you're a gentleman. And it was a good edit. Bill and I got a bit out of hand, and I'm trying to work this definition out with him. Hopefully we can edit the other article if necessary, and improve things for other missile articles all around. As you know, sometimes terms get error-creep over time, and sometimes were wrong from the start and are never corrected. I improving precision in definitions and usage of terms definitely brings clarity to everyone. Reminds me of another similar situation with what flexible aviation fuel tanks are called (i.e., tanks, cells, or bladders). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome. I tried to add some text back without messing up your changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Old warnings

About this, I normally do that to tidy the page up a little, and in that case they certianly will be old by the time the block expires! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not check for how long the block was. I thought the recent warnings should be visible for evident of bad behavior.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with you, but in 1001 days it's not likely to matter much! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Mrstuv unhelpful edits

Thanks for reverting the C-141 article to it's original state. I was physically right next to him when he vandalized the article. His goal is to vandalize articles to ruin this website's reputation. I suggest you ban him, as he told me he would continue his vandalism. 707 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am just a user. Only Admins can block other users. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
And as if by magic...! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
👍 Like - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, quick hammer strike, HJ. ;) Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for telling me. Also, thanks HJ for stopping him! 707 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Northrop YF-23

This is a note to let the main editors of Northrop YF-23 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 30, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The two Northrop YF-23s

The Northrop YF-23 was a single-seat, twin-engine fighter aircraft designed for the United States Air Force (USAF). In the 1980s, the USAF began looking for a replacement for its fighter aircraft, especially to counter the USSR's advanced Su-27 and MiG-29. Several companies submitted design proposals; the USAF selected proposals from Northrop and Lockheed. Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas to develop the YF-23, while Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics developed the YF-22. The YF-23 was stealthier and faster, but less agile than the competition. After a four-year development and evaluation process, the YF-22 was announced the winner in 1991 and entered production as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The U.S. Navy considered using one of the ATF aircraft types to replace the F-14, but later canceled these plans. The two YF-23 prototypes were on exhibit in museums as of 2009. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Sept. 30. But with only 2 days left, this is very short notice to try and reschedule. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hey, if you want collaborate on something, just let me know. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. See User:Sp33dyphil/My resources Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I don't have time for much in-depth Wiki work right now with family, work and stuff. If you have some particular articles in mind, let me know and I'll try to help. Just post something on the article's talk page about improvements/changes you want to make and I'll help where I can. [offer stands, just ask for help] -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SLS

hello, i sincerely hope that the sls will be a success, but i think its worth nothing the others view surrounding the program (i putted it under alternative view to not bee a knee jerk), since you are lucky and smart to work in aerospace, i wish you will have a piece of the action in building it. if you wish to remove the representative, no pb, but lets find a way to leave the ccdev and propellant depot sentence.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess you missed the notes here about using the article's talk page. Anyway, fair point on the later parts. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

KC-10 loss entry

What purpose exactly does the loss of an aircraft pose to the greater article? A car accident down the street from me a few months ago resulted in the loss of a Buick Century, but I don't see exactly how that is notable to the car's article UNLESS the cause was something inherently notable to the aircraft itself, such as structural defect or design flaw... of which this was neither. Every minor, extraneous bit of information dug up about the subject does not belong in the article. Trusilver 15:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. Follow the notes about using the article's talk page... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a reason I've never been a part of the Aviation Wikiproject despite flying a dozen models of aircraft over the last fifteen years - I've always found no end of humor in that particular project's seeming insatiable need to create an article every time an aircraft hits an especially hard bump in a runway. WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION isn't policy, it's an essay. The Northrup A-17 had a (relatively) enormous amount of deaths due to slipshod maintenance, yet they aren't mentioned because there aren't extremely reliable 75 year old records and the list would EASILY be as long as the rest of the article combined. Which also means that noting a single accident in an extremely reliable aircraft has a number of WP:UNDUE issues as well. Trusilver 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The page provides guidance. Take any further discussion to Talk:McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MilHist IRC

Hi Fnlayson, I see that you're a military aviation enthusiast, and that you've never logged on to IRC; I invite you to jump on [5] and check it out. Just in case you think the channel is quite deserted, you can join [6] to talk to a lot of other editors. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Slug (mass) and use of "lb" and "lbf" terminology.

Thankyou for providing a source for changing "lb" to "lbf" on Slug (mass) page. I don't have acess to that reference but I agree that lb and lbf are one and the same. Its unfortunate that the table in the article differentiates between the two, which was the only source of my reluctance to an unsourced change. I'm currently arguing with brick walls at the talk page of that table. I doubt I'll win because I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor nor am I versed to combat WP:GAME. Some people also refuse to source their claims, instead prefering to preach their beliefs. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Next-Generation Bomber

Good work on Next-Generation Bomber. It's a cogent and appropriately modest article on a speculative project, not the easiest thing to write about.   Will Beback  talk  08:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I hope you can get it to GA. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 08:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
True. The project has gone through an up and down and now back up cycle over the past 4 years. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia better. I don't have enough bandwidth to do much these days but I used to do so and I hang in there. Ex nihil (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Any reason holding you back?

