User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Hatnotes and infoboxes

Placing a right-justified infobox at the top of a page with a left-justified hatnote arranges the page with both the hatnote and the infobox at the top. I think this results in a more attractive page. Please see Alabama. --Buaidh (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Slight difference but nothing major. Those templates can get accidentally deleted if not at the top, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Placement, "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates)." The previou discussions on the talk page are pretty clear that this is to be the very top above everything. Buaidh, it would probably be best to wait for further response at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote before you implement this change further, as you did at Tennessee, which I reverted per WP:BRD. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Right, I saw that in Wikipedia:Layout later. Also shown in Wikipedia:Lead section. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My discussion of this issue can be found at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnotes and infoboxes. I believe that right-justified infoboxes are no infringment of our hatnotes at top policy. I think we are being a tad overzealous. Please cool the reverts until this issue can be discussed. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Further discussion goes on the hatnote talk page. We're done here. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Subjunctive

In reference to the GAU-8 article, I just thought I'd mention that were doesn't necessarily indicate plurality of the subject when used in the subjunctive. For example, the clause "If I were a rich man…" is a perfectly correct use of the subjunctive were, despite the subject obviously being singular. Read more. --Inquisitus (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Can you please comment Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop -Signaleer (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that and have never edited that article. I can't see what was there since it's been deleted. Not sure if this is a notable thing based on this Army news release. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested on link tags

• Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft

Jeff:

Assistance requested relative to tag "Very few or no other articles link to this one. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics." for "Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft" Tagged since January 2009. Are the links provided above useful to this task, if I under this properly?ASIMOV51 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the CAMAA link to the C-17 article. I don't know of any other related articles to add the CAMAA link to. Sorry. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, consider the following links...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/bc17-c17a-brochure.pdf http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2003/October/Pages/Commercial3746.aspx http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/384122/global_heavylift_holdings_llc_poised_to_launch_a_new_american/ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_001219n.htm http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2001/2001%20-%200012.html http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:2KCS705rM_4J:www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/%3F%26sid%3Dcp108LH9vq%26refer%3D%26r_n%3Dsr087.108%26db_id%3D108%26item%3D%26sel%3DTOC_744183%26+%22Commercial+Application+of+Military+Airlift+Aircraft%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us

http://www.governmentattic.org/docs/USAF_AirMobilityMasterPlan2004_AppealRelease.pdf ASIMOV51 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33692.pdf http://www.emotionreports.com/downloads/pdfs/Super4%5B1%5D.pdf ASIMOV51 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.lifeboat.com/ex/bios.sheila.r.ronis ASIMOV51 (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to internal links, wiki links. The Orphan tag is asking for more wikipedia articles to include the CAMAA link. I've already told what I can on that. More web links aren't helping. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, a possible internal Wiki link;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Stokes This is the Father of Myron D. Stokes173.10.35.254 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeff: Had a power outage and shut down everything. Still not totally on but basically functional. Thanks for the edits on Wynne. ASIMOV51 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Department of Commerce Study

National Security Assessment of the C-17 Globemaster Cargo Aircraft’s Economic & Industrial Base Impacts. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, November 2005

Jeff: I have access to an uploadable copy of the above study that was released for designated period of time on their site. It is profoundly relevant to this discussion, and should be made available.

How might this be handled?ASIMOV51 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You could upload it at http://en.wikisource.org. That's a sibling site to Wikipedia. The report need to be free/not copyrighted per Wikisource:Copyright policy. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a government doc. ASIMOV51 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Right. Some gov docs may have limited release for export control or something. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff: Tried as I did, I couldn't find the mechanism for upload of this large document. I only saw reference to original text. Am I overlooking something?ASIMOV51 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an Upload file button on the banner on the left after logging on. It allows png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, & djvu file extensions. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do thatASIMOV51 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I truly must be doing something wrong, because I click on the WS banner, and it just keeps me where I am. Also, I don't see an upload button. Probably need more coffee...173.10.35.254 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

After logging on, the Upload button is below the Search box. There's a 100 Mb file limit just in case that's a big file. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Boeing-Vertol CH-46 edits

Fnlayson,

I am a Major in the United States Marine Corps Reserve. I am currently on active duty, but will demobilize soon. As a result of my longtime aviation interests and at the behest of Izzy Senderoff, the curator of the American Helicopter Museum, West Chester, PA, I am writing a book on the Boeing Vertol 107 / CH-46 / CH-113 / Hkp4 / KV-107, as no book currently exists. As a prelude, I have assembled an accurate production list of all BV-107/KV-107s ordered/built/cancelled. Concurrently, I am entering model & c/n data into an online helicopter database at <www.helis.com/database> moderated by Jorge Gazzola of Argentina. I have completed entries for all models except the CH-46D & F, as they are the most numerous. I am making headway. I estimate to complete entering all c/n data within three months. Maybe, I'll move on to the BV-114/234/414 CH-47 Chinook then.

My sources include a copy of the actual Boeing Vertol company production line "Firing Order" for the 107 consisting of airframe line number, Boeing Vertol tab number (aka construction number), and customer serial number or civil registration. It even shows the delineation of production lots, though Boeing nor the government stipulated this for the CH-46. This document alone solved many perplexing questions about missing or mismatched information on several websites, including Wikipedia! What it does not show is Kawasaki production, but I have done some extensive research with the help of a Japanese acquaintance, who has verified my data as accurate. I also have copies of US Navy Aircraft Data Crads from the Naval History Center in Washington, DC. As these cards are filed monthly from all naval aviation units, it is a tedious process to sift out the CH-46 unit transfer data. This is the primary reason I am only along as far as I am on the CH-46 production list. I also have several copies of magazine articles from 1959 to date on all 107 models, not all 100% accurate. As a trained historian, I always search for primary sources and those closest to the facts or events. I don't claim the title "expert." I prefer "devoted enthusiast" instead. I have shared my data with Mr Goebel (Vectorsite.com), Mr Baugher (US Navy & Marine Corps Serials), and Mr Gibbs (USWarplanes.net) whose websites contain some of the errors. They have agreed to edit their content when they have opportunity.

If you want a copy of my data in spreadsheet form, I'll be glad to send it along. It is an MS Excel spreadsheet, ~2MB in size. Again, I am still filling in CH-46 D & F data, but it's ~80% complete to date.

Regards, Vertol-107 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure your data is correct. I looked at current user data from Aviation Week and Flight International data sources. Changes/additions need to be properly cited. I'll try to clean that up. I look forward to a book on the V-107 / H-46. There are very few books dedicated to non-attack helicopters. Be careful with putting personal info on the web. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good day Vertol-107 & Fnlayson, first off thank you both for your contributions to the CH-46, CH-47 and Model 360 articles. I happen to work for the only civil operator of the 107 & 234. I might recommend getting in touch with the marketing department of Columbia (they handle all public relations) who then may be able to help you in your search for at least finding the history of the civil Kawasaki Vertols that they operate. Plus CHI now owns all technical data of the BV-107 as of the TC transfer in '06. Technically, CHI operates BV 107's, KV 107's, 2 former CH-46s, 2 HKP4 (lost 2 to fatal accidents) and recently purchased most of the surviving CH-113s. I'm lower down on the food chain so everything that I've been able to drag up on the birds has been through public channels. It can't hurt to see if you can get a copy of the 50th anniversary book that came out in '07. BTW, with your association with the museum if you have any public information on the Boeing Model 360 we'd love to fill the article a little more. It is really tough finding data on such an amazing bird. Thanks again, --Trashbag (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning II

Well, someone reported me for harassment and posted it around some discussions despite what it says on the talk page. So I'll leave the article to you regulars then attempt edit it more. Here's some general things I noticed about the article that you might be able to look at. Many of the sentences are 'run on sentences' and unusually long. I found a few in the Canada section, but didn't get around to some of the other sections. There's quite a bit of repetition in the article. The word Canada came up too frequently in a section of the same name. Adding 'it', and replacing '(country) government' with government etc. will help take out some of those instances. Sometimes a simple sentence flip can do it too.

