From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 February 2008 1.1 WP:Mediation Cabal 1.2 thanks for Infobox fix 1.3 Removing thumb sizes on Japanese military pictures 1.4 Thanks for the feedback 1.5 Mistakes 1.6 IL-76 AWACS in Iran 1.7 VZ-9-AV 1.8 Canadian roundal 1.9 Arbitrary? 1.10 Certification request 1.11 Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag 1.12 thanks for the heads-up and good catch! 1.13 Politics of Puerto Rico 1.14 Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd. 1.15 BA609 edits 1.16 E-3 page 1.17 Country of Origin 1.18 Dornier Do 24 1.19 Sikorsky X2 update 1.20 Assumption is the mother of all ... 1.21 Dollars and $ at Olympic Stadium (Montreal) 1.22 ARH-70 1.23 Claim of satanic images 1.24 Dassault Mirage F1 1.25 Akradecki 1.26 "no admin will block IP vandals anyway, so why bother!" 1.27 LHA-6 image removal 1.28 B-29 Superfortress 1.29 Thank you 1.30 Thanks 1.31 I'm back 1.32 Thanks for your support 2 March 2008 2.1 KC-45 2.1.1 KC-30 Source 2.2 F-4 Operators 2.3 Refuelers 2.4 Re: 2.5 A380 2.6 Re: SH-2 Seasprite 2.7 Irkut or Irkut/HAL 2.8 List of UH-1 Iroquois operators 2.9 Thank you, sir! 2.10 T-6 Texan variants 2.11 CAC Wirraway 2.12 Forest Rights Act 2.13 KC-767 Photo 2.14 Tristar pics 2.15 Operator Lists 2.16 Pop goes the weasel 2.17 UC-26C 2.18 Vandalism? 2.19 Officer 2.20 RSAF Bell 212 2.21 EH101 RE:Translation request 2.21.1 it:Aeritalia vs Aeritalia 2.21.2 Fiat_Aviazione and Fiat vs  ? 2.21.3 it:Aeritalia_G-91Y vs User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Aeritalia_G.91Y 2.22 VFC-111 2.23 Sitara - Urdu or Sanskrit 2.24 Guess who's back? 2.25 Braves / Cy Young 2.26 NFOs with dual controls 2.27 Il-96 2.28 The Wrath of TWOK 2.29 Re: 2.30 Image:MHcabin.jpg 2.31 Federal Europe 2.32 Ref box on HAL Tejas 2.33 US Military Aircraft Naming Conventions 2.34 Rays Ballpark 3 March 2008 3.1 Bobby Cox 3.2 XTB2C 3.3 Objection to vandalism warning 3.4 ANI 3.5 Commons deletion 3.6 Infobox title 3.7 Scrolling reflist 3.8 Congrats on becoming an Indian Citizen 3.9 Vandalism on Telangana site. Please help!!! 3.10 Smile 3.11 Tu-70 3.12 U.S State 3.13 User:Segregator236 3.14 MAVSTAR link 3.15 Speedy renaming/merging of categories 3.16 Miles M.52 3.17 Antoine de Saint-Exupry 3.18 Per Your Request 3.19 Template:Schweizer 3.20 Re: etc 3.21 Joint Heavy Lift altered/renamed 3.22 Saab/SAAB 3.23 Reverted move 3.24 RAH-66 3.25 F-117 Retirement Date 3.26 YF/F-107/F-107A 3.27 Typo on your main page 3.28 Apologies 3.29 User boxes 3.30 KC Oops 3.31 Cessna Citation 3.32 Army Aviation 3.33 Request 3.34 About the Airbus Infobox 3.35 F-16 cleanup 3.36 Emirates "daily" 3.37 Tri-floats 3.38 Tweaking, tweaks, tweak

[edit] February 2008

[edit] WP:Mediation Cabal

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-31 Indian Navy; on whether the claims of the Rg Veda on Varuna have any real function in IIndian Navy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for Infobox fix

