User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 4

Archives

1, 2, 3

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks! Akradecki 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Brazil as an emerging superpower AfD

Which is the problem with the article? João Felipe C.S 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already stated that in my nomination for the AfD...this is material that belongs in the Brazil article. We don't need multiple articles about the same subject. The subject here is Brazil. It's economic rise is a subject to be discussed in the article about the country, and/or in the article about the Economy of Brazil. And, as others have said, the article is poorly sourced and essentially Original Research. I could raise a number of logical reasons why Brazil isn't anywhere near being a superpower, but that's irrelevant to the encyclopedia, just as much as your assertions that it is a superpower. The point is to report what the mainstream media and reputable journals are saying, and to do that reporting in the most relevant places. For you to champion your theory that Brazil is an emerging superpower is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Does that make more sense? Akradecki 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Julie M. says Thanks! AfD

A.R.: Check out Art History to see how I'm doing! Thanks so much. Hope I can turn to you in future! Julie Martello 14:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. Alan, I think my New Definition section in the article Art History is pretty damn good! Tell me what you think! Julie Martello 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks A.! Done! JLM Julie Martello 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Akradecki 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alan, if youve liked so far, youre gonna love my opening two-sentence definition of Art in article "Art." Take a look. JLM Julie Martello 16:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very nice! Akradecki 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

attempted new Montesquieu article

-i did not consult the talk page, so if you can, go ahead and delete the new page. groan. -sk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewk (talk • contribs)

Done. (Reverted back to its original state as a rediret to the proper page.) Akradecki 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Work of J.G.A. Pocock

-i have been trying to delete that page because it is full of errors. the citations are all mixed up. it should be deleted ASAP, so as to not mislead anyone, especially serious researchers. i created that article. no one else has worked on it. thanks. Stevewk 23:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the history, and a number of other users have edited it. If the citations are mixed up, then fix them, or the specific incorrect information. The listing, though, is worthy of keeping. Akradecki 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

not so. those IPs are all mine, and no other sign-in has edited that article. i am disavowing all connection with that article; i am not going to "fix" anything because its all a mess and would take too much time and effort to do so. i apologize for that. so, unless you want a bunch of erroneous citations there just waiting to be absorbed by some unsuspecting researcher, kindly do the world a favor and delete the article. thanks, Stevewk 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with them? Wrong titles? Wrong publications? Wrong page #s? Akradecki 04:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

years, volume numbers, and page numbers are all mismatched in no discernible or retraceable order. Stevewk 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

MHV Diagram

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I don't get nearly enough of them. However, note that I am watching MHV and all California airports for changes. The image I uploaded is from 0611, which is effective until November 23, 2006. I'll keep an eye out for changes around then, but I may not get it updated until after the Thanksgiving holiday. thadius856_talk 16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you ever get down to MHV, stop in at Hangar 60 and say "hi". Akradecki 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Republic

would you do me a small favor, since this has already gone to 2 reversions, and i dont want another war. see mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic&oldid=82446212 , and compare with the current. those guys are making a factual error/s, and dont know enough to realize it. thanks, Stevewk 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• hey, i could really use your help here. i just got reverted again, even though i changed my stuff to compromise with what's already there. help, please. Stevewk 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that instead of trying to work this out by see-saw editing, take the discussion to the talk page. It looks like you've had a bit of discussion there, but it needs to get more in-depth. And, I note, this definition stuff isn't new...there's actually quite a bit on the talk page. I think one of the things that hindering your argument is lack of real citations. Find a couple of text books that back you up and that elaborate on the Adams quote, and cite them (a one or two line quotation, properly cited, is allowed). It really sounds like there's a common definition and then there's a technical definition. Even one of the responses on the talk page said your approach is valid but as an alternate. Ok, start discussing how a primary and alternate definitions could be included. Bottom line, though, and I can't stress this enough: cite sources! Akradecki 23:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• need your help again, i'm afraid. i'm convinced i'm being reverted by someone who simply doesnt want me to have the rewrite. he's acting like an admin, but he hasnt stated anywhere that he is one. i just left him this:

• if you're a admin, i dont know why you havent stated it so far, so i'm going to assume you're not. the talk on this page, shows that you're simply intent on making sure i dont get the edit. so, i'm going to go ahead and report this to someone who i know is an admin. in the meantime, i'm restoring the template warning from before, and as much as i know you dont want to believe the rules apply to you, we'll see.

• and you wanted sources, right? i provided them. he just continues to revert, now in the face of evidence. this last time, he reverted a version with an 'ActiveDiscuss' inserted. lemme know, ok? for more background, both of our talk pages, and that of 'Republic'. thanks, Stevewk 15:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, Im just checking messages real fast...I won't have time to get into this 'til later today. For the record, I'm not an admin, either (I want to get a few more months under my belt before seeking the mop), I'm just an editor with a willingness to help with the hard tasks. Akradecki 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi from Julie M.

Alan: Thanks for your help! I annotated some of my contributions, as you suggested. I also tightened up some intros, e.g. Art History, Classical Music. This is fun! Hey, you asked me if I'm published in print media... I'll ask you, How do you DO that? P.S. are you some sort of Wikipedia honcho or something? All the best, Julie Martello 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! No, I'm not a honcho or admin...at least not yet! When I have a couple of more months under my belt, I may seek the admin mop, though. No, I'm just an editor who has the luxury of time to put to the effort, and I like encouraging other like-minding folks. As to publishing photography or writing? From the photography angle, I get published because I have aviation-related access that few others have, so when I get something good, usually all I have to do is call up an editor of a related magazine and pitch it to them. Sometimes I have them come to me, as they know I have the access. As for writing, I've done two books, one was a very limited release for a museum in Los Angeles. I pitched the idea to the museum director for a small (40 page) book that coincided with an exhibition they were planning, and she liked the idea. For my other one, the one on the Mojave Airport, no one had done anything on the place, even though it's really popular with aviation enthusiasts, so I convinced some friends of mine who are also business associates in a textbook publishing venture that it was worth the investment risk to stray from the type of book they were typically doing. It just made sense, so they agreed to the financial risk and the project was born, and has received good reviews. I've got 2 more books in the works, and as before, I'm writing and shooting from a perspective that I've not seen others do, so I know my stuff is unique. I also have written on occasion for a weekly aerospace trade journal, and again, its merely having an idea for a story that's unique and isn't being covered otherwise, and then I call the editor and pitch it...9 times out of ten he'll be enthusiastic. When there's a big event that a lot of other press photogs are covering, you'll never see me shooting with them...I'll always try to get off by myself to find a different, unique angle, that way my material is equally unique (of course, there is this one photog that tends to follow me when I do that, so I figure I must be doing something right!), which improves its chances of getting accepted. So I guess that's my top advice...never compete...find a story or an angle that isn't being covered, and come up with material that you don't have to compete with others to get accepted. Akradecki 21:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi from Julie M.

