Jump to content

User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Hi Fnlayson, I doubt that you are clueless about what's going on ;) Thank you for contributing to McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, which is now a Featured Article. Again, Happy New Year! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I did not do that much. You did most all the recent work on the AV-8B article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not change redirects to pipes except in unusual situations

This is explained at WP:NOTBROKEN. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that somebody will likely convert metrification from redirect to an article then (a Redirect with possibilities)? And that's a guideline, not policy. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that redirects are in general better than pipes. Pipes break the connection between what the user sees and what the software does, and that's a bad thing inherently, independently of whether there would ever be a separate article. There's a place for piped links (the most important one is when the linked term goes to a disambig page, or where its primary topic is not the meaning intended) but they shouldn't be used when not necessary. --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

PZL W-3 Sokół

Need your help here, trying to avoid an edit war - between Eroscramsgfo (talk) and 41.109.95.35 (talk) I'm pinned in a corner. - many thanks FOX 52 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Sopiknfram has done some disruptive reverts to other articles lately. That user, Eroscramsgfo, 41.109.95.35, and others appear to be sockpuppets based on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A109/AW109 - Edit Warrior

Any suggestion on how to deal with this (edit warring) and some un-civil activity towards me - PS. I left a couple warnings to no avail - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll watch the AW109 article to try and help. In general, try giving lower level warnings first then escalate if the user continues. Ask the user to use the article talk page instead of your user talk page so others will see it and provide input. Remove posts with personal attacks from your user talk page if needed. You may need to ask for help on WT:Air or directly ask an Admin such as MilborneOne or The Bushranger for advice/help. I might be rambling a bit here. Best of luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Many Thanks - FOX 52 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The A109 and AW109 designations are both right to some degree. The entries for the variants built before the formation of AgustaWestland probably should list both somewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

RAAF Museum Bristol Boxkite photographs

Hi, I was hoping to get your advice on the RAAF Museum page where I had added some photographs of the replica Bristol Boxkite. 

File:Bristol Boxkite Centenary Flight at Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 (1).jpg 
File:Bristol Boxkite Centenary Flight at Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 (2).jpg

and started a talk page to get a consensus following the removal by one editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RAAF_Museum

Your advice would be appreciated Hpeterswald (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just left a comment on the talk page there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Mark Tillman quote

Hey ! I just wanted to tell you that there's no doubt that they meant transponder and not responder, but I verified and you're right it is referenced everywhere as being responder even though everybody says it's not what they meant, but still I agree that quoted text should stay authentic even if it has a mistake, but you could be nicer though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Attia (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, I checked the source again before I reverted your change. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Information

I think that you should be interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afmatpesr. Regards. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a big deal to me, but that's good to know people are checking on the user and possible socks. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced content

I am somewhat puzzled by this edit. I am inclined to assume that an editor of your experience must be acquainted with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, including the section Wikipedia:BURDEN, which states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source" (my emphasis), and yet not only did you restore content removed because of lack of sourcing, but you even included a "citation needed" tag, indicating that you were yourself aware both of the need for a source, and of the fact that you were not providing one. I shall remove the content again: please feel welcome to restore it once you can provide a reliable source to support it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncited text only has to be removed immediately for BLP articles per WP:UNSOURCED. That section also says tagging the text is an interim step to allow time to cite it. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Eraser Barnstar
{{{1}}}

Nicely done. Your edit to Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit solved the situation far more elegantly than my "citation needed" tag. As the man in the movie said, "why didn't I think of that?

Best regards

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)}}

Thanks. I had previously missed that text in the article. Glad you caught it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

T-50IQ of the Iraqi Air Force

Hi Fnlayson,

According to KAI. What they are eventually delivering to Iraq are of the T-50 advanced trainer variety. Aside for the old press release article (https://www.koreaaero.com/english/product/fixedwing_t-50.asp) you can see KAI's current export information here (https://www.koreaaero.com/english/product/fixedwing_t-50.asp).

KAI is the better reference for this because they are the manufacturer. I'll be reverting your change.

Good day.

Israformales (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that specific detail is in those sources. They only mention 'advanced trainer'. Advanced trainer and light attack is mentioned in the KAI press release about the contract. Other source states the FA-50 was bid to Iraq in the last year or so. Try to follow the notes at the top about using the article's talk page in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Huntsville, Alabama: Out Of Control?