It'd be great to see the testing section read more like a paragraph than a news feed. I'm sure someone can think of a clever way to link them all together, especially since most of them are in the past. All the dates are unnecessary if they're there in the citation. It'll leave you the freedom to take the individual events and string them together like phrasing things, in early tests of various ground systems were conducted in September. In following months these tests proved the aircraft could continue to so and so test in December. etc. etc.

The pictures could probably be bigger. The resolution is there for it. Hope this helps. Mkdw^talk 08:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That was fine. Images are the standard thumbnail size per MOS:IMAGES. Try increasing the size in your preferences. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk archive

Could you help me with my talk page? I'm having problems displaying links to archived pages. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The archive pages need to be named like /Archive 1 (space before number) to show up as links in the talk header banners. I see a link for Archive 1 on your talk page now. Are you trying to do an Archive 2 page?

Also, I just manually move sections about 1 month old to my archive page. User:MiszaBot can do the archiving automatically if you prefer. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft has MiszaBot settings near the top of the page on the edit screen if you want to copy it. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I already have several archived pages, however links to them do not show up on my talk page. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Archive box copied to User talk:The Founders Intent)

Your setting for MiszaBot put the archive pages at User talk:The Founders Intent/Archives/(year)/(monthname), e.g. like User talk:The Founders Intent/Archives/2009/January. You'll either have to rename them to Archive 1 type format or set up an Archive box with manual links like this one -->

-Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what I'm doing. ;) Maybe you could help? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried already. I'm not sure in particular what you want to do. Well I changed your bot setting and added all the links I could find to your Archive box like above. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How dare you edit my talk page!!! Thanks a bunch.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of changes in Boeing 747

Hi Fnlayson, wish you're doing well. Just a comment that I disagree with the reversion to some of the changes I did (in good faith) to the Boeing 747 article, especially the removal of the section Comparison with other large aircraft. As per your "Notes", will raise the issue and discuss further in that article's Talk Page. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a featured article article. The Operation Solomon part is not design related and did not belong in that section. The image of nose loading door open belongs in the Design section to illustrate the text there. Bring up on the article talk page if you like. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Airwolf

Do you think you could have fixed the table coding without taking out loads of the new information I added?? It took me ages to do all that, but the coding is not my strong point. You have no idea how frustrated I was doing it, and then even more so when you undid it. Not very helpful.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not take out anything you added. See the difference in the edits here. Maybe you mean an edit conflict. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it might have benn a conflict; I think you undid one of my older, unfinished edits just as I was finishing up. I think I've got the hang of the coding now.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that happened. I'll let you work and do any clean up when you reach a clear stopping point. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush reputation

Hey dude, I removed the comment for two reasons 1.)It has no bearing on Lee's reputation (hence the title of the section) and 2.)It's kind of randomly thrown in there, don't you think? Anyway, it's different than Peart's section about lyrics because it's discussing fan/critic reaction. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}

I think it ought to be mentioned somewhere, but not sure where. Also that is just 1 sentence. I'll look to find a better place.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Been addressed/fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect placement - not sure why I didn't think of it before deciding to expunge it : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I really just moved the reference there, and left the wording alone in the early history section. I should have taken the time and do that before. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"And"

Although starting a sentence with "And" is not the best form, it is not incorrect in some instances. I do appreciate the rewriting. :-) Rapparee71 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

These two references allow starting a sentence with a conjunction • Dictionary of Modern American Usage, by Bryan A. Garner • The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, by Pam Peters Evidently, it was common practice in the 18th century and has once again been accepted in formal writing. However, it is still a common belief that it is "incorrect" to begin a sentence with a conjunction and is probably best to avoid doing so. Rapparee71 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Allowing it does not make it formal or proper for an encyclopedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it is no longer "incorrect". It wasn't in the past and it is again being accepted, even for formal writing. Using a conjunction in the beginning of a sentence is a legitimate literary device. Do not be so hasty in the future. Rapparee71 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not call it "incorrect". So please don't misquote me. Move along.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to be rude! Rapparee71 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Wasn't -Fnlayson)

777 article nomination

Greetings Fnlayson, and thanks for all the help with regards to the Boeing 777 article. I am about ready to nominate the article for GA review. Hopefully third time's the charm as far as nominations go! Please let me know if you have any additional concerns or issues with the article. Thanks again, SynergyStar (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have anything else. You found things I had not thought about. Thanks for all your work on the article. Hopefully it is all downhill from here. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The nomination has now been submitted; based on past experience it may take about a week; the article may be put on hold to address issues; i.e. any corrections that need to be made. Given the size and scope of this article, I anticipate there will be some suggestions made, and hopefully they will further the article's progress and enable a successful nomination. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll watchlist the GA review page once it gets created. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, seems it is taking a lot longer lately for the GA nominations to get processed than before. Boeing 777 is #19 in the Transport section and so far only one article in that section's queue is being reviewed (and currently on hold). When being reviewed, it can take about a week if corrections are done, but no one has started a review yet. In fact, the oldest nominations still unreviewed were placed on March 2, so it's been over a month. There are over 150 nominated articles for GA; by contrast there are 50 nominees total for FA status. Anyhow, I suppose patience is a virtue but perhaps if it is delayed further some steps could be taken--perhaps ask for a reviewer on WP:AVIATION, switch to FA nominee, etc? Regards SynergyStar (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed 777 was well down on the list. We could try putting it up for A-class review on WP:Aviation if that takes much longer. But the review process for that has not been that active it seems. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help getting Boeing 777 to GA status! Looks like third time's the charm! SynergyStar (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. But you really did most of the work. The review was painless, but we felt it with the formatting work and all over the last couple months. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor bent on crusades

J, take a look at some of the edits taking place which remove large amounts of text complete with cites, see:this FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Yea, a bot fixed the refs and I added a lot of the text back.before and after diff The user had a point about redundant A-10C/modernization info to a certain extent. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

US Aircraft A-67 Dragon

Jeff, I just read the sources that you added to the OV-10 article. It mentions the US Aircraft A-67 Dragon as a possible candidate for the OA-X or similar programs. Might be worth adding to the Dragon article, esp. since the text is still very short. - BillCJ (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a few articles to the A-67's External links section last year that would be good sources also. Nobody has cared to use them and I have not had the interest. You might try adding the A-67 to the To-Do list on WT:AIR. I need to limit my involvement sometimes so this does not lose its enjoyment/fulfillment to me -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is better to have an article no one else edits than one everyone is edit warring over! :) I'll take a look at the sources and see what I can do. It might do some good to link to the Dragon on pages like the OV-10 and T-6, which do get more traffic. Btw, do you think there is enough info to cover the OA-X program on its own page? I honestly don't know. And with the Emperor's Men fighting to collect "scalps" (cancel DOD programs), it remains to be seen if any new programs survive, though OA-X is probably cheap enough to slip by. - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

