June 2008

Pondering

Bill, I am seriously considering about retiring from editing in wikipedia, it seems to me that there are a lot of rabid deletionist at work all wanting to tag the works or images uploaded by others (such as myself) for speedy deletion (or maybe a slow death leading up to the execution date). I went through so much effort to search and upload some of these hard to find images for use on a few of article which I have helped to tweaked and improved, it makes an editor and that his effort is not being appreciated here. Look at RSAF Black Knights and the subsequent discussion here Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#RSAF Black Knights with regards to the images I had uploaded, some of those were unique in that I cannot find a better replacement to illustrate the points in some other articles (such as for this island). Someone place a request for fair use review on these 7 images, all of which are found in the RSAF Black Knights page:

They did so without even bother reading through the entire article(s) first and I asked them to do so but nobody replied me on this, proving to me that they just simply tag the images for the sake of it as I argued against so. BTW, would I be able to delete all my uploaded images if I make a request for it? I want to leave absolutely nothing behind should I chose to egress from wikipedia. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some knee jerk tagging. You have what looks like good fair use rationales for all those images. Read over them and see if you can add any more detail or additional reasons. This image Image:747 flight attendants.jpg is one I've seen put up for deletion. Also, try to take them out of the gallery format in the Blackknights article so each image illustrates some text or put details in the captions. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I was wondering if you could go though this article and appraise it to see if it still qualifies as Start class or perhaps maybe B or A class? Thanks. --Dave1185 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for references on the Indian Naval Air Arm article

Was there a specific section that you wanted more references in, in this article? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron football clean-up

I put it in the talk page. It was obvious to me.

Have you ever thought of putting that in an edit summay? "Lacks sections headings and overuse of bolding" would fit very easily. Even a summary staying "See talk page" on your second revert would have been helpful. However, it would probably taken you just as long to fix those MAJOR problems as to keep adding the stupid tag! - BillCJ (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embraer MLJ/MSJ

Hi Bill! Nice to hear from you.

From the ref it does look like your assumption is correct:

MLJ - Legacy 450
MSJ - Legacy 500

That also seems to follow in that the MLJ had eight seats and therefore should have a lower number than the MSJ with its ten seats. Generally a higher model number means a bigger aircraft as in the Gulfstream line-up.- Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - glad to help! - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concorde

I just thought it was a better quality image. My bad. Sorry.

DineshAdv (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Really-Free Library

I read your essay on The Really-Free Library. I have to say, when I first saw the title, I read it as The Reality-Free Library. It seems like an equally good name, for basically the same reasons. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have to consider that name, as you are right, it does fit! - BillCJ (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroengines

Hi Bill - best general survey that I'm aware of is Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines; quite a different sort of "encyclopedia" from his work on aircraft manufacturers; the entries in this encyclopedia are on the engine manufacturers themselves, but are long, multi-page entries that go into quite some detail on individual engines. The emphasis is historical rather than technical, and the book is quite light on actual specifications, but is a good start. Copes from $US20 and up on Abebooks. Other than that, I guess you already know that Jane's contains a highly-detailed technical description of aero engines in current production every year. If there's a book that combines the best of both worlds out there, I haven't encountered it yet, but would be sure to buy it if I did - there certainly seems to be a gap there.

As for the T38/T40, Allison, the People and the Power: A Pictorial History can be browsed via Google books here and gives a few snippets. I also found a bit of "color" in this Air & Space Magazine article on the XF-84H. My copy of Gunston is hiding from me at the moment; but when it resurfaces, I'll certainly add whatever it has to say about this engine to the article. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - there are quite a few books that cover engines of certain types, eras, and/or nations, but nothing (AFAIK) with any kind of broad scope. These specialist works are also very pricey! Crowood Press publishes some very nice ones. Maybe when we've finished adding aircraft and start looking at the engine redlinks I'll be able to justify shelling out for a couple :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyushin Il-14 disputed tag

Bill,

You put disputed tags on the Il-14 article where it says "These changes greatly improved performance in engine out conditions", which was cited from Bill Gunston's Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft. What is questionable about this statement? Gunston makes specific reference to the changes (particularly an improved anti-icing system) "...greatly improving performance in adverse conditions and especially with one engine out." Nigel Ish (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia in Blue Thunder

Hello!

I stand corrected on the article in progress. It was my mistake to incorrectly state there was nothing in the making and I apologize.

