User talk:Petebutt/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Petebutt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

AirportWatch

Hi, you need to actually create the discussion page when you nominate a page for deletion. KTC (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! - Done!Petebutt (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Petebutt. You have new messages at [[User talk:Talk:VA-64 (U.S. Navy)|User talk:Talk:VA-64 (U.S. Navy)]].
Message added 14:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 1905

I'll nominate this for deletion tomorrow morning (At the moment I'm getting ready for bed) if you don't in the interim....William 02:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The flight has been AFD. If you want to voice your opinion, go here[1]....William 18:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Done--Petebutt (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

CVV-3 Arcore

Evening Pete: I wonder if your contact at j2mclPlaneurs would be able to say where they got evidence that four of these were built. It might be in the Pajno book; Pedrielli is unusually silent on Arcore numbers. I've searched two pre-war Italian civil registers (Golden Years and the Air Britain one) and can only find one Arcore, the prototype I-DICI. Could have gone to the AirForce, perhaps, but it would be good to be sure. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Meant to add: the only images of the Arcore I can find also all show I-DICI.TSRL (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

They seem to only have the same references as you. In any case I think you could do with a look at this website, it is rather good.

[2]--Petebutt (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is the j2mcl ref I was quoting; I don't have Panjo's book so can't check if that is where tthe 4 comes from. Its not in Pedrielli, so that implies Panjo.TSRL (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Perplexing Statement

I do not understand this statement by you:

"*Britten-Norman needed to install a device to measure aircraft altitude on its aircraft. --Petebutt (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)" [[3]]

Are you seriously claiming that their aircraft do not have altimeters installed on the pilot's instrument panel? Or, were you just being facetious, for some reason? 71.93.90.163 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Me Facetious, never. If you follow the edits it is a sentence i removed because it didn't make sense. i was merely asking what the original author meant by it!--Petebutt (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Merlin

What on earth were all the modifications to the article on the Rolls-Royce Merlin about? Editors spent ages getting it up to Featured Article status and you just went in holus-bolus with no discussion whatsoever. If you want to make such drastic modifications use the sandbox and find out what others think first! ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 19:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It had already been discussed, albeit with no input from me. The concensus was that the variant section was too detailed considering the wealth of info at the list of variants. Ok it may now be too sparse but it is an opportunity to be a bit more restrained.--Petebutt (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Please point me to this discussion where such a concensus was achieved. The last time anyone said anything about there being too much detail possibly creeping in was Nimbus, 29 December 2010 - there was no input from anyone else, and it has not been raised as an issue since then, until suddenly, two years later Petebutt says "yeah I agree with that" and brings out the chainsaw, without discussion and without concensus. Want to know what Nimbus, who raised the original point, thinks of your "improvements", 'cos he was the one who reverted them? This is a Featured Article and it has been a Featured Article for over 30 months for the very good reason that it meets all the FA requirements. It does not need a major demolition job from one editor. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the fuss about, you say yourself that Nimbus reverted them. The point is that even Featured articles can be improved. In this case I went too far with the secateurs, but that is life.--Petebutt (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Glen Davis Shale Oil Works and Oil shale in Australia

Hi, Petebutt. Could you please help with copy-editing of Glen Davis Shale Oil Works and Oil shale in Australia articles? Copy-editing was requested during DYK nomination procedure here. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Beagel (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_85

Hi! I looked at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_85

I decided to watch the Mayday episode. What it said:

There was a rudder failure that happened on the NW flight. Another happened on an Air France flight. Because the AF failure happened the NTSB felt it needed to take action. So the NTSB recommended attaching tail plugs in the event another failure would occur - it prevents rudder from moving too far in either direction - FAA issues Airworthiness Directive which required all B747-400s to receive the tail plugs. Also the program also says that the Airline Pilots Association, in 2003, awarded the crew the Superior Airmanship Award.

So, how do I search the airworthiness directive archives? If I find it, then that means NW85 can be revisited and can be recreated, right? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother wasting your time, there is just not enough there to warrant an article, even with Airworthiness Directives. There are far bigger fish to fry, move on and create another article on a more notable subject!--Petebutt (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the directives. That's because the one made as a result of NW85 was superseded by another one a few years later. In any event, while I think this one will be re-created, are there any bigger fish you have in mind? We can get two or three for the price of one :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Look on Aviation Safety Network and pick one that will pass WP:Aircrash that hasn't been done already, Seemples Yes.--Petebutt (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Dear Petebutt, thank you for keeping the guards up. Merry Christmas anyway! Inwind (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Milbourne brought up the fact that Aviation Safety network don't actually hold copyright over the accident report, so if they actually quote it verbatim then it is public domain, the same as the original report, in the US at any rate, maybe not in the UK as government documents are copyrighted to the government.

Talk:Chitty Chitty Bang Bang#Requested move

In accordance with the discussion at Talk:Chitty Chitty Bang Bang#Requested move, the article on the film has been moved to the title, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Vrabac

Hey, thank you for fixing the article on Vrabac. I'll see to use the template when I translate more. Maybe you'd like to take a look at R-25 Vulkan as well. Nikola (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Slightly different with missiles and weapons:- go to Military History Project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, then Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history, then Template:Infobox weapon. You can then use the main article parts of the Aircraft template excluding infobox, and specifications (included in the weapon infobox).--Petebutt (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What you did looks very nice, thank you :) Nikola (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sopwith Circuit of Britain

I'm not sure I see the point of making a comment about a possible copyvio on the talk page and then performing a copyedit that makes the wording closer to the article in Flight.TheLongTone (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't check the Flight article till afterwards, but you do see my point I suppose!--Petebutt (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I do, & have done a couple of copyedits. I actually started this article a while back & so cannot remember exactly what I've done: I do copy & paste fragments but rearrange & paraphrase in the subsequent editing. In fact most of the description was actually written, I think the only unedited bit was the description of the floats.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes use the same method but try to mix everything around thoroughly to avoid copyvio. In fact 1913 Flights are probably out of copyright by now (not sure), being more than 50 years old (US).--Petebutt (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There are only so many ways to put together a technical description!..Happy New Year.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Only so many ways of skinning a cat. Happy New Year--Petebutt (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your hard work on aviation related articles. ...William 14:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

When nominating for AFD

You should put deletion tags in for Aviation, Transportation, and location(Hawaii, France, Botswana, etc. whereever the incident or accident took place). If the crash involved a military aircraft, then the military deletion sorting tag should be done also. I add these whenever I start an AFD. Like this one[Articles for deletion/Cargolux Flight 7933 (2nd nomination)] for instance. This will make it so much easier for editors to learn about the AFD you started....William 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Itry to follow the instructions in the how to section, sometimes I get it a bit wrong, but i don't recall anything like what you are suggesting. I shallinvestigate.--Petebutt (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The AFD I was specifically referring to was for 1955 Hawaii R6D-1 crash....William 15:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yokosuka I-go Ko-gata

Why did you redirect Yokosuka I-go Ko-gata to Yokosuka K1Y - these are completely different aircraft, as can be seen by looking at Mikesh and Abe. Leaving the redlink lets people know that the article is yet to be written. Can you remove the redirect leaving the redlink until someone can write the article on the I-go Ko-gata?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a slip of the mouse, but forgot to rectify. Unfortunastely it is a bit more difficult to sort hthan you suggest but I shall carry it out.--Petebutt (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Done--Petebutt (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why

Why are you removing aero stub templates from articles which need one still? Rcsprinter (rap) @ 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which articles? Anyway it is not set in stone, put them back if you wish. I just re-assessed them, if they pass even one B-class criterion, (usually structure, but with some exceptions), then they should be start class.--Petebutt (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mustang ACR

Hello, Pete. Are you in a position to address or respond to the comments added here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North American P-51 Mustang? A number of editors have taken the time to review the article. If you are able to address these comments, the A-class review can still be successful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I was intending only to get feed back, plus I didn't realise how much had to be done. I have alerted some of the major contributors and done a small amount already.--Petebutt (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NA P-51 Mustang

Thanks for the heads up on this - I think that there is still some work needed to bring this up to A standards, but the article is definitely heading in the right direction. Cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk

Page moves and redirects

Pete, can you point me to the discussion for the Franklin 4AC page move please? I'm sure that I've asked respectfully before for potential aero engine page moves to be either discussed on the article talk page or possibly better at WT:AETF. The navbox template now does not work properly as the links are broken and the Commons link from the article is also broken. Thirteen redirects have been created today, all pointing to the wrong article. Two more comments if I may, you are not using any edit summaries at all (see WP:EDITSUMMARY) and you are introducing templated citations into articles that are established with the non-templated form (against WP:CITEVAR). Was also puzzled why you moved Vauxhall helicopter crash without reason? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Franklin 4AC does not cover all the engines listed in the article, So it made sense, no need for a concensus on common sense!! The alternative is to remove those engines that are not 4AC and revert the title!

The Vauxhall crash title will be OK while in the news (none or very little already) so if the article persists after the news hype it will need to be titled as per the Accident project, again concensus for the move arrived at in the project page! Edit summariesihave to admit to it usually i press save before thinking about it, occasionally I write one first. I will try to write more. Lately most of my edits have been to talk page banners which I feel don't really need edit summaries and the habit has persisted. I shall bring the template up to date as there are lots missing!--Petebutt (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You moved the helicopter article three minutes before you suggested it might be moved on the talk page, I can't find any discussion on the project pages and there was no edit summary linking to any discussion. We can write articles for all the engine types (not variants), to compress them into a single article with a name not used by sources is not particularly useful IMO. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I have done-good or bad. AS i state above i was simply following project guidelines to name the article as it should have been when first written!! I think you reading too much into it If you go through the history a previous editor .not me, had lumped the engines together!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the 13 redirects that I highlighted earlier and corrected the Commons links. More worrying is the source that has been recently introduced for these articles, it is very clearly a self-published source and can not be used. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The source was not my doing, I followed the links already in the article. Bear in mind that the author did reference each entry on his website with type certificates and the like, so the info was not from unreferenced sources. Which 13 re-directs?.

This is the first redirect, the next 12 follow the time stamp (all within two minutes). The link was changed to Franklin 4 which is itself a redirect to Franklin-4 Vermont Representative District, 2002–2012. Don't wish to lecture but if any one of these links had been clicked to check the target article the problem would have been seen. The SPS source was added to the Franklin 4 yesterday [4] and on creation of the Franklin 6 text [5], also yesterday, neither was there before.

Mr Erickson's site is on a par with Joe Baugher which looks equally good. This source was identified as SPS and firmly rejected during the featured article candidate review for the F-4 Phantom article in 2008 (Baugher's name appears there 18 times). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Aerokopter AK1-3 Sanka

Pete you have been asked many times to stop moving pages without discussing the moves in advance and I am asking you once again, please discuss before moving articles like this one. Your move to a new title contradicted the cited ref and the manufacturer's designation plus you added a bunch of unsourced text on variants to the article. You know that these need refs to be added. Please stop just moving articles without consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that better? Still can't find a reference to prove that the San'ka name carried through to the AK1!!

Thanks for adding the refs, although it is clear that our refs disagree as to whether the Sanka name is applied to the AK1-3 or not. The AK1-3 seem to be the production version, but if the other variants are that different perhaps they should have their own articles? - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not enough difference for own articles, almost indistinguishable apart from obvious features as noted.--Petebutt (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

B5

A photograph or image is not required to pass assessment criteria B5; an infobox is considered sufficent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's subjective, if I think the criterion is met without an image,I would pass it, usually not though.--Petebutt (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

R-R Nene

Hello Petebutt. I do not log into Wiki every day, so have only now seen your message. Have double checked and find that the image in question was of the Sapphire Lancastian VM733. I see that you have deleted this. Have now replaced it with an early picture of VH742 - the true Nene Lancastrian! Regards RuthAS (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks!!--Petebutt (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting the textbook

< Displacement is the TOTAL capacity which id Swept volume + un-swept volume . >

'Citation needed' for this remarkable statement which nobody in the whole of piston engineering would agree with. 31.52.97.94 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it wrong again Dad. What I was trying to say was the opposite of course:

Capacity is swept + un-swept, whereas displacement as it s name implies would be swept volume only. However i will have to find a reference as many people seem confused on the subject as was I when i wrote it. thanks for the heads up. Can you sort it out as you haven't left a link to the offending article.--Petebutt (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Real Thaw

Hi Petebutt, what are your plans for Real Thaw? I noticed that you moved the original article to Real Thaw (military excercise) but the other title didn't have any existing links to it and I couldn't find anything online about another subject than the military exercise. The new title also appears to have been misspelled, I would appreciate that you took action on this, for example by either creating a stub or a disambiguation, so that I know what to do on other articles that have references/links to the military exercise article. Best regards, Get_It (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

no plans just thought it could do with more explanationin the title.--Petebutt (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't agree with the title change because there's no other subject on it that we know, unlike Red Flag, but I do get your point. I don't really like the use of parentheses in this case and I prefer something more like how Red Flag exercise is right now. Is there any naming convention for military exercises? I was looking at the Category:Military exercises and wargames but there doesn't seem to be a pattern. Would Real Thaw exercise be correct? -- Get_It (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Excercise Real Thaw would be even better.--Petebutt (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Flying cars template change

I can't make sense of this edit. can you explain? An edit summary would be helpful in the future. — Brianhe (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

p.s. sorry if this comes across as curt; I'm working on a tablet without keyboard right now. Cheers! —Brianhe (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thought I was putting it in Alphabetical order, forgot piped links, have removed piped links, so you can adjust it how you would prefer.--Petebutt (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking for your input on a matter

Over at the Wikiproject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page [6]. You were chosen by myself because of your past work or input on aviation crash articles. Thank you for the help....William 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

SZD-19 Zefir

There is a "Referencing and citation: criterion not met" evaluation on this article. Could you give me a few hints what facts should be better referenced in it? I would like to fix it if I can... Szafranpl (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK- At first glance the article seems well referenced but the references should follow guidelines, in this case follow the form advocated in the templates in the toolbar.