True. That's why I like working on lesser known aircraft articles. They can be their own sandbox to some degree. I don't know squat about the OA-X program now. I'd have to read up on it specifically to give a fair answer. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seem to run across more articles from Flightglobal, AFA, and such than I do, so I thought I would ask about OA-X before doing an internet search of the term. And I do understand about "enjoyment/fulfillmenmt". Knowledge has always been "fun" to me, so I've had to learn not to let other people or tasks steal that joy from me. That's one reason I've stayed in the background on this whole "return of Dave" thing. The daily interaction is just not worth it, and it's usually easier to wait till he stops editing for awhile, and then clean up his messes! - BillCJ (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, wait out the storm, then clean up. :) Before today I only knew the AF was looking for COIN aircraft like the A-67 for Iraq. Didn't know program had a name. The AF has developed a related MC-12W ISR platform under Project Liberty recently I see.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Related aircraft: Navy trying out EMB-314 Super Tucanos (my title) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
and: Ecuador finalises big Super Tucano order -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

F-15SE Silent Eagle

Thanks for jumping into F-15SE Silent Eagle and getting it cleaned up. I left it a bit of a mess after repurposing the framework of the F-15E article, and promptly signing off for the day... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. At first I thought it was premature to split that off now, but figured I should still help. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

fine point... I was pretty sure I was off target with that phrasing. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor difference in the phrasing. You did improve on what was there before. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history reviewers' award

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 14:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention to the Cessna 180 article

Jeff, a quick note to thank you for your time and effort to reinsert some of the info I'd added to the C-180 article earlier today. Bill's hasty reversion caught me by surprise; you beat me to the punch in adding back the material. Moreover, I very much like the reorganization you've done and the point at which you chose to insert the maiden-flight sentence. See ya 'round, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. You're welcome. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a break from the flying world

Well, that's one way to put it. Is there any chance you could review User:BQZip01/RfA4? I'm thinking about applying for adminship and would like some feedback before/if I go "live". — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

^ OK. Maybe I mentioned something helpful... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tips

Thanks for extending a hand. WIkipedia was quite confusing for me at first (still is, especially the markup and it's editor; could be better :( ). It's great to see somebody with similar passions as myself around here.

Cheers Alexandru.rosu (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, there seem to be loads of 3view plane drawings in raster format. is it alright to mark them as Should Be SVG?! - Alexandru.rosu (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. You can try tagging them like that though. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yak-141

Jeff, according to Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon Yakovlev's final official designation for the aircraft is Yak-141. I've put a section in the article explaining the history of the name based on their publication. Would you be so good as to convert the article title over to "Yak-141" from the current Yak-41", and restore the designations to match that title? Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. That's confusing with the article named Yak-41. Can the article not be renamed to Yak-141? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank Jeff!! How does one do that? I've never been able to figure out how to modify an article's title, or disambuglate (sp?) when there are several titles attached to a single article and I want to break one off to make it's own article. Can you help explaine? - Ken keisel (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved Yakovlev Yak-41 to Yakovlev Yak-141 to rename it. There is a Move tab near the top of each page, next to the History tab. I used that. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see!! How does one remove an alternate title away from an existing article to create an article under that name? - Ken keisel (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Only Admins can delete articles, but users can ask for redirect pages to be deleted by tagging or requesting on a board (requested move something). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, can you provide me with a redirect to that board? I've been looking for it for some time and can't seem to find it. Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have no idea. Try a search for requested moves. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor image

You removed an image of an F-22, because it is "on-ground". Could you please explain what is wrong with "on-ground" images ? Is there some legal issue ? I cannot follow your rationale. Other Wikipedia aircraft articles have plenty of "on-ground" images. Coenen (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You removed good flight images and replaced them with on-ground images. Flight images are generally preferred for aircraft. This is a general WP:Air project guideline. It's better to just add images (within reason), unless the new ones are similar angle and better quality etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It was my intention to have pictures with clearly visible tail codes in the operators section to match the bases in the operators section. The WikiProject guideline and its preference for in-flight images is a convoluted line of reasoning , IMHO. The current Wikipedia page on the Raptor has not a single on-ground image (except for the assembly of the aircraft). There is not a single picture showing the Raptor's landing gear or open canopy, for example. Having only in-flight images is rather monotonous. Coenen (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To me showing the tail codes only seems reasonable for images in the Operators section. I only said in-flight images are preferred and that's what the WP:Air page says. On-ground ones are not prohibited. You make a good point about showing the canopy open and landing gear. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this...

In this edit you asked if your ref might be helpful. Yes!!!. The FA problem was with Joe's articles (which, IMHO, I consider bogus) so if you can click-through on them and find similar statements in your book, we're good to go for FA. Note that I actually went to the Toronto Reference Library to find that exact text, but it was miss-filed and no one can find it again :-( Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what particular text you mean there. I will work on F-20 article this week to replace references where I can though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! I'll go through the FA motions when the time is ripe. I would be nice to get another aircraft one on the FA ranks. By text I mean "book", BTW. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, of course. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas

You said: "cur) (prev) 05:27, 9 June 2009 Fnlayson (talk | contribs) (16,346 bytes) (Was based in St Louis. sources don't state Berkeley and hair splitting not worth it) (undo) "

The city names in the United States Postal Service's addressing system =/ the real location of a place. Do not necessarily rely on the USPS city name to tell you where a place is. For instance unincorporated locations and locations in other cities have "Houston, TX" - but those places are not in Houston. Same goes for St. Louis. Those sources that you mention as stating that the HQ is in St. Louis are basing it off of the USPS address city name, or are simply stating "St. Louis" as that is the nearest major city. - Notice how this source says Berkeley: http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/polluter/36353 - I used this one to back up Berkeley: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3D6E772CC91D2&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

• 1. Notice that the United States Census Bureau map is included
• The source states an address

Put the two together, Fnlayson. Use a map program and you will see where the former McD HQ is.

Now, you say that in this case the "hair splitting not worth it"

• It is worth it, and saying that it is not worth it is doing the readers a disservice. You know that the last McD HQ is not in the city limits of St. Louis. The city never collected a tax from the McD HQ (while it was at that location), the fire service never had McD (while it was at that location) in its zone. In other words, McD was not, and never was (at that location, anyway), in the city limits. When I go on the Berkeley, MO website, I see the Boeing offices in the central pane. Also the bottom pane links to the Boeing website. This illustrates why we need to get the real location right: Boeing is a central part of Berkeley's economy, as its website shows. We include precise locations of places on Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind.

Regarding Yenne, does he use an address referring to a different location than previously? McD may have been based in the actual city of St. Louis at some point, but the last location of McD, by the airport, is definately not in the city limits of St. Louis.