Having said that, I still believe that the information I deleted, though clearly useful in the article you're working on dealing with the helicopters themselves, does not contribute much to the article on the film. The techinical details about the helicopters, as far as WP:MOSFILM#Trivia is concerned, are more of a fan fact than an important fact. Again, they would be important in the helicopter article but I sincerely doubt their importance in the film article. Rather than deleting it again and starting an edit war, I will ask for a third opinion from an experienced editor in the WP:WikiProject Films.

Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWik78 (talk • contribs)

The trivia has been cleaned up at Blue Thunder. I moved the main helicopter entries to a helicopter section in that article. SWik78 cleaned out a lot of the other ones. I copied a lot of that to Blue Thunder helicopter sandbox just in case. Take it easy.. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texan II and tweet etc/your editorial corrections/bruce condell

hi, noted your revisions to my text changes to the Texan-II page which, incidentally, i think is very well presented and compiled. the question of the exact relationship between the pc-9 and the texan-II in the relevant period, by this i mean the original jpats competition, proposal evaluation and up to the final u.s.a.f. selection, will always be open to discussion. the pc-9 was the original platform for the development which was finalised as the T-II. it was developed from the pc-9 and there was a license/royalty agreement with pilatus. i am familiar with the pc-9 and was senior. v.p., sales, pacific rim at the manufacturer for many years. the original pc-9 specification committee, of which i was a member, was entirely marketing driven and it was my position paper proposing 'pc-9' as type-designation and as the then leading brand which was adopted (in the early 1980's). the later jpats/U.S.A.F. result was a lifeline for the mil-division of beech, which had suffered for some years as a lame-duck with the poorly performing t-34c and with no other prospects. i have always thought that a company such as beech with a very successful brand and a very loyal customer base (mil and civil) is the best home for an outstanding aircraft such as the t-II. i also believe that the strength of the beech reputation was influential in d.o.d. thinking. how you prefer to represent the pc-9/t-II relationship is not for me to say but i would only like you to know that my edit was not based on ignorance.

newsubj: ref the t-37: i was head of sales w.europe at cessna commercial jet division back in the early 1970's. this brought me also into serious contact with T and A 37. as i recall, the aircraft, depending on configuration, is known variously as: tweety bird, tweet, super-tweet or dragonfly. these things are always the subject of discussions, which are rarely settled. best wishes, bruce condellbruce (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks. As I'm sure you know, it's rare that the US buys any foreign aircraft without making many changes, from the Canberra on, the AV-8A, C-27J, and UH-72A being rare exepctions. This always makes the situation complicated, and it's good to have an insider's view on these issues to help guide us, even though some of that knowlegde is uncitable. As to the Tweet, we in the WP:AIR project genereally use the DOD's MDS releases for official desgnations and names. The 2004 edition lists "Tweet" as the official name for the T-37, and the MDS file is cited in the T-37 article. Of course, users and observers invariably come up with their own names, again complicating the situation, and I'm usually not dogmatic about which name we use unless it's listed int he MDS. I do hope you'll continue to read and edit the aircraft articles, and I'm sure you can be a good contributor, and source of knowledge to other editors. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise!

Hey, Bill, I'm baaaack...in a very limited way. How have you been? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WELCOME!!!!! Send me an email if you can, I'd love to know more. Oh, you might take a look at the Cessna Citation page. Right after you did your revamp of the CItation family pages, someone decided to add some separate articles on the Citation CJ serices, and not link them anywhere! I've done some reorganizing of all the Citation pages again, and could use a look-over by someone familar with the content, when you can. I'm in no hurry, as it's been over a month since I did anything there anyway! - BillCJ (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wooo.. Great to see you post Alan! Welcome back in whatever way it might be. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimli Glider

Done! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Wing

Hello, BillCJ. I updated the Carrier Air Wing [1] article on the German Wikipedia. Concerning the personnel I found no description of what the "air transfer officers (ATO)" and the "air wing line leading petty officers" do. Can you help? Thanks and get well - Cobatfor 10:15 UTC, 23 June 2008

Sorry, but no, not without doing some heavy research myself. A good person to ask might be User talk:E2a2j. He appears to have carrier experience, possibly as a pilot, and did a lot of work on the Modern US Navy carrier air operations. He should be able to help you, or at least point you in the right direction. Thanks for your well wishes! - BillCJ (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OCPA-2005-08-11-080331.jpg

