User talk:Rlandmann/archive9

WWII aircraft gun page

I am in the process of writing a WWII aircraft gun page. The page is not meant to be an authoritative source but rather a basic comparison of the various guns as used on WWII fighters and bombers. I have a number of tables and some basic commentary. Currently I have it set as my home page but I would like to issue a call for contributors and editors. Is there a way I can publish a call for contribution? Also how would I move this page so it's an active wiki page? Thank You Idsnowdog 01:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons

Hello Rlandmann - Its great that you add so many pictures on Commons! Can I still ask you to spend a little time categorising them correctly? Many of the images you uploaded have no categories AT ALL, meaning they are hard to find - and if insufficient info is provided on the image page itself, may never be able to be categorized at all.

Feel free (after checking to make sure that they don't already exist) to create categories for airplane manufacturers if these don't exist yet. Or ask me if you have any questions. I may not be able to help you with the exact categories, my knowledge of old planes is rather limited, but I might be able to assist in the technicalities of categorization. Cheers, Ingolfson 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aerial Distributors

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Aerial Distributors, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. DesertAngel 06:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried finding secondary sources for this article but was unable to find anything on it. If you have references on this article, please add them. DesertAngel 06:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jae

A template you created, Template:Jae, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:AradoLogo.png

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:AradoLogo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Boeing F2B

Hey, I broke your arrows in the related content section of Boeing F2B when I edited it. Probably because I pulled it out to a text editor and then pasted it back in. I didn't notice what had happened until today. I'm not sure how to fix it. I imagine it can't be too hard, but nothing comes to mind. --Colputt 18:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:BuckerLogo.png

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BuckerLogo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AD-Y

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article AD-Y, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. B1atv 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I can't remember where I saw the essay on Image copyrights, so I decide I'd ask. Are US National Archives public domain? I just can't remember. I have a few aircraft pictures that are copies from the National Archives. I want to add them to some of the old AEF pages like the Caudron G.4 to finish off the article. I much prefer the Aircraft Articles that have at least one image. --Colputt 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Airlistbox/Temp

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Airlistbox/Temp, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:LavochkinLa-5.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:LavochkinLa-5.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Spade 20:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

EF-111 / EA-6B Airframe lists

I've created a couple of airframe lists for the EF-111A and EA-6B at User:Dual Freq/EF-111 They were kind of side projects while working on the associated wikipedia articles, but they don't seem appropriate as list articles on their own. I was told by some other editors that you have a separate airframes wiki that this information might be useful in. If that is the case, please feel free to take these lists for that purpose. I don't think I'm ready to get into another wiki project right now, but they seem to be appropriate for the airframes project. The lists are pretty much as far as I'm willing to take them, and while I can't make a 100% guarantee of accuracy, I did the best I could with the sources available. --Dual Freq 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Areskaratepe

Would you mind taking a look at the contributions or User:Areskaratepe? AMong other problems, the user is using non-standard article names, and reverts my attempts to rename them according to WP:AIR naming conventions. Also, he has been adding very long lists of Iranina aircraft to the "see also" sections of these articles. I've tried to cut these back, but he reverts these changes too. I've asked for help at WP:AIR, as I've no desire to fight more battles by myself, but till now no one else has responded. I'm reluctant to keep making changes, as non-Americans/non-English speakers often seem to view this kind of action as harassment, and much of his content is good, so I don't want to completely discourge his contributions. (However, his added images are being rightly deleted because of no sources or obvious copyvios.) Thanks for looking at this, whether or not you choose to get involved. - BillCJ 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do these edits seem familar? - BillCJ 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• This one only has two edits so far, but might be worth watching too. - BillCJ 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem in the article

Hi Rlandmann, if you see this, you will see which I'm innocent; I don't put that tag in the article; instead of, I put a tag of "cleanup", because The great confusion of the article; Please, before accuse, look at the page's historic, OK? (I'm innocent ;), and I'm new here)--Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko 20:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

Sent. Also, this is the other page I mentioned in the email. - BillCJ 07:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

First edition up at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Essays/TigerCobra. Feel free to tweak/edit. - BillCJ (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi R