Did you notice the Facebook pages as references in the comedy section on the Huntsville page or my update to the talk page addressing that? Would you consider that out of control? Are you objective and impartial enough to look at that yourself?50.168.176.243 (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I did, but I didn't feel it a critical issue. Facebook pages are not valid, reliable sources. You are welcome to remove the 'refs' per WP:IRS, if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I did mention that I'm biased, what with being a comedian and all. I feel it's best I don't touch it. I should just let someone objective do it. I shouldn't even have performed that minor correction.50.168.176.243 (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There should be no issues if the edits are neutral. I removed the facebook 'refs' and tagged those entries needing refs. They are probably not significant/notable if reliable refs can not be found. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thing is, it's hard for me to stay neutral on a subject of such importance to me... I recognise my limitations as a human and try to live accordingly. Thanks for handling that. I'll try to stay away from that page from now on. Out of sight, out of mind. Then, if someone is engaging in self promotion that could potentially benefit (or God forbid hurt) me, I don't have to feel compelled to find an unbiased person to look at it.50.168.176.243 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Su-27 (derivatives text)

I added that section in order to have better visibility and to have a brief "guide" about how to recognize Su-35/57/35S. Also, everything was sourced, can't you read? It's not hard to click on links in the sources section and anyway i underlined that "everything is sourced" also in the Edit summary. In my opinion that section was really useful to get a first look to all these Su-27 modifications at the same time, many people around the internet still mis-recognize them, and individual Su-35 and Su-37 pages don't tell the full story behind them (also these pages should be called Su-35/37 and Su-35S, their actual names make clear that almost no one has understood the point about these aircrafts), since every page talks about its mentioned plane singularly instead of analizyng the whole family of these Su-27 derivatives. Think about it, in my opinion that section would be really useful, let me know what do you think about it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiccardoTheBeAst (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There were only about 3 sources for the 7 paragraphs you added. The text needs a lot of rewriting and it was placed in the wrong section, imo. The discussion on derivatives belongs at the bottom of the Development section. I added an expand template for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The 3 sources cover all the 7 paragraphs, again, check them to verify it. If it's needed to cite them multiple times, then do it. I know the text needs some fixes, they are welcome, i just wrote a first draft, refining is necessary of course. If you want to move it in the Development section just do it, in the Edit Summary i wrote in fact that i wasn't sure about the proper section where to place it. RiccardoTheBeAst (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thai UH-72 orders

Jeff, I'm confused by your addition of "pending" in the Operators section on the UH-72 page. Per IHS Jane's cited in the Operational history section, the order has been finalized, and deliveries are to begin in 2015. Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "pending"? Thanks - BilCat (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I had missed that source, since it is not with the entry in Operators section. The Flight International/Flightglobal World Air Forces census lists pending/planned orders with an asterisk (*). I removed pending and added the Jane's source to the entry. Sorry for the confusion. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I figured that might have been what it was, as I only saw the source yesterday myself. I didn't want to just revert you, as you're usually right, and I thought I might be missing something too. - BilCat (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A380 country template

Hi Fnlayson, Thanks for dating the template. I have asked the author to take out Japan since the Skymark cancellation but to no avail. Perhaps he would listen to you. Also, why is this table allowed to mention upcoming countries? The rule on the Boeing 787 site only allows countries to be shaded once an airline from that country has begun to use the aircraft. There is not a two tiered "currently using and future users" system. It would be nice to have cosistency across all aircraft. This would also avoid having to delete a country if an order is cancelled. In this case Japan would never have been shaded at all if using a "once delivered and in service" rule. Thought? Hans100 (talk)Hans100

Wright Brothers - Aircraft in fiction

About the "Aircraft in fiction" edit. You are wrong, the modification I did was exactly to try to leave the text tone more neutral. Because the claim that the Wright brothers were the first have no proof, and I noticed that the Americans insist on ignoring this crucial detail (And I honestly do not know why I still care, given that Americans always revert these changes in seconds). 200.189.118.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the IP locates to Brazil. Btw, in 2013, Jane's All the World's Aircraft announced that they now believe the Wright Brothers were not the first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight. Unfortunately for the IP user, Jane's believe the first was Gustave Whitehead in 1901 or 1902! - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You still added a weasel word without a supporting source(s). It would have been fine with me if the text had been reworded some other way but still being neutral. Discuss at Talk:Aircraft in fiction to get input from others -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

C-5 Galaxy incident on August 16, 2001 at Travis AFB, CA

I was one of the pilot onboard the C-5 Galaxy that had its nose gear strut explode on takeoff from Travis AFB, CA on August 16, 2001. Please let me know if you would like additional details for your posting.