Concerning this photo ( Image:OCPA-2005-08-11-080331.jpg ) of the MQ-1C Warrior that I uploaded and the questions pertaining to it's copyright status (particularly the "courtesy photo" question), I have found additional evidence to back up my claim that it is in the public domain. On the same web site I found the page for the photograph ( http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=7158 ). At the bottom of the page, it states "Images on the Army Web site are cleared for release and are considered in the public domain. Request credit be given as "Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army" and credit to individual photographer whenever possible." Hence, it is clearly in the public domain, with the US Army as the organization releasing it. I am requesting that it be removed from the Possibly Unfree Images list and that its copyright status be correctly displayed. PistolPete037 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No skin off my nose if the copyright holder sues Wikipedia. But want do you care, right? - BillCJ (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to offend you, but I was just merely saying that it states on the web page in quite clear English that the US Army is the copyright holder, and has put the image in the public domain. I know you haven't been feeling well lately, but it is no reason to bite off my head. PistolPete037 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as clear on as most of the US Armey pages, and I've donwnoloaded quite a few from there, so I know what I'm saying. If it isn't clear, we should err on the side of not using it. THat's my point here. I'm sorry you feel your head was bitten off, not my intention. My intention is to keep Wikipedia out of potential legal trouble. I'm sorry you don't get, but you clearly don't. - BillCJ (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XB-33

Noticed that you are looking to move XB-33 Super Marauder to Martin XB-33 just a note that the book I use for all my US designation info (John Andrade's U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909) describes the XB-33 as the XB-33 Super Maruader. Not definitive but normally a fairly accurate book. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you can add that in as a source, I'll withdraw the move request. I couldn't find it in what I have, or in the lone working source in the article. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CT-134 Musketeer

Hi Bill: Thanks for the note on this subject. He did a good job on the splitting - very cleanly done. I can live with it like that as long as no one comes along and AFDs the article! - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CT-145

Hi Bill, actually the CF King Airs were not 200s but were C90s as per the official list. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then we need to move the CT-145 info from the SKA to KA article too. - BillCJ (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS America

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/06/navy_america_name_063008w/ This may be reliable. Sorry for editing the article while it was inuse, I overlooked the template (guess I never saw inuse around here, ours looks quite different, the english looks like - every other template I use to ignore :)) --schlendrian •λ• 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cite. Don't worry about the In-use tag - I just wanted to get a chance to rename the article per the naming conventions for ships before some else messed it up! - BillCJ (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Atlanta Braves and User talk:146.74.1.99

I have posted yet another WP:ANI entry about that character, in hopes that something will be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CW-21

Please stop deleting information that is cited with supporting references. It is also always unacceptable to delete a stated source of reference. Ken keisel (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please READ WP:CITE, and learn what I mean by "cite" - inline citations. References in the reference section are not sufficient for quality articles, or for challenged statements. I'll be happy to help you learn how to cite correctly, and to chose the metnhod that works best for you. Also, LEARN to read the history correctly so you won't falsly accuse people of doing things they have not done. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, your refernce was not deleted - User:Bzuk moved it to the Bibliography list, and placed it in alphabetical order, in the edit just before mine. Please be more careful before making accusations next time. Also, I've attempted to add an inline citation for the statement in question, but you'll need to add the page numbers, if you know them. - BillCJ (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceShipTwo pics

Since we were on the subject of "sensitive" pics, I've just posted media-release pics of SS2 to my blog...too bad VG doesn't release under GDFL! AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PS, I see that moron is still spouting - a year and 5000 edits later, and he still doesn't get your point that WP is international. Some Americans can be so ignorant of the rest the world! - BillCJ (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb sizings

I see no prohibition against thumb sizings, and the picture's quality is greatly enhanced by doing so, so where is the problem with it? You see much greater clarity in the photograph at a slightly larger size. S. Dean Jameson 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Registered users are able to set thumb sizings in their preferences. By using a size in a image, you are overiding those preferences. I have mine set to 300px, and most other users use between 250px to 300px. enerally, it's best to only use thumb sizings for images which are too large or too small at a standard setting like 250px. So while there is no "prohibition" against using them as such, they just are not needed in most cases, such as with your image. See Image use policy: Displayed image size and Manual of Style: Image size for further explanation. - BillCJ (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks! S. Dean Jameson 02:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aermacchi S-211

