User talk:Stingray, the Helicopter Guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mi-24U (Hind-C)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mi-24U (Hind-C), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Mil_Mi-24. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Mi-24

Hello. Are these subversions notable enough to have their own articles? Or would it be better to just add some information to the main article? Before creating more articles on variants, try to find reasons for notability, and don't just copy paste information from other pages, or your hard work may be deleted. Azazyel (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please discuss here Talk:Mil_Mi-24#Development.2FVariants whether there needs to be articles created, before you continue to create them. Azazyel (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Don't remove the merge templates untill people have had a chance to discuss. Azazyel (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Mi-24V (Hind-E)

A tag has been placed on Mi-24V (Hind-E) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Azazyel (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mi-24A (Hind-B), without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Mi-24D (Hind-D). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoygabsadds 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Mi-24F (Hind-A). J.delanoygabsadds 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Hi Stingray - well, you seem to have caused quite a stir here :)

I hope you won't be discouraged by this shaky start - you're clearly passionate about helicopters and eager to improve Wikipedia's coverage.

If I can offer a little advice - probably the three things you need to take away from this experience are:

  1. Never copy-and-paste material from elsewhere directly into Wikipedia (unless you know for sure that the site is copyright-free). Simply re-arranging a few words isn't any good either - you really need to digest the facts and then express them again in your own words.
  2. Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles about separate subtypes of aircraft unless there's a lot to say about that particular variant. Usually, variants are noted in the main article about the aircraft, and if and when that section becomes too big (for aircraft with many variants, like the Mi-24), we use a separate "variants" article (or even two, like Supermarine Spitfire variants). Only in exceptional cases will an individual subtype warrant a separate article (like F/A-18E/F Super Hornet).
  3. Don't overlink. Only link terms that are going to assist the reader in understanding the subject of the article. For example, ball and window and even fuselage are common English words - they don't require a link.

Like I said, I really hope you haven't been too put off. We were all beginners once, and I hope you'll stay with us. Please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions or need any help. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mil Mi-7

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without either resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Thank you. Erechtheus (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. It's my hope that by highlighting the issue, somebody will come along and add to the article. That's the biggest point of the maintenance template if you ask me. Erechtheus (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I hope there is a smarter person out there to fill it in. I am also hoping more pictures will be released of these new helicopters I'm adding, as well as info. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Variants" articles

Hi again Stingray - it's good to see you being bold, but please don't go splitting the variants sections out of short articles like you've done with the Mi-1, Mi-2, Mi-4, and Mi-6. This kind of split is saved as a last-resort, "necessary evil" strategy when an article grows unmanageably large. There's no hard and fast rule, but we start considering it with articles above 30 kb or so in length (you can see the length of the article in the "History" tab), and even then we usually hold off as long as we can. The articles you've been splitting up are nowhere near that point. I've reverted these - so no harm done.

You might like to join in at WikiProject Aircraft - the group of editors who look after Wikipedia's aircraft coverage and try to achieve a uniform look and feel to these articles.

Tip: You can "preload" the standard page layout for aircraft articles by typing {{subst:aerostart}} into a blank page and hitting "save". If you do this, be sure to save the page again very quickly with some actual text in it, or one of the New Page Patrollers might mistake it for a test or accident of some sort.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmm...thats a good idea. I also like the new tables that have recently been added to my articles. Great.

PS: I'm thankful the new designations in the Mi-6 article weren't removed when you reverted.Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Please be extremely careful when contributing facts to Wikipedia. I've spent some time today cleaning up your recent contibutions, and I've come across some very strange pieces of information - so strange that it looks to me like you've simply made things up.

For example: your contributions on the Mil V-5, V-7, and V-16 each said that these aircraft had a Mi- prefix, and that they were "sometimes known" under the V- prefix. Until very recently, Mil projects had a "V-" prefix while in development (which I assume, but don't know for sure, stood for Vertolet - "Helicopter") and were given a Mi- prefix when in mass production.

As another example, you stated that the Mi-44 was a Russian version of the Eurocopter Ecureuil, and the Mi-54 was a Russian version of the Agusta A109. While it's true that these machines had a resemblance to each other, they were purely Mil projects.

Wikipedia has strict policies that all information entered here must be verifiable and come from reliable sources (click these links to see the policies in full). Entering made-up information, as you appear to have done, is taken very seriously.

Sorry to come across all heavy - I'd really rather not - but you really need to understand that this kind of thing won't be tolerated here. This isn't a web forum - it's an encyclopedia with a reputation to uphold.