Hi BillCJ, I myself had changed old climate box to infobox, but saved it (unsigned) before realizing that it broke ref section somehow. I discovered the goof with ref and did not know how to fix it quickly, so reverted it. Thanks for the infobox fix. Chirag (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! You had changed the Infobox as an IP, and then reverted it as a Registered user without saying you were the same person, so I didn't catch the connection. What I did was to check Template:Infobox Weather. When I saw there was a date field outside of the ref tag, I just added it - simple fix. Checking the template page often, though not always, helps in finding and fixing such problems. That's the good think abour Wikipeida - we can all double-check each others' work, and help fix problems and errors. I still make pleny of error, and others fix tmine on a daily basis. - BillCJ (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing thumb sizes on Japanese military pictures

Hi there. Please note that I may restore some in an attempt to ensure the pictures line up properly with text, rather than have one or two lines creep in underneath. I won't do it for the moment, but when I do I hope you won't revert me - or will at least raise a discussion on the talk page. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it makes a difference what resolutions you are using, and that the pics may not line up at other settings. It's probably best to move the pics to othr sections, to a gallery on the page, or to remove them. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the feedback

My comments weren't directed at you, but only as clarification to the previous comment. You and I disagree here and there, but we both yield to consensus and remain civil. I think many others are quickly becoming uncivil in this discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have two boys under the age of three...I have a few he can use...

Strictly for feedback, User:TomPhan weighed in on my AfD, but he has almost no edits outside my AfD. His edits are similar to CC's (misquoting me/misrepresenting what I said in order earn "points" with reviewers). Something strikes me as sockpuppety about this. Do you think I should bring it up at WP:SSP? Should I simply request a checkuser to verify? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes

You managed to fix my dumb M61 mistake and fix the Sea Harrier thing I missed today. I can miss things sometimes. I got an account on the Plane Spotting site a week or so ago. Haven't really done anything there except start building up a watchlist. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• And missed the non-Sea Harriers in that loss summary. I need to go to sleep... -Fnlayson (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're pretty good at catching a lot of my mistakes too. I think you cought a couple n the last few days even. The Harrier thing was easy to confuse, you were just copying what the other guy wrote. I was suspicious about the 6 vs. 10 losses tho, so I looked at the source, and realized the user was missing that fact that there were both Harriers and Sea Harrriers in the numbers, and that he didn't realize the difference. I know there are plenty of times you've caught similar mistakes of mine. We do make a good team tho. On the M61, I believe I made a similar mistake some months ago, and someone else corrected me; GE is the only producer I had known of to that point. - BillCJ (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. I checked that Harrier reference page and thought the 6 vs. 10 losses was accident/ground fire mismatch thing. The good thing about an editor messing up something in good faith is you notice where clarifying is needed. I'm doing some work on the F-15N page on the plane site, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IL-76 AWACS in Iran

I'm afraid that the person who said that Iran has the AWACS modified by Iraq is correct. Here is a picture of one of them, taken in 2007 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76-Adnan-1/1315765/M/ Hudicourt (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a "mistake" - I said that "such an extaordinary claim certainly needs reliable sources". A photo site is not a reliable source - photos can be retouched, and captions can say anything. - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VZ-9-AV

My first book was actually a ghost-writing project that I undertook with a researcher who owed his publisher a "first refusal project" that he wanted to devote to the VTOL flying saucer designs of Avro Canada. I knew nothing about the secret projects and had to rely on his extensive knowledge and exhaustive files based on a 30-year search through UK, U.S. and Canadian sources. Eventually, through the use of Freedom of Information Act requests in both countries as well as separate searches through UK sources, author/researcher Les Wilkinson obtained the original documentation on all of the Avro Canada "black" projects dating from 1952-1961. These projects included spade-shaped tail-sitters and disc-shaped "flat risers" that eventually culminated in the WS-606A supersonic fighter program that was funded by the USAF. The VZ-9-AV Avrocar which was initially considered a "proof-of-concept" test vehicle for the supersonic fighter was also funded by the U.S. Army as an entry in the "flying Jeep" sweepstakes. All the manuals, and every official document including company, government and military correspondence refers to the "VZ-9-AV" which was a reference to the project's Avro Canada origins. The project office was at USAF Dayton AFB and most of the material that was obtained came from USAF sources.