Just an update, I know you've asked me for help with regards to the above-mentioned article and the associated images but my apartment flat is currently undergoing renovation as we speak and some of those old paperback articles, not to mention my collection of photos taken during my service days with the RSAF is amongst the boxes and pile of things somewhere in that storeroom of mine. Not to worry, the renovation is due for completion within this week and I shall go through my stuff ASAP then, my three boys all volunteered to help me search through them provided the silverfish didn't get to the books or old photo albums first. Oh and by the way, are you familiar with Bill Gunston and his works? --Dave1185 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with Bill Gunston! My first aircraft book, Modern Combat Aircraft, was by Gunston. I was 13, and I saved up my allowance money to by it! - BillCJ (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I guess you're around my age, around 38? FYI, that was also my first aircraft book I saved up for, what with all the beautifully illustrated aircrafts and especially the RAF Harrier GR3/BAE Sea Harrier as the Falklands War that occured that same year captured my imagination vividly then. Anyway, I went on to purchase few more of his hard paperbacks, namely "An Illustrated Guide to Military Helicopters", "An Illustrated Guide to the Israeli Air Force," and "An Illustrated Guide to Future Fighters and Combat Aircraft", all from Salamander Books. I hope my boys will find them in the midst of my avalanche of books inside the storeroom later because these are classics, they don't make them like they used to... sigh! --Dave1185 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky S-92/H-92 blurb

Sikorsky is going to put its S-92 on a tour. "Sikorsky Superhawl to Tour Europe"

Looks like Rotor & Wing typo'ed the heading with Superhawl or that's a play on hawk/haul. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of new ship articles

Hi Bill, there's a listing of new articles on ships at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles. As you created the article, I'll let you have the honour of adding it there. Cheers, Nick Dowling (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snidely Whiplash

I'm reporting you for making a personal attack. =] TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I wish I'd thought of that one. =] I think it's settled, but let me know. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EC-355

Dear, Bill

It seems to me, that photo of EC-350 from tail is not very representive one. I don't think that Image:Eurcopter AS-350.jpg is bad photo (nevertheless it is a photo of mine), but because of it's point of view it may be prefered to be only supplimentary.

This ones may be much more descriptive:

Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I think I'm a bit partial to the middle one (hehehehe....) AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, unless I'm mistaken, I think that pic you just happen to prefer was in the Lead. I vaguely remeber it being removed because someone didn't like the fact that the blades were cut off in the photo. I wonder whose user name I'll find if I check the history. ;) (I will check it later, just to be sure?!) - BillCJ (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer still going on

I'm just pinging you to make sure you were aware about some more proposed changes at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, since you were involved in the last discussion to make sure you didn't have anything to add on this latest round. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I won't participate any further in the discusions, for reasons which ought to be fairly obvious, if you note how badly my apology was received. There was no way I could keep my temper if I responded, so I bowed out. - BillCJ (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, that is also why I am staying out of this, just watching to make sure that you were aware of the discussion. My last reverts after what I perceived to be persistent badgering of Nick didn't go over well either. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I do appreciate it. Nick is also keeping me informed privately. Anyway, his ability to stay cool in the discussions is why he's an admin, and I'm not! - BillCJ (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note here: thanks very much for introducing a link to ASW carrier on the talk page of this article. Reading "ASW carrier" really helped me see JDS Hyūga in a meaningful context! Somewhat obviously "ASW carrrier" should also be linked from the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer page itself, but that can wait until things calm down a bit. Anyway, thanks again for your contributions to the discussion! (sdsds - talk) 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox that woke them up.

When I was in the air force we instantly catched the joke "FOX that woke them up" in the Final Countdown movie. The pilot didn't said "Fox....that woke them up", "Fox, that woke them up" or "Hey Fox that woke them up". There is no 'RIO Fox' in the casting [2]. I know that the fox codes have a number, but it was said as a joke. Later one of them said "FOX TWO" when he launched a Sidewinder missile - indicating that they were familiar with the brevity codes. They sort of invented it on the spot - a high-speed flyby to almost turn the Zeroes upside down with their wake turbulence = 'FOX that woke them up'.
You reverted an odd statement, jokes are odd statements! My contribution was placed in a fictional environment so your removal is odd. The DVD subtitles are often written by translators with a minuscule knowledge to the subject or what is it you mean with "per DVD captions"??? Please undo your deletions and be open to subtle messages. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:V and WP:RS. The audio, not just the captions, are clear: The pilot said, "Hey, Fox, that woke them up!" I'm really surprised that you added this in the first place, and I hope you'll abide by policy from here on. Besides, we don't usually report jokes in the Plot section anyway, so why here? - BillCJ (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BillCJ. I've watched the movie and he did say "Hey Fox that woke them up" but I couldn't hear the commas ;-) If you base the commas on the DVD caption, you must be aware that those who 'DVDize' the movies are not so accurate. The movie is also called "U.S.S. Nimitz - Lost in the Pacific" where the DVD company has placed an F-15 on the poster :-) [3] - so much for accuracy.