I'm glad to see you're back and on patrol again. I guess that marriage thing worked out? Sorry you missed all of the fun we've had lately in the Aviation Project group, but maybe that was for the best. Can you keep an eye on [1]. Some of the edits made appear to be copyviols and the Lisunov Li-2 may be one of them? FWIW, I may be completely off base here, Bzuk 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Again, I my be waaaay out of line, but the article reads far differently from other edits made by the same editor. Just ruminating here... Bzuk (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Sunbeam Crusader

Hi Rlandmann, just a small query re the Sunbeam Crusader page that you created; I noticed that you included the Handley Page Type O as a user of this engine, but there is mention of Rolls-Royce engines only within the Type O wiki article. Do you have info/refs to rectify this discrepancy/omission? Cheers. --Red Sunset 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

...and there it was right under my nose! Much obliged Rlandmann. --Red Sunset 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

CASA C-223 Flamingo

A tag has been placed on CASA C-223 Flamingo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

no content

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mindraker (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cc2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cc2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Popovich.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Popovich.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The B-17 nicknamed "The Pink Lady"

I think I can see why you moved this page, but there are a number of pages named "Pink Lady" and also a disambiguation page. I think that your move could be confusing, and so I plan to move it again. I plan to move it to "The Pink Lady (B-17)", which is in line with all the other pages about a particular B-17 bomber. I will ask a member of the "wikiproject aircraft" before making any more changes. Also, you have not corrected the redirects after your move, and some of them are giving odd results, for example there are some music pages linking to "The Pink Lady". Snowman (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So should it be changed to "Pink Lady (aircraft)", to save confusion with other pages named "Pink Lady"? There are quite a few B-17 pages that might need changing. I would like to be sure 100% sure. Category:World War II notable aircraft shows a several with just the (plane number) rather than (aircraft). Snowman (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If we had any other pages named The Pink Lady (and it looks like one day we might, because of the musical), but for now we don't, and there's no need to disambiguate it. As a general rule, page names aren't pre-emptively disambiguated, since the idea is that new articles or new edits should link to an existing article automatically wherever possible, without the editor necessarily knowing that the article even exists.

Consider: Somebody writes up an event at which The Pink Lady makes an appearance, and wikifies the comment. The way this article was originally named (in good faith, I'm sure), that's going to result in a redlink. It may even lead to someone writing a duplicate article.

Move it to "The Pink Lady (aircraft)" if you absolutely have to; but if you do, then please create a disamiguation page at "The Pink Lady" and create a redlink to "The Pink Lady (musical)". --Rlandmann (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already several pages named "Pink Lady (xyz)" and there is a dab page for "Pink Lady" on which "The Pink Lady" is listed. I think that "The Pink Lady" was redirected to "Pink Lady", so there were no navigation problems before your page move. I do not mind about the name of the page particularly (pending confirmation of wiki policy from wiki project aircaraft), but I think that the redirects and the dab page should make navigation easy. Really, when you moved the paged you should have sorted out the redirects being the person that moved the page. Your page move left several redirects, and a double redirect which was corrected with a bot. The music links go to the aircraft too. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No arguments there. I moved the page in the context of undoing a whole bunch of page moves made by an editor with idiosyncratic ideas about naming, and missed the chaos this caused in this particular instance. However - there's no reason to remove redirects. Redirects are good - they help when content is merged or split in the future. It's double-redirects that cause problems, and I admit I should have found and fixed that one. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, I have tidied up the two theatre musical links for you, by making them red links "The Pink Lady (theatre 1911)" and "The Pink Lady (theatre 1912)". I think that "Pink Lady" could be a dab page for both "The Pink Lady" and "Pink Lady", in which case the aircraft becomes "The Pink Lady (aircraft)", and "The Pink Lady" is redirected to "Pink Lady". There could be a separate dab for "The Pink Lady", but I think it is less confusing if it was on the same dab as "Pink Lady". Do you think their needs to be two dab pages or one? Snowman (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There! Hopefully that's fixed things up now. As penance, I've also created a redlink to the musical from the existing article about its composer. Thanks for alerting me to the problem! :) -Rlandmann (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You have fixed the redirects, and thanks for giving the page a better name. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Yegorov.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Yegorov.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Rland, the Lockheed AC-130 page has been the target of game crufters for about 2 months now, most relating to Call of Duty 4. The general consensus on the talk page is to kepp the refernce out, yet it is continually added to the article, usually several times a day, despite a multitued of conspicuaos hidden warnings in that section. I'd like to ask if you would consider semi-protecting the page for a good period of time, say 2 weeks to a month. However, anytime you chose would be fine. ALso, If you'd rather not deal with the issue, that is fine to. Thanks for whatever help you can give. - BillCJ (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Copyedit from ny talk page: "Hey Bill - you've been here more than long enough now - how would you feel about an RfA? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)." Some addled editor once tried to do that to me and I put him in his place right away with a sharply directed tongue lashing/licking. R, I have crossed too many bridges and burnt the roads behind them to be considered at this juncture. Maybe when more edits have taken place and more time has gone by with me poking less sticks at trolls, I would think more favourably (I still spell in Canajan) about being dragged to a tar and feathering. FWIW {:¬∆ Bzuk (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