As a final reference, here is a map of the city of St. Louis: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=05000US29510&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like original research/synthesis to me. The manta.com source states St. Louis and the 2nd one was a map. Also, the map is current, not from pre-1997. This should be discussed on the article(s) talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

While I will discuss it on the talk page (See Talk:McDonnell_Douglas#Locations), I must re-iterate that the some of reasoning demonstrated in your reply above is flawed (referring to the first two sentences), and I will explain why on the talk page. I am also going to kindly ask that you read the entire post (referring to second sentence); I feel that you had skimmed it; I feel that you would not have said what you said above if you had carefully read my first reply. Now, the map is from 2000, but I feel the boundaries haven't changed in the three year period (also note that the source I mentioned said Berkeley anyway) - I'll see if I can find a 1990 census map. Found it. That should address the concern about the map being from 2000; since there's a 1990 map. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My reply above was mainly about your original version of MDC's location in the article a few days ago. The company's main plant and offices were at the Lambert airport. Not going to argue about which city that's in.. The area at the airport was bought from St. Louis by McDonnell. -Fnlayson (talk)

Yeah, things are strange. Even though the city operates St. Louis Airport, the actual city limits don't cover the airport or the territory around it. It's very similar regarding Atlanta Airport, where the City of Atlanta only covers a small portion, but the city in reality owns the entire airport. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Future Combat Systems

I work for FCS Public Affairs Office. I am trying to correct the FCS Page. The program NEEDS some information deleted and you have undone my corrections. Do you work for the program.

Please contact me at jill.nicholson at us.army.mil Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernization (talk • contribs)

Deleting valid content like that was unhelpful and unneeded. A summary was added at the bottom of the main section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle six!

Thanks for cleaning up after me on Bell 206 and OH-58 Kiowa! I'm such a messy editor. I was trying to fix ref links because I noticed that webcitation.org was down. --Born2flie (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I checked the previous article versions to double checked that was stray text in the 206 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle sixteen!

Jeff, could you take a look at my comments here? They should be self explanatory. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems alright now. When I first ran across the Mounted Combat System article a few months ago, I wondered why all the manned vehicles were not covered in 1 article since they all share the same chassis. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You do make a good point, but all the user appeared to be doing was dumping all the articles in whole onto one page, including with the separate infoboxes! That kinda defeats the point of having them on one page!His user page says he's only sixteen, so that explaines a lot, especially the exuberance in which the mergers were done. Again, it would have been nice to have been able to find your discussion more easily, but that was in know way your fault, or mine. - BillCJ (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you might be wondering, the FCS Cancelled systems talk page section was started after another editor removed the manned ground vehicles entries from the Subsystems section. I re-added them in a Former subsection. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the "clubbing baby seals" story together

Hi Jeff, I noted you added an archiving bot to Talk:F-35 Lightning II. Since I’m not bot-literate and don’t want to mess up any article history, would you please archive the “F-35 fails against Sukhois in computer simulation” conversation in Archive 4, to precede “‘Clubbed like baby seals’ controversy – the back story”, which addresses it? I’m not clear why the one was archived and not the other, but for the ease of future reference, they should be together. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot should archive that one pretty soon. A couple months ago, I archived the older Sukhoi sim section cause I thought it was old & not needed, but wanted to keep some discussion so someone won't try to start it all over again. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. My interest is in keeping the two together for the sake of future reference ... and you know it will come up again. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot should have archived that section by now. I just manually archived it and put it with the related section on the Archive page. So done. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot

Hi. I see you've extended the archive period on some low-traffic pages. Which is fine, but note that MiszaBot has a minthreadsleft parameter so, despite the notice that "Any sections older than [X] days are automatically moved", the page won't be wiped bare even if there aren't any new comments within the specified time period.
—WWoods (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the min thread left parameter (5 or 6 is default I think). Just rather be proactive and set a archive time that better fits the activity level. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bell 533

Jeff,

I saw where you updated the article to C-Class. I'm just wondering what we're missing to meet the coverage criterion for B-Class. --Born2flie (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Think that's been a while. I don't like rating articles I work on too high and it had been start. Thought the coverage lacked some detail then. You are welcome to re-assess it up to B if you think that applies. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Images on NASA

hi Fnlayson, I'm not sure that I understand the reason for the last edit to NASA ("place images so they do not start sections on left"). Could you explain the reason for this, please?
— Ω (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Manual of Style/MoS in my edit summary. The text should start directly below the section header. Placing the image above the section header allows for that. MOS:IMAGES says "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading" (WP:Accessibility#Images repeats the message). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, gotcha... what i was focusing on had more to do with: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading.", which is the second bullet point in that MOS section.
— Ω (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I did not think about that part. Great, conflicting guidelines. I usually just move left-side images down a paragraph to follow the part I mentioned. But the sections in the NASA article are not long enough for that. Guess I should put them back then.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking at first, but I can see what their referring to now. MOS:IMAGES is specifically talking about 3rd level headings, because those heading levels don't have a horizontal rule below them. The single paragraph thing is the real problem here, basically... anyway, let's just leave them (I've moved the Space Shuttle image to match the others now, anyway).
— Ω (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bell 429

I noted you'd reverted someone else's previous edits. I've corrected that.

The latest Bell Literature (let me know if you want a scanned copy) indicates the revised figures for

1. cruise speed 150kts
2. Vne 155kts

And the various other figures as in my correction. I don't know the previous poster nor where he/she got the data, but I got mine directly from Bell Helicopter Textron marketing brochure for the 429...

...and also by talking to the test pilots at KHII, and let me tell you, the figures are definitely underestimates.

If you have further issues or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me gavron @ wetwork.net. I don't work for Bell; I am not biased other than loving helicopters of all flavors; the information I posted is as accurate as I am told it.

Best regards,

Ehud Gavron Tucson, AZ, US

You should have cited the newer brochure with a date when you made the changes to article (web link not required). Please do that now. Further discussion should move to Talk:Bell 429 -Fnlayson (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

F-16 edit changes

Hello, You and a other contributor (Fastily, who I just wrote/spoke to) undid 2 of 3 changes I made to the main F-16 page. I am current doing a little research on the F-16 and found a few problems with the page that made it a little misleading (I need a a better word for that). The page implys that the CFT is a block 60 only modification but it is a block 50/52 modification (ex: F-16I, F-16H and F-16ES). Also it does not mention the dorsal spine, which makes the plane look like a different variant/block to my eyes, when it is only a factory option for all block 50/52 and 60 aircraft.

I realize that this is technically more correct in the F-16 variants section, but why is CFTs (incorrectly) in the block 60 section? I think it should be on the main F-16 page because the changes are the only obvious external changes that have been made to the F-16.

In summary, I made 3 changes.

1. 1 Added a carriage return before Block50/52+ to make it a separate paragraph. I also moved the CFTs description from block 60. Lastly I added a few lines on the dorsal spine.
2. 2 Remove the description from the block 60 section
3. 3 Changed the text of the Block 52 F-16I to comment on the CFTs and Dorsal Spine (This change stuck).

I would just like to get more information on why you "changed my change" or if you have a better idea. Or if you are OK with it I will resubmit my first 2 edits.