Step by step:

After the last punctuatuion in the first instance of the sentence / para / section to be referenced place the curor and open the template ( go to cite toolbar, drop down Templates, pick the type of reference you have)
Fill it in and give it a ref name ( can be anything but conventionally it is the Authors surname)

The World's Sailplanes:Die Segelflugzeuge der Welt:Les Planeurs du Monde Volume II<ref name=Shenstone>{{cite book|last=Shenstone|first=B.S.|title=The World's Sailplanes:Die Segelflugzeuge der Welt:Les Planeurs du Monde Volume II|year=1963|publisher=Organisation Scientifique et Technique Internationale du Vol a Voile (OSTIV) and Schweizer Aero-Revue|location=Zurich|pages=34-36|edition=1st|coauthors=K.G. Wilkinson|language=Primarily English with French and German}}</ref>

press insert
on subsequent items to be given the same reference enter <ref name=xxxx/>

In the info section at the bottom of the page it should look like this:-

Notes

References

Shenstone, B.S. (1963). The World's Sailplanes:Die Segelflugzeuge der Welt:Les Planeurs du Monde Volume II (in Primarily English with French and German) (1st ed.). Zurich: Organisation Scientifique et Technique Internationale du Vol a Voile (OSTIV) and Schweizer Aero-Revue. pp. 160–162. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Pietchowski, Piotr. "SZD-19-2 Zefir 2" (in Polish). www.piotrp.de. Retrieved April 8, 2013.
Taylor, J. H. (ed) (1989) Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation. Studio Editions: London. p. 29
"Modelarz" No 4 / 60 (April 1960)

External links

Note: the Notes/reflist section is filled out automatically and does NOT require input from you Remove the no include  as required but do not erase as other editors after you might wish to fill them out!

Seemples Yes?--Petebutt (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have gone throught the ref already and elevated it to B-class but the prose could be better as the editor that inserted the refs semmed to use them as punctuation making the prose very stilted and jerky. Refs do not need to to be inserted after full stops, they can go anywhere!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Date format

Hi. I noticed you added a {{Use mdy dates}} tag to Sir Baboon McGoon (B-17). Per WP:STRONGNAT, isn't standard American military usage dmy? Nick Number (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not by a concensus in WP Aviation. All aviation articles should use dmy with the exception of US military aviation articles which should use mdy.--Petebutt (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft (C)

Hi Petebutt. I noticed that in the past couple of weeks you have made several changes to the List of aircraft (C) article that resulted in a large number of {{citation needed}} tags, each of which had been requested since last fall and had been dated as "November 2012" in the cn-metadata, to be redated with "May 2013", as if the requests for these citations was only recent.

I assume good faith. But I wonder if you could explain what your rationale for doing this was, and/or how such a major change would benefit the improvement of the encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just re-vitalising them so the entries don't get deleted before articles are written or refs found. Be Patient, as I have iterated in the past. --Petebutt (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your move request for Fighter Squadron 92

Regarding this request to move Fighter Squadron 92, note that the target of your proposed move, VF-92, is already occupied by a redirect to another article, VF-74. Could there be two independently written articles about the same thing? I am declining the technical move until the facts can be clarified, but you can resubmit if everything gets sorted out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm WorldTraveller101. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User:WorldTraveller101/sandbox/2 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! I appreciate it, but it is my personal sandbox. This doesn't apply to just you, quite frankly, even the editors I trust the most, I still would not be comfortable letting them edit my personal sandbox. Thanks, Petebutt. BTW, I think u have a butt, Pete WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 17:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Kuwait Airways Flight 422

Hi Pete. As you redirected the page I thought I'd let you know I'm planning an article on this in the next few days. There's plenty of online material so I hope to do something by the latter part of next week. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Carry on. I left the content of the talk page in place, so you bcan just remove the re-direct.--Petebutt (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ok it's done. I couldn't find as much about events once the plane reached Algiers, but hopefully it can be expanded over time. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

B class reviews

Pete (I assume), there's no way those early destroyer articles you've been tagging are B class. I've been working on a few of them over the last couple of days, and there's months of work there to get them even correctly spelt and formatted. I've got deeper concerns about copyvio. Can I ask you to be a bit harsher in future? Shem (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem; there is no reason why you can't re-assess them, as you obviously have more knowledge and resources than I.--Petebutt (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

PWS-22 & PWS-23

Hello Petebutt. I was puzzled by your comment on my talk page. Nice of you to drop by, but I don't understand what you wrote. I suspect that since you addressed me as Halibutt your comment may be intended for someone else. Have a nice day. – Hebrides (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

:) As to your comment on my talk, thanks for the link to Template:WPAVIATION creator, I didn't know it. Seems helpful. As to your specific comments:

Well, it's always better to have a more detailed article than merely a stub, right? After all if someone looks for info on this or that type of plane, he or she is looking for details, not the general info. That's what the lead is for.
As to single article... I thought about it, but decided against it in the end. They were generally similar in shape, but both designs differed significantly. They were not two versions of the same plane (Me 109B vs Me 109E), differing in this or that part only. They were two completely different designs. Sure, with similar layout, but designed with different tasks in mind, and more importantly, one was significantly larger than the other one. They differed much more than the Bf 110-Me 210-Me 410 combo, each with its' own full-blown article while in reality it was still the same old upgraded Bf110 all along.
Variants section - I'll keep that in mind
My own prose - well, it's hard not to mimic the references when you write about technical details. Or did you have something else in mind?
various competing aircraft etc - well, there we disagree quite strongly. I mean I'm not an expert on aviation, but what I lack in many aviation articles in Wikipedia is the context: what planes did this or that construction compete against, who designed it, why and so on. It's just a matter of taste I suppose. Or did I misunderstand you again?

Cheers //Halibu tt 14:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem.--Petebutt (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it. I see you created an article on Kocjan Bᾳk. It seems not only there already was an article on Kocjan Bąk, but also there is no ᾳ sign in Polish. Could you try to merge the two articles? //Halibu tt 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Done!!--Petebutt (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft engines

Your edits produced some reference errors. Please be so kind to fix them.
Cite error: The named reference JAWA62-62 was invoked but never defined
Cite error: The named reference Gunston_198 was invoked but never defined
Cite error: The named reference http:.2F.2Fwww.aviation-history.com.2Fengines.2Fsuper.htm was invoked but never defined
Thanks --Frze (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

All done--Petebutt (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask why you recently removed the bibliography entries with no explanation? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

On the whole, they were superfluous and making the page over-large for little benefit, especially with a link to a page with most of them already listed. If any of them are useful as references, there is no reason why they can't be retrieved.--Petebutt (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello Petebutt! I recently saw that you merged the article Kocjan Bᾳk into Kocjan Bąk. I am here to tell you that even though I have no problem with your merging style, I find problem with the changes you made to the two article's talk pages. I strongly believe the you should take a look at Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. You should tag the destination page's talk page with {{merged-from}}, and the source page's talk page with {{merged-to}}. But instead you just wrote done at the top of the talk page. Because of what you did, both the the articles continued to remain in the category Articles to be merged even though they had already been merged. I hope tat you have understood what I mean. If you think I am wrong or if you have any queries/doubts, you can tell about it on my talk page. Thank You. - Jayadevp13 12:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. It was a special situation, I needed the text from my article to go under the title of the other article, and have to confess I was unaware of the merge finishing touch, thanks.--Petebutt (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem buddy. Just don't repeat this mistake again. Nice to meet you by the way. Regards. - Jayadevp13 07:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your MiG-15 edit on 18 July 2013

Hi, I've noticed you changed the general characteristics of MiG-15 to include speeds at different altitudes. However for unknown reasons, all the sea level speeds are way off: 10,595 km/h (6,583 mph; 5,721 kn) at sea level. Please fix this. ReconTanto (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC) oldid=557602880 this request to move Fighter Squadron 92], note that the target of your proposed move, VF-92, is already occupied by a redirect to another article, VF-74. Could there be two independently written articles about the same thing? I am declining the technical move until the facts can be clarified, but you can resubmit if everything gets sorted out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm WorldTraveller101. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User:WorldTraveller101/sandbox/2

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

Hi Petebutt- I appreciate the time you took to go through the table of the list above. I'm a bit puzzled by some (not all) of the edits you made. Almost all of the Aeroflot incidents are now redlined where they were not, and several incidents have had brackets added even though no page exists. Many have had the aircraft type added to the title when it is already in its own dedicated column. I will continue going through it, bit I may need to undo all the changes and then add a few of them back. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

not finished yet--Petebutt (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay... I'll wait to see the finished result... -Godot13 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

More coming 1738 2007 13--Petebutt (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the time and effort, but all of the new links (heavy use of redirects) may be a controversial change. Mid-air collisions now have two or more incident links to the same article (versus the whole incident title linked to the article), the incident naming convention for the list is no longer uniform, and in a handful of the spot-checked cases at least one incident is linked to the wrong article. You’ve added aircraft info into the incident (intermittently) which is unnecessary as the next column over contains aircraft manufacture and model information.
I know you said you were in the middle of making edits, but this list is in the middle of FLC review and has had extensive comments on the talk page. Discussion regarding the types of revisions you are currently making never occurred In its current state, this is going to take me a long time fix (longer than undoing the changes). On Wednesday (24 July) I will save a raw copy of what has been done, and (again respectful of the time you have put in) undo your edits, and manually re-enter a significant part of your work in a manner consistent with the overall flow and organization of the list. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to make it consistent with re- directs rather than piped links (piped links are supposed to be used sparingly, with preference to redirects).

--Petebutt (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Effort appreciated. I didn't undo anything, I worked around your additions to keep the incident column uniform. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force

Did you personally make this edit? People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force Any way, apologies for the name and shame if it wasn't you. Corella (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, that was me. A lot are irrelevant arent they!--Petebutt (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Your addition to Allison V-1710 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restored my legitimate and useful edit, as it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BAT F.K.27 Bantam

I'm currently putting together an article on the Aerial Derby races, and so came across this redirect of yours. Problem is I'm not sure that it's correct - and there's no reference to the FK27 in the target article Firstly, the list of entrants to the 1919 event [7] has both the BAT Bantam and what is (see next ref) the F.K.27, described as the "Sporting two-seater". Also [8] has a set of dimensions for the F.K.27 which differ significantly from those of the Bantam. And of course it's a two seater, and one with side-by side seating at that. Just wondering where your data came from....I've absolutely zip on BAT aircraft in my library. RegardsTheLongTone (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Lewis in his British Racing and Record-Breaking Aircraft (Putnam, 1970), ISBN 0-370-00067-6 refers to a BAT FK27 two-seat sports sesquiplane derviced from the Bantam which was scratched from the competition as it was not ready.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sesquiplane would explain why the second Flight article has two wingspans listed...maybeTheLongTone (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont recall where from, possibly Janes 1919 or flight. I lie I do recall. There is a website for Koolhoven aircraft at [9]--Petebutt (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled as to why you ask the question when the answer you seek is already in the article. See Jane's all the world's Aircraft 1919!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I ask because there's no mention of the FK27 in the Bantam article, so the redirect is not helpful. If there was a mention, and it was referenced, I would not be asking.TheLongTone (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful when referring to articles, links re-directs etc. that you supply relevant links so we don't have to get the crystal balls out!--Petebutt (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, being lazy. Glad to see there's a F.K.27 article...although the type seems to be missing from the BAT article & navbox. Unless you've changed them since I last looked. Incidentally I found a subsequent reference stating that the type was not actually flown in the Aerial Derby: a cut-down Bantam took its place.TheLongTone (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Major internet problems, so missed a post. The re-direct was in error, should have been lain BAT F.K.27. Info I have also states enterred but not actually flown in the Derby.--Petebutt (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, found that out after I'd started the thread!TheLongTone (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Moves of specific aircraft to disambiguated article titles

I've undone a couple of your recent moves. In my opinion you introduced disambiguation with some where it was not needed (eg Aluminum Overcast) and changed the disambiguator to a more specific and less identifiable one - eg "(aircraft)" to "(B-29)". I think you need to look again at the others you've done, as they also seem to have been moved without good cause. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

ref name=747_O_D_summ

A reference problem

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference ref name=747_O_D_summ + ref name=ucfc747 but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined. Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze ^{> talk} 11:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not me Squire!--Petebutt (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OOPS, was me -fixed!--Petebutt (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Article classes