Only after its demise did the VZ-9 designation become standard in referring to the Avrocar. I can elaborate further but I will have to resort to the dreaded "original research" to pull out the company manuals and other corroborating material. After Les' untimely death during our collaboration, I received 30 boxloads of his research, of which approximately 1/3 has now been donated to a museum that acted as a depository for research on the Avro Canada company history. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

Bill, I did discuss this apparent discrepancy in my book: Avrocar: Canada's Flying Saucer (p. 69) as the "official" designation that was established by the Project Office was not always carried through but there are numerous other sources including Bill Rose and Tony Buttler's recent Secret Projects: Flying Saucer Aircraft (p. 76) that correctly identify the project as "VZ-9AV" (note the slight variation). From interviews with the engineering staff responsible, it was a designation that was made by the USAF WS606A Project Office to recognize the orgins of the project. It did not seem to be a requirement from the company as by that time, nearly 100% of funding was coming from the U.S. military, but it was acknowledged that the "AV" code was nonstandard. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Canadian roundal

(moved comments from User talk:BillCJ/UBX/GWSun to here) - Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bill,

I have to apologize for not realizing to document my edits, I am very new here.

But, I was until recently a former member of the Canadian Forces and the roundel that is on the Canadian C-17 is commonly known as the RCAF roundel. The current roundel was introduced in 1965, simplifying the former roundel to match the maple leaf on the new Canadian flag. It has to my knowledge, training, and experience and in several references been referred to as the RCAF roundel, more of a tribute than anything else. This policy is in keeping with recognizing pre-unification items, such as the RCAF tartan and the RCAF March Past, as official 'issue'. Yes, the RCAF has been gone 40 years now, since 1968, but something’s do remain! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsim22 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Arbitrary?

Don't assume anything I do on Wikipedia is arbitrary, please. —Quicksilver^{T @} 09:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's arbitrary per the MOS, whether you think it is or not. -- BillCJ (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Certification request

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Cloud#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag

Please be a little slower on the button when you revert. You will notice if you check again that your revert wiped out a cite I had just put in to a Congressional Research Service report down the bottom, citing something that had only previously had forums for substantiation. You seem to have picked up on my primary concern - which issue of Jane's Defence Weekly, and when? page number, etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the stomp - the second edit was off the screen, and I totally missed it - I'll try to be more careful. I hope you got my point about tagging in the middle of a quote. Just a reminder that neither one of us are perfect, huh? And I've been trying so hard to be perfecter laterly! - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the heads-up and good catch!

it does look like I got a little confused there with my edit to the 767 article...musta just had too many tabs open. thanks for the fix and friendly note about it! – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of Puerto Rico

Im curious over all the edits going around, but my guess is that you are trying to unify all these articles, is this correct? - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tying to, yes. See Talk:Politics of Puerto Rico#Major clean-up. If you can help constructively, such as writing a summary on the section I've taken out on Puerto Rico, I'd appreciate that. - BillCJ (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not up to date with politics and have avoided them since leaving the island on 2007, I'm probably not the user to summarize all those arguments. Just a comment though, the "oldest colony in the world" argument is a mayor game piece in the PNP (pro statehood) and PIP (pro independence) campains, wich means that its should be summarized in the lead somehow, however I am not sure how to write what is essentially a POV argument from a NPOV possition. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know that much either. Basically, I'm trying to combine what is there taht is sourced, and remove the more-outrageous statements that aren't sourced. I'll try to work the "oldest colony in the world" part back into to the Lead if I can, but such a statement really needs an opposing view to balance it out.