Great advice. Im gonna start taking it right away. Look for my stuff around, & if you would, tell me if im doin ok. All the best, your friend, Julie Julie Martello 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Marconi Wireless

Marconi Wireless was a wireless company so I reverted your edit per this, but then I noticed that they were bought out by Ericsson so I reverted it back to your redirect of Guglielmo Marconi. Binarypower 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Because of the extensive information available on the original Marconi company, and its impact on trans-atlantic shipping, among other things, there really needs to be a seperate page on the original Marconi Wireless, but I'm just too swamped at the moment to write it...that's why the redirect. Eventually, however.... Akradecki 20:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi from JLM

Alan... trying to take your advice to heart..would love to write a novel of perhaps a non-fiction on something really different and special.. thinking hard about your advice. I love writing .. its just getting off the ground thats tough. dont know whether my angle comes first, or agent, or commitment.. little girl lost in woods! just bat it around in your head..youve got such good advice..email if u get a chance..jlmartello@yahoo.com..thanks Julie Julie Martello 14:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Julie, will try to get an email out to you in the next couple of days! Akradecki 20:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

MQ-1 Predator edit

Thanks for you contribuations, but you have messed the true story to a version which i haven't seen any where in the news.for the cnn and abc i would say both don't have first hand coverage of the area and both are also affected by pov of their goverments.i'm only refering this in this case.Yousaf465

I've gone back and added the ABC and CNN reports and their information. On Wikipedia, they are considered proper, independent sources, and your deletion of them could be viewed as POV. I've also cleaned up the grammar on the sections you added. Finally, when adding source info, please use the Template:Cite web. Akradecki 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and over here in the US, news organizations aren't controlled by the government, and don't reflect the government's POV. In fact, they're usually fairly critical of the government, and are quick to point out when our government is out of line. Akradecki 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite web template,I was searching for it but couldn't find it.Now onwards i will this temp.About cnn and abc i would like to say that as this strike was conducted on pakistani soil so a local paper such as dawn's sources will be more realiable than a foregin one so i was following the dawn report.If it had been a new york air strike i could have followed the cnn.similar is the case for abc.Best Regards.Yousaf465

Forged comments

I'd like to bring to your attention that User:Jasethesurfy placed comments on his talk page to make them appear to come from you. Seraphimblade 10:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for the heads up! That comment, and the barnstars, were stolen from User:Gwernol, and I've let him know, since he's an admin. Akradecki 15:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the heads up. That's pretty dishonest. I'll keep an eye on User:Jasethesurfy. Best, Gwernol 15:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

JLM to AKR

A: How do you like my rewrite on the opening lede on Mannerism? All the best, JLM Julie Martello 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. I made one minor grammar adjustment, and modified the link for the Sack of Rome to go to the actual article rather than the disambig page. Keep up the great work! (BTW...did you get the email I sent you?) Akradecki 22:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

John Radecki

Hi A.K.!

I'm pleased to see that you have put up a page on John Radecki. A couple of things.

• Needs pics. Do you have any? There is a signed window at St Michael's Cathedral Wollongong which I could probably take a photo of.

I have pics (not very good) of the Art Nouveau leadlights at Central Station, which are very beautiful, but I have been told that Radecki wasn't pleased with them.

• Concerning Wikipedia style- I can't remember quite how your introductory sentence goes, but in general you oughtn't used expressions like "generally regarded as the finest....." unless you have the weight of History to back you up, and in this case you have the advocates of Alfred Handel, Napier Waller and so on, to argue with.

• What one does, in this situation, is a direct and acknowledged quote from whatever source one can find. You can employ whatever sort of O.T.T. language that you like to describe your relation's work, as long as it's in quotation marks, it's published and verifiable and you didn't write it yourself.

Good luck!

--Amandajm 07:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amanda! Thanks for the input. I'll try to go back and get specific quotes. Pics would be fantastic. I have a few that others have sent me, but none that are free of copyright restrictions, which is why I didn't put any up. If you can get some, that would be fantastic, not just for the article, but I'd like to have copies, as John was my great grandfather, and I'm trying to document his history, not an easy task from the States! Akradecki 15:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Useful?

Hi there! Do you think you could find a nice article home for this image? Image:ControlSurfaces.gif --HappyCamper 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow...nice graphic...sure, I think I can find a place for it! Akradecki 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How's this? Aircraft flight control systems Akradecki 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure :-) For the record, I found it on the Polish Wikipedia. It's a featured picture there I think. --HappyCamper 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dassault Neuron

done NawlinWiki 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

hi! :) do you know how I can translate a correct way these French aeronautics terms "fr:biréacteur" (bireactor? twinjet? dual jet aircraft) and "monoturbine" (monoreactor? monojet? single jet aircraft) please? thanks. Shame On You 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In general "aviation english", this would be translated as "twin-engine" and "single-engine" (for instance, I work on a twin-engine Bell 412 helicopter, and the one parked next door is a single-engine Bell OH-58). When the term is used repeatedly, it's also acceptable to abbreviate it slightly to "twin" and "single", example: a Cessna 441 is a twin, a Cessna 150 is a single. Hope that helps. My teenage daughter is learning French at school, and since I help her with her homework a lot, I'm pretty much learning it, too...although we're still at the "beginner" stage. Oh, by the way, I added the standard UAV project info box to the LOGIDUC page, but wasn't sure which of the aircraft to put specs up for. What do you suggest? Akradecki 16:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

aircraft assessments

The aircraft articles do not BELONG to some self-endorsed sub-group of Wikipedian aircraft enthusiasts. As another Wikipedian aircraft enthusiast I take exception to individuals tagging articles as poor or indifferent in quality without them taking the trouble to say how they could be improved. As for vandalism I deny this completely. What is closer to vandalism is the wanton, careless, lazy, ARBITRARY, unreasoned and unconstructive tagging of the articles. That's closer to vandalism than the removal of the unwanted and unneeded graffiti I will continue to do. Fear not: An assessment accompanied by reasoning will be warmly welcomed by me. Paul Beardsell 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like how it was assessed, that's fine...but you don't have to completely remove that tags. Assess them yourself, if it's so important to you. These tags are being systematically added to all aircraft-related articles, many just as a starting point. By removing the tags completely, you remove the opportunity for editors - who might not have the detailed project knowledge to put the tags back in - to add to the assessment. You're absolutely right, the aircraft articles don't belong to certain editors, and just as well they don't belong to you, so your unilateral and arbitrary decision to remove someone else's contribution, especially when it's a part of an established project process, does indeed stray close to the vandalism line. Bottom line: if you don't like what you see, don't tear it down, improve it yourself. Akradecki 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not hunt for reasons for an argument. I agree to not remove the tags. Happy? You agree, I am sure, that assessments without reasoning or suggestions for improvement are bad. I will remove those assessments, not the tags, leaving room (as you suggest) for a more constructive editor to reasonably assess and leave suggestions for improvement. Paul Beardsell 03:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me. While you're there, though, why don't you give your assessment, as well? Akradecki 06:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like unreasoned and unconstructive assessments. When I see a problem I try and fix it rather than try and describe the issue and a suggested solution. I prefer to just improve the article. And I think assessments are demotivating / demoralising to the ARTISTS (however imperfect they are) and just give CRITICS (however perfect they are) too much opportunity to judge rather than contribute. Paul Beardsell 17:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

BLB question and thanks

Thanks for your edits on Blue letter bible. My sign stood out like a sore thumb, even to a novice like me, but I didn't have the courage to remove it - thought I had to sign it! Could I ask advice on two questions please:

• seems like there is a needless Level 2 headline at the top of the BLB article (the one that reads 'The Blue Letter Bible'). It forces the contents box up higher than what I've seen on other articles. Should I get rid of it? Or if you agree, feel free of course.... Being a novice, I'm not very bold yet..
• When I link to the article, the link only works as 'Blue letter bible', not 'Blue Letter Bible'. Is some kind of alias or referral necessary, or what should I do? Should I rename the article with capitals?