CombatAircraft.com spam

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#CombatAircraft.com spam. I see that the links have been added by

• 76.232.156.14 (talk · contribs)
• 24.192.10.104 (talk · contribs)
• Mooner1972 (talk · contribs)
• Stewartfip (talk · contribs)
• Mooner72 (talk · contribs)

On a few occasions the links have been added by regular users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice/help

RL, could you take a look at this diff by me and the discussion? I know you have some strong opinions on the role of redirects, and are probably more familiar with the guidelines on them than I. Whether you choose just to advise me, or to weigh in on the discussion, is fine with me. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Help in moving an article

I came across the Forty-Ninth Parallel article which refers to a movie "49th Parallel" which is the only spelling for the movie that I have found including the posters that were contemporary as well as modern versions of the movie poster. See:

• Forty-Ninth Parallel at IMDb
• Forty-Ninth Parallel at AllMovie
• Forty-Ninth Parallel at Rotten Tomatoes

Can you change the title for me? I will change all the related spellings that are attached. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for their very prompt reply and change; much appreciated. Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

V: The Second Generation

RL, I'm working on recreating an articles series for the V (science fiction) franchise. One of the pages, V (The Second Generation), was deleted in October as "nn fanfilm". In actuality, V:The Second Generation is both a potential mini-series and a upcoming novel (to be relesaed in Jan 08) by the original series creator, Kenneth Johnson. While the original creator is certainly not a "fan", I don't know if the original page referred to his projects or to an actual fan project. Could you check this out for me, and let me know what should be done next? The page deleted title is the one I wish to use for Johnson's ne projects, but I don't want to just recreate a page that has been deleted, and risk it being deleted again. If the content ofthe deleted page is worth keeping, then I am willing to take it to deletion review, if necessary. On the other hand, if you think just restoring it it the best choice, that would certainly save some time. Thanks for looking into this matter for me. - BillCJ (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Any problem with me re-creating the page with content from the split article? - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable conduct issues

R, I have come across completely by chance, User:172.209.8.246 who had contributed to the James Stewart (actor) talk page but insisted on highlighting the racism of Stewart which was acceptable but reverted as unattributed by another editor, who he then declared was a "pedophile." A quick trace through this anon's history shows equally ill-considered comments and I believe that some admin notice is warranted. I do not know how to proceed but I thought you might (hint, hint...) FWIW, it may be a sock of User:HarveyCarter hiding behind an anon's id? Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

User Penser

Please look into a violation of 3R by User:Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Boeing 747 FAC

"FA candidacy: it meets the requirements of the policies that presently exist." you wrote on the FAC page.

Thank you for your comments. It may not be clear that you support the article being a FA as others clear mark "Support". Whether or not you support it, let me know if you see any major problems with the article.