Despite the circumstances of the choice, Commonwealth status was chosen in a referendum. THe Philippines was achieved commonwealth status in 1937, and gained full independence in 1946. I don't think anyone back then really intended for PR to remain a commonwealth for over 50 years, tho I could be completely wrong on that assumption. I think they expected statehood or independence to be chosen relativley soon, but that didn't happen. To me, the main problem with Commonwealth status is that it has know constitutional "status", being something entirely created by Congress, and subject to change by Congress. There are only two ways to change that: PR statehood, which would give it all the rights of statehood, but all the responsibilities too; or amend the US Constitution to provide voting rights to non-states such as PR, as with DC and the 23rd amendment giving the district the right to vote in Presidential elections. It seems to me that many in PR want both to be semi-independent while remain with the US, and have full voting rights in Congress, but not be subject to the same taxation as US states (the so-called "enhanced-Commonwealth status). THat's not going to happen, in my opinion. At some point, a choice to move forward is going to have to be made by PR residents, to either statehood or independence. I'm glad to see the US COngrees finally moving toward a referendum on these choices, and I hope it can happen soon. - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Only a referendum with two choices can resolve the status issue, because otherwise it will be inconclusive, however I don't see that happening based on a consensus of the political parties on the island, especially because there will be heavy debating coming from the PPD (pro commonwealth) who have prevailed in those organized so far, personally I think that unless one of the two parts (that being the governments of PR and the US) takes a conclusive and final action this debate will outlive me and my generation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd.

Bill, thanks for your help in this article. When I read the other Flightcraft Charter article, I noted that it was probably best to revise that article but when I had tried to get the editor who had written most of the article and had moved it to revise the other similar article, he insisted that everything I said or wrote was wrong and so we were at an impasse. I left the article alone for the time being and then some wag found it yesterday in my sandbox projects and asked me to post it. Even though it wasn't anywhere near finished, I complied.

For the last few weeks, I had gone off on a tangent, writing aviation film articles just for a break. As to "The Ruptured Duck" article, it came from an aside in the "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" article I was working on and it seemed to be an interesting subject. Thanks for editing this article as well. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

I awoke to a flurry of activity on both pages. Please check the changes, I think everyone's contributions have made both pages substantially different from the original source articles and will probably pass muster now. FWIW, I did get it, BTW, that's my lot in life – to be the "burr under the saddle"! LOL Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] BA609 edits

BillCJ,

I saw that you changed 2010 to 2011, and 60 to 80, but did not update the references. Is this information you can cite? Right now the references in place show cert in 2010 and 60 orders. If there isn't a source, I think it needs to be reverted. - Davandron | Talk 19:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that wasn't me - it was the edit before mine. I'll will try to check the BAAC website later to double check the new figures. - BillCJ (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-3 page

Any idea what the "expand" tag is for on the E-3 development paragraph? ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The article covers none of the history leading up to AWACS, nor the early development of the E-3. For example, the section should mention that the aging EC-121 Warning Stars needed replacement, and the new capabilities that the USAF wanted. There is no mention of the original designation, "EC-137D", or the fact that the original design was to have been powered by 8 TF34 turbofan engines. In addition, almost all of the existing "Development" section should be placed in the "Design" section, as that is what it covers. I have a few print sources with relevant info, and hope to get to it sometime in the future. My wiki-plate is pretty full for the time being, so it may be awhile, hence the tag. I will add these comments to the E-3 talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, a lot of design info, but little on how it came to be. I adjusted the tag on that page to try and say that. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. Milb1 has already added a "Variants" section, but he has done that before on his own, so coincidence or not, Thanks Milb1! - BillCJ (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it wasnt a coincidence this time!! I did see your message above and just happened to have my book on 707s handy so i thought I would just do it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rither way, many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country of Origin

With regard to your recent comments about country of origin I think adding it to the infobox would be a good idea. I have been adding it into the intros of aircraft articles when I see them missing but having it in the infobox would do no harm. I was once reverted for being over patriotic when I added it in the intro to a Boeing article and I am not from North America!. Main problem is with US articles when the presumption (wrongly in my opinion) that if it doesnt say the related country it must be American!! Perhaps it may be worth bringing up again at project. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is the presumption that American articles must state "American", while so many of other nations do not state their country of origin. It's honestly haphazardly applied, and I think that it were some on the objections come in. I'll try to mention the infobox issue again at WT:AIR in a day or two.