Thanks,

will8a

Will8a (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad you and the others onboard were not injured. What you added to the article described what seems like a minor accident overall. That's was why the accident entry was removed. If you'd like to discuss this more and with others use the C-5's article talk page (Talk:Lockheed C-5 Galaxy). Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

M1911 replica

how do i add a a description about the replica version then? the replica version is quite significant given it has been mentioned in possibly every single major news outlet out there, so it should be mentioned on that basis. dont you agree?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. I still think the replica section was giving undue weight to it in the M1911 article, especially since it has a separate article. This should really be discussed at Talk:M1911 pistol. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Marry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Fnlayson,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Spanish submarine G-7

You asked about the planned Spanish G-class of submarines in the merge discussion on this sub; it was mentioned briefly here (one of the sources for the G-7 page), but I've been unable to find anything else about it. Presumably they were to be built under licence, as the HA 1112 aircraft were, but that's just supposition on my part. Sorry I can't help more. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's alright. You can only go by what you have solid sources for. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversal?

removal of MV-22 orders is fine with me, just wanted to make sure thats what you really wanted - your previous thoughts - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I thought there was a deal/contract with Israel before. That was just a deal on the US side, and Israel has not signed yet according to media reports over the past few weeks. Sorry for any confusion. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It's all good FOX 52 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing Igor Sikorsky - Kiev/Kyiv

Hello. I represent Ukrainian-language section of Wikipedia. I would like to talk about translation of Kyiv city. "Kiev" - is a Russian translation, "Kyiv" - Ukrainian, as well as the official language in Ukraine is Ukrainian language, I think it would be appropriate to use the name "Kyiv". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrainebestintheworld (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia uses the Common Name in English, not necessarily the local name or official name. This is why the article on that city is named Kiev, with alternate spellings and translations listed there. (Redirect pages exist for alternate spellings too.) No need to try and argue with me about it; it is not up to me or other single user. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Kiev/naming for further information on the Kiev/Kyiv naming issue. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Rush FAR

I have nominated Rush (band) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You're already posted about this on the talk page and template d it to start the FAR. Good day. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

HMMV

"Partial revert, no reason to remove template field, only text after equals sign)" No prob. Thanks. That said, is there a standard unit cost used? as a former development type, we used a half dozen different costs, depending on contest, and problems with inflation (that often seems to be ignored here on wiki) are the least of it. A stripped, dry cost for a large production run can easily be a fith of a small production run for a ready-to-roll unit with spares and current worth of future maintenance costs rolled in.Anmccaff (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actual unit cost was not related to my edit. Books on military ground vehicles are the best guess I have at finding an accurate unit cost. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that you weren't writing about the actual unit cost, merely preserving a template place holder for when one more credible is found - which makes a good deal of sense. I was wondering if Wiki, or the part of Wiki that deals with military equipment, or military vehicles, or &cet, &cet, ad. naus. had any standard which cost to use, (and, parenthetically, on dating the info, so current value of money can be taken into account)?Anmccaff (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

MH-60 Jayhawk edit

I changed it just to be consistent, since just above it the M240's caliber is written in metric with the caliber in parenthesis (both are US-designed cartridges). It just looked strange to me being opposite just beneath. That was my reasoning. I should have left an explanation stating that, my bad. Spartan198 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I saw what the consistency thing later. I'll see if I can do anything to make it better... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