One of those thankless tasks which somebody has to do, but it is appreciated! I'm unclear about the requisite number of citations. For many of the articles you've done (I'm thinking of the Bristol aircraft) pretty much all the article will either be the relevant Putnam manufacturer book or aircraft type (ie fighters or whatever): how many cites to the same source is appropriate. I'll have a go at upping the cites on the British Army Aeroplane No.1, which from memory was a complicated expansion in which most of the detail came from Harald Penrose's British Aviation: the Early Years. I no longer have access to the library I got this from, but I assume the IWM will have a copy I can consult to do this.TheLongTone (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Purely subjective.If you think there are lots of sources available, then there should be lots of references and vice versa. Obviously with a largely single source then it is sufficient to add a reference at the end of each paragraph. That's how I do it!--Petebutt (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

B-class ratings

Hi! Just thought to let you know that I've downgraded ratings for Bristol Type 146 and Bristol Gordon England biplanes because both articles fail B1 criterion, missing at least one reference (the latter also contained unreferenced designer name in the infobox and not in the prose, adding to the B1 problem, as well as indicating possibly lacking coverage of the article and thus failure of B2 criterion). Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As you wish, as I say above, assessment is purely subjective and can never be right or wrong, just incomplete.--Petebutt (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

O well, off to a library rhat has a copy of Barnes for me, I think.TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Roots-type supercharger a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you on about?--Petebutt (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Roots-type supercharger is correct. Please don't move it to Rootes. Don't do a big move like that undiscussed (Seriously, an "error" like that was unnoticed by everyone else?) Then you're edit-warring, then you're doing copy-paste page moves, then you're changing the name of the Roots brothers who underlie all this. WTF are you up to? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Always been Rootes blowers / superchargers. ONly references I can find for roots are the wikipedia article!!--Petebutt (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So read the refs on the WP article. I noted two on the talk: page already, just because I expected this sort of "But I'm Right!!" response. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As always. But I defend my right to edit and move the article without a so-called concensus!! Otherwise Wikipedia would be full of articles on Camels. The question is why have so many knowledgable people written so many books with it spelt incorrectly. I shall continue to be a WikiDragon and edit boldly, where no man has editted before. seriously the reality check is appreciated.--Petebutt (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

N1 Sala

Evening Petebutt. I've just completed an article on this glider and will soon move it out of my sandbox. Any thoughts about the name? N1 Sala is what Pedrielli calls it but it looks a bit strange. Sala was the builder and I assume the N is for Negri, its designer but am a little reluctant to change it to, say, Negri N1 Sala without some supportive source. I wonder what, if anything, Pajno and Rinaldi have to say.TSRL (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The best I can find is Sala N-1 --Petebutt (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So that's what it will be!TSRL (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney Wasp Junior S1H1-G

A tag has been placed on Pratt & Whitney Wasp Junior S1H1-G, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

(Note that I've already reverted the sole used of this redirect, which was for a nonexistent engine type.)

-- Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight 714 Comment

User Petebutt, FYI: Three people--two admins and one editor (a primary editor of the Tintin articles)--had to work to reverse your effort to move article Flight 714 and then the redirect Carreidas 160. FYI, there is no character spelled "TinTin". Prhartcom (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

High-Pressure Compressor

Proposed deletion of High-pressure compressor

The article High-pressure compressor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Overlap with gas-turbine engines. Move article to gas turbines page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Soko J-21 Jastreb

Hello. Considering you moved the J-21 Jastreb to J-1 some time ago I thought it would be appropriate if I let you know that I moved it back to its original title and edited the article so it says J-21. You can find my argumentation on the talk page. Cheers. --Saxum (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

JetBlue Airways Flight 292

I've removed the old AfD template from the top of JetBlue Airways Flight 292. That AfD discussion closed in the past. If you think new discussion is in order, you'll need to create a new nomination page, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Airways Flight 292 (3rd nomination). —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

MIL-STD-1553 talk page mod.

Hi, I've reverted your edit to the 1553 talk page, which removed the link to the aviation project. I think it's use in avionics merits it: it's still about the most used bus there is, not least because of MIL 1760 and its use on pylon stores. However, if aviation aren't interested, change it back again by all means.

OK, it was a shall I shan--Petebutt (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)'t I job anyway!

Aerial Derby

What infobox would you suggest...nothing approprate sprung out & bit me & I looked at a few other air races, none have an infobox.TheLongTone (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to write our own. I have just had a go but got bogged down half way, but not as difficult as you might think.--Petebutt (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No infobox in "List" articles please

Hi, I've just reverted your change to List of de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter operators; if you check other similar "List" articles you'll notice that an Infobox is not required. The details on the plane (including the Infobox) will be found in the article of the aircraft in question (in this case the de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter). Hope this clarifies the issue, and thanks for contributing. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Elements of the lead and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. There is no mention of NOT including an infobox!! I hope I have clarified the issue!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Polar 3

I'm a bit confused about your content removal on the Polar 3 article where you just removed content in mid-sentence and in the middle of a word as well as the template and the external links. A mistake I presume? Calistemon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm as confused as you are. Thanks for sorting it out though.--Petebutt (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Just a reminder, by reverting you I probably undid what you wanted to achieve as well. You may have to go back and redo that bit. Was it adding a category? Calistemon (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

Hi: today you nominated for deletion all three articles created by a new user, DDCEX (the RAF crashes ones). But you didn't notify them; in fact their talk page was still a red link. Please remember to let article creators know, particularly new editors, who may not know about their watchlist, and could probably use a welcome template to orient them on the notability policy. The creator should have a chance to argue for keeping and/or fix the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have if I had seen that step in the how to section, may be I just missed it.--Petebutt (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, no mention of informing the author!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There is one in the box in the article but only advisory--Petebutt (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The future for WP:AIRCRASH

I don't know if you saw the notices about this debate, but regardless I was hoping you would provide us with your thoughts as part of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents#The_future_for_WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Petebutt. You have new messages at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 684.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- tucoxn\^talk 22:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I would appreciate a response from you. No with an explanation, or a yes would be sufficient. Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 05:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You did not respond adequately to my question. I asked it again using some different words. I would appreciate a clear response (yes you agree, or no you don't agree). Thanks for your help. - tucoxn\^talk 08:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For your contributions to Avion Pirata

	Cool contributor award
	Thanks!!!! Antonio Martin (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Zeppelin numbers

What is your reason for removing the space between the letters & numbers in List of Zeppelins? The numbers are formatted with a space in all the other Zeppelin articles, such as Zeppelin, Airship, German strategic bombing during World War I & all the articles ion individual Zeppelins. It's also used by authoritative sources such as Douglas Robinson's The Zeppelin in Combat. At the very least, this merits discussion: its been there before], when the consensus seemed to be for the space.TheLongTone (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All done. Some had space some didn't. Standardised but went thr wrong way, sorted now?--Petebutt (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No probs, actually weighed in with the above because I mistakenly thought you'd reverted the reversion...TheLongTone (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

More errors

Hello, I'm tabetom. I recently noticed that you had made some changes on the page Finnish Air Force without explaining why. You had changed the Finnish name of the FAF from "Ilmavoimat" into "Ilmavoimat Suomo", and you had deleted the Swedish name completely. I am a native Finn myself, and I completed my military service in the Finnish Air Force. The FAF has never been called "Ilmavoimat Suomo", it's always just "Ilmavoimat" alone. Moreover, "Suomo" is not even a word: the Finnish word for "Finland" is "Suomi". If you made that edit by mistake, don't worry; I already corrected it. Thanks, Tabetom (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

124 Entry reunion

	Longevity
	Pete Please drop me an email? ar1066@hotmail.com Andy Rodger ARodger124 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Air Transport Command (USAF)

Please see the note on the talk page Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see the talk page on Sauer 1800. The certified 1800 engines and the 1800 UL are NOT the same engines. They are in fact very different. Please restore the Sauer S 1800 UL page. SvingenB (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Test Sites

Are you going to supply the page for the link you created? Or was it in error? SkoreKeep (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

??????--Petebutt (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Peformance record?

I didn't know about the New Articles page. Thx. As for the trouble creating, they've been pretty stubby, so no worries. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thx again. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Undid your edit to Tachikawa air disaster.

I just undid your edit to the above article, in which you replaced the word "plane" everywhere, including in a direct quote. Altering direct quotes like that is just wrong—you never change the language in a quote, regardless of what factual or stylistic errors it makes. Furthermore, I don't understand your violent aversion to the word "plane" as a synonym for "airplane". I know of no guidelines in the Aviation or Aircraft WikiProjects against it, and it's not like there is any possibility of confusion in this context with the geometic entity or the woodworking tool. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the quote! As for plane, it is a wood shaping device, tree or flat surface but not an aircraft!!!--Petebutt (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Learjet mid-air

I've tried to get two images to appear where they should and failed. Looks like we'll need to stick with the current format for now. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange that. i'm sure I have used this templat3e before with no problems.--Petebutt (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

von Loessel

Morning Pete: I note your edit on the Loessel glider, changing Ernst to Eugen. Kens has him as Ernst: do you have a reliable cite for Eugen? To add to the confusion, Simons has (p.9) a note on an unspecified von Loessel who was killed in a glider crash at the 1920 Rhön. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC) BTW, Kens does mention Eugen, as Ernst's brother, so he knows something about him.TSRL (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC) It turns out that Eugen was the von Loessel killed on the Wasserkuppe in August 1920, here which seems to rule him out as designer.TSRL (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have looked a bit deeper , but am now even more confused. The Father was Ernst Johann Ludwig Ritter und Edler von Loessl (b. Rio Grande do Sul, 12.06.1865, d. Bad Neuenahr, 06.10.1931), who had four sons,

Ernst von Loessl b 14.04.1894 Killed on the Western Front in 1917
Eugen von Loessl b 1895 Killed in 1920 on the Wasserkuppe

married Margarethe Mohn

Ottmar Hans Julius von Loessl b 20.08.1897 died at Köln, 08.07.1983

married Anna Luise Strack

Ulrich Bernhard Adolf von Loessl b 17.09.1910 died Bad Neuenahr, 07.11.1961

married Lini Diener

The question is was Ernst the father also building / designing gliders?--Petebutt (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some progress. I've looked more carefully at the German and Kens says that "our" Ernst von Loessel was a cousin of the brothers. Both of the brothers seem to have been pilots who died in aircraft. Eugen was in a promising biplane of his own design when he crashed on the Wasserkuppe, according to Simons. Can you find out if the father had a brother? The latter should have had a son.TSRL (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Flight 2 August 1923

It should be stated that both the machines exhibited were designed by Ernst von Loessl, who is a relative (cousin), of the von Loessl who lost his life in a glider accident in the Rhon some years ago.

Despite this evidence there doesn't seem to be a cousin named Ernst from the records I have accessed. So change back to Ernst with a rider that he is the cousin of Eugen. Good bit of detective work!!--Petebutt (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Flight piece is a useful spot and confirms Kens. Always good to have info from nearer the time. The rider looks fine. I don't know how the von stuff goes: could it be passed down the female side, supposing father Ernst had a sister?TSRL (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

He would no longer be a von Loessl then as titles are strictly handed down in the male line.--Petebutt (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just heard from Claude at J2mcl with the same info and an excerpt from the book, The full name should be

Münchener Eindekker.--Petebutt (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Photos of the 164th squadron

Hello! You couldn't help me? Whether you where it is possible to find photos of Argentinians of 164th squadrons RAF which license allows their loading on the Wikimedia Commons know? I will be grateful for any help! --Лукас Фокс (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

replied on your talk page--Petebutt (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

INS Baaz

The Official Indian Navy site clearly mentions it as INS Baaz! Not NAS Baaz! May I know on what rationale you moved it to NAS Baaz? BTW, you should have atleast given a rationale in the move log.... Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle 10:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How odd as it is clearly a Naval Air station--Petebutt (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Everybody knows its a naval air station. But it is named as INS(Indian Naval Station) by IN and we are supposed to name it that way. Please revert back else I would start an edit move request. ƬheStrike Σagle 11:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that you had already done it. Carry on no problem from me.--Petebutt (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine then... thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle 13:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Columbine II

WOW great work and yet another thank you for you! I am considering flying out to the plane soon and doing some current photos for the page in the hopes that the rest of the Aviation community can see this plane restored and presented as it should be, out of the weather and in the hands of the public. Cheers! ~ talk→ WPPilot 15:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC RAF Armoured Car Company was accepted

RAF Armoured Car Company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cerebellum (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

352d Tactical Fighter Squadron

352d Tactical Fighter Squadron Your remark is quite general, so 'splain please. Murray rushed to close the discussion as soon as you posted your change of mind, so I can't respond there (I might both your remarks should have appeared in the discussion).