Btw, please remember that the US has more people speaking English as their primary first language than all other such nations combined, tho many have trouble accepting this. Thus nearly 300 million people (certainly more than the English speaking Commonwealth citizens) have to share wikispace with people from the other English speaking countries, as well as many for whom English is not a first language who are from non-English-speaking countries. This is not the case for most of the other wikis, whose usage is tied to primarily one nation or geographich region, Spanish and perhaps French being the other major exceptions. I'm not complaining about the situation itself, as this is a by-product of English being the near-universal language, just asking for a little more understanding and lee-way from non-Americans. Yes, we share space with the rest of the world, but vice-versa is true too! (Sorry for the lecture - just my latest soapbox issue!) - BillCJ (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that all aircraft articles should state the country of origin whatever that is - I suspect you are right that the problem would be less. I understand about your balance of english speakers argument and the reason for tolerance - just a lot of people to educate then that their is a world outside of the USA!! MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement totally! I grew up partically outside of the US in a non-white commonwealth nation, and realize how bad that myopic view many Americans have is. I assign most of the blame to the current US media obsession with targeting the lowest-common denominator of intelligence in entertainment and news programming. I haven't wathced Amercin network news programs intentionally in over 20 years, as they spend 22 minutes on expanded "personal" stories, with litte har "American" news coverage, much less anything else from the rest of the world! I grew up where you could turn on the radio at 3pm, and listen to an hour of BBC World Radio news coverage - now THAT was comprehensive. Don't know if they're still that way or not. Also, US government-run schools are atrocious, and spend little time on world events outside of America's direct interaction, and currently most of that is in a purely negative light. So not only do they no nothing of the rest of the world, they think all the rest of the world's problems are our fault! I guess the fall of the various Eqyptian Empires was our fault since the US wasn't there to make it worse! - BillCJ (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dornier Do 24

Nice job on the Dornier Do 24 page Bill. I fixed it up a bit, and added some photos, but I like what you have done. Cheers from Canada.  ;-) --RobNS 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much, and thanks for adding the pics. A large number of pics were deleted from WikiCommons recently for not have correct copyright status info, and the Do 24 lost several in the purge. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sikorsky X2 update

Hey Bill, didn't know if you were aware that we will be unveiling the X2 at HeliExpo 2008 this year. I have a few photos of the finished vehicle, and apparently some have already been posted online. I didn't take any myself personally, so I'm unsure of the copyright position. Heres a teaser: http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4195/x21jm5.jpg Unfortunately, our test schedule and specifically tether testing last week was put on hold for the show. --Cefoskey (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! I need to get busy and research some more sources, and try to get my X2 sandbox page ready before the first filght. Usually such events bring out more interest in the aritcle, and if there's not much in it already, we end up with a lot of info being added that is not well written and/or not sourced. - BillCJ (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assumption is the mother of all ...

While recently watching the mindless action flick Under Siege 2 both a line from it and some of the action made me think of a recent encounter with you regarding the F-117 on the USAF fighters template. When I first removed the Nighthawk I didn't bother to see if anything else was out of place, otherwise I would've removed the rest like I did in the cited diff. I realized some might've seen the removal of something, then a reversion, followed by the removal of the first something and more as a wiki tantrum or something but not you since we've seen each other around. Anyway during the movie, a bud guy says "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups...", which is a surprisingly true statement from a movie (for example I guess North American assumed astronauts would never need to get out of their vehicle in any kind of hurry while on the ground) So with the idea of assumption being bad in mind, just wanna say it wasn't personal or anything :) Anynobody 07:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't take it personally. - BillCJ (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dollars and $ at Olympic Stadium (Montreal)