JLTV edit

Hi there. Just before I make a change to your change, I thought I'd be polite and offer up an explanation... JLTV trim is fine (I should have twigged that one myself), but for non-US readers I think sequestration needs a little more detail, hence I copied the text I used direct from JDW which I know strives to be understandable to a global audience. I think your trim is great for American readers, but may not be as clear as it could to those of us that inhabit foreign shores. I'd propose a revert to this... On 25 February 2015, Secretary of the Army John McHugh told reporters that the U.S. Army will prioritise funding for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) programme if 2011 Budget Control Act funding caps - known as sequestration - return in fiscal year 2016 (FY 2016). Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.163.120 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm new to this, as you can tell... I forgot to sign it - sorry!Wolpat (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Look through the previous text before that. Sequestration is mentioned 2-3 times before that. If more explanation is needed, it should be when sequestration is first mentioned. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, it should. I'll look at doing that when I next make an edit. It's a time thing. As I read I spotted quite a lot of inaccuracies (many not-so-serious, but still not technically correct) in the JLTV article that, when I have the time, I'll do my best to sort. Right now it takes me ten times as long to make the change as it does to actually type the words. Learning curve! 109.153.163.120 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sir. I see you have just reversed the updates I made a short while ago to the JLTV page. I'm quite new to Wikipedia so forgive me if some of the stuff I say/do is a little clumsy, I do not intend it to be, and will get better as I progress I'm sure. I'm not even sure this is the correct place to add this! I am curious as to what you thought was wrong with the stuff I added? I simply added wording (revised what was there) from the very latest available information, and cited it as required. I'm not skilled enough to track down who added any given piece of text I may wish to revise etc so I can 'discuss' with them why I might be changing it, but then that's not required as I understand it. However, if I wanted to change something that had just been added, I think I might try this Talk thing first. I would have appreciated some contact and maybe discussion from you first. Unless I'd screwed something up, of course! I suppose if I was one of these awkward confrontational types I could just change it back, and then you could change it back again, and so it would go on... I've no idea where that would end up..., and don't really want to find out. So, as I said at the start of this Talk, I'd really be interested to read why you thought my revisions were not worthy of staying up? I've a lot of JLTV stuff to hand that I wish to revise/add, and the last thing I want is to cause issues - with any other person that gives up their time to enhance Wiki. Looking forward to your comments. Wolpat (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I moved most of your new text to the top of the History section, not deleted it. Please use the article's talk page for further discussion. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just worked out how to use the article talk page (I think) and if I ever need to, will use it in the future. Apologies for being so inept that I failed to spot what you had done. I'll try to improve, be more attentive in the future, and not waste your time! Thank you for the quick reply.Wolpat (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's alright. Do carry on. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

H160 photo insertion

Hello, I have the autorisation to put the H160 3D picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGyss (talk • contribs) 08:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The H160 image is a copyrighted and not a free image. A fair use rationale is required to use these type images on Wikipedia. This image has deleted from Commons on March 12 for lacking proper license, i.e. not free. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

GAU-8

You do realize that this IP is an anti-Semite evading his permanent block right? Look at the block log and the revert history on the T-90. He started vandalizing and went on to create an account. This account would later get blocked indefinitely after abusing multiple IP addresses. The admins forgot to block the original one and he went rampart on the Pokpung-ho article and wrote some anti-Semitic content in Korean. Since he's up to no good,I suggest that you revert every single edit he makes. Khazar (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen anything stated on this before. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well now you do. Khazar (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems

I notice you reverted my movement of the battery paragraph. I had done so because the batteries were no longer an ongoing problem (with the last incident occurring over a year ago, and all but one of them before the aircraft entering regular commercial service). No aircraft were more than minimally damaged. In the long-term scheme of things, this will be a minor developmental footnote. Pax 19:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The Lead or Intro should summarize the whole article. The text in the Lead can probably be shortened, at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

HAL AMCA

hello Fnlayson, I want to draw your attention towards HAL AMCA page, for the last one month or so one anonymous ip is editing the page with providing some citation to prove the claim but many claims still don't have any citation. looks like the editor has deep knowledge about the project and its inner workings (many an insider, not sure ) I thought an expert in aviation like you might be able to clear things out. happy editing ... bye :) Nicky mathew (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. I have enough HAL products on my watchlist already. Try asking at WT:Air. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

AH-64 Israeli edits

Your most recent edit was the best; I'll take it! Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeR8898 (talk • contribs) ‎18:45, April 29, 2015 (UTC) ‎

Good deal. It should not have taken me to get there. Take care MikeR8898. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In regards to your "It should not have taken me to get there" comment, I think my edit was just fine, honestly. My edit pertained to the the root cause of the Israelis not upgrading their AH-64A helicopters to AH-64D; the lack of cooperation from the Obama administration (which you continued to edit out of the article until your most recent edit). This was not primarily a budget issue; if the Obama administration cooperated, Israel would have spent the money to upgrade the AH-64A helicopters to AH64-D. It certainly would have been a lot easier than making their own in-house upgrades to AH-64I. To put this into perspective, the Israeli Air Force has purchased dozens of F35 aircraft, which cost significantly more than the AH-64D upgrades; the funding was definitely there, if there was cooperation from the US.