I am willing to participate in a discussion about style. In fact, I started a discussion in the WikiProject Aviation section to clarify the matter. That would solve the problem for hundreds of articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation (I see that you made a comment so you're aware of it). Archtransit (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

RL, could you check this diff? THis guy is becoming disruptive on the Typhoon page also. His arguments are really getting off-topic, and he seems to have new objections every few days, the crux of which is that the F-22 page is biased, and written by LM. Is there anything that can be done administratively here, such as an RFC? I'm not sure what's appropriate. I have been trying to stay out of the argument lately, so his comments in the summary are a bit strange. - BillCJ (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll kick it around with the others involved, and see what we decide to do. - BillCJ (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

CAC Sabre

Just created CAC Sabre from the Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics/2 but I couldnt find any specs specific to the Australian built aircraft. Any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Milb1 - I was about to suggest we create just such a page! I've added in most of the specs. However, some of the performance figures I have are in nmi/knots, and there isn't space/field for them in the {{aerospec}} template. RL, can the template be tweaked to allow for knots/nmi? - BillCJ (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag, removed, article locked, and dispute talk moved to buttom, BIAS on wiki

• Disputed tag, removed, article locked, and dispute talk moved to buttom so noone even read it, nice work admins here on wiki. The bias is endless.--Financialmodel (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No wonder this wiki bias goes on in the F-22 and Eurofighter articles, when they have an admin like you to remove any mention of disputed article, and then lock article. Wish i could say nice work Rlandmann, but i cant....... --Financialmodel (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rlandmann said on my talk page:"You can look at the page history of the article. I didn't move any dispute tag."

well if you had looked in the history as you yourself suggest, you would see the tag have been removed several times by those the dispute is with, and i have added it and asked for consensus before this tag is removed, since they delete and ignore the critics, which is why its dispute mention "aversion to criticism also". Dispute tag has been removed for 3-4 times now and you have lokced article to prenvent any futher mention the dispute, since its impossible to readd. Dispute discussion is moved to buttom, in short, now the complain will be ignored, and there is nothing to do, noone see the disute and you locked to article, with the result noone will. Perhaps you should have looked into history before locking? You seem to know its a good idea, since you suggest it, and yet you fail to do it yourself, since the removal of the dispute tag was alreday discussed there.

• Rlandmann said on my talk page: "Anyone and everyone is always free to question an article. That's why we have talk pages"

I have filledout pages on the talk pages, all in articleis removed, and articles locked to prevent any update that differ from this group, that delete sourced material, remove dispute signs, and now you lock it with the removed dispute sign, and tell me to fill a few more pages in the talk section, lol. Wiki is like a bad comedy show. --Financialmodel (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

response to what you said on my talkpage:

• to say it in short is that we have a conflict that is regarding "Disputed cost and aversion to criticism", and for this reason the article was marked as disputed, and should be such until backup was sent from wiki economics/trade part, to solve the issue. The current editors have a clear bias and refuse to allow adding cost figures from 3 different congressional agencies that will show the stated cost in UPC, which is the cost figure used by US congress, on the F-22:

Congressional reseach service (CRS) for Congress on June 12, 2007, page 7:

"The F-22A's average procurement unit cost is estimated at approximately $185.4 million per aircraft"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before the Subcommittee on AirLand Committee on Armed Services United States Senate on July 25, 2006, page 2:

"However, because the F-22A has turned out to be much more expensive than other fighter aircraft— procuring 182 aircraft will cost an average of $185 million per plane"

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7424/07-25-F-22.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) before Subcommittee on Defense, House of Representatives June 20, 2006 , page 5:

"In other words, the unit procurement costs increase from $166 million per aircraft to $183 million per aircraft for the proposed multiyear contract."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06455r.pdf

Congress says $185 million is the average price for the F-22 and they always use UPC, because this is what is infact paid by Congress per new F-22 bought. Editors here refuse to allow the adding of UPC next to fly-away-cost, though this will only inform readers about what Congress/us taxpayers pay per F-22. Besides this the F-22 editors here on wiki says 135 is the Fly away cost of the F-22, based on budget estimates picked for one year out of a multi year contract, as shown here: F-22 bias, fanpage manipulation. This number reflect the price for units number 114 to 134, and right now there are only 91 active f-22's as mentioned in start of article. Picking a pricetag for a quantity of 21 makes no sence, and certainly not when we know the first 92 F-22 have been cost 168 million USD, which is 30+ million USD more than stated in this article. The cherry picked price for 21 planes gives a wrong impression, and had this logic been used if even 1 F-22 had been purchased, instead of 21? What happens in 2010 when zero F-22 are in the budget, editors will write its free? We have all the numbers for this multiyear contract, and its normal for sellers to want the largest amount up front, as here, because the NPV is larger. Its finance 101.