The pilot was a witty guy who placed odd statements like "Fill it up, check the oil and clean the windshield" to the KA-6 tanker. The odd statement "Hey, FOX that woke them up" as a brevity code was meant in a humorous tone. Your unimaginative interpretation doesn’t make sense – why introduce a Fox character without seeing him later?

You might argue that the fox codes are too technical for the average moviegoer but the movie is very close to the real world (except off course the time travel and the Japanese T-6 Texans). Some people didn’t comprehend that the F-14 was shooting with its 20 mm gatling gun. They expected a takka takka sound instead of the farting noise. So some of the stuff was way over people's heads.

Your swift removal of my contribution explained by your dead certain "incorrect" founded on your uncertain "seems to be the other pilot or RIO's callsign" doesn’t concur. Normal procedure would be to tag it instead of removing it since your interpretation is OR. Else I fail to understand the proper occasion for insertion of ^{[citation needed]}.

I’m sorry that I wrote "joke" – it was apparently a source of misunderstanding. A character in the movie Spaceballs is called "Colonel Sandurz", a pun on KFC's founder Colonel Sanders. It’s used as "What's the matter, Colonel Sandurz? Chicken?" in the movie and is reported in the movie article. Therefore jokes or whatever you’ll call it belongs in the articles. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Aviation

I read you - and had wondered the same thing myself. Let's wait to see how the TfD plays out and take things from there! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Since you have experience of the discussion at Talk:Atlanta Braves involving this editor, you may wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MAL01159 and share your view. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments wanted about new changes proposed to date and other wikilinking

Recently a few editors have undertaken a widespread program of reversing the current wikilink system as well as undoing previous links. See: [4] and [5]. In the second instance, the edit change campaigning is accompanied by some unusual prickly comments, see:[6] when I came to the defence of our very own prickly BillCJ, a stalwart of the WP:Aviation Project Group. What gives? FWiW, Bill, is this campaigning really appropriate? The same message seems to have cropped up in a zillion (well maybe not a zillion...) places. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

August 2008

Request for mediation in which you are named as an involved party

Hi Bill, Please note that User:Tenmei has lodged a request for mediation on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer in which you are named alongside me as being involved parties. I am posting this notification as Tenmei does not appear to have notified the other involved editors. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others;[7] and if it were not for Nick Dowling's notice here, I would not have been aware of a problem.

I hope you will agree to participate in this mediation process. --Tenmei (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I moved on weeks ago. - BillCJ (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YJ101

Oh good - an easy one! :) Looks like Turkish to me, but I can't find an online tool that will translate it. It's definitely something modern fighter related (mentions just about every one of the "teen series", plus the F-22), but it's really only a couple of sentences altogether, so I don't think we'll lose anything by starting afresh. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation: Hyūga class helicopter destroyer

An article to which you have been involved with has a request for mediation open. You may wish to comment and sign yourself as an involved party, per the last case, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2. seicer | talk | contribs 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this request for mediation was rejected as I have withdrawn from it. FYI, you were also mentioned in the comments which caused me to withdraw: [8] (note that this is a combination of three sucessive diffs and is only part of the longer post, which was largely focused on me). Nick Dowling (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy!

Enjoy it...it'll do wonders for you...did for me! AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's exactly why I'm taking an indefinite break - WP isn't enjoyable for me anymore! - BillCJ (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a definite sign. What I found is immense satisfaction in writing for a *real* publication, as well as blogging. I can call up a media spokesperson (just got off the phone with one from a small aircraft mfr with the initials LM), get quotes and real info, write it up, break a story, even use media-release images and not have anyone delete it because it's not a "published source" or because of copyright issues. I get to be the source, for once (there's now one article inwhich an editor - not me! no COI here! - listed my blog as an EL...not sure how they got away with that, but since my blog has some detailed analytical software built in, I am able to see the truly international scope of the audience who has gone and read a wikipedia article on a certain now-retired Canadian 767, and happen to follow the EL, people from nations all over the world)! That kind of refreshment has now allowed me the patience to come back here and share where I can. Quite fun, actually. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Btw, WP doesn't allow blogs in ELs, so it will have to be removed. ;) Anyway, that's not my job anymore! Some policy wonk will stumble on this page and remove it. As far as I'm concerned, your blog is probably much more relaible than the NY Times or PBS! - BillCJ (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that FI picked me up as a stringer was a nice endorsement! Interesting you mentioned NYT...I got an earful the other day while interviewing one of the Rocket Racing League team owners, who complained that NYT absolutely butchered their interview of him. Figures. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you back Bill. Let me know if I can be of any help if things get stressful. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take good care!