Additionally, the Obama administration also put hellfire missile shipments to Israel on hold at one point, which is why the Israelis were looking at alternatives to the hellfire missile for their AH-64 attack helicopters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeR8898 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to go by what the sources stated. Some of the sources were not written clear enough or in enough detail. The funding for the F-35s is largely come from the US State dept, which probably complicates matters. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

JLTV

Sorry, moving that ref was a mistake, although how I made it I'll never know. Well spotted! Wolpat (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, it looked like an accidental move to me. Try the "Show changes" button before saving an edit to check for things like this. Take it easy. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 317 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 11:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a DR/N request you may have interest in

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard under: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale regarding a content dispute on the issue of Eurofighter Typhoon#Radar signature reduction features Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I've had enough of the drama already. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

M16

Thanks...your right better as a footnote...you beat me to the punch. --RAF910 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information

Thanks a lot for the information Militarysavedme (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Jayhawk edit

My edit was merely for consistency. Above it the M240's caliber was typed as "7.62 mm (.30 in)" and the M82's was thus typed in reverse, so I only altered it to match. But it's been changed since then with both metric designations in parenthesis, so it's all moot now. For the record, though, I don't think I've ever seen any recent US military documentation (barring that pertaining to battleship guns) that uses the word "inches" when referring to caliber. I see ".[number] cal" often used informally, but that's it. This "inches" thing seems to be a European practice rather than an American one, from what I can tell. Spartan198 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say, roughly that "(.30 in)" is wrong. It's a "30 cal." or a ".30 cal", and so forth, but it's actual 0.308 inches. "Thirty caliber", IOW, is a nominal size, and should either be used as such -".30-06"- or precisely converted. Anmccaff (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I listed .308 inch like I did in the V-22 article and probably some others. Metric calibers do not convert directly to US/English calibers. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for 747-8 help

I wasn't sure where to put the Ozark notes in the article, so I gave it its own slot, figuring one of a couple of people would refine its placement for me. And you did. Thank you.Raryel (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Arrow (TV series)

Just for clarification on the Arrow pages: My use of the <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags on Arrow (TV series) is so that when the episode count is updated on this page (the main page) in the Infobox television template, it is automatically updated on List of Arrow episodes (where the transclusion was placed), so that there is no need to have two separate episode counters. Alex|The|Whovian 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, you already explained this in your edit summaries the second time around. (The first time would have been better.) That seems inappropriate and overkill for 1 number in two places, but whatever. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Gday - thanks for pointing that out, could you pls provide I link to the instructions though? To be honest I cannot find them any where. Also the edit I made [1] allows the page's "assessment summary" (Talk:Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk/Comments) to also be displayed as part of the banner (pls see the bottom left of the banner in my version), where as in your reverted version [2] there is no link to it. Of cse it matters little as it seems that there is nothing of value posted in the assessment summary but my point is that there is a reason for the edit I made. As for the b class comments being removed - I couldn't see the point in them being written in full given the were all marked as "yes", I could perhaps understand it if some were "no" as it might help editors unfamiliar with the criteria when assessing but there would usually be no need for a further B class assessment for an article that is already B class... or so I thought. That aside it also just seemed like more efficient coding. Anyway each to their own I guess, if you could at least point me in the direction of the instructions you referred to re the banner shell I would be most obliged as I often make very similar edits so it would be good to know if there is a policy that says I've been stuffing it up. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Pls disregard request for the link - I found it after looking again. My eyes must be painted on... Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Right, I had missed that link there. The assessment comments subpage is linked in the Aviation banner ("This article has comments here.") also. The comments for the Pave Hawk article are brief and obsolete anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Huntsville mean temperatures in table

See in source of climate table in this artile. --Mr. Vladimirovic (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, cited but still no justification why uncommon/atypical data such as that should be listed. This was my second reason for removing. Please use the article's talk page for further discussion. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mr. Vladimirovic (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Aviation Enthusiast

Aviation Enthusiast Award
As a fellow Huntsvegas dweller, I enjoy your inputs and diligence in filtering out bad and/or poorly cited information. I hope to work with you more. Jason.r.newell (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI: List of airports in the Vatican

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_airports_in_the_Vatican

An attack on aviation articles in an attempt to make me mad and, simultaneously, making Wikipedia content worse. No names left!! abcd (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, but why are you posting this here? Try using WT:Aviation instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like canvassing to me. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi Fnlayson as contributor to aviation pages, I wondered if you'd chime in on this discussion. I'm trying on compromise keeping some parts of overhauled lists that I've done, or maybe I have it wrong - Regards

I did not have anything to add as I in agreement for minimum use of flags/icons and no images in tables. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-50

The Electro-optical Sighting System for the Ka-52 is actually called (OES-52) not (ECO-52) where (OES) is the abbreviation of (OptoElectronic Station). In Russian, it is called (ОЭС 52) which is the abbreviation of (оптико электронной станции). Here is a link for it: Link. -AHMED XIV (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You should correct that in the article then. The Eco-52 text was already there; I did not change that part. I did try to correct or clarify the other wording as best I could. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -AHMED XIV (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Zumwalt-class_destroyer

Re: this edit: Are you sure?