And this is some of the reason why the article was marked as disputed (the rest you can read on page),with "RFC : Disputed cost and aversion to criticism". If you had watched the history of article, which you yourself suggested to me, you would have noticed the removal of dispute tag on article. This dispute tag would have informed readers of the problem, with link to RFC, and yet such was removed several times, and your lock (without taking notice of this deletion of tag and "aversion to criticism") made sure, noone will take notice of the current dispute, which has now been moved to buttom on page where noone will find it without link. Had this dispute tag been left, there would have been a situation that would reach for consensus, since no editors like a such tag, but now with the removal and lock of article, no consensus will be found, and "aversion to criticism" have won yet again. These editors will continue to delete anything critical, even when sourced, and if new complains arise, article will yet again be locked. Without a dispute tag, there will be no consensus, since it will just leave the biased material where it is with protection, as provided by you. In short, when you allow them to delete disputa tag, and protect their disputed work, they will have no motivation for consensus, and the bias continues. I hope that explained my point....--Financialmodel (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And that was the short version, regarding only some of it, the comments on the written material in the article is presented under criticism, but just get link from RFC : Disputed cost and aversion to criticism" on the F-22 article --Financialmodel (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, but the continues removal of the tag, just goes to prove the point of "RFC : Disputed cost and aversion to criticism", read "aversion to criticism". I have only mentioned a little here such as the price, there is the a lot more, but no need to repeat all, i refer to the links provided in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F-22_Raptor#RFC_:_Disputed_cost_and_aversion_to_criticism:

13 RFC : Disputed cost and aversion to criticism]. But the Procurement of this project have meant the planned numbers have been reduced fom 750+ to only 183, because the cost have exploded, yet article does not state this clearly. Just read US Congress papers from GAO, or Senator John McCain, "McCAIN INTRODUCES THE DEFENSE ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2007", May 22, 2007:

"As stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars we must assure the public that we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in the field.

"The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet fighters, now we can only afford 183.

[2]

The cost overruns of the F-22 project are huge, and you can watch it in almost every GAO report since the start of the project. The article dont really explain this, neither does it explain the real result of this. How is this descriped in Congress by GAO:

Summary: Based on our review, in our opinion, the DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program. The Air Force’s current stated “need” is for 381 F-22As to satisfy air-to-air missions and recently added requirements for more robust ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities. However, because of past cost overruns and current budget constraints, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) states that it can now afford only 183 F-22As. This leaves a 198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable [3]

So cost have gone up, because of the huge budget overruns in this procurement project, and you now cant afford more than 183 F-22's, which leaves a gab on 198-aircraft between what the USAF gets and what it wants. The article's "Procurement" section runs over this very easy, and instead goes to mention the great benefits of futher buys, and how cheap it is:

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $137 million; decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less than $117 million and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases

• "less than $117 million ", with a refference to USAF (which lobby hard for more than 183 F-22's), and the tittle of source is:

"F-22 excels at establishing air dominance.".

As already stated the extra cost for the US Congress and the US taxpayer is the UPC, which the 3 Congressional agencies linked to above tell us is about 185 million per aircraft e.g.:

"The F-22A's average procurement unit cost is estimated at approximately $185.4 million per aircraft".