Thanks again, Frank. --Frank Rabinovitch 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Frank, I've moved the article to Blue Letter Bible since it's a title. Article titles are case-sensitive. I've also removed the header that you pointed out...the opening paragraph shouldn't be under an initial header, as that messes up some advanced features of the encyclopedia such as popups. Don't worry about being a novice...we all were! You might want to read this on being bold! Anyway, good looking article, you're done a good job staying away from POV problems, too. I've added this one to my watch list so I can spot any future vandalism...I watch a number of Christian-related pages, as they often seem to be a target. Akradecki 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks Alan for all your changes, and greatly for your encouragement, which I definitely need. Seeing that WP:WEB stub was stressfull, but of course it deserved it. Pretty clueless of me to throw that first version up, and right before a board meeting, and Thanksgiving! I'm still challenged by the case-sensitivity. The wikilink "Westcott-Hort" fails, but "Westcott-hort" works in the sandbox. Both work in a search box when selecting "Go". I could have sworn I tested it! Not yet intuitive to me...

Quick question: when you moved the title from "Blue letter bible" to "Blue Letter Bible", did you have to make extra redirect pages, or did the 'system' 'do it' automatically? Speaking of the 'system', I won't tell how how long I tried researching how to make that nifty 'contents box' on my own, and then it appeared on its own! Frank. --Frank Rabinovitch 06:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome. For the link issue, take a look at how I set the WH link up...the article actually has a completely different name, so you do it as a two-part link within the double brackets. First part is the title name, seperated by a "|", and then the text you want to show in the article. Whenever you move an article, the "old" name is automatically changed to a redirect to the new one. Yeah, the contents box automatically shows up if you've got more than 3 headers. Have a great Thanksgiving...and feel free to ask anytime you need assistance! Akradecki 06:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Alan. I just removed all but one of the external links on the Blue Letter Bible article. I feel that I had previously violated the guideline for external links, and have documented my reasoning in the BLB talk page (I am a developer of BLB, and I was linking to a website I helped develop). Would it be appropriate to ask you to consider adding the external links back in, which would be in accordance with the guideline for a 'neutral and independent' editor? No worries!

Done! I did remove the financial statment link, though, as it relates to the non-profit organization rather than the actual subject of the article. If an article is created for Sowing Circle (articles for such non-profits certainly is not unheard-of), then it would be appropriate here. Any chance of BLBi getting accredited? If it did, it would merit its own article there, as well (and I'd certainly consider taking a few courses and fininshing the degree I started at MBI 25 years ago!). Akradecki 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! I sure appreciate your critical eye cleaning things up, and adding the categories. Two questions - one completely off the wall:

• 1) I'm concerned that the BLB article doesn't have a 'sources' headline. The Sowing Circle financials actually had some activities listed at the back (page 17 of 31), such as courses on BLBi, 100,000 tapes distributed gratis through Firefighters for Christ (has a wiki article), page views stats, etc. It is old (2004). I'm glad the link is gone, really, since it has a lot of private info, names, $$, etc. Should I add a source section? For instance, I interviewed the BLB IT manager, who works for our CEO, and followed up with an email exchange to confirm the interview, which is the verifiable source of the data in the article (100,000 CDs dist'd, 375,000 page views, 28,000 registered users). Based on discussions in my personal talk page with Dlohcierekim (read it backwards), he thinks it might go to WP:AFD, and I'm wondering whether BLB would be attacked for lacking sources for the data in the article?
• 2) Some day I'd like to add an article on my hobby - I collection Missionary Collection Boxes. The little wooden boxes that sat on a church or store counter to collect money for missionaries and missions. I have one from 1897 for Livingstonia, a mission founded in 1874 in honor of the good Dr. Many others. To me, they serve as a reminder of Paul's exhortation in Rom 10:15, and the body of donors supporting the early missionaries. I have stock certificates from the 1860s which were given to the kids at Sunday school as they contributed their dimes, to support the children's missionary ships such as the Morning Star and John Williams (no wikipedia article on either line, of ship! There were several of each. They'd rot away after 20 years, and build another). Anyway, each little wooden box tells an illustrated story of those times, and the missionaries they sent.

Now that I'm sitting here with a belly full of turkey and stuffing, I have a moment to get back to you.... I've asked a friend, David Haslam to also review the article. First, a "sources" or "references" header would be fine, and move the "external links" references up to it, as long as they were what provided the info for the article. Unfortunately, an email exchange isn't considered a "verifiable" source, as Joe Reader can't go look it up for himself. However, never fear...the links you've provided, and the reviews especially, are more than sufficient to keep this article out of danger should it be taken to AfD. What really helps, too, is that on the talk page you've described in excellent detail how the article meets WP guideline criteria.

Secondly, it was interesting to read about your collection box collection. I'll have to take a picture of the one we're using right now...an old printer ink cartridge box with a slot cut in the top! Actually, I'm one of a team of people from our church raising support to go to Siberia next summer to build a church, and we're doing bake sales and stuff like that to raise the funds. Our old box is just as functional, but not nearly as stylish as yours, I'm sure! Akradecki 01:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

3 a.m. and I'm starting to gnaw at the tofurkey (fauxturkey?) in the fridge. I eat most everything, but two of my teens are moral Veget, and so we bought a Vegan bird this year, and took it to our friends house, where they had a real bird. Frankly, the tofu one was best! I've seen old collection boxes made out of shell casings, but not ink cartridges! I get an excitement of finding old collection boxes that must be like an historian discovering an important document. They thrill me. They often come with layers of 'collection receipts' on the bottom. On some, I've steamed off 4-5 layers, putting it on the scanner each time, and melting away years, until the original pristine label appears! But I need to write about the missionary ships first. They deserve their due. And a Livingstonia article - there's only a stub for the village. I have 20+ books on the subject, most published before 1900. Very intimidating for me to think about pulling it off. Hope your work in Siberia goes well. Sowing Circle helped another ministry start an outreach coffee shop there. --Frank Rabinovitch 11:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Beechcraft template

Thanks for adding the aircraft i missed to the beecraft template. It was just a starting place and i am sure there were some I missed! Thanks again and keep up the great work. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! And, to me, it'll always be Beechcraft, not Raytheon! Akradecki 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC).