{{Infobox ship begin}} was recently updated so that it will (or is supposed to) correctly format ship-class article titles without the need for {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. If you remove the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} magic word and click Show preview, you should see the title in this format:

Zumwalt-class destroyer ← this is formatted by the same base-code that formats the article title

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I did previews before and after adding that template and the title did not show in italics without the display template. But yea it seems to do the italics formatting without it now. I just removed it. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

UH-1N

Thanks, I can live with your changes as it conveys why the Huey is in a tiltrotor squadron. I thought it was best to talk to you directly as you made the change. Look forward to working together again. 208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for aircraft accidents?

You reverted the addition I made last week to McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet based on the information being "somewhat minor". I had already observed that the Accidents sections of aircraft-type articles are now (as of late February 2015, at least) nominally limited to "notable" accidents, so I've got no complaints about your revert, but it does raise the question of what criteria editors are using to judge notability. Are there guidelines somewhere on WP for determining this? (E.g., do there have to be injuries, deaths, international-scale investigations, etc.?) I'd much appreciate it if you could point me to any such criteria you're aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.21.202 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Most accidents are not major for military aircraft, especially fighters. See WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. If you want to discuss this more, please use the article's talk page (Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! 216.254.21.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian spelling issues

I noticed that you changed my word program to programme[1]

I always struggle with issues such as this since the British spelling (e.g. programme) is correct in Canada, although the vast majority of newspapers have been using the US spelling (e.g. program) for years.

And indeed, in one of the citations I added today, the word is spelled program [2] So, in this case, I felt that program was the most suitable for the text too. Regards, Peter K Burian 18:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombardier_CSeries&diff=next&oldid=688256380
  2. ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-decide-on-financial-assistance-for-bombardier/article27030710/
Spelling seems less consistent in Canada, probably due to influence from its neighbor, the US. The article has used 'programme' already. The spelling should be consistent within the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply: I live in Canada and for the past 20 years, I have noticed that virtually no publications are using the British spelling. Well, OK, a few still are but then the content seems archaic. But yes, it should be consistent; no argument there! CheersPeter K Burian 22:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Possible problem: Two of the Wikipedia entries that I have edited have received some edits that seem strange to me. Both were done by people who call themselves disambiguators. Are they legit? This is one of them: The Wikipedia page Mark Shapiro (sports executive) has been changed on

3 November 2015 by Trut-h-urts man, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shapiro_(sports_executive) for the 

current revision.

This is the other one: The Wikipedia page Alex Anthopoulos has been changed on 3 November 2015 by 

Trut-h-urts man, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Anthopoulos for
the current revision.

Rounding up (and I think down) (significant figures)

For the rounding, I will keep it in mind. At least it is now 2,100 liter more accurate than before! 0.800kg/L, for many aircraft every kilogramm counts at the start.

Thanks, Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I just rounded to the closest number using 3 significant figures (37,854 L -> 37,900 L); for 2 sig. figures that is 37,854 L -> 38,000 L. I was not trying to round up or down. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Strategic Barnstar

Strategic Barnstar
For your hard work and due diligence creating or editing strategic deterrent related articles or Ballistic missile submarine related pages, you have been awarded the Strategic Barnstar. Your outstanding performance provides significant and long lasting benefits to Wikipedia, Congratulations!

Signed: Legohead1my_talk 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

MIG-25: Syrian vs. Soviet

Regarding your revert[3], I don't quite understand this whole section as is. It is about MIG-25s operated by the Soviet air force (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25#Soviet Union), except that one paragraph that I moved into its own section, which talks about "Syrian MIG-25s". Either I misunderstand this completely (which would warrant a rewrite of that offending paragraph), or else that paragraph simply does not belong there. Your revert-comment does not really clear things up, and it would be most kind of you if you could elaborate a bit more. Tony Mach (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, your reverted yourself again, sorry, did not see that. Tony Mach (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

Like your overall wording - thanks. The "AV-12" was taken from the table Individual aircraft, and mimics the "AV-11" used in the next paragraph describing the unit that had the fire. If you feel the names Spirit of Kansas and Spirit of Washington are enough description, then you may want to drop the "AV-11" in the second paragraph as well, for consistency. Jmg38 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've only seen the AV (air vehicle?) numbers listed in a book or two. I had forgotten they were in the B-2 article. I'll add it back. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Cartridge names