Buck Buck Claborn (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See my edit summary about variant details. Discuss issues on the article talk page as note says above. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rock on. Thanks for cleaning up my sloppy work. I am assuming if the variants page gets cleaned up nicely, then we can kill the variants section on the main F-16 page. I am done making changes for today. Thanks again Buck Claborn (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just did some minor clean up. The Variants section in the F-16 article has probably been cut in half over the last year. A summary of the variants should stay as a section though. There's been some discussions on shortening the F-16 article over the past several months at Talk:F-16 Fighting Falcon, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

F-22

Why is the controversy section getting deleted? There is no controversy sub section, the information posted there is not covered anywhere else in the article and contains non biased source citations. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Already explained it in my edit summaries. Your add is biased and the content is largely already in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the article front to back, and it is not found anywhere in the article. This is a very, very controversial weapons program and opponents view points have a right to be heard. EricLeFevre (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section repeats unit costs, and makes unrelated comparisons that show a clear non-neutral POV. See WP:NPOV & WP:Criticism. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In a nice violation of WP:AGF, you just got accused of being me in an edit summary in this article. Oh, and the accuser is (again) reverting to include operational cost info against WP:AIR/PC guidelines. Unfortunately, thanks to a clueless admin (who chose not to even block a nameuser who reverted FIVE TIMES in a couple hours), IP editors can no longer work to keep this article NPOV. Good luck fighting the good fight! 65.188.37.65 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yea. I'm not going to fight the maintenance costs any more. Seems to be a borderline thing and is not worth it any more to me. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This was completely unnecessary. Here is a direct quotation from the WP:AGF article, "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. An exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can itself be seen as a breach of this very tenet, since it fails to assume the assumption of good faith if the perceived assumption of bad faith is not clear-cut." You said the language was biased and violated NPOV. Ok, the proper course of action would have been to assume good faith and correct language that was percieved to be biased. Instead you opted to delete an entire section complete with citations from unbiased, credible sources (NYTimes, WaPo, Center for Defense Information, and Sec Gates). The deleted section is going to get restored. Oh and the comparison was not irrelevant. If new equipment is going to be replacing old equipment, direct comparisons are in order. EricLeFevre (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not going to get restored. And even though you got away with it today, if you persist in edit warring in this article to push your POV, you WILL get blocked next time. I can guarantee you that. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The arguments I mentioned above and in the edit summaries deal with the content only and are not related to assuming bad faith as you suggest. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hi there; I've volunteered to mediate a Mediation Cabal case with which you may be involved. Please read the mediator notes section on the case page or feel free to remove your name from the list of participants on said page. GrooveDog (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits without references,and a possible means of dealing with them

Hi!

I've noticed that you've reverted good faith edits (such as airplane counts) if they do not have references. I completely agree that it is the author's job to provide such references. However, I think it's an open question of what to do when you find a good faith edit without a reference. In my mind, there may be two good reasons for keeping the change, and adding a reference, rather than reverting. First, if the change is correct, it makes the article better. Second, wikipedia reference syntax is rather obscure, and even subject matter experts backed by solid references may not know how to add them.

A compromise I often use is to do exactly one google search using the new information. If this shows a reference, then I add it. If it does not, then I'll revert or add a cite-needed tag as appropriate. While this is slightly more work, it's better for the readers (who vastly outnumber editors) and makes it possible for editors who are not Wikipedia experts to add useful information. I suspect if you took the ratio of potential editors who know how to add cites to the number of potential editors with useful information, the ratio would be quite low.

Clearly any such strategy is completely optional, but I personally think it makes Wikipedia better, and chalk up the time involved to my mental "Wikipedia maintenance" account. LouScheffer (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already added hidden notes requesting references for changes. But editors keep indiscriminately changing numbers for operators without any explanation. A web link would be fine with me, but nobody bothers to even do that. One thing with finding a web page is the number it lists could be older or newer than the current reference and associated date in sentence. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fighter aircraft article

Hi, I've made some revisions to the fighter aircraft article and I don't think other editors will let them stay, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and give your opinion on the talk page. Thanks! Hj108 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I only check on that article every now and then. Looks like you mainly ditched the lists and replaced with links to List of fighter aircraft. That's a fine move in my opinion. If you need help from others, post a request at WT:Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that next time, thanks again! Hj108 (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Hi, Fnlayson. I noticed that you removed a couple of red links from the Ares I page earlier. Just as a reminder, keep in mind that red links shouldn't really be removed just because their red. In this particular instance, the links were only red because of a casing issue, for example. See WP:REDDEAL for more information on the subject.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to link everything that can be linked. I see little point in repeating those links in every reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

True, over-linking can be a concern regardless of red link issues. There's a guideline for that as well, located here: WP:OVERLINK. The relevant portions of that guideline in this instance, as I read it, is "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own.", located in the Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links section. Since inline citations are presented in a table format, I think that the "each row should be able to stand on its own" stipulation (meaning that each row is a "section") is what controls here.

I don't see any more specific coverage on this issue (links in references, regardless of "redness") at Wikipedia:Footnotes. It probably should be covered there, though. If you agree that this issue should be perused further then I'd like to suggest that one of us should start a conversation about this issue on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes.
— V = I * R (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read the policies. I just don't always remember the caveats and those can change from time to time anyway. References are not a table rows, but the idea is similar; if the first & only reference with the link gets removed then there's no link in the article. This is not a big deal to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Hi there, if you remember back in Feb of this year, you evaluated the article on Vladivostok Air, and I just wanted to thank you for that considering I worked on it quite a bit. I hope this would be okay to ask if you could review it again to see if it fits up to B-class standards. I can't find a definitive place for someone to re-evaluate article for WP Aviation and in the place that I did post it, I dont know if it will even be seen due to the fact the last entry was in May. Thanks again for your time. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it a little later. Asking at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment is the right place. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines are other options. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, I finished. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask there next time. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mazda Wankel displacemt

The typ number x 100 stand for the displacement in ccm or typ number / 10 is displacment in literes. [2]--HDP (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Why not add that as a reference for the displacement? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up after me at the F414 article. I'm slowing figuring out the ways of the wiki, hopefully I won't need people to fix my messes soon! Just and FYI, I'm planning on adding a section about the F-117N to the F-117 article, when I do that I'll replace the link the F414 article with a proper link. Until then, however, I understand that the redlink shouldn't be there. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for adding all the good engine content. The F-117N link could be alright, but I didn't think there would be enough for a separate article. More like a section or less in the F-117 article.-Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just 1 day until the contest begins, so I thought I'd check in with everyone and make sure you're all ready to go. First I'd like everyone to check out the main contest page and read over the rules and the scoring system. If you have any final questions or concerns, make them known on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009 is the scoreboard that will be updated, you can watchlist it. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions which shows how your submission page should look. Another example is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions Example, and your personal page should be listed at the footer of the page, which is also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Users. Again, take any questions to the contest talk page.

Good luck! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching the contest page, so user page updates are no longer needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Enlisted men

Kind of a trivial issue, but... An anonymous user 24.2.62.58 (talk · contribs) has been going through all the submarine articles (and others too I assume) and changing "enlisted" to "men." I get the point, but in some cases it can be misleading. I've started a discussion at Talk:Balao class submarine (for lack of a better place) and would appreciate your opinion if you have one.