CATBird

I did not notice the link to your blog on your userpage?--PremKudva^Talk 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's down in the "real world" section. Link is: [1]

Thanks Akradecki got the link:-)--PremKudva^Talk 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bell 222

Thanks for catching that for me. I've never even looked at that article, so I assume it's some kind of computer glitch on the Wiki server. Wierd! - BillCJ 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder about the servers sometimes...I'll try saving an edit and I'll get the message that the server is locked for maintenance, but seconds later it saves. Shows there's still some mysteries left in the world. BTW, I don't know if we really want to chronicle all the film appearances by Deuces, but one (a B model) appears at the end of the film Second Hand Lions. Akradecki 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

True. If I thought we could stick in that appearance without attracting more cruft, I would do it. - BillCJ 00:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Another question...do you think technical photos, such as engine w/ cowling open, rotor head, instrument panel, etc, would be helpful? I can easily shoot these types of pics for both the 222 and the 412, as I work on them daily. Akradecki 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see using a couple of them in each article, if they are interesting enough (esp like a bird resting in an inlet or something unusual). But I would think you put a lot more on the Commons, and allow others to put them were they might be relevant, like a pic of the engine in an article on the manufacturer or the engine itself. As far as the Commons goes, it seems the more pics, the merrier.

Shots I think we could use:

1. A good aerial shot of a 222 with gear retacted.
2. A shot of a 230 or 430, if available, for compariso.
3. One or 2 good shots of a 412, preferably a different angle than the ones on that page.
4. As mentioned above, anything unusual, like a cat sitting/sleeping on a 222's sponson, whatever, would be interesting to me personally, even if we don't post them in the article. - BillCJ 05:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll dig through my stuff. All our 222s are Us, so I don't have any without skids. There was a gorgeous 430 that came in to the test pilot school next door, and I think I got a good shot of it taking off...can't remember if gear are retracted. Have tons of our 412, as that's my main bird...will pick a couple of unusual scene-call shots. Akradecki 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As fas as the 230/430 go, I don't mind if the gear is up or down; just wanted one of a 222B with gear up for comparison. But hey, if the aircraft (or the shot/background, etc.) is gorgeous, it really doesn't matter. If you're not a leg man, and a gorgeous woman walks into the room, are you really going to complain that you can see her legs 'cause she's wearing a very short skirt? She's still gorgeous. :) - BillCJ 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Akradecki! It's always good to see active editors about. About admin coaching, right now I do have a "coachee". I wouldn't mind taking another, but from the looks of the admin coaching page, there might be a "line", and I'd like to see what the status is over there before taking another person on. I'll get back to you in a bit. In the meantime, if you'd like to just informally toss questions my way, I wouldn't mind answering! Seriously, anytime. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Saw your question and will respond in a few hours. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

Did you read my edit summary at B&H Photo Video?? - crz crztalk 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

replied on the talk page. But yes, I did, and I disagree. You have not established notability by citation. There are thousands of retail stores frequented by pro photographers. Plus, this utterly fails WP:CORP Akradecki 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

After this total fiasco, you can count on my unconditional oppose at that RfA you're want coaching for. You actually managed to WP:BITE me despite actual efforts taken by me to prevent this. Now I am going to have to bring this up to DYK level, just to spite you. For the record, the article as posted was in an impartial tone (meets G11), and made at least two distinct and strong assertions of notability (meets A7). Everything else - WP:CORP, WP:V, or whatever else - is an issue for prod/AfD, not CSD. If you do not understand this, you should not be doing NPP patrol. I am decidedly less than impressed. - crz crztalk 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it's certainly your prerogative to oppose an RfA, if I choose to go that route. However, you're clearly trying to spite me (your words), which borders on a personal attack, which is quite inappropriate for an admin. Second, I'm not sure how I could WP:BITE you since you're certainly not a newcomer. Third, WP's guidelines on notability reads, "A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are few or no reliable published sources independent of the subject. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via Proposed Deletion, Articles for Deletion, or (for articles about a non-notable person, group, band, company, club, or website that does not even assert the notability of the topic) Speedy Deletion." As the article did not assert WP-recognized notability (at the time I added the tag), my adding a CSD tag was completely appropriate. As you're an admin, you should have known to add verifiable sources when you wrote it. Further, policy states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As you did not list any 3rd party sources, policy says that we shouldn't have an article on the subject, and again, nominating such an article for deletion is consistent with both policy and guidelines. (And remember, it's your responsiblity to provide sourcing info, not my responsiblity to go find it before I tag the article.) Don't forget Brad Patrick's admonition in fighting spam: "shoot on sight". Have you actually read the CSD tag? It says: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion." (emphasis added). In other words, by adding the tag, I'm suggesting that the page be deleted. It is for an admin to make the final decision. If you disagree with me, fine, as an admin you can politely remove that tag and simply state something like "subject is notable"...Nawlin and others do it this way, and it keeps things civil. Lastly, I'm quite disappointed in your tone and how offended you've become simply because I added a CSD tag to an article that, at the time, appeared to be spam. Further, your attitude of wanting to spite an experienced editor who happens to have a legitimate disagreement with you is definitely behavior not appropriate to an admin (neither is a talk page heading "WTF?"). You're taking this way too personal. Take a step back, take a deep breath, and lets get on with the business of making this - and keeping it - a great encyclopedia. Akradecki 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant BITE facetiously, I know it only applies to newbies. I did get it up to DYK - it'll appear on tomorrow's mainpage. Regards. - crz crztalk 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question

I looked into it. You did the wrong thing by speedy tagging it. Crz's edit summary, and his status as an experienced user (evidenced by a brief look at his userpage) should have led you to posting on B&H Photo Video's talk page if you had concerns about spam or sources. If there was still disagreement you could take it to AfD. That point aside, I think Crz was less than civil, and WP:BITE certainly doesn't hold for admins. You were more "in your face" than you had to be too. In the future you should take a more "let's talk this over" sort of attitude.. that should alleviate some of the "wtf?" sort of reactions. Thanks for asking, and happy editing, Fang Aili ^talk 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest critique, it is appreciated and will be heeded. More questions to come....Akradecki 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Serves" category on USAF bases airport infoboxes

The reason I'm removing the "serves" category on AFBs is because the infobox template is ostensibly set up for civilian airfields which provide passenger service to the nearest town. For example, it is not logical to have the infobox for Seymour Johnson AFB, SC serving Goldsboro; there is no passenger service in an F-15. I'm not debating whether or not Edwards is considered a town, just that saying an AFB serves the nearest town is not appropriate. I hope you understand my motivation. Conn, Kit 15:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But is that the real intent of the blank? Is it limited to only commercial flights? For instance, Edwards, the town, is an Air Force town, on an Air Force Base. There are regular MAC or MATS or whatever they call themselves this week, into and out of the Base. If you're military personnel, living on base, you can travel these flights. Bases serve towns in many other ways than just scheduled air carrier flights. Many airport serve towns by providing other flying services, such as aircraft rental, instruction, etc. That's available at EDW as well. That's my motivation for leaving it in. Akradecki 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Alan