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Okay, I messed up on the designation system. But the information I gave is true, and I just said the Mi-44 appears to be a Russian Squrrel helicopter. When I find more information, Ill see what I can do to fix it. Oh, and the V-5, it is also known as the Mi-5.
That's the problem right there. It's simply not acceptable to say that something appears to be something else - that's your own analysis or own opinion, and has no place here. Your comment that the Mi-54 "is said to be related to the Agusta A-109" is just as bad - is said by who?
Do you have a reliable source that the V-5 ever gained a "Mi-" prefix? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I wan't to say yes and give you this link: [1]

as it was said here before, but that was long ago. Its probably gone now. So, no I don't have a reliable resource any more. I would still like to keep the mention that it was also called Mi-5.

Without any reliable sources to confirm that it ever gained this prefix, we simply can't keep that information there. In any case, web forums like secretprojects are specifically disallowed as sources for Wikipedia articles.
In fact, under normal circumstances, the aviastar website that you've been citing would also be disallowed. The only reason I'm not challenging it is because I know that whoever runs that website actually plagiarises their material from published works.
The short version: the types of sources that are acceptable on Wikipedia are published books and magazine articles (except for self-published "vanity press" books), and a very select few websites (those belonging to, for example, aircraft manufacturers, official air force sites, official museum sites, and the like). Blogs and forums are definitely out (except in articles about that blog, or forum, or celebrity that an official blog belongs to, and similar cases). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm.... I always thought aviastar asked permission to use that stuff. Okay, anyway, I guess I should delete the mention about the Mi- prefix. Thanks.

[edit] Mi-24D image

Hi Stingray - could you please tell me what graphics program you used to create this image - Image:Mi-24 with Hawk head.gif? Since it's lineart, if it was created in a vector-based program, it would be better to export it as an svg. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Im sorry, I only use MS Paint. Thats the best I could do and it would be a lot of work to redo it to make it have a higher resolution. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right - it would be a lot of work to create/re-create something like that in MS Paint! Are you sure that you drew that from absolute scratch in that program and didn't just use MS Paint to alter an existing image? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Only that MS Paint seems to me be a strange and cumbersome choice of software to create such an image! Can I recommend Inkscape? Very nearly as powerful and flexible as Adobe Illustrator, but available as freeware. I'd love to see what someone with your evident skills could do with a real drawing program! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I've been using MS Paint for years and Im just so use to it. And I am an artist: [2]. But its best that I expand myself, so I'll go and give Inkscape a whirl. Thanks. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To me, it also looks a lot like this image may have been used as the starting point for both Image:Mi-24 with Hawk head.gif and Image:ATE_SuperHind_Mk.2.gif. I haven't done a detailed comparison of the images yet, but it's interesting to note that, in particular, the "with Hawk Head" image has been flipped horizontally from an original image where the nose of the aircraft was to the left of the picture and was not created from scratch "nose right" from the start. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I've now completed a detailed comparison of all three images, and the overlap conclusively proves that both images uploaded by you were edits of an image that you helped yourself to from the FAS website. If you like, I can upload the evidence, but I trust that won't be necessary.
You've already been cautioned at length about copyright issues. The next time you violate copyright here, you will be blocked from editing.
I'm especially disappointed, of course, that when I asked you about these images, you lied about creating them from scratch. That's the very worst part. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That picture has been on my system for a while now. I thought I drew it all myself. Aparently it was a download and modification. I do not remember doing this, but I will replace the images with updated ones. My deepest apologies. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And how was this image created? MS Paint again? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. Sorry I couldn't use the other program. Its to complicated for me. I was also in a hurry to replace the violated image and maybe put a little style in the new one. It looks like someone deleted the originals before I did. Thanks. Maybe when I have more time I'll use the new art program. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to say that I doubt this very much. The picture shows strong evidence of having been scanned from a printed source. That aside, it's problematic for other reasons, most especially since the aircraft markings don't match the (unreferenced!) information you have provided about it.
  • What? Can you explain that again?