I made the edit comment -- but forgot to make the actual edit. Thanks for catching that, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your edit. I was basically writing a compromise for the anon IP, who I saw was logged on at the City of Montreal and figured might know something I didn't. But it wasn't a compromise I was at all happy with. What you wrote is all that can be proven. Let's see what the anon can come up with. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I totally understand. I often try to do the same thing as a compromise, then anotehr editor goes ahead and removes all of whatever it is. We see this thing alot on WP, with people trying to prove things just by pics, which of course are not reliable sources. Keep up the good work! - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ARH-70

That's a good way of handling the Arapaho name. My searches found that same Army press release as the reference, but I didn't know what to think of it. I guess that's the most likely name now. But I imagine it won't receive an official name until an important ceremony (not sure what that'd be at this point). -Fnlayson (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Arapaho looks like the inevitable name, but they could come up with something else too. The Lakota's name was announced when it was first delivered, but that date has been pushed back so many times for the ARH-70, that I don't know when that is supposed to be now. - BillCJ (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find, announcing the name happens at the delivery/acceptance ceremony. Same thing happened wayback when for Cheyenne. --Born2flie (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claim of satanic images

Bill, I will briefly show you the image: thumb|screenshot This is the contentious frame that the editor has claimed is a satanic image with "666". If you believe that – first of all, it is upside down doodles that look more like "999" and what about the "333" symbol in the hair? FWIW, I didn't think the "666" claim warranted anything other than a removal as it was nonsensical. However, the wholly inappropriate comments left on the talk pages was my real concern. Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the pic - it is totally unrelated, as I assumed. If those comments continue, I'd take it to an admin - seems like either a blooming idiot or a troll - usually both! - BillCJ (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image removed as it is prohibited from use outside of mainspace. Discussion continues on the "talk page" of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks. I was just trying to get the junk on your page stopped so I wouldn't have to take it off my watchlist! Hopefully this guy will run out of steam soon, since no admins seems inclined to spare the rest of us from this idiocy! - BillCJ (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dassault Mirage F1

In British english, the indefinite article "an" is used when the next word starts with a vowel ("aeiou"), and sometimes also when it starts with an "h" (as in "hour"). Is there some difference particular to American English, that words starting with a consonant also use "an" instead of "a"? Also, I don't understand what you meant by your edit comment that the initial sound in the abbreviation "SAAF" is "es". Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"SAAF", as I understand it, is an abbreviation, not a word, and is pronounced S-A-A-F (es-ay-ay-ef). As such, it would take a vowel, at least in American English, but I beleive I have seen the same practice in British English. That is why the bot corrected it, and why I reverted you. The bot does make mistakes, as it did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alaskan_Air_Command&curid=3024589&diff=193177399&oldid=193175364 here, where "SAC" is pronounced as "sack", not "S-A-C" (es-ay-c). If "SAAF" is generally pronounced as "saff" in South Africa, then I stand corrected, and you may revert me. - BillCJ (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it used as both an abbreviation and, more commonly, as an acronym. However in both cases, I believe that "a" would be correct (UK) English, as per [1] Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. In WP:AIR, we put French products under British English, so you can go ahaed and change it back. - BillCJ (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I looked up your link, and didn't see any rules for abbreviations. So, I did a Google search, and this link was the first hit. The site is registered in England ad Wales. It appears to be the same rules as in American English. But, if the common pronunciation of "SAAF" is as an acronym, then it takes an "a", just as does "SAC". - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool, I see where you're coming from. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akradecki

I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Akradecki was a good admin. --Edibility (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan was a great admin. Sorry to hear about this. As for Canadianisms, I would take a look at the Canadian Dictionary which came out in the 1990s. As for program and programme, both words are in use in Canada with no definite preference, although the Americanized form seems to have gained precedence over the last few years. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] "no admin will block IP vandals anyway, so why bother!"