Lar and I will be helping you. I haven't looked at your contributions yet even, and it will take me a while, a day or two likely. Meantime if there's anything I can help you with, send me an email or leave a message here and I'll see it. Best wishes, --Guinnog 02:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! As you review things, besides the user contributions tab, I've got a summary that is linked from my user page that lists the major stuff. I write a bit semi-professionally, so I'm used to blunt critiques, so any and all critiques and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Akradecki 04:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to do some vandal fighting? (I've only reviewed your last 50 or so edits, so if you're a seasoned vandal fighter I apologise in advance) --Guinnog 07:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, always up for some of that. I have several vandalism-magnets on my watch page, and its not uncommon to login just in time to do some reverts. I do have a question along these lines, though. One of the pages, Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu is especially a vandalism magnet from IP addresses. Watching the patterns, it seems that this is a page that is referred to by many, many high schoolers in the course of having to do reports on U.S. history. It'll go for a while with little problem, then there'll be a rash of vandalism over a period of a couple of weeks. Because of the persistence of such activity at times, and the fact that the vandalism comes almost exclusively from IP addresses, I've asked for sprotection a couple of times, each time it gets turned down for "not enough vandalism, just watchlist and revert". So what's the threshold for "too much" vandalism that warrants sprotection? Once a day, every day? Three times a day? Is there a hard and fast limit? It seems to me that on a page where rarely a legitimate edit comes from an IP address, and there's daily vandalism from IP addresses, that to save the valuable time of editors, sprotection would be a good thing. One of the reasons I'm asking is that if/when I get admin tools, I want to focus on areas where there's a backlog of work, and my experiences have demonstrated that protection request page often has quite a backlog, so knowing when to and when not to protect or sprotect woudl be a valuable piece of knowledge. Akradecki 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi... as soon as Guinnog and I have a chance to huddle about this a bit, I'm hoping to set up a skeleton (as a subpage of your user space) to carry this out. I look forward to working with you. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I look forward to that. Let me know if you want the subpage named something particular for the project. I see from your user page that you're into trains and planes and LEGO...nice to find someone with similar interests (I've got a LEGO SAAB Draken sitting on the coffee table), I've got the rare priviledge of having a job that lets me fly low-level over the Tehachapi pass and loop quite frequently! Anyway, let me know when you're ready to start. I replied to Guinnog above with a question, as well. Thanks! Akradecki 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Page has been set up at user:Akradecki/Admin coaching to match the standard conventional name, and you can start reading essays and thinking about what they mean... :) (homework! you knew it had homework, right?) Color me jealous that you fly as part of your job!!! BNSF predecessor ATSF is my favorite railway and I'm a huge Rutan fan so we definitely have lots of overlaps... ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic...this should be educational and fun at the same time! Akradecki 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Protecting a vandalised page

I would semi-protect it only if repair isn't able to keep pace with ongoing vandalism. Frustrating though it is to repeatedly fix vandalism, it is a sad corollary of the core principle of "anyone can edit". That might give us a useful focus for doing some vandal fighting though. --Guinnog 18:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you gave me a welcome

Were you supposed to be adopting me or helping me find my way through Wikipedia? I have to admit I am pretty confused by it in general. It is a big complicated place...--Filll 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft specs?

Are you still up for doing aircraft specs? I could use some help at Berkut 360. Akradecki 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get on it...just give me a few days. I'm on Christmas break soon, so I'll try to get as much as I can done while I have the free time. --KPWM_Spotter 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Berkut 360

We never called the original plane a Berkut 360, it was just Berkut. The 540 we called a Berkut 540

Why was the reference to the origin of the name Berkut removed from the article? I was there, it came from the book (other competing names were "Tallon" "Raptor" and "Nighthawk".) And what is your source for the "Griffon" variant?. Richard Riley, owner, Renaissance Composites.

Hi, the names come from the website...that's how it is currently presented. For articles, the preferred name is the current or most common. As for the book, it may have come from there, but by listing the book reference, you are stating that that reference says the name came from there. As for Griffon, I'm out on a limb there, as it is based on the call-sign placard in the cockpit of N360MG. If this is incorrect, I'm happy to remove it. Akradecki 19:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Griffon name may be correct, I just haven't heard it before and I try to keep tabs on things Berkut related.

The Berkut name was suggested by a relative of Don Murphy's, he was reading the book at the time. Later we bought a couple of cases of the book and gave one to each owner. I'd like to reflect that fact in the article and give a link to the book, simply to acnowledge that it was the inspiration for the name. One of the most common questions we got was what Berkut meant and where we got it. If you have a syntaxt to do that, I'd be happy to use it. Richard Riley

That's stretching the OR rules a bit, but I'll see if I can't come up with some verbage that will suffice. Thanks for the safety record info. A curious question, though: Is the N91DR that Dick Rutan was flying and that's involved in the Voyager Aerospace/UAV Battlelab evaluations the same aircraft that crashed, or is it a recycled N number? Akradecki 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A little of both. Dick Rutan flew the original 91DR for a Discovery Channel air-to-air video shoot in the early 90's. When it crashed there was very little left, certainly not enough to rebuild. It disintegrated back to the firewall. The 91DR flying now is a recycled N number. It has a unique engine - a left turning IO-540 parallel valve engine, 260 hp nominal but with high compression pistons, probably making about 300 hp. Use of the left turning engne allowed the use of an AeroComposites constant speed prop made for a tractor configured airplane. It's rate of climb is very high, but it is slower (in top speed) than other 540's with fixed pitch props.

Can you tell me more about N360MG? Is it a 360 or 540 engine? Is it fixed main gear?

How do I get the name and datestamp thingie at the end of my text? Richard Riley

Hi Richard, to get the name and date stamp, just type four tildas (~~~~) at the end of the message and the software inserts it automatically. I can't tell you much about 360MG's engine, other than it's running a two-bladded prop. It was in our hangar overnight at KMHV a few days ago, and at the time, I was more fascinated looking at the front office. Akradecki 17:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons to Wiki

I saw the CATBird image on its page and notice it is in the Wiki Commons. The links for wikipedia and commons are quite different. So how do I make a link for an image from the commons. I also notice that the CATbird image is uploaded into Wikipedia and not linked from its commons page.