Sorry to hear of your health problems, Bill! Take good care of yourself ... real life is more important than "wiki life" (such as it is). Best, Askari Mark (Talk) 21:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F35

The reason I did not delete the image, was not because it was a Featured Picture, it was because I could not see the text pertaining to Lockheed Martin as I use firefox and apparently it does not show up in firefox. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understnad about Firefox now. Sorry for being snarky in my revert. Commons is taking up the issue at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/JSF Images, and it mentioned the FIrefox problem. THey found 12 images from the JSF site that were company images, but several more appeared to be genuine PD images. - BillCJ (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it caught everyone out. No harm done, and those images under copyright are being removed. Everyone's a winner. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embraer E-Jets Images

Bill: Since you have had much to do with the choice of photos that are used to illustrate the Embraer E-Jets article I would like to specifically invite your input on the issue of deleting photos at Talk:Embraer_E-Jets#Substitution_of_images - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping in. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrier design info

Bill, I'm going to try to add some basic design info to the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article over the next couple weeks. Wittlessgenstein and I discussed this on Talk:BAE Sea Harrier. If you can help, that'd be great. And no rush here. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on this yesterday. I need to find some wording describing the airframe, and other aspects of it. The books I've looked have this info spread through the book or article for directory type books. If I'm bugging you with this let me know and I'll stop. Take it easy... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, don't worry, you're never a bother! People who keep adding details to the MD-80 page about crashes that now have their own articles are another matter! (Esp. a cetain editor who should know better by now, and seems to dislike me for pointing out his many and frequent goofs!) Several months ago I purchased two issues of World Air Power Journal, one on the original Harrier, and one on the Sea Harrier. I can try to find the info you want, and scan/email you the test if you'd like. Alternatively, I could ship them to you to use for the time being. I don't really have the patience for long article work right now, but I can fact-check and cite if you need it too. - BillCJ (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill. I left a message on 2 users talk pages to add to the Spanair accident article first. That helped with them anyway. ;) I should have enough books for basic design info. I'm just not good at writing a lot or from scratch. The Warbird Tech book even has a section on the 2 seat Harriers. I try to describe the airframe and 4 nozzles first then go from there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I got you now, but I'm not good writing from scratch either! Btw, someone just changed today's crsh from an MD-82 to an -87. Have you seen any definitive report either way? - BillCJ (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've seen says it was an MD-82. FI & Av Week for example. The IPer either made a mistake or did some weak (minor) vandalism. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to use phrases similar to what's in Sukhoi Su-25 (rated A-class), like "shoulder mounted wing". Don't worry about me detailing like with the F-14 Design section. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de Havilland Sea Vixen

I'd be interested to know how instructions for completing a pro forma that has already been completed constitute anything other than cruft? They are redundant on this page and serve no ongoing purpose. Pyrop e 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden header at the top of the page is on nerly 5000 articloes about aircraft. It is a standard notice, and most other editors have had the courtesy to leave it there. The other main notice in the specs template concerns adding new info that is not covered in teh existing fields. It is useful is someone wants to add some further or clarifying info to the template. Please keep in mind that WP articles are never "complete", but are works in progress, and that there are new editors who may not be aware of how exactly the template formatting works. If you still disagree, I'd recommend you take up the issue at the WT:AIR. It's really not that big a deal, but I don't see what harm laving the two notices I mentioned does. - BillCJ (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

The PROD was added to the SF article due to the number of clashes to this and other military related articles. Basically no definitive answer could be found to the definition as it varies from country to country. These points have been discussed without success and would therefore be of a hindrance to anyone using Wiki as a reference tool (Archangel1 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Those are concerns, certainly, but they aren't part of what PRODs are used for, IIRC. But once a PROD has been removed, you have to use an AFD anyway, so that point it moot now. - BillCJ (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EA500