Oh, and its not a print and scan. this was all my work. I swear. It is, though, based on this picture. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I'll try to be more plain. There are certain features of the drawing that make me think that it's based on something that's been originally scanned from print. I can't prove that conclusively, so all I can do right now is express my doubt.
The other problems are that the picture is not accurate. It does not match the written description that you provided (you say that it carried the tail code "98+31", but this is not visible in the drawing) and it does not match the photo you just linked to (the camouflage pattern is completely different). Inserting wrong information into Wikipedia in the form of a picture is as much a problem as providing wrong information in the form of text. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Im not sure that the camo pattern really matters or not, but thats just my point of view. Anyway, I don't know where the code should be on the tail. can you give me a visible example? --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're providing a colour profile of an aircraft, then illustrating a colour scheme that's completely inaccurate does indeed matter. If, as you claim, you drew this whole profile from scratch in the matter of an hour or two yesterday, then correcting the inaccurate camouflage should be trivial for you. As for the tail code, the "+" in German tailcodes represents the national insignia (in modern times, the Iron Cross), so the tailcode of this particualr aircraft was "98", then the marking, then "31". You can see a good example here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If you're going to do this, you're probably best off sticking to a black-and-white image and omitting the camouflage, unless you have other photos of the aircraft in question that show the camouflage pattern of the tail - or maybe if you want to create a colour image, just stick to the front section of the aircraft and crop the tail off - the modifications of note were apparently only to the nose and cabin window anyway.
The only other option would be to look at pictures of other German Mi-24s and see if you could find another example with a pattern that exactly matched the nose section of 98+31, but which also showed you the tail section. Military aircraft are often camouflaged according to precise patterns specified by the air forces that operate them, meaning that at least some aircraft types belonging to some air forces will all have exactly the same camouflage applied (rather than just random splotches of colour). --Rlandmann (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
PS you also drew the aircraft carrying weapons pods under the wings, and these are probably best left off too, unless you have evidence that it flew armed while in this test configuration. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That would only be possible if you could contact the person who originally took the picture and if they were willing to let go of all their rights to the photo (it's not enough for them to allow Wikipedia to use it; they must allow anyone to use it or alter it for any purpose, even commercial purposes). It's almost always easier to stick to pictures that you've taken or drawn yourself. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Only if you know who the person was who took the photograph and can prove that she or he died more than 70 years ago. Since this helicopter must have been photographed around 1947, the earliest this could be would be 2018, if the photographer died soon after taking it. Of course, if the photographer only died last year, the photo won't enter the public domain and become available for Wikipedia use until 2078. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand that clearly. Im just asking if the picture was given to the public domain or not. I have a strong feeling it wasn't. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Unless we have some actual evidence that this photo was "given away" by its photographer, we have to assume that it's still protected by copyright. Without that evidence, we also have to assume that the image tag on Vietnamese Wikipedia is a mistake. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Kamov V-60 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Chetblong (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Someone just got rid of the original page of the V-60 and replaced it with the Ka-60 page. The original conception of the V-60 had nothing to do with the Ka-60. Why did this happen?

Im recreating the V-60 page. Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it based on your claim that the V-60 was an early point in the Ka-60's development. Apparently Kamov thought so too. For now, I've left it as a separate article, but for it to remain, you really need to provide some reliable sources to support what you've written.
The same goes for much of what you've been contributing on the Mi-24 variants page (and elsewhere). You really need to start referencing your claims, because without references they can be removed by anyone at any time.
On a related topic, please be careful of your facts. I'm very tempted to mark the Yak-60 article for deletion, since the only suggestion that I can find that such a thing even existed is a speculation in a paragraph from a book plagiarised by aerostar (read it again). And what do you mean when you say that the Mi-24D fitted with a Hawk missile nosecone had an "unidentified modification"? Unidentified by who? Whatever it was, I'm quite sure that the people who put it there could identify it. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You see, the problem is, that even if you received an answer from the unit that carried out the modification to the Mi-24 telling you exactly what it was, you wouldn't be able to use that information in a Wikipedia article. That would qualify as Original research. Your information must come from a published text, such as a book, magazine article, or an "official" website of some sort - a museum, a manufacturer, or similar.
To clarify - the issue here isn't whether these aircraft existed - it's whether there are reliable sources that say what they did. You can read the relevant policy here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You know, I just wanted to contribute more information to Wikipedia just so people know that these aircraft existed, which many probably never knew about and now do. All this is sounding like a problem more and more I contribute. Im not even sure its worth it any more. Just my point of view again. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and these are good aims, which is why I hope that you will stay and contribute more. But there are some very real problems with what you're contributing. The way it looks to me, you're gathering up any scrap of information you can find, regardless of where it comes from, and creating articles based on it. All I'm asking you to do is to be more selective. Don't create an article or add information about a variant unless you found the information in a book, magazine, or "reliable" website ("reliable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word).
Why is Wikipedia so fussy about sources? Wikipedia frequently comes under criticism for its lack of reliability (since anyone can add or change information here). This means, that in order to be taken seriously, the information we provide has to be of the highest quality. If you were writing an article for a traditional, paper encyclopedia, you wouldn't include information about a helicopter because you were talking to some guy in a bar last night who seemed to know a lot about helicopters, so you took down what he said and included it in your article. Yes, the guy in the bar might have known exactly what he was talking about, but the point is - we have no way of knowing for sure. Inserting information into Wikipedia from internet forums and people's personal web pages is exactly the same thing. Sure - they might be right. They're probably right. But at the end of the day, we can't be sure they're right. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well said :). Okay, I'll stay and contribute. I am creating my own book encyclopedia in wich should be the biggest, most illustrated one in the United States. Everything is in it. So far, progress is just a little scrap book but I hope in transformes. In that little scrap book, I have every true rotorcraft ever noted on paper. So, from now on, if I want to add one of those aircraft here, I'll find more resources to support them. --

[edit] A thank you and an apology

I'd like to offer a very big thank-you for this great image and a sincere apology for having doubted the originality of your revised "Hind with Hawk head" picture. This project really needs people like you who can produce high-quality images of obscure aircraft that we're otherwise never going to get copyright-unencumbered pictures of!