So the question is does one save this image and once again upload into wikipedia or is there another way around it?--PremKudva^Talk 04:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about making a link from an outside page? If so, you might be better linking to the image that's on my blog. Because Wikipedia and Commons share the same wiki software, the links from one to another work a bit different than normal html links. If you wanted to link directly to the commons image, click on the thumbnail, then when you're in the commons area, right click on the image and get the direct link from the properties selection. Akradecki 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No not from an outside page but within wiki. Like the CATBird image is in the commons, but here at wiki it is not pointing at the commons page, but the wiki page. So the question is does one d/l and save this image from the commons and once again upload into wikipedia or is there another way around it?--PremKudva^Talk 09:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you're asking. You don't download it from commons and upload it to wikipedia. In fact, image submitters are encouraged to upload to commons instead of wikipedia, because that way other wiki sources - including other language wikipedias - can use the same image. When you click on the small image in the article, it comes up looking like it's in Wikipedia, but that's an automatic function that the software does...the image is actually in Commons all the time. So, the way to do it is to upload to commons, but create the link in the article just like you would for an image that had been uploaded to Wikipedia. The software will do the rest in going and finding the image in Commons and bringing it into the article. Akradecki 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Alan. Conversely what about images that I have uploaded at wikipedia, (I have released it into the public domain) I would like to move some of these into commons. --PremKudva^Talk 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They have to be re-uploaded from scratch into Commons. I know of no way to move them. Akradecki 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

History of unmanned aerial vehicles

Can I just go ahead and remove International Endurance UAVs, The NASA ERAST HALE UAV Program, and Miscellaneous UAV topics from the article then? Salad Days 23:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Thanks...it's nice to see someone else working on this project! Akradecki 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a big job, and I'm glad to help where I can :) Salad Days 00:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest thing is to merge the data on the individual models into the individual articles. Akradecki 00:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

RC-135 work

Alan, the work you've been doing on the RC-135 page is fantastic. Looks like it's gotten in your blood - that tends to happen. :) I've been a crewman on the RC-135V/W for the past 13 years, hence my username. Anyway, thanks again for the excellent work! RJASE1 07:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! As I work at Mojave, near EDW, I see the stranger side of these birds, and basically got a little frustrated at the confused state of the various 135 and military 707 pages, so I've been trying to bring a little order to things. More work to come, and my wife's calling me to bed this late Christmas eve! Akradecki 07:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

list of unmanned aerial vehicles

Hi Akradecki, Thanks for maintaining the list of UAV's, The open source Apeliotes project has upgraded and moved to [2] from [3]. Removed old and updated list accordingly. So theres no need for the Apeliotes magnetometer based flight controller to appear in the list. All traffic is slowly being diverted to the new site. Thanks Matt C.

The new site should mention that, because as it is, it appears that you're replacing a competitor's site with your own. Akradecki 14:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.233.170 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Golich17

You should be aware that User:Golich17 does not seem to be aware of the concept of consensus. He has a pattern of making great changes to articles, with no discussion at all. Be prepared for a long battle, b/c he'll give you one given have the chance. - BillCJ 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Akradecki 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (struck out previous comment because things are going smoothly, which I appreciate. Akradecki 04:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Aviation Template

Well... I'm sorry about the change. On the other hand, I believe having the type of box I used would create more of a consistency, as it is used for things such as the Air Transport Association, which is on most North American airline pages, as well as European Associations. I will create a discussion regarding this on that page.--Golich17 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... I would like to help then. Would you know where I can obtain such codes for such boxes?--Golich17 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I've been working on a couple boxes. They seem to be turning out nice.--Golich17 02:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bell gunships

Thanks for adding the Bell 207 and 209 to the templates. I actually trying to decide if it's best to leave the 207 on the AH-1 page. Options would be placing most of the info on the Bell 47 page, of which the 207 is derived, or giving it its own page (not really enough content at the moment tho). I wasn't quite sure what to do with the 309, but since I found the pic for it at the same time as that for the YAH-63, and they were bth follow-ons to the AH-1, I decided to place them on the same page for the moment. The AH-1 page is long enough as it is, and even then, there isn't enough coverage to some models, esp the late Army models. Any suggestions/comments/feedback you may have would be appreciated. - BillCJ 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

At one point, I was going to write an article on the 201, but never got around to it...maybe a combined 201/207 article would have enough material. Will see if I can dig back up my source material. Akradecki 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it...[4]...don't know if I'll get the chance today, but by the weekend at least, I could do a piece. Do you think the two (201 & 207) would combine well? Akradecki 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On 201/207, yes, I do, especially if you have pics of 201, and a better one of 207. I hadn't thought of doing that, which is why I asked! What would you name it? I'd chose Bell 201/207, following my patter in renaming Bell 427/429. I almost chose Bell 309/409 for the YAH-63 page, but decided to go with the better known name, as I wasn't sure Bell 309/YAH-63 would work either. - BillCJ 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What would you think of renaming the Bell 222 page as Belll 222/430? I don't really like using slashes in titles unless I have to, but in some cases (like the ones above) they are needed. I think Belll 222/230/430 would be much too drawn out/complicated. The 222 is the original, and the 430 is the current model, so I think it covers the main points. - BillCJ 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. As for the earlier message, I've got access to one Army PD image of the 201. Akradecki 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I got bored, so the Bell 201/207 page has been created. Feel free to change anything you want to fit your format. - BillCJ 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Looks like my daughter will be demanding most of my attention this evening, but tomorrow should be more free. Akradecki 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

X-53

I checked it, and it looks fine to me. (I run IE7 on Win XP.) I did put the first text line below the image line. Other than that, it the code looks fine to me. - BillCJ 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm having trouble with the IE7 upgrade, so I'm still using the old Netscape 7...it's probably an artifact of that browser. Thanks for taking a look at it, though. Akradecki 05:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Due to near-edit conflict I didn't notice you also replied about the reversion. I guess having 2 messages clarifying the issue from 2 different editors can't hurt. Take care, Crum375 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents

I did not know that, sorry. I plan to write articles about these ones, but not yet, please remove them for now. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents

1976: September 19 - A THY Boeing 727 crashed into a mountain in Turkey killing 154. this one has no article too. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out...I've now removed it and one other redlinked from that year. Akradecki 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CJ610

Sorry about the cite ref. I guess I missed that. In any case, Chris said it— seems like a related engine that should tied in. Look at the TF34/CF34 and TF39/CF6. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Learjet 45

Wow.. I'm impressed not only with how quick you responded to my copyedit tag on Learjet 45, but how well you rewrote the article. And you filled in Learjet 40 well too. Thanks! --Vossanova ^o< 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it was sheer coincidence...I've been working my way through the Lear product line making some article upgrades for the last week or so, and just happened to sign on in time to see your tag posting. Akradecki 19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

YF-113G

My reference for this is Mr. Peter Merlin (as I say on my own webpage on the YF-1xx designations, as reference in the Wiki article). Pete Merlin has a lot to say about "Area 51", see

• http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/dreamland_timeline.html
• http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/dreamland_50years.html
• http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/black_projects_history.html

YF-113G is mentioned in all three articles. Pete has been an extremely reliable source in the past (much better than average, considering the topic). His source for the information on the YF-113G is an USAF officer's biography, which is also mentioned in this old usenet posting:

• http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/msg/7dd90b3afe3a19a9?hl=en&

The poster, calling himself "C3", is not Peter Merlin. However, Peter has made it clear to me that he had the same bio as his reference.