In case you're wondering, I contacted you because I've seen your edits in the logs and noticed you left a warning for this user back in July. Rees11 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was wondering where the connection to me came in. Looks like you handled it fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a bit of help with the Mirage 2000 improvements

Hey! I still have a lot to do to remove all the lists and improve the article's flow and sources, but I've had a few concerns. There's a lot of jargon, especially related to the aircraft's (and its variants') defensive systems and avionics, which seems to be minimized in other articles or is placed in articles about the systems themselves. I'm not entirely sure how to rearrange it though, because it seems to me to (in most cases) still be useful information but it gets in the way and tends to ramble on. Any tips? Thanks. Swordfish36 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you tell you. I started converting some of the lists into paragraphs a few months ago and ran out of steam. I planned to fix the lists then maybe some copyediting clean-up stuff. The article has a lot of detail and I'd have to get some dedicated Mirage 2000 books to try and cite most of it. Discuss specifics at Talk:Dassault Mirage 2000 if you want. It is slow talk page and others might catch it there. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

All the lists are finally gone from the Mirage 2000 article, now all that's left to do is factcheck and add sources. Thanks a bunch! Swordfish36 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Looks like you did most of it today. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Air Force

Hi Jeff. Would you help me keep an out on Armenian nationalist editing as 82.169.227.40? This is someone you've warned before for not using edit summaries &c. He asserts that Armenia has MiG-29s but will not provide any evidence (much less reliable sources). Instead, he uses an image of Russian MiG-29s in the infobox while editing out the word "Russian" to insinuate they are Armenian aircraft. (I've tried substituting a non-controversial pic of what are confirmed to be Armenian Su-25s, but he won't let that stay.) In looking at his history, I've also found he likes to unilaterally remove pics of Azeri individuals and military equipment, changed Armenian troop strength engaged in the Nagorno-Karabakh War (an FA article) without comment, and replaced an NPOV map of the Caucasus with one showing NK colored as an integral part of Armenia. The anon really needs to be encouraged to use edit summaries and not make contentious, unsourced information, but it seems he won't listen to just a one lone editor and I seem to be the only one watching that article. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed some of that and made a couple of those same edits myself. I've warned that IP and another one doing the same edits before. Giving too many more warnings seems futile. Either the person doesn't care or doesn't understand. I watch MiG-29 and will add Armenian Air Force to try and help. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If he ignores both of us, I guess an RfCU will be the next step. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: The MiG-29 image has been placed for speedy deletion following my asking around if it was an appropriate fair use and told it wasn't. When it goes, the anon will only have the MiG-29 entry in the infobox to war over. Please keep pressing him to provide reliable sources (and edit summaries) – they might eventually get the message. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, they got rid of File:4armenianjetsa.jpg not too long ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More than one way to skin a disruptive cat, eh? I replaced the 'citation needed' tag – which the anon has studiously ignored – with a 'dubious - discuss' tag to invite him back to the Talk page (and it also highlights its questionable status). Thanks for the assist. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yep. I varied the tactics by tagging it. Changing to that tag is a good wrinkle. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

777 FA nom

Hi Fnlayson, I'm planning on nominating Boeing 777 for FA review soon. Thx for your help thus far on the article. If you have any suggestions or comments regarding this coming nomination, they are most welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

747-8 Orders

Hi Jeff,

Moving forward with the 747-8 Orders and deliveries, do you think it would be a good idea to merge it with the main article and add the marketing and sales performance as a separate section in that article? Vedant (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole orders article could be copied over to Boeing 747-8 and made into a redirect. The 747-8 is not getting orders at a fast enough rate to need a separate list of orders article, in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

F-104 safety record

You've reverted the accident comparison statement in the lead section twice. Did you review my post in the comments section? The safety record of the F-100 was hardly "similar" to the -104. Dukeford (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You even said it was correct, but claim it is not a complete picture. Did you even notice the wording includes all accidents not just class A? Also can you not follow WP:EDSUM? -Fnlayson (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I included an edit summary - you did not. Did you bother to read it? And what "wording" concerning all accidents were you referring to? The only statistic that matters is the Class A loss rate per 100,000 flight hours. That is the accepted standard. The Hun's OVERALL Class A loss rate is in no way comparable with the -104's, a fact I've supported with references. Finally, the sentance I removed is completely out of context with the rest of the paragraph. Dukeford (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• All accidents matter, not just the major ones. You have provided an edit summary to only a couple of your edits.[3] Mine are the opposite. Discuss on the article's talk page as the Notes above ask. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BAE Systems

The SFO's announcement of its intention to prosecute is significant enough for inclusion. Particulary since they were forced to drop their previous attempt for political reasaons.

There's no point having an edit war but I don't think you are a disinterested party. --Alastair Rae (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's BAE Systems and I have no connection to the company at all. Read WP:NOTCRYSTAL and the NOTES above about discussing article issues on article talk pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a future event. The announcement (of intention to prosecute) has happened and is significant. I guess someone from the aerospace business might be a bit defensive of a fellow company but you can't just bury the news.

I want to put my edit back. The share price has fallen, and this is a significant piece of news, that is now part of the history of the firm. Please explain why it has been suppressed. Many thanks. 138.253.48.80 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've checked WP:NOTCRYSTAL - it doesn't apply here. News that causes such a sharp drop in a large firm's share price is sufficient. Why are we holding back on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, discuss article issues on article talk pages. Take it to Talk:BAE Systems. And lose the comments about me, stick to the issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC) , please

You seem to have a fault with your page. Please, please desist from changing the BAe site until we've had a chat. I'm sure you're a fine, kind person. and that we have accidentally got our wirtes crossed. I respect you and your posts completely, but we have to get the record straight on BAe. Cheers, Abercromby (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked twice here to discuss the article issues on the article's talk page, which is Talk:BAE Systems. I just readded a reference for that last sentence to that entry. Your removal was unhelpful. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but your activities are making me suspicious of your motives. I'm sure it's my misunderstanding, but you are not making it clear that things are straight. Are we agreed that news has emerged that BAe is under suspicion that they have bribed poor nations? And are we agreed that this information must be represented here? Cheers, Abercromby (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) PS: sorry for pursuing you here, but this is where you hang out. I'll toddle off to BAe systems now; I hope my changes are persisting there properly.

I've done nothing at all suspicious. I have only tried to follow Wikipedia's policies. I have no particular opinion on this matter. Done here. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

UAH's role in Huntsville's economy

Jeff:

I'm not a prolific user of Wikipedia, so I hope this message makes it through. You asked the question about my postings under Alabama seeking a citation that The University of Alabama in Huntsville is among the key components of Huntsville's high-technology economy. I cannot say that I can cite a single source that makes that claim. Rather, I offer the following facts that would lend me to provide that perspective.

• UAHuntsville has the largest research expenditures in the nation (more than $65M) for a university its size ( ~ 7,500 students) when compared to all public universities. Much of it in partnership with industry, NASA, the U.S. Army and other Department of Defense agencies. • UAHuntsville ranks second to Georgia Tech in annual research expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures when compared to the 31 universities in the Southern University Group. • UAHuntsville is consistently ranked among the top universities in the nation in NASA-sponsored research. • Four UAHuntsville research disciplines rank in the top 50 in the nation in federal research funding, according to the National Science Foundation.

Hope this helps.

Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Garner (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been a while ago. I know UAH is an important part. But is UAH comparable to Redstone Aresonal, Cummings Research Park and MSFC? That's the way the wording was changed as I recall. The place for discussing this should be at Talk:Huntsville, Alabama (or possible Talk:Alabama). If you want to discuss further do so there. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

KC-7A7

Jeff, thanks for the address; what I wanted to talk about didn't become an issue. Anyway, Boeing just launched the KC-7A7: UnitedStatesTanker website. Do you know if we have any info posted on this as yet? The KC-767 page might be the best place to start. Boeing is hedging their bets this time, preparing both the 767- and 777-based models. Should be interesting! - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Boeing looked at the 777 some before bidding the KC-767 in 2007. They must be much further along with the 777 tanker now though. Boeing looked at 767-300 and -400 based tankers about a year ago to meet the apparent need for a larger tanker, but the revised RFP was put off until this year (coming soon). Anyway on your question, I think this can be covered at Boeing KC-767#USAF KC-X Program and Boeing 777#777 Tanker (KC-777).