Really? Hm. --Golbez (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd get a response somewhere to that one! Not enough room in edit summary for the whole rant, so here it is: Try blocking an IP for any real length of time - esp one that hasn't received "the full range of warnings in a 24-hour period", and see how long old Jimbo's lackeys will leave the block on, IP editing being sacred and all. Or how long they'll let you stay an admin if you keep it up! I've played enough games with the other admins to know that even if there are good admins who are tough on vandals, there's pleny more who aren't, and they're the ones who always seem to respond to "help" me deal with them. I've made a lot of edits, over 24,000 since Aug 2006 now, with some time off, and I'd bet 40% of my daily edits are vandalism related, if not more. With over 4000 articles on my watchlist, that cuts into a big portion of my edit day, and I don't - I'm here to edit, not clean up crap, but I'm addicted to editing WP, so I can't just leave either! Forgive me for generalizing, as you actually seem to care about making WP a safe place to read and edit. Oh well, I'm off to revert more junk on Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedi anyone can vandalize!" - BillCJ (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LHA-6 image removal

I strongly disagree with your removal of the image that I posted on LHA-6 class amphibious assault ship. Yes, the work was created by Northrop Grumman. However, the work was done under contract to the U.S. Navy, which makes the picture the property of the Navy, just as if it were taken by an employee of the Navy in official capacity. Also you will note that the picture was officially released by the Navy. You should know that work performed by X under contract to Y, and paid for by Y, is legally the property of Y. —Life of Riley (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take the issue up at Commons, as I've speedied it there. If it is kept, I have no problem with it being in the article, as it certainly needs some pics. However, until the legalities are cleared up, it shouldn't be used in the article. You'll need to add a hold-on tag or something to the file on Commons if you wish to contest this. All I am doing is raising the question - I'll leave it to the wiki-lawering specialists at Commons to determine the pic's legal status. Even if Commons deletes the pic, we can probably use it here under Fair Use rules, but you'll have to reload it on WP under a different license. - BillCJ (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Before you get in such a rush to delete things, you really should read the source website’s policy. Quoting: “All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified.” —Life of Riley (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me about this, and take it up at Commons - It's out of my hands now. as I don't have the autohrity to delete the pic! I've seen them delete images for the exact reason I listed this one. Commons cannot use any pics for which the copyright status is not exactly clear, and cases such as this one are not, you're interpretation not withstanding. I'd hightly suggest that, if you're certain you're right about cases such as this one, that you contact the relevant person in the Navy informational sections (whatever they may call it), and have them clarify this situation to Commons. There may be many other pics besides the one that you uploaded that we can use, and Commons may be deleting them unnecessarily. At any rate, WP itself may be able to use them freely, even if Commons cannot. So please, stop with your own rush to judgment about what I did, and start focusing your efforts where it matters. - BillCJ (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B-29 Superfortress

Bill, An IPer added a new section and I marked it as needing refs and may be deleted... what do you think? Notice you deleted some F-111 text, similarly. I was supprised that Bzuk didn't mark the section like i did or didn't revert the addition, he only corrected the section heading title. Lance LanceBarber (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well,.... User:Anyeverybody went ahead and deleted it, oooooooookay.LanceBarber (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read the piece, it reads like a copy of something else, and is probably a copyvio. That much text added on one single thought needs to be sourced to remain in the airtlce, especially given copyright issues. I'd have probably removed it imediately myslef! - BillCJ (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

[edit] Thanks

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Russian-Circassian War

[edit] I'm back

Bill, thanks for note dropped on my talk page. I'm back but probably not with as high edit count as earlier, but this time I'm going to make some cleanup with Operators section and List of operators articles. I'll try to edit some pages about Polish aviation but certainly later. I'm trying to resurrect my website about captured planes and I hope I'll be able to run it in March. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

BillCJ/archive8: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

[edit] KC-45

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

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

[edit] KC-30 Source

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

...and it appears I am...

[edit] F-4 Operators

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

[edit] Refuelers

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

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

[edit] Re:

[edit] A380

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

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

[edit] Re: SH-2 Seasprite

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

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

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

[edit] Irkut or Irkut/HAL

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] List of UH-1 Iroquois operators

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

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

That how it looks after "cleanup":

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

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

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

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

[edit] Thank you, sir!