Who are you?--Petebutt (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. --Lineagegeek (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for not having indivdual unit articles, but bear in mind the amount of useful info: too little - better to merge.--Petebutt (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the cleanup and formatting on Aviation stubs. FlugKerl (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Caudron C.450 Rafale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Caudron C.450 Rafale. Since you had some involvement with the Caudron C.450 Rafale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheLongTone (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Creator of the C.450 article (or his sources) got this wrong. The Rafale is this...among other things. Looks similar, but more wing and less engine than the C.450.TheLongTone (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Saw your comment on the redirects for discussion page, I've also got a C.362 article on the go in my sandbox.TheLongTone (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

They are so closely related it screams for a family article--Petebutt (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that the C.362 & C.366 would make sense as part of the C.450 article, although there is a question as to the best name for the article. Not so sure about the Rafale types. Certainly they are closely related: the NACA report on the Deutsch de la Meurthe races even says something about the possibility of fitting diferent wings of different areas. However there are quite a number of types involved, and a single article could end up being messy.TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Skytrain 500

Are you trying to list this AfD in the log? I'm not sure what's going on with this edit. Protonk (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Brainfart--Petebutt (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Pete, you've been around far too long to think that you list an article at AfD because it needs to be moved and/or cleaned up - far too long not to know that AfD is not for that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Whack accepted, but i genuinely intended to have the article deleted , before common sense took over. I have started to write the article checjk it out now Airship Industries Skyship 500--Petebutt (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Close discussion for merging Airbus A330neo to Airbus A330

Hello Petebutt!

It appears the merger discussion you opened has more or less ended and merging the article has received very little support. I suggest you, being the one who started the discussion, close the discussion on the A330 talk page and remove the merger templates from the two concerned articles.

Rihaz (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Done--Petebutt (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Rihaz (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RK

"Although the geography is off, the rest of the technical details match up and I agree that the deleted article is textbook Ryan kirkpatrick" says Ponyo. No objections to you doing an article - but get the speling rite... Peridon (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy tag removed

on Precious Metal (aircraft) - you need to fill in the fields for the urls, so we can check it. Please see Template:Db-g12 for proper format. Feel free to re-add with all the urls. Although I suspect it might need a Template:Copyvio instead. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What URL field?? using db-copyvio!!, Undo your edit or I shall have to report you for edit warring--Petebutt (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with you that you threaten administrators, my but what big nuts you have. Stop warring and go back to contributing, you are accomplishing nothing with this path. talk→ WPPilot 05:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoa Tiger! The onoly one threatening anything is you!--Petebutt (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

660 Squadron AAC

I am reverting your edit here because I cannot see how it improves the article, overall, particularly by converting an article with 2 red links to one with 6. I also don't see how the article is improved by removing links to the airfelds from which this squadron operated. It contains too many changes to be worth going back through. If you want to discuss individual points, I will be happy to do so on the article's talk-page. Looking forward to discussing this, --Bye for now (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you are still working on this so I'll wait and see :o) --Bye for now (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Try it now, but there is a lot of work required on the content, which is scrappy and doesn't flow well at all. Easily fixed though. Do you want me to have a crack at it?--Petebutt (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'll see if I can dig out some (old/1980s) photos that might help also, --Bye for now (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A pic for RAF Sek Kong:

--Bye for now (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, mostly done now.--Petebutt (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help --Bye for now (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: does the "imageneeded=y" on the Talk page refer to a Squadron logo?? --Bye for now (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's subjective: in my opinion logos don't count, but another assessor might disagree.--Petebutt (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The Defender

Now for something really surreal ... I hosted a visit from Bob Diemert and Chris Ball last year at our local chapter of the Canadian Aviation Historical Society in Winnipeg. There was some apprehension that screening The Defender would make them uncomfortable, but nothing of the kind occurred. Both men enjoyed the silly parts in the documentary along with the rest of the audience and were kind enough to participate in a forum at the conclusion of the film. Rather than being the doofus duo as they were portrayed, they were able to lead the discussion on aviation design, and respond to all questions from a decidedly knowledgable crowd.

I've seen the aircraft sources where the aircraft was called "Diemert Defender" but cannot be sure that was its actual name. The first prototype, at least, was always referred to as the "Defender". Yes, there were two different prototypes made, both now abandoned at Friendship Field, Carman, Manitoba. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

For want of a better title!!--Petebutt (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Aerolot

Hi there and thanks for assessing the article on Aerolot [10]. Could you be so kind as to elaborate more on its shortcomings? You mentioned that something was wrong with coverage and accuracy - what precisely? You also mentioned that there is something wrong with grammar and style and supporting materials. What specifically? {{ping}} me should you decide to answer here rather than at the article's talk page. //Halibu tt 00:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

re-assessed! Maybe I just did a preliminary assessment.@Halibutt: Message text. Petebutt (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Reason

What on EARTH are you [talking about], and how do you expect me to react???? Of the 4 Wiki's you tagged, 1 was questioned and quickly rewritten, by myself as well as other editors. While I really don't have time for trying to kick a dead horse that is already 6 feet under, sure seems like you do, perhaps you can explain your comment in more detail? What do you want from me? talk→ WPPilot 18:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You've just answered your own question!--Petebutt (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Air Cargo Carriers Flight SNC-1290

Thanks Pete for your advise on my first try at an article on Wiki. Cheers, Samf4u 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samf4u (talk • contribs)

Is my article gone forever? May I link it to the Shorts 360 article under the incidents heading? Why can't people have a better understanding of what happened with a photo? Samf4u 03:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is gone. You cannot link to it at all, but you could add an entry in the Short 360 article accidents and incidents detailing the incident and link to that. You're photo was uploaded to Wikimedia and is usable anywhere on Wikipedia. If you want to include it in the Short 360 article, carry on.--Petebutt (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks! I'll give it a try. Samf4u (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC) 02:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gribovsk?

I'm preparing an article on what Gunston calls the Gribovskii G-20. The Cyrillic form is ГРИЬОВСКИЙ, so his version is not unreasonable. I know there are (even for Russian to English) several different systems of transliteration (I once had a long discussion about another Russian name with a Prof of Slavonic Studies at my old University, and it seems no single one of these is "correct" and that they have different strengths). Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian suggests Gribovsky; that article is best seen as a guide rather than a directive, though the -y is common. Gorky, Stravinsky are familiar examples, though I've seen Stravinski, Stravinskii and Stravinskij. My draft uses Gribovski, because that is the form used by the two articles and one redirect already in Wiki. Any views? If not Gribovski, the existing articles would need moving. I'm enquiring as I may write up some more of these types and it would be good to sort the name before beginning or moving them to article status.TSRL (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are to use the Romanisation article as a guide, and if a definitive policy emerges then titles can be changed accordingly. I think it best if everybody sings from the same song sheet, (dreadful cliche - sorry), so in the absence of policy.....

Using the romanisation page ГРИЬОВСКИЙ becomes Griyovsky (Russian name) or Griyovskiy (non-russian name), maybe you have mis-transcribed the Cyrillic and used Ь instead of Б, which would give Gribovsky / -iy, and as Gribovsky was definitely Russian!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I think about the mistranscription - Gunston's Cyrillic names are all in upper case and the font he uses makes it very hard to distinguish the Ь from the Б, even though their lower case equivalents are clearly different. The font used in the Concise OED has a non-confusable capital. I've looked on a few Russian sites and it is definitely a Б. So I'll use Gribovsky. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerget

Pete, are you aware of WP:DIACRITIC? You have just moved all the Clerget related articles with no apparent discussion and no rationale given. I was aware of the other form when creating the articles but followed the diacritic guide (common use in reliable sources). The French wikipedia does not use the accent in any Clerget articles, Bill Gunston and Flight do not use it and surprisingly perhaps searching sources, engine data plate images and original Clerget engine manuals they did not use it either. According to Jane's you have the accent over the wrong letter e (they have it over the second one). Could you undo your changes please, then make a case at WT:AETF, many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Done!--Petebutt (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Compagnie Générale Transaérienne

I saw you moved this from Compagnie générale transaérienne over a redirect. I think this is incorrect. The name is French, and the French generally only capitalize the first letter of first word and proper names, as in République française. Is there some guideline that supports a mix of French spelling and English capitalization? If not, I will start the process to move it back to the form that most (but not all) of the sources use. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved it back anyway, cut and paste. See also fr:Compagnie générale transaérienne. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I must have found all the sources that used capitalisation.--Petebutt (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge

Hi, thanks and it was very supportive of you to assist and make the article meaningful. Please could you advice if this article can be nominated for DYK.

Did you know that.... In November 2014 NASA succesfully tested Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge (ACTE)—a shape changing flap for aircraft wings, that can reduce fuel costs up to 12% and noise up to 40% during take-off and landing. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Aviation tags

Sorry about that. I tried to weed out anything that didn't look right, but it appears I missed more than I realized. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

National varieties of English

In your recent edit to Lyulka AL-5, you changed the spelling of honor to honour. Barring a strong national connection to the subject of the article, kindly respect the existing variety used in the article as per WP:ENGVAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Air Côte d'Ivoire assessment

The article has no {{citation needed}} tags and everything is properly sourced. Why this [11] then?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

re-assess it then!--Petebutt (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would if I wasn't the major contributor to the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Boeing B-52H-170-BW Stratofortress

Speedy deletion nomination of Boeing B-52H-170-BW Stratofortress

A tag has been placed on Boeing B-52H-170-BW Stratofortress, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this really makes no sense at all

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Arado (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft specs expansion

Consider that last "massive bold" edit lanced. Not in the spirit of St George, but in making sure we've gotten the 'i's and 't's straight first. Can we open a discussion on the aircraft project page about this?GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge

On 28 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge (pictured) is a shape-changing flap for aircraft wings intended to substantially reduce fuel cost and noise? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if this is a stupid question, but...

I was just wondering what this edit was for. —PC-XT+ 13:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

just a typo, pasting in the B-class assessment--Petebutt (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the Ctrl-V typos get me sometimes, too. Thanks for assessing all these! —PC-XT+ 13:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've only done a basic assessment, ready for thaose that have an interest in the articles to fill out fully--Petebutt (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It helps to have someone get the ball rolling. —PC-XT+ 13:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add my question to this. Just curious, why did you rate Byron Q. Jones as not having references and citations?--Reedmalloy (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

see above--Petebutt (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the "articles" you have rated are redirects, while others have images, citations etc but you are saying that they don't. It is pretty clear that you aren't reading what you are rating. It would be better to leave them blank than rate them all wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

see above--Petebutt (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you are assigning plainly incorrect ratings to articles, like indicating they don't have refs when they do, or ridiculous errors like this where you assigned a five point rating to the talk page for a redirect. Also you can note in that case and many others you assigned a rating of "b2=nb", which produces an error. The fact that you reproduced this exact error on many pages shows that you were not only not reading the article you were rating but also just cut and pasting the same error on each page and then not even checking what you had saved. Please just stop. If you want to rate articles, then please do it properly: actually read the article and then assign ratings that actually match the article, otherwise you are just making a lot of work for those of us who have to go around after you and fix your mistakes. - Ahunt (talk)

1. something is better than nothing

2. nobody is asking you to correct my mistakes (typos) 3. Assessments are subjective anyway, so if I did read every article and assess them to my criteria, someone else could come along and change it, there is no difference! 4.Errors like you quote will be self correcting because the articles will pop back on the list instead of disappearing. So in summary , all your arguments are false, something is better than nothing!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong assessments are not better than nothing. Doing nothing would be better than adding wrong information. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ADDING anything, just an assessment which is purely subjective. If you wantr me to stop you wil have tyo assess the articles first. Good luck as there are still over 5000 to go--Petebutt (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)--Petebutt (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessing an article as having no sources when it clearly has sources is not subjective. If you don't want to spend the time to do the job properly then please don't do it at all. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, there's no point to assessments if they don't reflect the article. —PC-XT+ 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that this problem has been bothering me for quite a while, months, even years. The assessment process is not entirely subjective, an example page of the various article standards with linked articles is given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. Most editors who follow this get it fairly close.

One or two minutes between article assessment awards strongly indicates that the articles are not being read properly and that an accurate assessment is not being given (some editors can be quite offended by this). If you feel the need to continue copying and pasting assessment checklists then could I ask that you paste in the full wiki code given at Template:WikiProject Aviation without any parameters being judged. This has the advantage of briefly explaining what each parameter means which is far more useful than b1|b2|b3 etc., subsequent editors will remove any redundant parameters which is not required but tidies the pages.

You have (unwittingly or not through typos) assessed articles that I have created with a 'no' against structure (I always create and use standard section header titles), supporting materials (I pretty much always add an image) and grammar which I find the hardest to fathom as I am a native English speaker with an 'O' level in English and reasonable spelling skills! I also always add properly formatted citations at article creation.