Hi Bill: I noticed that you changed Eclipse EA500 to Eclipse 500 in the aircraft article. The aircraft type certificate is where the FAA officially approves and designates the aircraft type nomenclature and it says throughout it that the aircraft is officially called the EA500. That is why I changed the article a while ago to indicate that and cited the ref that you deleted. Do you have a better ref that shows that it isn't EA500? The FAA has not certified the Extra EA-500 in the USA, but the Extra 400 data sheet is there and it shows that that aircraft is officially the Extra EA-400 (with a dash). It is likely if the Extra 500 is certified in the USA that it will be the EA-500. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting to hear from you! Your the first person I know of on WP to suggest that the FAA designation is the only acceptable one that we must use. Have you perchance looked at the FAA "designations" for the Boeing airliners? I don't know how to look them up, but IIRC, they all start with a "B" and another letter. The FAA appears to assign codes, not designations - the companies can call them whatever they wish, and that's what we've alsways gone by on WP, and what most other publications use. Can you show me one place besides the FAA that calls the Eclipse 500 the EA500? I did look on the Eclipse website, and they consistantly call it the Eclipse 500. Not really a big deal in the scheme of things, but we should be consistant. If we use the FAA codes for this one, we should use it for all other types. And I don't think you'll have many agree with you on changing all of them! - BillCJ (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill: I think it important to not confuse the ATC designations or codes for use on things such as flight plans and the official designations in the type certificates. For instance the ATC designation for a Boeing 747-400D is "B747", but the type certificate (PDF downloaded from that page) says it is a "Boeing 747-400D". The type certificates are the official designations, the ATC codes are more of a shorthand for flight planning purposes, mostly because the majority of air traffic controllers don't know much about aircraft types. I wouldn't advocate using ATC codes for aircraft.

I use the type certificates as refs for most aircraft articles for all kinds of info, such as sub-models, Vne, certification dates and even who owns the rights to the design. They are the only official documents for this type of information and generally are more reliable that whatever the marketing department of any company says! Best of all they are readily publicly available.

A quick search though the Eclipse website shows that the company actually refers to their own aircraft very inconsistently. Sometimes as "Eclipse 500", "500" and even as "EA 500" as shown in [9] and [10]. How can you use the company PR department as being authoritative when they aren't consistent? On the other hand the FAA type certificate is a legal document. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I've been encouraged to see things on WP from a reader's point of view, as with the stupid date autoformating delinking, and the Spitfire. If the majority of printed works and websites still use "Eclipse500", aren't we just confusing the average reader who will never look at the FAA documnents to find out what designation to enter in a search? But since we don't disagree, and this could have wider implictions on other articles that mistakenly use the company's names instead of the FAA's, would you mind asking for broader input at WP:AIR? I'll follow the consensus, whatever it is. - BillCJ (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem leaving it at "Eclipse 500". When I cleaned it up, it was because the article had inconstancies in the nomenclature, so I decided to look it up in the type cert and made the text consistent based on that. I was more concerned that it was consistent than anything, so I am happy to leave it as you amended it. I'll probably put the ref to the type certificate back in at some point, but not to reference the nomenclature, but some other data. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops - my mistake, I had previously use the type cert as a ref for several other sections and it remains there as ref! - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was going to say I took care to move it to the next mention, since you had used it in 3 or 4 places. Sometimes I do forget to do that, but I knew I did it this time, but when you metioned that, I thought maybe I had goofed it up! - BillCJ (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, that was me that goofed up - I didn't see that you had moved it! - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come in but the EASA Type Certificate says it is really an EA 400-500 just to confuse you both. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thanks! Just so long as I don't find out that the A350 is really the EADS-Airbus E-A500, I think I'll be fine! Milb1: Thanks for adding the infobox on the EA-400-500-600-700. I fully intended to get to it later today. Also, I'm going to try to start an article based on the de:Extra EA-400 page. I do have a good source to back up my Google translations of German (not to put in the text! Just to understnad the jist), and I plan to just copy our EA-500 page, and use that to start. - BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shifty

Careful, you could get in trouble hanging around with this bad element. ;) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (Not one of my better days.)[reply]

Question about lack of a "Dagger" subsection in the "IAI Nesher" article.

Hi Bill, wish your health is improving. Please note that I've posted a comment and proposal about this issue in the "IAI Nesher" wikiarticle Talk Page (see: Talk:IAI Nesher#"Dagger" variant no longer described in this article). Will appreciate if you can give a look at it whenever you're able to, and let me know your thoughts.
Thanks & Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the article's talk page. I'm off to bed soon, so you may not get more responses for several hours. - BillCJ (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercarrier

Hi. What's happened here is the article has lurched violently from one extreme to the other (undercited as proportion of text to 'overcited' if that's a correct term). I'll see what I can do. Mark83 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane again