I looked at that US tanker site last night. It only lists some basics specs, but KC-767 data do not appear to have changed. The recent news is Boeing will reduce costs and will not combine so many 767-200, -300 and -400 features. "Boeing eyes supplier shake-up for KC-X .." -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of that content on that site [tanker one] are labeled blog posts, unfortunately. That's the way a lot of sites are going as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is clearly labeled "You are in: Home › Aircraft › News Article" now. Did they change it? - BilCat (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Sorry for the confusion. I meant the unitedstatestanker.com site with all the blog posts. flightglobal.com and aviationweel.com do have blog areas of their own, but those are clearly marked. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Boeing did feel they were misled by the DOD/USAF, as the RFP seemed to specify a smaller aircraft, yet the KC-45 was awarded to NG/Airbus partly because it was larger! Changing the specs mid-stream was one of the reasons the award was overturned by the GAO. Boeing is preparing both this time so it will have fully developed proposals when the RFP is finally released, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them submit both bids (not one bid for 2 aircraft) just in case (if that is allowed). - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• NG/EADS got bonus points for having more fuel capacity and cargo space. This type thing has been called gold-plating and the requirements are supposed to prevent that so as not to waste money. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Merlin

Thanks Jeff for the vote of support, the capital 'F' for fuel was someone's error, good spot. I have removed all references that were questioned (except one that I strongly believe is valid) without waiting for confirmation that they were ok. I think the article looks very good now but I'm bracing myself for the prose and content to be picked apart! No biggie on the '777' specs table, it's just not the way I would chose to do it. One thing I notice in general with the airliner articles is the great number of images included, they are often supposed to show a variant (with no detectable external differences) but they are effectively just showing a different airline's colour scheme, again just a personal view. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, some users add their airlines images sometimes and some will try to remove images from airlines/nations they don't like at times. A lot of that is not worth fighting over. I'm pretty well used to the specs in tables since I've worked on many airliners articles. I thought their use was more widespread among WP:Aircraft at first. Good luck with the Merlin FA review. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the table format was apparently dropped in 2004 according to the note here. Fighting with the 'fans' can be frustrating, luckily there is not much of this problem with the engine articles (yet?!!), usually there is a shortage of images but it's getting better, I took 300 snaps yesterday at a museum. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

YAH-64 image

Jeff, I uploaded a new image for the YAH-64 on Commons. File:YAH-64 parked right-front view.jpg. Not sure if you can use it somewhere. --Born2flie (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Born that can go in an early section at AH-64 Apache or possibly at Advanced Attack Helicopter. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I added that to the AH-64 article. There are already 2 YAH-64 images in the AAH article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that we still don't appear to have a copyright-free image of the earilest YAH-64 configuration with the solid nose and T-tail. That would be a great find! - BilCat (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I will keep my eye out for that one! --Born2flie (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

GS200

Jeff, thanks for the clean-up on the "GS"200 page. Odd that someone complaining that I removed his "major" additions (an accidental stomp on my part) then stomps my edits to get his back! Btw, I think the details on the Yak involvement, and on IAI designing the "GS"250 would be better in the main text, not the Lead. Also, I'll try to look at the ATF page today or tomorrow. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. The user did not follow the notes on your talk page either. ;) Thanks, get to that when you can. I can add about supercruise testing without any trouble there. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AETF Archiving

Hi Jeff, could you shorten the time period on the archive bot setting for us please, an editor has requested archiving and it is getting a bit long now. I could archive it manually if a new shortened setting doesn't take effect immediately, 90 days perhaps? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At the top, under "{{User:MiszaBot/config" change |algo = old(120d) -> |algo = old(90d). Just above that change |age=120 to |age=90 to match. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Roger, thanks. I see that you are doing it, we do gas a lot in there! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

UH-60M Production

Even though the Leoni book (of which I have a copy) says delivery on 31 Jul 06, I believe that was LRIP. Apparently full production didn't begin till mid-2007. Some say it isn't even in production yet. I'm checking with my contact at Sikorsky. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. LRIP sounds very likely. I'll see what I can find online from Aviation Week, Flight Int. and other aviation sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AH-64 Apache

Jeff,

My recent edits were because who owns them, or who ordered them, doesn't seem to belong in the Operational history section. IMO, it could cover the dates that the country took possession/acquired/placed into operational status, but is really intended for significant actions or how those operators employed the aircraft (I thought the UH-60 article was doing a good job of this). All of the, "[this country] might order some," stuff is really discussion about future Operators, almost bordering on trivia because it truly has no bearing on discussing the subject of the article, at least until any orders and deliveries actually happen. As long as we're talking about who thought of ordering this aircraft compared to another aircraft, I don't believe these articles have a good chance to progress beyond B-Class. It ends up reading like the genealogies in the bible...the reader gets bogged down in minutiae. --Born2flie (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to put future operators in Operators section per WP:Air/PC now. The Operational history and Development are places allowed for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Battleship

See old version for this section.

Wiki gnoming

		Wikiwings
		Jeff, it is that time again! Citation: For ceaseless wikignoming, tweaking, copyediting, formatting, citing and finding references, and promoting articles, I hereby award you these Wikiwings...umpteenth award (or should be something like that by now!). --Born2flie (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 777

Hi Fnlayson, would you consider striking comments on resolved issues? I've done for several of my comments on the FA review page. In addition, I had a chat with the last reviewer thus far, and he's of the opinion that the article does not deserve even A-Class status, so I assume we won't be getting much support there unless we follow those suggestions more closely--the specs table being removed is apparently required. Please advise. Thanks in advance. SynergyStar (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. What's the problem with the specs table? It does not exactly follow WP:Aircraft guidelines, but that should no bearing on the FA review. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider adding a  Done template also. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx, but as of now the guidelines state "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as  Done and  Not done) is discouraged". Never mind on the strike-out for now, apparently it's meant for oppose statements.