There have been complaints directed at the aircraft project regarding inaccurate article assessments, in the cases that were mentioned they were your edits unfortunately. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I consider it quite rude to not reply to my concerns though I have to note that you seem to have taken some of the advice onboard. Please, please, please use edit summaries, this stops editors reviewing your edits to find out what has been done. If you add an 'n' parameter for no or not meeting the criteria you can add a 'nowiki' or hidden comment note as to what in your opinion needs to be done to improve the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that if you are rating articles as being deficient in refs or spelling and grammar, etc, that the best thing is to then fix the article. Second best would be a comment or even a talk page note on what the problem is that you have noted and what needs to be done about it. Please do keep in mind that the aim is to improve the articles. Ratings by themselves do nothing. There is also the problem that incorrect ratings on articles some editors have started or worked on may discourage people from improving the articles or cause them to quit Wikipedia in disgust. It is worth doing right. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued lack of edit summaries

Dear Pete Butt. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Move query

You put a move request in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, but it came out as " Must create [[:]] before requesting that it be moved to [[:]].". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference/citation format

Please do not make sweeping changes to the format of references like you did here, here and in many other recent edits. WP:CITEVAR says that reference format should only be changed after finding consensus. Making mass undiscussed changes to reference format is to be avoided.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Best you read WP:CITEVAR too!! As i was improving the references (mostly) by removing bad refs/links, standardising, (where different styles already in use, which would not need a concensus), and providing suitable refs for bare urls.--Petebutt (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Green Mace

Hi Pete, I've had a go at wikifying Green Mace with regards to structure and wikilinks. Could you check over it again to see if now meets criterion 3 for B status. Thanks.--KTo288 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Typo, should have been a y.--Petebutt (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember being fascinates by this gun when it was parked outside at Duxford--Petebutt (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)S

Thanks for taking the time to rereview the article, I must admit that the gun fascinates me too.--KTo288 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 Crash

Hi User talk:Petebutt, If you can find the time can you help this article 2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 Crash. I think it's worth saving and have done some fixing. I know you could put the finishing touch on it if you desire. Thanks, Samf4u (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done a lot better, I am sure you can carry on in the same vein. Remember it is for an encyclopaedia, not a magazine article.--Petebutt (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encouragement and helping with this article. Samf4u (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Air crash article page moves

G'day from Oz; I see you have recently renamed several articles about aircraft crashes, but you haven't made the necessary changes to the associated aviation-accident-by-year-Templates, such as this one I did after you performed this move. When you get the chance, could you please edit the Templates to reflect any other changes you have made? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I might if I get round to it. The links will still work so it is not that desperate.--Petebutt (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

True, but then the names don't get bolded when the Templates are viewed on those particular pages. YSSYguy (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 1942 RAF Hudson Crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1942 RAF Hudson Crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1942 RAF Hudson Crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. YSSYguy (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Murder by pilot suicide

The article name keeps changing; you've changed it once again without (as far as I can tell) any consensus to do so, although I understand about being WP:BOLD at times. I realize there is much discussion about what, exactly, the article is about, whether it is suicide by a single pilot, or whether other lives must be lost; whether military or terrorism events should be included; whether the emphasis should be on murder, or whether the emphasis should be on suicide; many different angles to this story. While I prefer the title Suicide by pilot I hope that the community can agree on one title, and stick with that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We have just about every iteration covered so far!--Petebutt (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Caudron C.101

Morning Pete, Thanks for your edits re these engines. I'm fairly sure now that the Salmson was not only an in-line radial but a water-cooled one - the sketch of the C.107 in Hauet supports this - though I can't find a decent ref on the 18CMb. The 9M was one such. I've tweaked the text accordingly. The 12Db was a V-12 as you say but a couple of things worry me. First, Hauet calls it a W.12 Db which suggests a W-12. Second the 3-view in ref 2 shows the C.104 (top left) with the G&R but a version with a different engine lower left. The aircraft is not the C.101, 104 or 107 so is probably the 103. They call the engine a Villiers-Lorraine and it is almost certainly a W type, possibly the 12E Courliss. I've still not found photos of the 103 or 107; not even a sketch of the 103, apart from this unidentified side view. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The 18 Cmb was definitely air-cooled, (recipe for disaster in my book), as I have a picture of it showing the cooling fins.--Petebutt (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For a look at the image go to:

[12]--Petebutt (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I,m going daft. It says at the top - water-cooled, but that does not account for the cooling fins!! More research required--Petebutt (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that the AB / Cmbs / 18Z engines were cooled by both air and water. Some photos show what is obviously a retractable radiator (shown in different postions) and those with cowlings show cooling inlets and outlets which are obvious ly too small for the whole job! so i think the answer is Water AND Air-cooled.--Petebutt (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

From flight 25 July 1919 http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1929/1929-1%20-%200516.html

The largest and perhaps the most interesting of the group is the 500 h.p. eighteen-cylinder type 18 AB. The normal output of this engine is developed at 1,700 r.p.m., the maximum output being 550 b.h.p. at 1,750 r.p.m. The makers claim that this is the highest powered air-cooled engine of French design yet built. This engine has a diameter of 48 in. and weighs 990 lbs. The bore and stroke are 125 and 180 mm. respectively, the compression ratio being 5-2 : 1. The cylinder construction of each engine comprises ajsteel barrel and combustion head fitted with a deeply finned " poultice " type aluminium outer head, which extends some distance down the barrel. These aluminium heads are fitted in an extremely neat manner, the exact method of assembly apparently being a secret process. In the eighteen-cylinder engine the front and rear cylinders are arranged in tandem, each pair being secured to the crankcase by a common flange. As they are not staggered but are fitted closely together in line the cooling of the rear group of cylinders would appear to be somewhat inefficient, especially as the fins on the adjacent portions of each pair of cylinders are cut away to allow the axes of the bores to be placed as closely together as possible

Did the engines progress from Air-cooled 18AB to Air and water-cooled 18Z??--Petebutt (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If the sketch of the C.107 is reasonably accurate (it looks convincing), I don't think there the 18Cmb was significantly air cooled. The engine is completely covered apart from small holes in the leading edge of each "helmet" over each pair of cylinder heads. This might be for easy access to the heads rather than cooling, who knows. The AB article and engine are interesting - I didn't know that there were any inline radials that were not water-cooled; it sounds like a recipe for overheated rear cylinders. Strange that the "finning" on the 18Cmb, if that's what it is, runs up and down the head, or rather the water jacket. Even on a slightly better image from an ad, I'm not if it's finning or a spring!TSRL (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the ad; it was in 1926 L'Aéronautique.TSRL (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the water jackets have fins on them to improve cooling, but as you say, without an engine to study there is no way of knowing without contemmporary evidence. Best to go with water-cooled.--Petebutt (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence. It seems that the 18AB WAS air-cooled and the 18Cmb / 18Z WAS Water-cooled. See:-

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1926/1926%20-%200956.html and http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1926/1926%20-%200955.html

The fins on the water-cooled engines are probably strengthening ribs doubling as extra cooling fins, much like many modern high performance car engines.--Petebutt (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Good find, the Flight article, which seems to sort it out. All I found on the French side was Les Ailes 5, 211 p.2. I agree with the strengthening idea; there are clear, shots of water-cooled Salmsons in museums in WikiCommons. They show circumferential ridge, not deep enough to provide cooling but probably capable of stiffening.

Now my only concern is he Lorraine, but only an image of the C.103 will sort that. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiana Airlines Flight 162

Perhaps you can explain why you nominated this article for deletion, since you provided no reason for doing so in your nomination statement. I don't understand why you think this should be deleted and judging by the responses from other editors neither does anyone else. Can you please explain your reasoning? - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The AfD has been snow closed and the closing admin said "The result was snowy keep as no valid reason given for even nominating it for deletion. Meets no deletion criteria at all." I think you need to explain why you nominated this as no one understands why you did that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Just proving a point that many of these debates concentrate on subjects other than which has been nominated for discussion. The nomination, as such should not be in question. De-bunk it, yes, with valid argument, like Keep meets GNG, but the hyperbolae is not necessary!--Petebutt (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you nominated an article for deletion to make a point about the quality of deletion discussions? In this case your nomination was questioned by everyone who participated because it made no sense. No only did you fail to make your point on deletion discussions, but wasting everyone's time on a WP:POINT, even if you had done it in manner that made the point at all, would have been cause for a block. You can't nominate articles for deletion that you know should not be deleted just to try to make some point. There are venues for bringing up problems with processes like AfD, but wasting people's time on an insincere AfD is not the way to do it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Skyway Enterprises flight SKZ 7101

Hi Pete, Just curious why Skyway Enterprises flight SKZ 7101 should be deleted but Philippine Airlines Flight 443 should not. Thanks for your help, always. Samf4u (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I shall nominate it forthwith.--Petebutt (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

free turbine

Wikipedia does demand some common sense, it is just a pity along with civility that you haven't shown any. You typical of the editors who forget that wikipedia is not for experts in a field, but for the inexpert. Your happy to let technical terms go unexplained because you understand them. Wikipedia is as much fixed by the addition of the article as it is by the amendment of another, it may not suit your paradigm but that is not what Wikiepdia is for.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Iwas being civil!!--Petebutt (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a separate article, as all that info could easily be added to the main article. It should be merged, by a merge discussion. - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Concurred, I just thought the issue was so obvious that a discussion would be a waste of time and energy. I think it might be better if someone else proposes the merge.--Petebutt (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious, but it was contested even so. I'd propose it myself, but given my own history with the fourth editor involved, it might not be a good idea either. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia may be a free to edit encyclopedia, but it still demands common sense" is not civil. The term was unexplained when I created the article, now more work has been done on it with examples it could be merged into the turbo-shaft, but really the entire turboprop/turboshaft/propfan set of articles need looking into, structurally they are not good, especially as some turbo props use free power turbines. IMHO Turbo props are turboshaft engines, at an engineering level the free turbine/direct drive are more fundamental differences.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

His comments were civil, if a bit blunt. Nothing wrong with that. However, there's no reason you couldn't have just added the information to the existing turboshaft article without any real difficulty. Its lack of organization isn't a reason to create what amounts to a Content forking. - BilCat (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not just the one article that is a mess but the entire topic props/shafts the lot, not just the one article. Wikipedia is a work in progress, producing a separate article and then merging it in is a valid way of working. All the articles should be merged into a single gas turbine article, which includes Fans, Props and Shafts.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please unmove the XLR-81-BA

I don't know why did you moved XLR-81-BA to Bell XLR-81-BA. In the Rocketry section it's quite clear the policy that you only use the name of the designer if there's some ambiguity, which right now isn't. But more worrisome, is that you made the move without actually reading the article. The XLR-81-BA is the USAF designation. Each engine was named Bell Aerospace Model 80xx. So naming it Bell XLR-81-BA is actually wrong. Please undo your move. Baldusi (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC) And specific impulse can be expressed as seconds or as exit speed (which is why there's the 'convert' operation done and supported. Please undo that change too. Baldusi (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What policy??? Bell Aerospace is/was part of the same company ie. what is commonly known as Bell. As for specific impulse, the two are not able to be converted as I_sp with regard to Mass is in seconds and I_spwith regard to weight is in m/s. As the vast majority of rockets (including the XLR-81) operate in variable or no gravity the m/s parameter is meaningless!!!! So no, no and no!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep insisting on not reading what I write:

a) Naming convention WikiProject Rocketry Naming Conventions.

b) XLR-81-BA was the USAF code. The Bell name is Bell Model 8096, for which I already made a redirect. The article is AIM-9 Sidewinder, not Raytheon AIM-9. You could argue for USAF XLR-81-BA o Bell Model 8096 but never for Bell XLR-81-BA. So go and undo that renaming.

c) Please go take a moment and read the Specific impulse article. The m/s is for effective exhaust velocity. It is a theoretical measurement and its relation to Earth gravity is only given by the need to translate kg (mass) to Newtons. It means how fast can a unit of mass accelerate itself, which actually is one of the definitions of isp. It's extensively used in the rocket world and, for example, the Russians rarely use seconds preferring the exhaust velocity instead. Thus, go and undo that change. It is supported by convert exactly because it is a very valid conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldusi (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

When I first read the Specific Impulse article my brain got it the wrong way round for some reason, looking at the article I must have skipped a line while reading it. Apologies for that, I had it arse about face. As for the naming policy, that applies to rockets and missiles NOT engines. see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Naming--Petebutt (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

About Hannover Vampyr and Hannover H 1 Vampyr

Hi Petebutt,
It looks like we have written two different articles about the same topic, a glider deigned in part by Georg Hans Madelung. They should probably be merged.
What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge away--Petebutt (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help me out vs. deletionist approach on a Thai stub

Hi there! I found your name among Active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Thailand. Could you help me out in defending the notability of M-150 (energy drink) as an admin is apparently unhappy with its notability despite the sources I have provided to try to save the article. If you speak Thai (I only superficially understand it due to my basic understanding of Lao), any source you could provide would also really help and maybe induce some people to modify their deletionist editing bias. I quit Wikipedia for years as I was spending more time defending legitimate edits from rule extremists than contributing legitimate edits. I hope you can take a minute or two to help me out on this. Thanks!! Rdavout (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't panic, there are some references already, just needs more. The article is not in danger of deletion!!--Petebutt (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