I'll also repeat my encouragement to get your head around Inkscape. To understand why I'm so keen to see you head in this direction, take a skim over the article here on Vector graphics to see the difference between what raster-based programs like MS Paint and Adobe Photoshop do and vector-based programs like Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator do (the introductory image pretty much sums it up!). Vector art is almost infinitely scalable - you can change the size of the drawing and have it remain absolutely razor-sharp without any pixellation taking place. You might like to take a look at a "getting started" tutorial here; and there's plenty more tutorials if you Google for them. Yep - there will be quite a learning curve, but I guarantee it will rapidly pay off. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you and your welcome :). I hope to draw more pictures of aircraft that we may never get pictures of, such as the Mil Mi-24B Fenestron experamental, the Kamov Flying Tank, etc. I'll even try the newer art programs. I may be 14, but I have big dreams for Wikipedia's recognition twards aviation. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mi-44

Do you have a reference to support the idea that the Mil Mi-44 was based ont he Ecureuil airframe? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Right - which states that the Mi-34 (and Mi-44) are in the same class of helicopters as the Ecureuil, but nowhere states that one was developed from the other. Was the P-51 Mustang developed from the Messerschmitt Bf 109 airframe? They were in the same class of fighters. As I said once before - be careful with your facts. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know hardly anything about fixed-wing aircraft. Anyway, I see your point, but the illustrations at aviastar all show an Ecureuil airframe being used and it was also stated. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No - the pictures show that the Mi-44 strongly resembles the Ecureuil. and nowhere on the Aviastar site (as far as I could see) does it say that an Ecureuil airframe was used. If I've missed something here, perhaps you could point out where it states this? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


“ However, studies conducted in OKB in 1986-1987, have concluded that the replacement of piston engine M-14V26 for gas turbine TV-O-100 would entail changing the helicopter airframe. ”

After that, another paragraph says:

“ In spring 1987, was prepared draft prospectus-new machine. It was fundamentally perekomponovana and was a lightweight multipurpose vehicle class French AS-350 "Ecureuil". ”

It sure sounds like they gave it an Ecureuil airframe to me. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh - no. The first quote says that Mil had been considering developing a turbine-engine version of the piston-powered Mil Mi-34 but eventually, in concluded 1986-87 that the original airframe design would be unsuitable. The second quote says that the result of this was a virtually all-new design for a light, multipurpose machine in the same class as the Ecureuil. Nothing there about using an Ecureuil airframe; indeed, quite the opposite, since it emphasises that this was a fundamentally redesigned version of the Mi-34. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kamov Ka-90

I thought that by now you had come to understand what is required as a reliable source and that web forums are explicitly not acceptable as sources or external links?

I've added a proposed deletion tag to the article. Since you probably haven't encountered this before, this is how it works: Anyone here (including you) now has five days in which to object to the deletion by removing the tag. If, however, the tag is removed without any reliable sources being added to the article, I will be taking it through the formal deletion process.

As a separate issue, if you continue to disregard the need to only add information that you can back up from reliable sources, you will be blocked for disruptive editing.

I have no doubt that this is a real, genuine project, as displayed at the recent Heli-Russia 2008 show. However, being real is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Something must be verifiably real, for the quality control reasons we discussed earlier. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone did put a resource there. Flightglobal seems reliable enough to me. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I've removed the prod tag. I've also removed a lot of material that could not be verified from the Flight International article. The most concerning part of what I removed was the "submersible" part - you've taken people kidding around on a web forum and reported it here as fact. The second most concerning is the part about it being an attack aircraft - the individual who made the original post to secretprojects stated himself further down that he didn't even know why he had said that; and again, you reported it here as a fact.
Once again, don't contribute material here unless you can provide reliable evidence to show that it is actually true, and never use forums or blogs as a source of information (unless writing about that forum or blog). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I read it again and I see that those were just speculations. Thanks. Sorry for getting under your skin again. --Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's no problem - and you're not under my skin. I really value your contributions here, because your enthusiasm and energy are an asset to the project. But that same energy can have destructive effects if it goes off in the wrong direction! :) You just need to be more selective about where you get your information, and more careful about making sure that what you write here matches what your sources tell you. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)