Anyway, it comes down to who you trust more. I know I wouldn't bet my money on AW&ST, especially so when it comes to formal aircraft designations.Andreas Parsch 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Beck Mahoney Sorceress

I guess I need a tutorial on how to use copyrighted images with permission. I emailed the photographer of the image I'd like to use and he emailed back his permission; this obviously isn't enough, so what's the next step? Thanks Jedhammer 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jedhammer (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Refs

Be careful of newlines in the reference itself. As an aside, please try to give references a name using 'name="name"'. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, didn't see that, thanks! I generally only use the name feature when I know that the ref will be used again later in the article. Is there a particular reason you like it for single use situations? Akradecki 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rutan Voyager

Move is completed. Someone really ought to redo all the incoming links... NawlinWiki 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and it's high on my to-do list. Akradecki 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Inviscid flow

In the laminar flow article, are you sure that inviscid flow is a type of laminar flow? I don't think it is and I have never seen it written elsewhere. I changed that part of the article to talk about Stokes flow, which is a special case of laminar flow, but you changed it back, so I assume you know what you are talking about. If you have an external reference that I could consult, I would appreciate it. Easyl 10:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no clue...I was doing some vandalism patrolling and this one came up. Typically when a person changes text like that, especially when a link to another wikipedia article is involved, and doesn't provide a reason or a reference for the change, it is assumed that the prior version is correct. May I suggest that you first post a discussion of this on the article's talk page and see if you can get a response. If not, make sure that the linked article doesn't suffice as a reference, then go ahead and make the change, but note in your edit summary that you are changing an unreferenced, unverified statement in accordance with a talk page proposal. That way, it won't appear as vandalism. Thanks, and happy editing. Akradecki 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Learjet

My "too critical" comment was sarcasm directed at KP. :) - BillCJ 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I have to admit, and I'm sure I'll get into wikitrouble for saying this, I do appreciate your style of sarcasm. Helps to keep things light, and makes a point at the same time! Akradecki 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate to tell KP, but I really held back alot in my comments before his last reply. I don't think he has any idea how critical the 3 of us can be. We get very critical, but we still manage to stay civil (most of the time, anyway :) ). I do like to use humor and sarcasm to lighten moods, and to make points, though I have to be careful not to go overboard. - BillCJ 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I started getting really irritated at him, but then went and looked at his edit history, and realized he's really just a newbie; though he's got 2500 edits, only 700+ are in articles. I think he really does desire to make this a better place, so he probably means well (trying to assume good faith, here), but I think he needs to realize that he's lecturing some veterans, and getting stuff wrong in the process. Oh, well. I guess we can look at it this way...what KP did spurred the 3 of us to get down and really produce a much better article. Despite the edit conflicts, I do think we definitely make a good team. Akradecki 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stewart crash

Good work on he 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash article. I don't know how much info on the crash the editors on the Payne Stewart‎ page will cut out of the article, but as far as I'm concerned, that's up to them. I doubt golfing fans would appreciate us tinkering with golf-related aricles any more than we appreciate botanists tinkering with aircraft articles :) . But now that the crash has it's own page, no need to worry to much about the bio page. Anyway, it looks very good so far. - BillCJ 06:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another job for the 3 Wikiteers

I've found myself doing another unappreciated pop-culture clean-up on the Autogyro‎ page. Any assitance would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The spotted fish

No problem. You've been pretty active lately, so I thought I'd just do it myself. I pretty much just shoe-horned it in, so be sure to tweak where necessary. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Infoboxen?

Well first no prob about the {{AircraftProject}} tag. I had done a bit of work on the Learjet articles a while back and just noticed that after that merger of 28 and 29 the tag was not there. As far as the Info boxes, I will try to do any you have, it gives me something to do in my bored moments. --MJHankel 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gulfstream

I just ran across a couple of Gulfstream aircraft articles today, the Grumman Gulfstream II and Gulfstream III) (which redircts to C-20 Gulfstream) in particular. Boy, what an absolute mess! It'll take a while to even make sense of what's there, and the fact that Gulfstream redesignated its new models won't make it any easier.

I'm going to post some ideas on the Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace page. I'm really not sure which direction to go on some things. Feel free to participate if you can. - BillCJ 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger that... Akradecki 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cessna

I'll take a look and help where I can. The Cessna Citations by them selfves are larger than the Gulfstreams, so I imagine that will take long time. Since Cessna also rebranded the Citations, some of our choices on that task might carry over to the Gulfs, and vice versa. - BillCJ 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJCOM Wings - the 4950th

Saw your question on EagleWSO's talk page. The USAF has two types of wing, 'Air Force Controlled', or AFCON wings which are one, two, or three digit wings and have continuous histories and lineages. Eg 1st Fighter Wing, 305th Strategic Wing. There were also for a long time, not sure of their exact status now, MAJCOM or Major Command (eg TAC, SAC, MAC) wings with four digits. These were temporary wings and do not continue their history when deactivated. TAC had some in the 4400 range, like the long established 4404th(?) Wing in Saudi Arabia, Electronic Systems Command had a higher number range - 8000/9000 etc. SAC used a series of 1700 numbered wings during the Gulf War - you've probably heard of the 1701st, 1702nd etc etc. Strategic Wings explains some of the system. I think EagleWSO deleted your listing because all the other wings on that page are AFCON, not MAJCOM. We need a good listing of MAJCOM wings though and don't have it yet. Cheers Buckshot06 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But see also Category:Four_Digit_Wings_of_the_United_States_Air_Force

Good point. I'll have a crack at it at the top of the page. Please comment on how understandable it is.

BTW, if you put a colon in front of the word "category", you don't need the "no wiki" tags Akradecki 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to have a MAJCOM section. The thing is, off-wiki I'm now hectically busy and have less time available to do a good job on a MAJCOM wings section that is very large and under researched. Maybe you could lend a hand, maybe by doing a simple listing of the four digit units from the Strategic Wings article, plus the few that are in the four digit wings category, and any else you find? Please don't take this as a fob off; it's just that I'm about to go overseas..

Cheers Buckshot06 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

It looks like the deletion police are trying to circumvent a previous AFD again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900 edits

Hi, Mr. Radecki.

Thank you for your edit and comment to the Beechcraft 1900 page. I appreciate the explanation along with the edit.

I have some questions how to improve the page further, if you are willing to take the time to answer.

I linked to a picture taken from the wiki "Flight Simulator" page, since the picture was of a Beechcraft 1900 simulator, and no other cockpit photo is readily available. Is this practice acceptable?

Furthermore, the article failed "good article" criteria. I am a pilot/instructor in the 1900 for one of the listed airlines, and while I am responsible for only about 50% of the content, almost all of what I know comes from the Raytheon Aircraft Flight Manual and other similar resources which cannot easily be linked. Factually, almost everything in the article is pretty solid, but I am not sure how to better source things. Can you advise?