True the manufacture like to refer to the Fly away cost, because such costs are lower, but the $137 million mentioned in article is, as already explained, the payment for the delivery of raptor number 114 to 134, in short a cherry picked number from a single year in a USAF budget estimates (difference between payments of cost also, which is why RFC is made to economics/trade section), which is just part of the multiyear contract. But this description and use of quote from USAF in article goes one step futher, it now puts it at, less than $117 million, AND "continue to drop". In short i dispute fair use of cost, and i dispute the current description of procurement, which contains almost no criticism, but instead quotes from USAF "F-22 excels at establishing air dominance.", that tells the reader about how cheap extra F-22's can be bought, while US Congress tells USAF it cant get the 381 F-22As it wants as a minimum, but that it will have to do with 183, in short, a "198-aircraft gap between the Air Force’s stated need and what is currently affordable". I dispute the fly away cost used here, i dispute the refusal to allow adding UPC cost used by Congress, and i dispute the fair use of sources, when you know there is a clear conflict between USAF and Congress on the numbers of procured F-22's because of cost, futher more i dispute the article as such which seems to have an aversion to criticism, and the several removals of the dispute tag jsut goes to prove this. This resulted in the article being locked without a the needed dispute tag, which had been needed to gain consensus, now when article is locked with the disputed material and no dispute tag, the disputed material is protected, and the biased editors have no reason to stop their vandalism deletion critical material, nor to seeks any consensus, since their material is protected --Financialmodel (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC Eurofighter Typhoon

R, can you instruct me on the proper process for an RFC? I have never asked for this before but I have tried my utmost to resolve a content dispute on the Eurofighter Typhoon article, and after being rebuffed on a number of occasions, I clumsily started an RfC. Did I do that right? I first put it into a 3R Admin Bulletin Board (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR), then was told it should be in the ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) before being shuffled along to the RfC page (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment‎)[4]. Although there continues to be a content issue, another more serious issue has emerged in the discussion "strings" of the Typhoon, F-22 Raptor and Fourth generation jet fighter articles. If you have time, I would appreciate your opinion on the proceedings that have taken place, firstly, did I do the RfC correctly? What else needs to be done? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Whoops, I should have read the notes above. If you are trying to resolve the issue of conduct, it may not be opportune to initiate any other actions until all efforts at moderation and help are exhausted. FWIW, I think any other process can wait for the time being. A sense of {WP:Panic} does not need to be introduced. Bzuk (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

R, look at the following from Mark Kaiser who had already dealt with the content issue previously: Here's a link to my now archived post critiquing it. Bzuk (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Sky-Trac and 7-series Generally

Greetings, Rlandmann, and thanks for the kind words and for the addition of the Sky-Trac article (and your initial tidying of the Lancer article a few months back). I didn't mean to take so long to reply. I know I'm not telling you anything new when I say that the 7-series aircraft present some real challenges: 5 different owners, 4 different manufacturers, designs from each of 3 of those manufacturers, in some cases multiple specifications for the same model. It's a real nightmare. I had put the ECA, GCAA, GCBC, and KCAB together in the Citabria article because they were all aerobatic and were all marketed under the name Citabria. My familiarity with the series is weakest in the area of the GC, GCA, GCB, and GCBA, but upon inspection, I think that the GCB has some claim to be at least mentioned among the Citabrias, as it could be modified for operation in the Acrobatic Category; unlike the other aerobatic-capable models, though, it is not certified in the Acrobatic Category, nor was it marketed as a Citabria (so far as I have found).

The Champ article would, and I think logically, include all the models produced by Aeronca: AC, BCM, CCM, DC, EC. (If we were to follow the Cessna 150/152 approach each of these variants would have its own article. On the other hand, the 120 and 140 are combined. The DC-9, MD-80 and 90, and Boeing 717 have similar issues to the 7-series, in terms of models and manufacturers, and this is reflected in the article arrangement—some models separate, some combined; these do, though, seem to break down by manufacturer. At the same time, I'm not sure it would work to have three articles, one for each manufacturer's version, for the 7EC.) In my mind, there is sufficient reason to add into the Champ article the other close variants: FC, JC, ACA. They're similarly engined, though the FC and JC have different landing gear. My own thinking is that the GC, GCA, GCB, GCBA, HC, JC, and KC all seem to have something in common—at least insofar as they are the larger-engined, non-aerobatic siblings of the "Champs"—and could therefore end up together in one article. But nothing in the letter designations nor in Champion's naming choices justifies this, and thus there's no obvious name for such an article.