Normally you'd be 100% correct, but cartridge names are generally unspaced by industry convention, probably because of space constraints on both the firearms and the ammunition. When you're hurting for space, adding any sort of extra characters at all is a bad idea. It also helps to make things more clear here on Wikipedia; for example "The car was filled with 4 × 9 × 19 mm submachine guns" makes it unclear whether we're talking about 36 19 mm launchers or what. "4 × 9×19mm submachine guns" has no such ambiguity. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the common cartridge format. But WP:UNITS is a high level Wikipedia policy (and only specifies a space between number and the unit of measure, not before & after x). Maybe the Nominal quantities (e.g. 2 x 4 lumber) bullet there covers this situation. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are horse-power estimates for jet engines bad ?

Hi. I saw you just removes a shaft HP estimate I put on the page for the J58. I had got this estimate from here. The goal was to help students make a comparison between the Deperdussin Monocoque and the SR-71, 2 planes designed roughly 50 years appart but for the same goal: speed. How can you compare them if you do not have a rough estimate of their respective engine power in the same units? Fi11222 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No source was provided and it looks like trivia or something. Sorta like how many tennis balls a cargo plane can hold. Please use the article's talk page in the future as requested at the top. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 — Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series)

Hi. You left me a warning message about an edit on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series) that I didn't do. I have relocated the message to the talk page of the actual offending IP. Please see User talk:193.113.48.7. Thank you for your concern and have a lovely time. – 66.55.213.28 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Sorry for the mistake and thanks for moving the warning to proper talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

M60 edit flurry

First, thanks. I tried to clean up some of that earlier, but the fellow just kept on like an energizer bunny.

Some of the edits seemed almost at cross purposes, or, at least, not thought through in detail upfront. Is this a "regular suspect",so to speak? Anmccaff (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. The edits looked like tests or minor vandalism. The user doubled the Isreal's entry in the Operator section here before I reverted the edits. I don't recognize the edits, but I could be missing subtle similarities. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A little affirmation

I was looking through the edit history for M1 Abrams (I have some odd hobbies) and I noticed your name kept popping up there doing helpful things...going all the way back to 2006. Keep it up for another decade, would you? :-) —Emufarmers(T/C) 13:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that article sees a lot of vandalism and unhelpful edits. I actually have a couple months to go to make a decade here. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Zumwalt

Not I necessarily disagree with you here, but I'm wondering if we can find a better section header than "Sealing problem". Any ideas? - theWOLFchild 04:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yea, that was the best I could think of. I'll try come up with something better. I suggest moving the text to be with other deckhouse text such as the Stealth subsection. The sealing issue does not seem to be serious enough for the Controversy section. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your Arrow edits

₪₪₪₪ Thank you ₪₪₪₪

I appreciate your grammatically correct edits on the Arrow page and your use of an edit summary. I had those changes noted on my To-Do List and I happily crossed them off.

I hope you are having a great day.

BobDog54 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BobDog. I was mainly fixing the other editor's change after yours. Have a good day or night. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: List or Table

Hi, I was curious about why you reverted this edit to the M4 carbine article, where the "Users" section was organized into a table. I know it was done an IP user, but they obviously know tables well enough. I know they should've perhaps proposed such a major change first on the article talk page, or at least leave an edit summary, but there are identical tables for the "Users" section of Glock (see Users), Sig Sauer P226 (see Users) and Beretta 92 (see Users), and likely others as well. It doesn't adversely affect the page, if anything it's an improvement. A lot of work went into that table, it seems a shame to waste it all by reverting it when there doesn't appear to be a good reason to. I was wondering if there something more to this than what was in the edit summary of your revert.
(Also, don't take this as confrontational, I respect the work you do here, that's why I'm asking you here instead of the article talk page) Cheers. - theWOLFchild 14:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I try be equally critical of IPers and registered editors. Using tables intead of lists can just overcomplicate matters. A MOS page on lists (WP:Manual of Style/Lists#Tables) says this. I believe all the firearm articles I watch use a bulleted list. The M4 table is probably borderline. Its date column seemed a bit vague to me. If you think the table is better, then add it back. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
You're correct about the MOS guideline, but it goes on to say; "...there are some instances where [tables] can be useful, such as when three or more columns are required". I agree with you on the date column, but even with that removed, there are still five columns. Had this table been suggested on the talk page beforehand, I wouldn't have cared either way, but now that it's been created, it's hard to argue removing it, in light of the Glock, SIG and Beretta articles. There is also the work that went into creating it. Simply deleting it right after might drive away a potentially productive editor. Since you've okayed it, I will add it back, but without the date column. Cheers - theWOLFchild 17:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
edit: I'll do it when I have time. Or I'll suggest the IP editor do it. - theWOLFchild 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Guidance sought

You are one of the leading authorities in Wikipedia as far as aviation knowledge. You might not be a leading figure in the world, but in Wikipedia you are. Therefore, I seek your comments either here or the relevant talk page.