List of ROC Group Headquarters and UKWMO Sector controls

I'm confused by some information you added when starting this list. Please see Talk:List_of_ROC_Group_Headquarters_and_UKWMO_Sector_controls#Confused. Thanks. --Derek Andrews (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorted??--Petebutt (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure! The way it was before suggested that Group 28 moved from Barnton to School Hill in 1964. Now I'm not sure what those dates are saying. I can't see any references that help. --Derek Andrews (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

same boat--Petebutt (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft specs with wikilinks

Hi Pete, Can you please explain why you removed the wikilinks from the specs section of Farman HF.14? Every Featured article & Good article I've seen have them including:

Samf4u (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The up to date spec template (Template:Aircraft specs) with automatic conversion and comprehensive specs does not have them, with a few exceptions. They are a bit superfluous, the reader either knows what they are or can google them. Not a big deal. Usually, but not always, I will apply the Aircraft specs template in preference to other out-dated ones when I come across them. I am surprised the I-212 article has them as I wrote the article!! (sorted now, how it passed GA I do not know, should be OK now though)--Petebutt (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for clearing that up. Samf4u (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

List of canard aircraft

Hi,

I notice that you just removed designer attributions to the names of several types in the lList of canard aircraft and reordered the list accordingly. This goes against bot the usual conventions and WP:AVLIST. Rather than align tables with bad article headings, it is better to move articles to more correct titles. Otherwise, do you have a reason for these name changes? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you have it the wrong way round. The article titles linked, follow the conventions. Why deviate?--Petebutt (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Whose convention? The world does not follow Wikipedia. Our article titles are expected to follow everybody else's convention. Changing links to match bad titles is just pushing a guideline (not even a convention) for the sake of it and wasting everybody's time. If you really want to improve Wikipedia, move all those misnamed articles! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor are you being consistent - your latest edit removes a direct link to SM-64 Navaho and replaces it with a link to a redirect page. I think I am going for the WP:BRD convention here - please get this principle properly discussed and agreed at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation before making further changes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the Project naming convention is explained at WP:AIR/NC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

?????????? calm down, you'll burst a blood-vessel. You're arguments are misplaced or incorrect!!--Petebutt (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Naming_aircraft. You might like to post your own arguments there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Technical move

See my response. Wikipedia follows common usage rather than WP:OFFICIAL names. The other examples in Category:Military ranks of the British Army go against your request. If you still believe 'Colonel' should be capitalized you can open a full move discussion at Talk:Lieutenant colonel (United Kingdom) using the {{Requested move}} template. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Air Sedan

Hi Pete, If you have time could you take a look at the last sentence in the Design and development section of this. I know research is not allowed but after enlarging & studying the photo, I'm relatively sure it is a Le Rhône 9J. I know you are an aircraft engine expert so I'd like you thoughts. Feel free to make any changes. I plan on moving it to main space soon. Samf4u (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A reference I use says 90hp le Rhône, which would equate to a le Rhône 9C, but the engine shown is NOT a 9C due to the arrangement of the induction manifolds. It is also definitely not a Gnome engine as these had push-rod in front of each cylinder. I would plump for the le Rhône 9J giving anything from 110 to 135 hp depending on sub-type. Does that make it any clearer?--Petebutt (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the way I figure it, thanks. Samf4u (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For your work in all things aircraft related. Samf4u (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Westland Wagtail

Why are you, when you are making the frankly unnecessary change in between specification templates in this article removing a high quality source (i.e. Bruce) and replacing it with a poorer source (the Jane's facsimile)? You are also making the sourcing less precise - before it could be seen precisely where information came from, while now it cannot.Finally, when you reverted, you made an edit summary saying that you had dealt with my objections, when you did nothing of the sort.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Addressing your objection - I thought you were referring to the Westland book, apologies.
More accurate - possibly but the citation on the endurance was superfluous as the info in Jane's was the same but expanded too, so not needed any more.
If you feel that the Bruce reference gives more accurate info, then feel free to add more citations.
Reference style - I only use the citation wizard, so if you want it in the same style you will have to alter it yourself.
You relinquish ownership as soon as you press Save.
You seem to be taking it a bit too seriously, calm down.

We both want the same thing - better articles on Wikipedia. There are much worse ones out there, we just have to find them and let us not be adversarial about it.--Petebutt (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Khmeimim Air Base

Hi, I noted you changed "Tupolev Tu-76" to "Ilyushin II-76". Here is the quotation from (currently) ref #2:"The airstrip is capable of accepting super-jumbo Antonov An-124 Ruslan and Tupolev Tu-76 transport aircrafts,....". Not being able to find a WP-link I had wondered about the Tu-76. Is there such a plane? Is it identical to the II-76 or is quote not accurate? Thanks. Ekem (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No such animal, an obvious non-aviation author error--Petebutt (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

see:List of aircraft (T)#Tupolev

I understand. You indicated that airfield facilities are "shared" "with Bassel Al-Assad International Airport and only accessible to Russian personnel" - that is a contradiction. The reference said the airbase is "adjacent". Obviously, the Russians have their own compound that is off limits, and I would think that they also do not share areas where they park and maintain their airplanes. They have their own control tower. What may be shared are the runways, but they modified them for their needs, and may not share them all. Realistically, there may be very little "sharing" at all. Ekem (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

10Kh

Please review 10Kh where a recent edit changed an item in the infobox from the first of the following to the second:

engine_power = ca 400 kgp (880 lb) thrust

engine_power = ca {{convert|3.924|kN|lb|abbr=on}} thrust

The convert template is complaining that kN (kilonewtons) does not match lb (pounds) because the former is a force and the latter is a mass. I would fix it but what does the original "kgp" mean? A fix would be to change "lb" to "lbf" or "lb-f" (the latter shows lb_f when abbreviated). Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

done, typo--Petebutt (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

kgp is kilogramforce, - not the default unit, which is kN or lbf, so I multiplied it by 9.81 to give Newtons then divided by 1000 for kN--Petebutt (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. FYI convert has kp for kilopond and kgf for kilogram-force. They are the same unit but have different details:

{{convert|400|kp|0}} → 400 kiloponds (3,923 N; 882 lb_f)
{{convert|400|kgf|0}} → 400 kilograms-force (3,923 N; 882 lbf)
{{convert|400|kp|0|abbr=on}} → 400 kp (3,923 N; 882 lb_f)
{{convert|400|kgf|0|abbr=on}} → 400 kgf (3,923 N; 882 lbf)

Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to W16 engine, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Sourcing? COMMONNAME? Discussion? Consensus?

You've heard of all these, I take it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

VV-16 is accurate. It CANNOT be a W--Petebutt (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't care. We go by what other sources call it. It's called a W. We don't invent new names because they're "better". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too!!--Petebutt (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 1086

Hello, I notice that you did the B-class assessment on Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 and dinged it for the referencing and citation criterion. I was hoping you could give me some additional information or pointers on what you think the article needs to include in order to meet this criterion, so I can fix it. Thanks! Darkest Tree Talk 17:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

re-assessed, But I have to say that the delete discussion was flawed, with too many loony lefty 'lets have articles on absolutely everything' nutters voicing flawed arguments. But, as an article, I have to say it's pretty good, just not needed on mainstream WP.--Petebutt (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much! Darkest Tree Talk 19:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing references

Why are you removing references from articles? Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Because they were dead links with no chance of renewing a path, I tried but to no avail!!--Petebutt (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't remove these, see WP:LINKROT. "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. " - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II is doing a good job of repairing old links, if that doesn't work manual use of Wayback Machine can also fix link rot problems. Give it a chance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

These were definitely dead!--Petebutt (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely dead or merely resting, the references should be tagged as dead instead of being removed. Alternative sources for said info can be sought and used to replace if found. Would you please restore the refs to the article and tag them? Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Islamkot International Airport

I have declined your speedy, because I have found and added a reference that shows this is real, at least that there was a real proposal. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What did you do?

I see you've been removing the Aviation project tag from a number of USAF units. I presume that's because it duplicates the Aviation Task Force in the Military History project, right?

If so, Huzzah! Is there anything in the MOS that calls for this?

If not, why? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force--Petebutt (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ford-Van Auken mono tractor plane

A tag has been placed on Ford-Van Auken mono tractor plane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

????????????????????--Petebutt (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pete, note that I fixed it by targeting the article page, instead of the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Was that a Doh! from me, then?--Petebutt (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It would seem so, but it is fixed now. Collaboration works. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure it called for a Speedy though - someone bright enough to file a Speedy ought to have been able to figure out the problem with a little forethought. People are in too much of a hurry sometimes. - BilCat (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, it was very easy to figure out the simple error and fix it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Flydubai Flight 981

Hi, thank you for your contribution to this article. In your recent edit you have replaced "Aviation experts in Russia pointed out" to "It is noted that there are" and in the description you said "I am not an OFFICIAL expert, nor am I Russian or in Russia". Well, when I wrote "aviation experts in Russia", I didn't actually mean you. The idea about similarity between those two accidents have been voiced out by several Russian aviation experts in the different media reports, including the one of 22 March, provided in the citation at the end of the sentence. Sorry for the confusion. - Daniel (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It was voiced byme well before the Experts!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! - Daniel (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Just curious...

Why was this project talk page header removed? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 16:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Mil Hist Aviation trask force cover it. No need, like calling an aple an apple apple.--Petebutt (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What about Talk:Aircraft carrier...? - ^theWOLFchild 22:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's different because there is no direct corellation with the airports project, so it needs the Aviation tag to flag up on Airports!!--Petebutt (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks!! - ^theWOLFchild 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Insulting your opponents, by naming them "Putins puppets" is absolutely inappropriate and is breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL Wikipedia policies. - Daniel (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't name anybody, I asked a question, to which the answer, now, is obviously Yes!--Petebutt (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Petebutt. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Daniel (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Don't bother sending any more messages as you are obviously bent on excluding any other content in the article.--Petebutt (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Your articles

Please check articles created recently by you. Many of them have incorrect titles:

List of gliders ( Miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( American miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Argentine Miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Australian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Austrian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Belgian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Brazilian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( British miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Bulgarian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Canadian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Chinese gliders)
List of gliders ( Czechoslovakian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Danish miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Estonian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Finnish miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( French miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( German miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Greek miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Hungarian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Indian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Iranian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Irish miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Italian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Japanese miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Latvian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Lithuanian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Netherlands miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( New Zealand miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Philippines miscellaneous constructor)
List of gliders ( Polish miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Portuguese miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Romanian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Russian/USSR miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Slovakian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Slovenian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( South African miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Spanish miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Swedish miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Swiss miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Turkish miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( Ukrainian miscellaneous constructor)
List of gliders ( Yugoslavian miscellaneous constructors)
List of gliders ( 0-9)

--XXN, 22:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

????????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs)

After left parenthesis is not necessary to add a space. And, perhaps in all page titles with disambiguation by nationality, was better to avoid parentheses. --XXN, 09:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is trying to list all gliders not WP:IINFO? Please note that in order for these lists to be notable, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that treat them as a group (WP:LISTN). I don't know if there are any books, magazines etc. on Lithuanian gliders, but if there are, you don't seem to cite them and we can't establish notability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the note at the top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The country lists are temporary any way. The goal is to integrate into the main lists, now that they are small enough to edit!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing as the other two editors. The titles are incorrect and it definitely appears to be WP:IINFO... You need to cite sources. Also, don't create temporary pages in Main Space. Temporary pages go in your user space. Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability of these lists

A discussion on Notability concerns over lists of gliders has been started by the Aircraft Wikiproject. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

New aviation article page

Pete, please note that entries on this page don't get deleted, they get archived in a careful manner. Instructions are at the top of the page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

didn't read them, oh well!--Petebutt (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed Spelling on Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen"

Hey there,

I noticed that you changed the spelling of "armor" to "armour" on Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen", and I was wondering why you did so? According to MOS:RETAIN, as the article does not have strong national ties to an English-speaking country where "armour" is used over "armor", the spelling should have remained in the original American English spelling. Further, if the reason for changing the spelling, you missed an instance of "armored" earlier in the "Development" section that should have been changed as well. I'm going to revert the spelling back to "armor" in an edit I am about to do, I'm letting you know so that I don't come off as malicious in nullifying your change!