See my further explanations as to use of the terminology. Although many publications extant may have "aeroplane", nearly all contemporary works consider the term as "arcane" and substitute "airplane" or "aircraft." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The problem I see here is that the publishers are trying to make conventions, not follow them. I grew up in a commonwealth country (8 years), and have read/watched many British pubications/productions, and the term is still used quite frequently by people who never even read these publications. These are the people who also are reading WP. WHo are we writing for? THe publishers of books few people read, or the common people who make up the bulk of WP's readership (though not editorship!)? Btw, my comment toward you was just meant as a neutral statement, not a slam in anyway; I can't see getting this note if you had realized that, so sorry. - BillCJ (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I have developed "alligator hide" of late since my brush with a legion of image warriors as well as MoS "written in stone/concrete" advocates, and did not consider your comment as a derisive one, merely a realistic explanation of what is happening vis-a-vie word usage. Recently, I wrote a book about a test pilot for an British publisher, Creçy Books, and had to determine what the "house" style guide was for terminology. In doing a search through their style guide, as well as many other British publishing houses including Aeroplane magazine (surprise, surprise?, this "institution" recommends that "aeroplane" not be used even though it belies their historic title/banner), it was quite evident that the word "aeroplane" was no longer in use. It was a matter of popular convention that dictated usage, and although a certain generation may be comfortable with the term, it evokes a certain kind of nostalgia but nothing more, it falls into the same "arcane" category as "betwixt", "'twas" and many other words/idioms/colloguialisms that gradually fall out of use. However (modern placement of the word...), I could certainly make a case for the use of the word "airplane" which is accepted worldwide as a contemporary term and has a clear definition in the wider category of "aircraft". IMHO Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

(Point taken. (In jest:) You know, it may not be published as "aeroplane" any more, but perhaps it's that the Brits pronounce "airplane" as "aeroplane"! After, it's been what, 400 years since the spelling of "lieutenant" has been standardized, but they still pronounce it as left-tenant! - BillCJ (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some British publishers must still require or at least allow aeroplane in their books. A recent book from Crowood Press and another one from Osprey even have aeroplane in quotes by Americans, which seems highly unlikely. Use in text in fine but changing quotes bugs me. Justing throwing my $0.02 in here... -Fnlayson (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the Brits also say "aluminium", even when it's spelled "aluminum". Every plane flight I've taken recently they have used the term "aircraft" when discussing the safety features. I would guess that airlines regard both "aeroplane" and "airplane" as being colloquialisms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-10 Thunderbolt II section changes

Hi Bill,

Sorry about the change there. I know that WP:AIR used to have its own guidelines for endnotes layout, but I had a look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide and couldn't see anything about it currently - so I'd assumed that this has changed. Can you point me at the current guidelines? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide is the more general guide for other all aviation articles, while Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#References is mainly for aircrft articles. It doesn't spell out the sub-headings, but it does give "References" as the main level heading. Feel free to take it up on the WP:AIR/PC talk page, and we can try to work out a better approach for everyone. - BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's cool, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right guidelines. I'm not heavily involved in WP:AIR, but there are a few articles which I try to keep high-quality and I didn't want to step on any project toes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two years? Have a Wiki Cookie!

I didn't know where the medals were, sorry! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was hungry, and that cheap metal WP uses for it's medals just gives me indigestion! BillCJ (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! My late night spelling is spilling over. All the best. Nimbus (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Work

Thanks for your comments. I've gotten better at this over time. I still don't think I can write in an "encyclopedic" way, so my focus is on facts, and I understand the importance of validation or verification or whatever to call it. I've also tried to tone down my tendency to get riled up. The Atlanta Braves thing I finally stopped contributing to, because it was becoming circular. I've usually found that when I have the facts on my side, I'm usually in line with consensus (or vice versa), and it wins out in the end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Where there's a pre-existing version of the article, we just remove the copyvio material, as you have done. Erasure from the page history may also be done if the copyright holder requests it. Good catch! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks

Bill, you may, or may not, wish to comment on this ANI discussion. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cessna Citation variants list

Bill, I didn't solidify this edit, but it seems to work with your forced lines and keeps the list formatting intact. It also places the pics with the variants they belong to. I'm placing the entire section code here in your talk page. Use/delete as you like. --Born2flie (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the forced lined (and the whole tree) were Alan's work, so I don't know that much about the formatting he used on it. Feel free to play around with it on the Citation page. I'm thinking of going to main-level headings for each main family, but I'm not sure yet. I'll probably do it just to see what it looks like, and see if it works. Are you back stateside yet, or still in Germany? - BillCJ (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wasn't sure who did what, I just followed the link from the WP:AIR talk page and found the bullet list broken in a couple places (i.e. not the intentional forced lines). I'm back home but getting ready to move soon. Hope you are well! --Born2flie (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]