Thank you in advance for your courtesy and response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikepurves (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Mikepurves 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

______

Thank you, Alan, for your photo contribution to the 1900! I got your comment on my talk page; here is a copy of it and my reply. Thanks again. Mikepurves 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Don't know if this is worth mentioning, but the USAF has more than the UD serialed C models. They operate at least one earlier, UB-42, which wears completely civie colors and has civie reg N20RA. It taxied past me this morning at Mojave, I grabbed a pic thinking it was N-G's corporate bird, but checking the registration shows it's owned by the Department of the Air Force. I've uploaded the pic to commons, Image:Airforce-b1900-N20RA-070201-01cr.jpg if you want to see it. Akradecki 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I know that the military has other 1900s, including some -Ds. Didn't know about the UB, tho. I will work the pic. in, and find a place to comment on that. Interesting that although there was a designated UD series, many of the military 1900s are basically converted civilian a/c. Mikepurves 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

Thanks. Congrats on your term at Ameriflight. I hope you remember it fondly.

Re. the picture, I will do that. I have to get something better than my camera phone, but I will be at FlightSafety Orlando, using that exact simulator, this time tomorrow.

I will have to look up the citation process. Frankly, when I get away from aircraft specs, some of my knowledge just comes from flying the plane for 5+ years and poring over manuals. If there is an AFM reference, I can make it. Some things (such as airlines flying the plane) simply come from doing an Airliners.net photo search and cross-referencing the airlines' wiki pages. A few things (history of the 1900 models, e.g.) come from internal company training PowerPoint programs and I cannot get back to original sources. Other contributors later added details consistent with the information I posted, so I believe it is factually sound, but I cannot provide original source materials for every statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikepurves (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Mikepurves 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

J85

Gebus, you reverted everything else I added too? Nice work, now both articles are stub garbage again. This is a wonderful example of the disaster that occurs when one forgets the difference between process and product -- product is what you want, the process for getting there is unimportant. I am reverting. Maury 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cobra

Thanks. Signaleer did that on purpose becuase I don't think the pic he uploaded to infobox in the P-51 Mustang article is good enough to be the lead pic. He's also the person who deleted the "Adult" infobox becuase he thinks I'm not acting like an adult. I guess his definition of adult is one who always lets him get his own way! THat I certainly am not! - BillCJ 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I went and reviewed all that. I know it's hard dealing with situations like that, but don't allow him to get you into a situation where you could get blocked for 3RR yourself. It just isn't worth it. I know I'm losing the consensus discussion on the J85 page, but I still firmly believe in the concept, so I'd suggest revising what you put on the P-51's talk page, and ask for other's input about which image should be the lead (and, I know you're frustrated, but no matter how bad it gets, don't allow yourself to get into the personal attack mode...it isn't worth it, either!). You could even put two or three of the top images on the talk page and ask other editors to comment. Once that is done, then if someone like Signaleer or anyone else changes it, it's simply a matter of dealing with vandalism. Just some thoughts....

BTW...I'm about to upload a pic to the 412 page...give me a few minutes then take a look and see if you think it fits. If not I won't mind if you take it down. Akradecki 04:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Proteus MP-RTIP-3106.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Proteus MP-RTIP-3106.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:SYR

Hi Alan. Re: [5]: You forgot to wrap the cat into noincludes :-). I fixed it. Just thought I'll let you know. But it seems you are not exactly a bloody newbie, so it could well be you know already — just to make sure :-). User:Aerobird reported articles appearing in Category:Flag templates at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Categorisation_error. Cheers, --Ligulem 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It was late last night...I guess I really shouldn't edit when I'm so tired! Akradecki 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Calktm3 and album articles

Hi Akradecki. I saw that you had some conversation with User:Calktm3 a while back (his talk page). He created a musical group article and their albums. The group article (Chi Rho Wake Forest Christian Male A Cappella Ensemble) was deleted as an uncontested prod (on the basis of non-notability), so I went ahead and prod'd all the group's album articles. Do you have any input on this? I am guessing that the group is indeed non-notable, but if that's not the case, I'll happily remove the prod tags and take another look at the group article. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 05:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They might pass WP:MUSIC, but it would need some outside reliable sources to do so. Also it contained copyvios. So.. I don't know. I can restore the article, remove the copyvios, and put it in a user subpage of yours, if you'd like to work on it. In the mean time I can also remove the album prods. Let me know what you'd like to do, Fang Aili ^talk 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd appreciate you doing this, if it's not too much trouble. I'll try to get some refs set up and then when it's ready, I'll drop you a note. Thanks much! Akradecki 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See User:Akradecki/Chi Rho. I'll go de-prod the albums now. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WASP Article

Reference to changes made to the WASP article:

(cur) (last) 17:58, 27 January 2007 Akradecki (Talk | contribs) (→Notable WASP aviators - notable implies they have wikiarticles. Feel free to add these back in when those articles are written)

I understand your logic behind this, but next time just remove the brackets if you feel annoyed by seeing the red text--don't be a troll and remove valid information off the article next time.
--Signaleer 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there were hundreds of WASPs (I personally know one, but she's not notable enough to be added. The point of having the list is to document notable WASPs. If there's no wikiarticle establishing notability, and sources haven't been cited in the article establishing notability, then there's no point in having them on the list. Complying with WP's notability guidelines is not trolling! Akradecki 17:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Using yourself as a point of reference "I personally know no one, but she's not notable enough to be added" and the judge of who is added and who isn't isn't within the Wiki guidelines either. I'm sure if you knew anything about the WASPs, then I'm sure you would know who these women were that I had added. Try doing some research or picking up a book at your local library for a change. Again, stop being a troll!
--Signaleer 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Year in Aviation

Jogersbot has been removing YiAs from a number of articles on my watchlist. I'm about ready to ask about it on the Project, see what can be done. I understand about reader compatibility and all, but there must be a way to make them both work. - BillCJ 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

P-51 Article

In reference to your petty threat:

==Vandalism warning==

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. . The image on the P-51 page is there by consensus, and persistently removing it against consensus is considered vandalism. Akradecki 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars is not vandalism, suggest you refer to the Wiki Guidelines.
--Signaleer 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather amusing that you're referring me to Wiki guidelines, though you flagrantly disregard consensus, guidelines and policy. You have a lot to offer, but you have to realize that this is a community, and that you need to work with others, especially the more experienced, established editors. Much of what happens here is based on respect for each other, and when you insist on your way over consensus, when you insist on forcing everyone else to view thumbs at the size that looks good to you on your monitor, that just shows a huge lack of respect and willingness to work with others. Please reconsider how you approach this project, and work with others, instead of taking an "in your face, I'll do what I want" attitude. Akradecki 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bot malfunction?

Which part of the Manual of Style do you mean? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Piped link are both perfectly clear about this. The reason for linking full dates is to allow date preferences to work, not to provide context for the reader. Jogers (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was traditionally a lot of disagreement whether bare years or months should be linked or whether piped links to "years in something" are acceptable in general. Linking full dates in a fashion that allows reader's date preferences to work is a clear-cut case, though. I can see no disagreement about it in this discussion. There are only some complaints about how this feature works now. Jogers (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)