If there's some reason I have missed that the spelling should indeed be changed to "armour", please let me know. SygerrikJenrys (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

European subject European spelling / English!!--Petebutt (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your support with Aeroprakt A-32 article! Jin (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Embraer Legacy 500

An article that you have been involved in editing—Embraer Legacy 500—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Embraer Legacy 500 assessment

Hello, you made the last assessment on this in 2012, I've worked on it since, it should be much broader, more illustrated, neutral and verifiable, I think better written but I'm no native speaker :) (BTW, grammar could be deficient). A re-assessment should be welcome! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Please note that not meeting the WP:GNG isn't a valid CSD reason. The closest criterion, A7, only applies to organized events, which the collision of Air France Flight 7 and Comair Flight 6293 was not. Since I do agree that the event is not notable, I've put a PROD tag on the article, and if that's removed, anyone can take it to AfD. In the future, tagging with PROD tags should be the case in scenarios like this unless it's a blatant hoax or a copyright violation. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Curtis Wright

Why did you move the page to Curtis Blaine Wright? That is not his most known name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the page should reflect the name by which he is most known. All of his songs are credited to "Curtis Wright", so it's what the page should go by. If you're concerned about confusion with Curtiss-Wright, then you shouldn't be, because that page is hatnoted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to raise a dab page then for Curtis Wright (NOT Curtiss-Wright)!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TWODABS, one is not necessary since there is nothing else with that exact name. The names are just far enough apart that they can be hatnoted without either moving. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Curtis Wright is EXACTLY the same as Curtis Wright!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no other article on the other Curtis Wright yet. Wait until it has an article before dabbing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem!--Petebutt (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Horten H.I (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

More references are needed to establish notability of the subject involved and verify the claims made in this article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Horten H.I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 01:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Petebutt, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 01:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

List of aircraft re-org

Hi Petebutt; thanks for your efforts to improve the readability/usability of the main List of aircraft. There's some discussion of the implementation happening over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#List_of_aircraft_re-org, triggered by one of the container articles being proposed for deletion. Please join in if you'd like to offer some perspective here. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Cessna M2/CitationJet merge proposed

see Talk:Cessna_Citation_M2#Merger_proposal and Talk:Cessna_CitationJet#Cessna_Citation_M2 --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Improving the Old Bold Pilots Association article

Hi Pete. Thank you for assessing Old Bold Pilots Association. The assessment noted some deficiencies that I would like to try to correct, but I wasn't clear on what is wrong. For example, B class criteria 1, Referencing and citation, is marked as not met. The criteria states "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations." I cited every paragraph with what I consider reliable sources (e.g. San Diego Union Tribune newspaper, Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine, etc). What can I do to improve the referencing and meet the criteria? Thanks very much for your time. Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pete. Thanks for updating the assessment. Do you have time to share your thoughts on deficiencies in the other two areas of Coverage and Accuracy and Grammar and Style? Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all: the assessment is not binding and can be re-assessed by any editor at any time. Secondly I was doing snap assessments in an effort to clear a backlog of article which have deficient B-class assessments see:Category:Aviation articles with incomplete B-Class checklists, one or two slip through the cracks, but it is not a big deal, (some people seem to think it is, erroneously).--Petebutt (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across the wrong way. The talk page assessment itself is not a big deal to me. I was just trying to understand what I had done wrong and improve the article. I appreciate the time you and other editors spend assessing new articles - a mostly thankless job, I imagine. Keep up the good work and thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Skeet Shooter (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong, it is not a blame excercise, just a tool to use for improving articles--Petebutt (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. Please read Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." You are strongly encouraged to archive your talk page now. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 345‎

Your WP:AFD for Southwest Airlines Flight 345‎ seems to point to an old AFD, and should be retitled. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As there is no notable difference I assumed the AfD stands--Petebutt (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Query

G'day Petebutt. Are you taking over Talk:Rogožarski IK-3/GA1? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

renaming: 56th Motorized Infantry Brigade (PRC)

Hey there. Thank you for your helping by renaming the page: 56th Motorized Infantry Brigade (PRC), but personally I suggest NOT to abbreviate the title of the country, because that will break the consistence of all those pages.(see Category:Infantry divisions of the People's Liberation Army.) Regards, Nikolai Ezhov 02:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they should all be brought into line. the bracketed part is only for disambiguation and is no part of the subject's title, so there is no problem turning it into an acronym!!--Petebutt (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 7.5cm PaK49 L/48

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as 7.5cm PaK49 L/48, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 45th Airborne Division (PRC), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 29th Infantry Division. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<<

July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.

August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Semicolon for bolding

I don't disagree with your goal, only with your methodology. If you want to bold something, use the six apostophes method as in the big letter B that appears whenever you edit a page. The semicolon screws up machine readers for the visually impaired.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that but the semi-colons are invisible--Petebutt (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

To us, yes. But screen readers will read them as the character and won't understand that you meant for that part to be bolded. BTW, that's a nice long list of all the variants, etc. Do you think it would be better off as a separate list where you might be able to expand things a little? I'd prefer to keep the main production models and their data here, but the variants might be better off separately.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that they would be editting?--Petebutt (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of the Niemen River (1944)

Hello Petebutt,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Battle of the Niemen River (1944) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Akaflieg Karlsruhe AK-8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FAI. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from messing with the TalkPage of Redirect that are concepts of their own.

You have kept redirecting the page Talk:RocketMotorOne to the talk page where the redirect links for now. It is clearly marked as a redirect with possibilities and I have marked it with the relevant categories. Please stop redirecting the Talk page. You are messing with concepts you clearly don't understand. The redirect is about a rocket engine and the article is about a suborbital spaceplane. As such, the WikiProjects that they belong to are different. – Baldusi (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

??????????????????????????????????--Petebutt (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

RocketMotorOne is for now a redirect to SpaceShipOne#Hybrid rocket motor, but I've clearly marked it with {{R with possibilities}}, since it is about the rocket engine, not the suborbital spaceplane. I intend to make later an article, in fact, I've already added the categories that the rocket engine would belong to. And it is a different concept from the SpaceShipOne. As such, it belongs to different WikiProject than the space plane. For that I've added the {{WikiProject Rocketry}} and {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} tags to the Talk page. You not only first deleted those tags and put the redirect, but when I undid your edit explaining why, you rolled me back. That's very bad manners and thus I rolled back your and I'm writing this. – Baldusi (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the big fuss. When you write the article then set the talk page up as you like!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

First, I did write the redirect. And second, Redirects are a valid category within each WikiProject and a list that is customary to use for writing new articles. I don't like you to mess with my redirects nor my talk pages for trivial and wrong edits. But specially I don't like editors who not only insist but roll back my valid edits. – Baldusi (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Chill out! And Do NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!! Wikipedia does not work like that!!!!!!!!!!! They are not YOURS at all not even a little bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

VH

Please explain your editsXx236 (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

US navy aircraft squadron articles are generally (but not exclusively) titled with just the squadron number. In this case VH-3, but disambiguated with (rescue squadron). I haven't got round to adding the templates yet.--Petebutt (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of VH-2

The article VH-2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for the notability of this unit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 23:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of VH-4

The article VH-4 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for the notability of this unit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 23:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of VH-5

The article VH-5 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for the notability of this unit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of VH-6

The article VH-6 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for the notability of this unit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

To a better 2017

Happy New Year, Petebutt!

Happy New Year!

Petebutt,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. TSRL (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

)

Category:Maybach VL.I

Hi Pete, Happy New Year. I was confused by the addition of a category that you created (Category:Maybach VL.I). I don't know of any aero engine article that has its own category, some aircraft types with several sub-articles do though. I have created type categories accidentally on WP when I thought I was on Commons before, easy enough to have them speedy deleted as sole author. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I have done exactly that! Thanks for the heads up.--Petebutt (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kayaba Heliplane - Wikipedia

Kayaba Heliplane

Kayaba Heliplane Type 01 : The photograph taken by 1954 in Japan. Issued by: public relations section　of the corporate planning department, KYB Corporation (Kayaba Industry) . XXXXXX-nor@kyb.co.jp ＫＹＢ株式会社経営企画本部　広報部　福田　憲道　様

Please ask the specifications about Kayaba Heliplane Type 01 by Japanses Language （日本語）　only！

At least two points , KYB has spec data . Powerplant: 1 × Continental IO-360-AF air-cooled 6-cylinder horizontally-opposed piston engine 180 hp (134 kW )

Propellers: 2-bladed wooden fixed pitch propeller

References or Footnotes

The picture posted on Wikipedia Commons is in the state of wooden 2 blade fixed pitch propeller like the prototype Cessna 170 B. After photographing this picture in 1954, it was replaced with a 3-blade variable pitch propeller.

--Yuiyuasa (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

OK

Have included the ref for the specs
Powerplant completely wrong as the IO-360 did not exist untiln the late 1960s!!
The propeller shown is the fixed pitch. No evidence, as yet, that the variable-pitch prop was ever fitted. As now in the text--Petebutt (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I approve that point.

2. Powerplant completely wrong as the IO-360 did not exist untiln the late 1960s!!

--Yuiyuasa (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Lycoming O-360

I think the Japanese Wikipedia misunderstood about Lycoming O-360 ?? Douyou think ? --Yuiyuasa (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously!--Petebutt (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I ask to the public relations section　of the corporate planning department, KYB Corporation (Kayaba Industry) ,Norimichi Fukuoka(福田憲道) in japamese language ! Since Japanese companies are closed on Saturdays and Sundays, the answers will be converted to Japan Standard Time at least as early as 72 hours.

Date: JST Saturday, February 11, 2017 7:27 PM
To : the public relations section　of the corporate planning department, KYB Corporation (Kayaba Industry) ,Norimichi Fukuoka(福田憲道)

確認事項:コンチネタル　IO-360 ( Continental IO-360 ) は1960年後半まで在しなかった

英語版のノートページKayaba Heliplaneの　talk　によれば、コンチネタル　IO-360 ( Continental IO-360 ) は1960年後半まで在しなかったとのこと。確認したら、確かに間違いありませんでした。

差し支えなければ、ヘリプレーン1型に搭載されたエンジンの型式が確認できればお知らせ願います。

Petebutt氏によれば

OK

Have included the ref for the specs
Powerplant completely wrong as the IO-360 did not exist until in the late 1960s!!
The propeller shown is the fixed pitch. No evidence, as yet, that the

variable-pitch prop was ever fitted. As now in the text--Petebutt (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

1954-1955 と開発年代ぎりぎりですが、ライカミング・エンジンズ Lycoming O-360 の間違いではないでしょうか？

--Yuiyuasa (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

--ゆい奈1107 2017年2月11日 (土) 09:47 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Petebutt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17563 was submitted on Feb 18, 2017 12:30:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Aircraft specsa

Template:Aircraft specsa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Aeroflot 5003

May I ask why you changed the image size from default in Aeroflot Flight 5003 (1977)? It is supposed to be left at default unless absolutely needed. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Air Manila Flight 702, Aeroflot Flight 03, Aeroflot Flight 5003 (1977), and Aeroflot Flight 3739 (1976)

Hi, I noticed you evaluated the article I started, Air Manila Flight 702, and listed "Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met" What was inaccurate? I thought enough citations were provided. I want to fix it.

Also, Referencing and citation: criterion not met was on 1963 Ankara mid-air collision, but I thought enough citations were there. What should I do?

Same question for Aeroflot Flight 03, Aeroflot Flight 5003 (1977), and Aeroflot Flight 3739 (1976). --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, no problems, I shall look again. Generally, news references are not regarded as fully satisfactory as they usually have a limited life on the net. Once the articles have developed more a better assessment can be made.--Petebutt (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

reference format

Why do you keep changing the reference format in articles, forcing use of cite xx templates and removing short citations? This appears contrary to WP:CITEVAR.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Where the type of ref used in the article is unclear i.e different styles, then I may or may not change them to the style that I use, ie. the cite templates! Whatever the style, I will use the cite template for ALL refs that I add to ANY article, as it is so easy to use and delivers a standard format!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Move

[13] I'm not sure what you mean that this is not a plane. The legal definition of a plane in Canada is a winged aircraft that relies on horizontal propulsion and headwind for lift; thus distinguishing it from a helicopter. Could you please explain this move?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Easy disambiguation from Plane - tree and plane - a 2-dimensional surface or plane - a bladed tool for smoothing the surface of materials. Otherwise we would have to Disambiguate EVERY aircraft article that used plane!!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the content, I mean the title of course. And although your bolding of the lead is well intentioned, I think previous edit was better, as no official name was given to this incident and the previous intro was better descriptive. The current one might encourage users to vote for deletion. Something to think about.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention!! Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Accident article naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence--Petebutt (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Nice kitten.

Tallahassle (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Fokker Scourge article

I am having a few problems with an enthusiastic but at times very dogmatic editorial colleague on the Fokker Scourge article. In fact, things have reached a pass where some second opinions might be useful. The specific question he is hammering at the moment is that we shouldn't ever say "No. 1 Squadron RAF" (in spite of that being the usual way of putting it) but "1 Squadron" (on the grounds that the "No." is redundant). I wouldn't object to an occasional omission of the "No.", if only for elegant variation, but he has been going right through the article wiping every instance and claiming that "Wikipedia is not a source" (which is true enough, but nothing to do with the case). The gentleman concerned has been making dozens of other (mostly very pettifogging) changes to the article - a few have been genuine improvements, and most at least acceptable alternatives but some of have made clear text obscure, even meaningless. I have let everything he has done that is at all acceptable stand, but the really bad ones I've had to change - usually with a new version rather than a provocative revert.