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

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

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

[edit] T-6 Texan variants

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

[edit] CAC Wirraway

Hi Bill, An IP editor and I are reverting each other over the inclusion of material on a court case concerning the troubled sale of a Wirraway over eBay. I object to this material as it is based entirely on primary sources (the court transcript) and seems to be a minor incident anyway, even if some reliable third-party sources can be found. This is especially the case as it concerns living people, so WP:BLP applies. Could you please have a look at the article and provide a third opinion? (this diff: [2] concerns all the material) thanks, --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Forest Rights Act

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

[edit] KC-767 Photo

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

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

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

[edit] Tristar pics

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

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

[edit] Operator Lists

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

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

[edit] Pop goes the weasel

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

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

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

[edit] UC-26C

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

[edit] Vandalism?

Hi, Bill.

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

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

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

[edit] Officer

Hi Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Bill,

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

Happy editing,

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

[edit] RSAF Bell 212

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

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

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

[edit] EH101 RE:Translation request

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

[edit] it:Aeritalia vs Aeritalia

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

[edit] Fiat_Aviazione and Fiat vs  ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] VFC-111

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

[edit] Sitara - Urdu or Sanskrit

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

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

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

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

[edit] Guess who's back?

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

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

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

[edit] Braves / Cy Young

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

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

[edit] NFOs with dual controls

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

Is this the passage you're refering to?

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

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

[edit] Il-96

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

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

[edit] The Wrath of TWOK

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

[edit] Re:

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

[edit] Image:MHcabin.jpg

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

[edit] Federal Europe

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

[edit] Ref box on HAL Tejas

Hi Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] US Military Aircraft Naming Conventions

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rays Ballpark

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

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

[edit] March 2008

[edit] Bobby Cox

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

[edit] XTB2C

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

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

[edit] Objection to vandalism warning

Hello BillCJ,

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

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

[edit] ANI

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Commons deletion

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

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

[edit] Infobox title

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Scrolling reflist

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

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

[edit] Congrats on becoming an Indian Citizen

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

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

[edit] Vandalism on Telangana site. Please help!!!

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

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

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

[edit] Smile

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

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

[edit] Tu-70

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

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

[edit] U.S State

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

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

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

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

– Seablade

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

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

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

[edit] User:Segregator236

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

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

[edit] MAVSTAR link

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

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

[edit] Speedy renaming/merging of categories

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

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

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

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

[edit] Miles M.52

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

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

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

[edit] Antoine de Saint-Exupry

F-5B or P-38? I have sources that disagree on the model he flew. See: [3] and [4]. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

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

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

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

[edit] Per Your Request

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

[edit] Template:Schweizer

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

[edit] Re: etc

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

[edit] Joint Heavy Lift altered/renamed

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

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

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

[edit] Saab/SAAB

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

[edit] Reverted move

You reverted my move of "North American YF-107" to North American F-107. However, you cited a Wikiproject that does not support your reversion. Both the Air Force and NASA designated the aircraft in question the "F-107" and did not use the "YF" designation. Look at the side of the aircraft in the pictures, look at [5], look at [6], look at [7]. Boeing uses the incorrect YF-107A and many have used the reverse-applied "YF" prefix as many other prototype and pre-production programs around that time had them... THIS ONE DIDN'T. Could you please undo this? At any rate, you moved the page to North American yF-107 which is more wrong. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] RAH-66

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

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

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

[edit] F-117 Retirement Date

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

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

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

[edit] YF/F-107/F-107A

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

[edit] Typo on your main page

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

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

[edit] Apologies

• A-4 Skyhawk & A-4SU Super Skyhawk

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

[edit] User boxes

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

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

[edit] KC Oops

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cessna Citation

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

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

[edit] Army Aviation

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

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

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

[edit] Request

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

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

[edit] About the Airbus Infobox

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

[edit] F-16 cleanup

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

[edit] Emirates "daily"

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

[edit] Tri-floats

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tweaking, tweaks, tweak

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