That's a really long way of saying that I'm pleased as can be that someone else is also looking out for the lesser-known Champion models, that I think we definitely need to go in some direction with combining or dividing these articles (but have found neither good general guidance nor consistent practice to follow), and that I have more observations than suggestions at this point. I do, though, appreciate the conversation. —SkipperPilot (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Aerospecs Template

Just had a problem with CAC Sabre that if you use the armament field the page thinks it is a section and confuses all the edit buttons. Just checked another article that uses armament Consolidated P2Y and it does the same thing. As you created the template any help or advise appreciated. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Aircontent

RL, this isn't a pressing problem, just a tweak request: In Template:Aircontent, the company navboxes are placed after the "See also" field. If there is no other content in "See also", the "See also heading still shows. Some editors have been known to delete the "See also" field from the aircraft page so that it won't show, while others have commented it out. (Example diff - view as edit) Is there a way to have the navboxes being present not trigger the "See also" heading? Perhaps we could have a field for navboxes, but one that does not show as a heading. Just asking. - BillCJ (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBOLD

Hi Rlandmann (and Season's Greetings BTW), I'm a little confused about what should be a simple guideline re bolding; I'm certain that I've read somewhere that the first mention of an aircraft variant within an article section should be emboldened, but I've searched all over and come up with zilch! WP:MOSBOLD advocates bolding of commonly used terms for the subject in the first paragraph of the article only. The problem is that (as with the F-4 Phantom II) there can be many variants (other commonly used terms for the subject) that don't get a mention until well into the article, and then perhaps turn up again several (sometimes lengthy) sections later by which point the first instance could have been forgotten or passed over. I'm happy to go through the F-4 article and remove the bolding even though, for the aforementioned reasons, I feel that it "works" as it stands; but I'd like your comments as one of the more seasoned and experienced contributors to aircraft articles before doing so. Many thanks. --Red Sunset 11:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've removed all bolding on variants later in the text and replaced other bolding with quotation marks; however, I am prepared to re-do anything should it be required and would still appreciate your comments. Cheers --Red Sunset 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Rl; it seems we are in complete agreement that variants ought to be emboldened all through an article for all the reasons you mention. It might be a case of WP:IAR to satisfy our (aircraft nuts) requirements/preferences, but to keep the F-4 FA status IMHO it would be advisable to adhere as closely as possible to WP:MOS to keep the sticklers happy—at least until the issue has blown over at which point perhaps "normal service can be resumed"! So for the time being, I'm going to leave the bolding out of the article and see how other editors respond. --Red Sunset 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Trulystand700

Something about this user seemed familiar, and I finally figured out what. See my post on User talk:NrDg#Possible sock activity (an admin) for details. - BillCJ (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Volume 2 missing aircraft

Try my best to help - some of these are getting a bit obscure and hard to find proper references ! MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry is JAE the 1980 version - Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, M J H Taylor (Editor), 1980, Jane's Publishing Company ? MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK you've sorted it - thanks! MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vostok1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Vostok1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 18:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

More edit summary problems

ACAC ARJ21. Extra edit buttons have appeared in either the Specs or Related content sections. I'm flumoxed! - BillCJ (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Volynov.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Volynov.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dobrovolsky.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dobrovolsky.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

James Stewart (actor)

The talk page and main article appears to be under attack by a banned editor who is employing meat/scock puppets to insert racist comments in the talk page and a controversial new section not agreed upon (consensus ruled against it according to the discussion). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of CRDA CANT 18

A tag has been placed on CRDA CANT 18 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Curtiss-Wright CW-22 (SNC Falcon)

Just created Curtiss-Wright CW-22 (sorry moved on to page 3!) and was just checking links and redirects and discovered that Curtiss-Wright Model 22 has already been created! CW-22 has more content but I thought I would leave it if you could have look please. We perhaps need to merge or redirect one of them. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cvjetkovic

Sorry another one, just created Cvjetkovic CA-61 and Cvjetkovic CA-65 they both have names the CA-61 is the Mini-Ace and the CA-65 is the Skyfly. I have redirected Mini-Ace to CA-61 from Page 3 List. Just thought you need to know, they both need to be the same with or without name. Again thanks if you can help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry didnt want to merge them, should have been clearer - on Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics/3 the aircraft are listed as Cvjetkovic Mini Ace and Cvjetkovic CA-65. I have made the article the Cvjetkovic CA-61 and Cvjetkovic CA-65. Just the question should be we include the names in the article titles or just leave them as CA-61 and CA-65. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)