I was wondering, if you have a moment, if you'd like to have a little look at the Fokker Scourge talk page (go straight to the bottom if you like) and tell me, either here, on my talk page, or even on the talk page of the article if you want to actually buy into the discussion, if I'm being totally unreasonable and should just give up. This is (for a WWI aviation article) quite a high traffic one - and I'd like to leave it in reasonable shape. At least readable, and plain in meaning (two things I value far above brevity for its own sake). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The correct full title is No. 1 Squadron RAF as you assert. This should be used for the first use in the text and thereafter use the accepted abbreviation, in this case, 1 Sqn. So in the first use - No. 1 Squadron RAF (1 Sqn), thereafter just 1 Sqn.

I hope this will clear it up for you!! Your protagonist is entirely wrong to say the No. is incorrect, it is part of the OFFICIAL name of any RAF squadron!!--Petebutt (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

List of aircraft (T-Z) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of aircraft (T-Z). Since you had some involvement with the List of aircraft (T-Z) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

List of aircraft (N-Q) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of aircraft (N-Q). Since you had some involvement with the List of aircraft (N-Q) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

List of aircraft (N-O) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of aircraft (N-O). Since you had some involvement with the List of aircraft (N-O) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

List of aircraft (E-F) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of aircraft (E-F). Since you had some involvement with the List of aircraft (E-F) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

List of aircraft (P-Q) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of aircraft (P-Q). Since you had some involvement with the List of aircraft (P-Q) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Pitcairn aircraft redirects

Please remember to WP:BEBOLD and fix bad redirects rather than breaking the redirect and exclaiming that it was a bad redirect. I see you already did one thing right and requested speedy deletion of one of my retargets. I will not contest this deletion, as I was merely trying to be bold, which is what the Wikipedia project page I linked says to do. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

On an additional note, in case you ever spot other bad redirects like this that you can't fix, there's a place called Redirects for discussion. Please consider taking these redirects there in the future. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I'm just too lazy to find the right solution!!--Petebutt (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Becker_Type_M2_20_mm_cannon

Hi, I've left some info on the above talk page for an item you created a long time ago. Sorry I'm very new at this, but I thought I should let you know. Thanks very much for your efforts.

Mclougan (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Don't forget BE BOLD. If you make a cock-up, someone will clear up after you without recrimination or consequence, (though some editors STILL think that articles are their personal property, when the opposite is the case).--Petebutt (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blohm & Voss Ha 137 V6

A tag has been placed on Blohm & Voss Ha 137 V6 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Air France Flight 66

Hi, I've moved the lead back to the top but separated it into a new line instead of a new section. The "The incident" section felt like a duplicate of the already existing "Incident" section and fell out of consistency with other aircraft occurrence pages. The opening lead about the occurrence should be on the top since it summarizes the entire page and incident quickly. Limmidy (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

OK--Petebutt (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash assessment

Petebutt: Thank you for reviewing the article I created. I am puzzled about the assessment not meeting criteria 1,2, and 4 and would appreciate any explanation you can offer. On criterion 1, referencing and citation, The standard asks for "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.", which this has. On criterion 2, coverage and accuracy, I endeavored to ensure that it "..reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." I'm not sure what significant facts were omitted and I am quite sure it contains no obvious inaccuracies. On criterion 4, grammar and style, I'd appreciate any specifics on how it fails to be "reasonably well-written." I recognize that there may be some aviation project MOS I did not consult but the prose itself reasonably written. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal, just added the template. I do an initial quick assessment. The assessment doesn't mean anything, it is just an aid for editors, so they can see areas which might (or might not) need attention or re-assessment. You don't have to do anything, or carry on tweaking, up to you.--Petebutt (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumo 204

Thanks for mentioning the Lille 6AS, but would you have any reference? Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Could have been the 205, but the power is wrong for a 205 clone, seeking refs as we speak.--Petebutt (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

more info: [14]

More info 6As and 6Brs were 16.62 litres, same as the Jumo 205, so I had the wrong Jumo, fixed momentarily!!--Petebutt (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Specs table for 1936 Paris salon engines [15]--Petebutt (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Great efforts! Many thanks! Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of UPS Airlines Flight 1307

The article UPS Airlines Flight 1307 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable cargo flight hull loss.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Irish Coast Guard Rescue 116 crash

Unfortunately The importance rating of 'low' on this article for wikiproject death can be read by some to imply the death of the crew were not important. While this is not intended a quick look at the talk page when importance was low looked bad. In view of WP:BDP I've set the importance to NA (Not applicable) which renders more acceptably. I might bring this up a the project page if I have time. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Isotta Fraschini

Pete, would you like to move all those articles back to their stable titles please? Perhaps this image helps you? At the very least major changes like this must be discussed. Of the 15 interwiki links only the English and Norwegian wikis use the hyphen, before your move it was just the Norwegians. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please also stop changing the name in article text until this is settled, possibly at WP:ANI. In cases like this I always look at the parent language articles for guidance, the Italian company, engine and car articles do not have a hyphen in the title. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I was just going to add a note here on this same subject. It seems to me that the photo here is the best primary ref on the subject. I don't think anyone can overrule the company on what they officially call themselves. The company logo, File:Isotta-fraschini.jpg gives the same result: no hyphen. Please revert these changes. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

OK--Petebutt (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to move back the page, but the link to the talk page doesn't seem to work anymore (the talk page where the discussion about the hyphen was, btw). Mark in wiki (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

My fault, I cocked it up,sorry. I tried to revover from it but I failed, maybe an administrator would have more luck.--Petebutt (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Soviet aviation Task Force

Hi! I've noticed your contributions to Soviet aviation articles and was wondering if you would consider joining the Soviet Aviation Task Force (still a work in progress right now) one it is established?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

OK--Petebutt (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The page is now here, but waiting for admin to edit WPAVIATION template to add as parameter. Please feel free to edit the pages as needed, it's just getting started.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.355, Caproni Ca.37

Not Wikipedia pages.Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

????????????--Petebutt (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Boeing XB-1A

Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Boeing XB-1A. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Boeing XB-1A

Please ask for removal. Blanking doesn't solve the problem.Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

just didn't get round to it.--Petebutt (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: Templates and notifications

Hi Pete,

I got your message regarding using the template Template:WPAVIATION creator and leaving notifications on Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) on 3/23. Since then, I have been using the template to create aircraft and I've been leaving notifications in New articles (Aircraft). I finally figured out the engine template today. I kept getting stuck on Pistonspec. I was expecting it to be created automatically when I clicked on it like the aircraft specs and it wasn't until today that I realized that I physically had to cut and paste the code source of the template into that section. The engines that I've created in the past few days I've copied from the edit source of the Hall-Scott A-7 and then modified it for the engine I was doing. The last engine I did was the Aeromarine B-90. Could you check it out and tell me how it looks?

In regards to your message on collapsing templates on 3/26, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you give me an example on one of the pages where I have done this so that I have a better understanding of what you mean?

Thanks, Stuffy Carrot (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent articles , if a little short. If you check them you'll see that i have already cast my eyes over them. when you insert at template keep the format it was in originally thus:

|eng1 name=
|eng1 type=

keeping each parameter on a separate line. It just makes it so much easier to navigate and/or edit later. You can collapse them if you wish, it just means that someone, probably me, will come along and put the parameters on separate lines again.--Petebutt (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You can download a public domain copy of Angle's Airplane Engine Encyclopedia. Google it and follow the link that starts https://cahc-ccpa.com/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view You might get a Danger Will Robinson message but go to advanced and carry on. It will go straight to a pdf download with no problems. Trust me i'm a doctor!! Or if you are a bit faint-hearted of ignoring the warning you can get a text only copy at https://archive.org/.../airplaneenginee00anglgoog/airplaneenginee00anglgoog_djvu.tx...--Petebutt (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

LZ 18 (L 2)

I see that you just amended the specs of this thing, changing the given power of the enginis from 165 to 180. I don't have Robinson (the citation for the specs) to hand, but am pretty sure that when I wrote the article I got this right, and was wondering why you had changed it? I know that with many early aero engines the staed power output increased as the thing was improved (but without it being designated a different type). The renault V8 is a good case. Also, you neglected to change the engine power as stated in the article body. I'll look it up!TheLongTone (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Maybach B-y was originally 165 and the C-x was 180. Ripe for confusion--Petebutt (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

From Brooks, Peter W. (1992). Zeppelin : rigid airships, 1893-1940. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 76. ISBN 1560982284. - powerplant 4x Maybach C-X 180hp each.--Petebutt (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, I bet it's actual output differs from both. I dimly recall that with one Maybach variant it had been tweaked for better altitude performance, which lowered its nominal output; the company merrily increased the nominal output because they needed users to believe they were getting something better. But I see you have altered the text as well to match, which is I think the main thing.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The trouble was the "high altitude" variants used higher compression, resulting in a LOWER power at sea level.--Petebutt (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed.14:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Petebutt/Archive 4. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Strikeout text?

Why is nearly your whole user talk page shown in strikeout text?It's because there is an unclosed <s> at the beginning of the User talk:Petebutt#Southwest Airlines Flight 1905 section. I've put a closing <s/> the beginning of my text for this section, but you should probably move that up to where you might have originally intended for it to go - or remove both tags. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently there were more than one unclosed tag. I put in two extra and that seems to have been enough. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was as mystified as you.--Petebutt (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If I had looked just a little more carefully, I would have seen that the second opening strikeout tag after the same sentence was probably intended to be a closing strikeout tag and would not have fumbled and mumbled so much. But you found it and fixed it, including my extras, so I've just learned the lesson of what to perhaps look for the next time I see a situation like this. Cheers! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Petebutt! You created a thread called Difficulty with an admin on Wikimedia at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

New partners
- Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
Wikimania
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of gliders (B), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Böhm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of aircraft (Ma), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Evaluate Sukhoi Superjet 100 and United Aircraft Corporation

Hey Pete! I was told that you have the authority to evaluate articles so I ask you to evaluate the articles stated in the title: Sukhoi Superjet 100 and the United Aircraft Corporation. These articles are currently C-class according to the Aviation portal and I wonder if you can re-evaluate them since these articles have seen mass improvement recently. Thank you for reading this and I hope you consider. - Josephua (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Anybody can evaluate articles Joseph. The convention is that the author generally shouldn't as he/she is less likely to be objective in said assessment. The assessment is not fixed in stone and can be changed at any time if the circumstances of an article change, or an editor re-assesses it.--Petebutt (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

So anybody has the authority to evaluate the articles to B or C class etc.? - Josephua (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is an informal assessment. Assessment at higher levels is closely monitored.--Petebutt (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Brunner-Winkle Bird

Hi there, when you get a chance would you have a look at Brunner-Winkle Bird? I fixed a ref error, but there's another one, as well as some craziness under "Specifications (Bird Model A)". I couldn't tell if this was something that should be removed or restored, so I left it alone. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I had left a / out.--Petebutt (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

List of military aircraft of the United States

Hi, since you didn't leave an edit summary, I was wondering why you removed this content. Thanks - wolf 16:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to find the right place for it, as the trader was not a trainer, but life has intervened and I lost track of it, thanks--Petebutt (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Speaking of edit summaries it appears you almost never leave them. I didn't see a single summary in your last 250 edits. While they aren't policy, they are a community norm and are extremely helpful to your fellow editors. But with your experience, you already know this. Please try to add something in the edit summary, even if it's brief, to give some kind of outline of the changes you've made. Thanks - wolf 16:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you might find this link useful; H:ARC (your talk page is a massive 249kB). Thanks - wolf 16:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Petebutt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

AirportWatch

Talkback

CVV-3 Arcore

Perplexing Statement

Glen Davis Shale Oil Works and Oil shale in Australia

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_85

Season's tidings!

Copyright

Vrabac

Sopwith Circuit of Britain

A barnstar for you!

When nominating for AFD

Yokosuka I-go Ko-gata

Why

Mustang ACR

NA P-51 Mustang

Page moves and redirects

B5

R-R Nene

Rewriting the textbook

Real Thaw

Flying cars template change

Asking for your input on a matter

See also

Notes

References

External links

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash

Date format

List of aircraft (C)

Your move request for Fighter Squadron 92

June 2013

B class reviews

PWS-22 & PWS-23

July 2013

Your MiG-15 edit on 18 July 2013

June 2013

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

September 2013

Moves of specific aircraft to disambiguated article titles

A reference problem

Article classes

B-class ratings

October 2013

N1 Sala

Flight 714 Comment

High-Pressure Compressor

Proposed deletion of High-pressure compressor

The Wikipedia Library Survey

MIL-STD-1553 talk page mod.

No infobox in "List" articles please

Glad Tidings and all that ...

Polar 3

Deletion nominations

The future for WP:AIRCRASH

Talkback

For your contributions to Avion Pirata

Zeppelin numbers

More errors

124 Entry reunion

Peformance record?

Undid your edit to Tachikawa air disaster.

Learjet mid-air

von Loessel

Photos of the 164th squadron

Your submission at AfC RAF Armoured Car Company was accepted

352d Tactical Fighter Squadron

A barnstar for you!

Caudron C.450 Rafale listed at Redirects for discussion

Skytrain 500

Close discussion for merging Airbus A330neo to Airbus A330

RK

Tags

Speedy tag removed

660 Squadron AAC

Aerolot

Reason

Air Cargo Carriers Flight SNC-1290

Gribovsk?

Clerget