I'd recommend a read of reviewer's talk page here for the details on why the specs table, numbers, etc. are being asked for removal. SynergyStar (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I scanned it. Think I'm about  Done. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work SynergyStar. Article is making progress. Seems like splitting off parts would mean its not stable. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything else simple I could do to reduce the specs table. Considered it has most all the article's spec data, that's not as critical. Let me know if I can help with something. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed. I think it is important to build consensus among a number of qualified editors before splitting off the specs table, especially when most every airliner article has one. And thanks so much for helping out with the article edits. I remain hopeful despite only a support vote and general comments. Still, should major changes need be made, a new nom can occur in 2 weeks. But before that bridge gets crossed, I think we have a very readable article, and even the restriction of numbers to the specs table has made it more accessible. At this point, I'm anticipating possibly some need to add flair to the prose, or possibly some unanswered questions relating to scope (e.g. what system so-and-so is there...), as well as possibly some questions on the lead (IMO, the safety sentence sounds out of place and isn't needed, but if the letter of the MoS is interpreted as requiring it...such goes the FA review). I also was reading Born2flies' Wikithoughts about FA status, house of cards, etc., and it reminded me to keep different editors' suggestions in perspective. SynergyStar (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Apache vandalism

You have to admit some of the vandalism is creative and a little funny. :D --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes. Most times just dumb junk. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

- BilCat (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot! Hope and your family have a good Thanksgiving!. That also goes to all that see this. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstars for Diligence and Anti-Vandalism

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Because of your constant monitoring of articles, and attention to quality and accuracy THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia articles. THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

nbsp

[4] You may be right about titles and links, but several of the nbsp's you removed were in plain text. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Non-breaking spaces says: "A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended ... in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center." (emphasis added) Art LaPella (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the 2 parts can not displace within a wiki link or at the start of a line. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that "Boeing 787" won't separate into two lines if it's at the start of a paragraph (I eliminated some of my nbsp's for that reason.) It's not true that it can't separate within a wiki link: on my monitor, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration#Suggestions separates the natural justice link into two lines. Your monitor may differ, but I chose that page because it has a lot of long links. And perhaps you agree that "Boeing 787" should have an nbsp when it isn't in any kind of a link. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, wikilinks wrap on Firefox. Using hard space in the model name seem like overkill. Might as well use them for words pairs too. Guess I'm too used to a hard space only with units of measure. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that means you agree. I'll leave Boeing 787 to you, but apparently there's no reason to change my WP:AWB selections. Art LaPella (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to flush the Style Guides, and start new ones from scratch, subject to community-wide approval. I can understand using non-breaking spaces in measurements, but in between "Boeing 787"??? I think some people have a bit too much time on their hands, so now they're jsut making stuff up to add to the style guide simply because they can. Sheesh! - BilCat (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about punctuation, but I do have a strong opinion about the process. If the Manual of Style is wrong, then please use Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style so we can all benefit from your insight. If the Manual of Style doesn't have community-wide approval, then the community should change it, and again the best place to organize it is at the Manual's talk page. I know that page attracts grammar Nazis, but that won't change by ignoring them; the way to change it is to confront them when they are unreasonable. If you look at the talk page at the moment, you'll find a major rebellion against WP:DASH. Art LaPella (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience with date-autolinking process has soured me on the whole MOS discussion process. Worse was how the admins let that kind of behavior go on for so long. Honestly, I've had wiki-trolls (not, not all) treat me better that that! I now avoid it completely, and let others jump in if they want to. If I want to be treated uncivilly for just having an opposing opinion, I don't have to come online for that! I can just go to my sister's house and talk to her husband! - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, date-autolinking went all the way to arbitration, and everybody agreed it wasn't worth all that. That's understandable; perhaps we can say I have been taking your place lately at that talk page. Somebody has to fix the problem you're describing. Art LaPella (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anything you can do to tone down instructional creep like this is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, on that issue I'll play devil's advocate and hope you have a snappy comeback: They say the job of the Manual of Style is to determine usage, and that arguments are settled in advance by having a pre-programmed answer to questions such as where does the nbsp go. Art LaPella (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The basic numbers with units of measure and other number-word combination such as addresses, dates are fine. I think extending that to commercial products opens up a big can. Think all the automobiles, and various other products that have a manufacturer name with a product name or number. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So you aren't so much against instruction creep in general; you just want to remove the words "Boeing 747" from the Manual. Would Windows&nbsp;7 be any worse than other uses of nbsp? I don't know. I just wish there were one big consensus – or better, a consensus to do it either way and not to argue about it. Art LaPella (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• No commercial products with make & model type names. Windows 7 is a 2 part product name. Think I'm done here. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

On Boeing 747: We regularly use 747, 787, etc. by themselves in aircraft articles. Is that "disruptive to the reader"? "747" by itself is normal usage, so I really don't see how adding a hard space between Boeing and 747 helps any. If we were writing "B 747", then perhaps the MOS whould have a point. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin: Legacy Section

Thanks for the punctuation and formatting. Really appreciated. --Scieberking (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just touch-ups. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin unhelpful edits

Hello Fnlayson. Would you please fix the current vandalism thing? Thanks in advance. --Scieberking (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Been fixed. In the future, when you need to revert more than 1 bad edit, start with the history page. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting for the details.

Anything further on this should be discussed at the article's talk page as requested in the notes above. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've edited it to "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that played heavy metal music, helping to pioneer the genre." This, might be helpful to stop the edit war, is a good compromise. Sincerely. --Scieberking (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to remove the wrong idea that Led zeppelin is a Heavy metal band....... Now is clear that led zeppelin inspire the metal bands with your heavy sound........ I appreciate if it remains this way...........Because it seems more real....... Ricknupp (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss further at Talk:Led Zeppelin, not here, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Jesus is the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas! and have a Happy New Year All!

Remember the reason for the season and take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks Bill Z. Hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Years as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

New Year

Have a great week and a happy new year! Regards. --Scieberking (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a good New Year's eve/day. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing GE-J85

I agree with you on this edit, not really notable to include in the article page. FYI, that news of the missing RMAF jet engine had been reported in Singapore as well, goes to show how lax their airbase security can be. (REF: Missing RMAF jet engine discovered sold [Malaysia source] & Theft of jet engine an inside job, says minister [Singapore source]) Cheers~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't sure how real that was. I had hoped the engine was just lost on the base, but that's not the case. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, this isn't the first time anything that organized happened in the Malaysian Armed Forces, I've heard of even wilder claims from their side but without news report, I don't think it's worth mentioning here on Wikipedia. This, however, was an exception. Anyhow, do you think it's worth adding into the article of Royal Malaysian Air Force? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think so. The RMAF article does not look too detailed and there's not a good section to add that. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Look what I found today~! This whole thing has come a full circle now, in a way. Thoughts? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 05:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm, the Malaysian chop-shop guys are moving up in the world! Makes you happy Singapore got out when they could, huh Dave? - BilCat (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• For sure, I'm not too worried about Singapore's logistics, we have ample supplies of spares and besides, ST Aerospace (with some help from GE) also have the necessary facilities here to do the J-85 overhaul locally, yours sincerely being one of them qualified chums. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 05:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Latest plot twist... I'm not sure why but I'm not surprised by it, at all. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• More: stolen engines have been taken to Argentina -Fnlayson (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Finnish Hornets

You seem knowledgeable in the field of aviation so I was wondering if any of you're references have any information about the equipment delivered with the export Hornets. What bothers me is these sentences in the Finnish Air Force article: "It lacks certain avionics, target acquisition and weapon control features, limiting its ground attack capability. The variant is also used by the Swiss Air Force."

As far as I know, the Finnish Hornets are for the most part pretty much standard. They for example even retain the launch bar which is completely useless without an aircraft carrier. I've never heard from a reliable source that there were actually any missing major features related to ground attack. Only in recent years have I seen talk about a "Finnish variant" of the Hornet. So do you have any information to prove either information accurate? -Khilon (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally the Finnish (and Swiss) Hornets were for just air defense and were designated F-18s without A. Looks like the main change was leaving off the AAS-38 or AAR-50 targeting pods. Maybe some radar modes or other things related to ground attack were disabled or left off. Don't really know as my books only have a few pages on it. You might try asking at Talk:F/A-18 Hornet or WT:AIR if you want more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. -Khilon (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)