Just in case you have any reason that is holding you back from supporting the AV-8B FAC, you can be my co-nom if you like, because you've helped with the article's development. Despite that, I think that there's something about the article that's bugging you. BTW, thanks for addressing Sven Manguard's comments. Sp33dyphil © • © 09:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly. Try not to assume things based on action or inaction on my part. I think it would have looked better to pass the A-class review before FA nom though. I have not supported it since I'm probably considered a major contributor and that seems to be frowned on. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of the United States

Hi there - there was a discussion on the WP:AIR category page a couple of days ago about this category, and it was agreed that aircraft that didn't fly, and that were in this category, shouldn't be included in the "Fooian aircraft ####-####" categories. When going through the category to implement that, I boldy decided to rescope the category (being its original creator) to be only aircraft that didn't fly - as a number of the projects included in it weren't abandoned, per se, simply didn't win competitions, or whatnot. There probably should be a category for cancelled-after-flying projects, but that should be a seperate cat, I think, from this one. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I've gone ahead and created Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects for these. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
There was nothing about this Abandoned category on WT:Air; only about categories by operator. The text at the top of Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of the United States says "cancelled before entering operational service". Anyway, no problem as long as there's a reasonable replacement like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the discussion was on a subpage ([7]). And I'll try to clarify the cat header, thanks for pointing it out - it is a bit confusing how I worded it! :) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what you guys are trying to do. What's with all the category activity lately? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 03:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying to get the aircraft cats into a workable, reasonable, and accurately-sorted arrangement. Easier said than done; sometimes it's like herding cats! - The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

sorry i missed the year2011 in april2011 , thanks for updating the Mig35 article dBigXray 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
That was a minor fix. Thanks and take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Flying on Maiden Voyages

Jeff, I thought you might find this article interesting.
Kesmodel, David (October 21, 2011). "In This Elite-Status Club, Fliers Seek to Take Off on Maiden Voyages". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 22, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
--Dan Dassow (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks Dan D! -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

 Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!



If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I have not had a caramel apple in years. This makes me want to go find one at a carnival or fair. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi Fnlayson! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

  1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
  2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
  3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
  4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out. 

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've provided much of this here before... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC) [Note: I provided info in late Dec.]

Your edit at "Igor Sikorsky"

(I don't think this belongs to the article's talk page, as it's a minor issue, touches on formal aspects only and doesn't require others chiming in – but if you still want to move it there, I won't object.)

Hello. So, you basically just reverted my edit and then made some changes?

Please read MoS:DASH. The following (among other things) is simply incorrect:

  • "May 25, 1889–October 26, 1972" (correct: "May 25, 1889 – October 26, 1972" – were there only years, it would be unspaced, like this: "1889–1972")
  • "архипелаг - Авторы" (correct: "архипелаг – Авторы")

Also, through your revert, you re-instated many instances where there are two spaces between words in the edit mask instead of one space, like, between "... [starving the engine of] fuel." and "The [close call convinced]..."

You were right to remove the space behind the "5" in "Sergei Sikorsky (1925–) Sikorsky's eldest son", but there should some kind of structuring character behind between "(1925–)" and "Sikorsky's", maybe a comma? ("Sergei Sikorsky (1925–), Sikorsky's eldest son")

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A partial revert maybe, but not a full revert. That's correct on the full date spacing. I was following the year ranges part at MOS:NDASH and not the later details. The MoS allows both single and double spaces though. No need to 'fix' those. I corrrect the range spacing back as you had it. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I consider double (or triple) spacing for no reason confusing to editors, but whatever. Just made some other minor changes (exchanged "english" for "English" etc.). Thanks for accepting my corrections, unfortunately, not everyone here on Wikipedia is able to separate between the subject-matter at hand and themselves, so that they unnecessarily often feel threatend when even the slightest mistakes are brought to their attention.
Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Medals

Wow Jeff, just admiring all your medals. That's a heck of a collection. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I guess so. Thanks and hope you are having a good Christmas season. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Learning something every day

I didn't know about WP:AC/PC; now I do. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good deal. Keep up the good work. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Boeing 767 FAC

Greetings Fnlayson, and thanks for your great help so far on aviation articles and the FAC review of Boeing 767! In anticipation of the source spotcheck, I have gone through the bibliography and checked page numbers for the Birtles, Davies, Eden, Haenggi, Kane, all Norris & Wagner, Shaw, Smil, Sutter, and Wells books. The Birtles book was a challenge since only the Google books limited preview version is available to me.

Anyhow, I saw in your reference list that you have copies of Donald's The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, and Frawley's The International Directory of Civil Aircraft (albeit a different year); plus you may have access to Becher's Boeing 757 and 767 as well? Just in case they ask for source verification. Besides those books, there are 3 citations using Taylor's Jane's All the World's Aircraft and Wilson's Rise and Fall of Ansett which I don't have access to. Anyhow, the other book references, plus the supplementary online references, should cover the vast majority and entirety of the article.

Hopefully there will be more contributors in the coming days to help the FAC move along. Thanks again for your help, and I wish you a Happy New Year!. Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have those. I can check the current electronic copy of Jane's also. I do not have the Rise and Fall book, though. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! For the Jane's citations (which are for the Airborne Surveillance Testbed), I already put in place some supporting references from different sources to verify details. The Ansett book is only cited once (for the 3-person cockpit), and a Google search already turned up several books and articles that can be used as backup refs. Anyhow, it seems that aside from the Ansett minor reference, we should have some access to all the book sources. Thanks again for your help! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I added another footnote for the use by Ansett using the 3-person crew config. United received some early 767s configured for 3-crew, but these were retrofitted to 2-crew config. soon afterward. A reviewer is asking for a source review now. Not sure what to do for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that reference! I have responded asking for guidance on finding a reviewer to do spotchecks; the message was from a FAC coordinator. There appears to be a more stringent standard now which may involve showing scans or copies of references; I have already prepared several. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for your help throughout the improvement and review process; looks like the further ref checks were unnecessary. Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Moved my reply to Talk:Boeing 767#Successful_result. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fnlayson/Archive_5&oldid=1146021276"