The American Airlines article is not quite what it should be, in my opinion. I feel there is confusion among different editors. What should the article be about?

a. the corporate entity, American Airlines Group. I believe this is completely wrong because there is a separate article on the American Airlines Group.

b. the corporate division or subsidiary that operated the passenger airline. That is a reasonable idea.

c. the American Airlines brand name. Very similar to B. Also a reasonable idea. The difference between B and C is that C may encompass more than one subsidiary. I have yet to research it but American Airlines may have a cargo division, frequent flyer program company, etc. Because these are related, I think C may be the best.

d. the American Airlines operating certificate. No, this is too esoteric and would be very hard to write because we would need to research what airlines had what operating certificate.

e. hybird of a and c. This is a very difficult thing to write because many, many editors would not be able to agree on a hybird. There could always be a push for a by some and c for others. This would create conflict.

f. trace the history of the current entity which is America West. Later in the article, there would be recap of the history of the American Airlines name, which dates from many decades ago. One could argue that the article should be written with the history of America West and how it acquired the American Airlines name. However, American Airlines wouldn't like such an article and a lot of people, reading "merger" in the news would feel uncomfortable with that idea. I believe F would be the most logical choice but I think the knee jerk reaction is that many would be uncomfortable with it.

I think C avoids the problem that American Airlines is really America West. The current management and ownership starts with America West who eventually took over American Airlines' name and owns the stock. Owners of the old AMR (American Airlines) stock got zero, nada, because of the bankruptcy. If you bought $10,000 of AMR, you now own $0.00.

Thank you for your ideas. I lean towards C as the best compromise but I can live with any consistent principle and apply it to the article. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Lead of American Airlines only covers the airline itself and does not mention that its parent is American Airlines Group (but should). I suggest focusing on the airline and any of its subsidiary airlines (option c). Please discuss this on the article talk page and/or WT:AIRLINES, if you haven't yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Assistance

Would you like to help me on the American Airlines article? I anticipate that it will take 6-9 months though maybe only 5 minutes twice a week for you (more for me). If not or even if so, do you know of a logical, cooperative, and aviation intelligent Wikipedian that can help us or me who doesn't have an explosive temper when editing?

Although I accuse nobody, I do not want an American Airlines employee working on official business or loyal employee on a mission of their own. That does happen. Companies and politicians do hire people to edit Wikipedia. I have no plans to smear the airline but don't want just a polished press release.Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Foo Fighters

Apologies – that one was a slip-up, I forgot to check first. You're right, the 1994 start date needs to be more consistent. Thanks for pulling me up on that one! 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the infobox has listed 1994 until the last few days. The formation date could probably be taken either way since one person is not truly a band, but it's a real problem if the article is consistent throughout. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"Concorde" – using sources

Greetings. I noticed that when you reverted my edit to the page Concorde, you mentioned that the source article ("Concorde beats Tube map to become Britain's favourite design", The Independent, 16 March 2006) "clearly supports" the wording "The aircraft has been regarded as an aviation icon". I was wondering which part of the article you thought directly supported this statement, since I can't find a comparable claim being made there. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The poll results in that article shows Concorde is the Top Design (ranked 1st) and therefore is highly regarded or "Icon". -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that Concorde is listed first in the design poll mentioned, which "began with 25 iconic designs", in the source's words. However, when you say "therefore is highly regarded", it seems as though you are drawing a conclusion based on the article's contents, rather than repeating a statement from the article. Am I correct? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Sources don't have to state something exactly to support it. You seem to be overcritical here. Please move along and use another talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
That is partly true; to copy a source exactly may violate copyright; however, I believe that your inclusion of this citation in the lead section of Concorde (edits here and here) may go against Wikipedia's policies requiring sources to be used in a way that explicitly and directly supports an article's contents [update 14:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC): I didn't see this later edit – I think the policy issue was settled satisfactorily]. I have already started a discussion at Talk:Concorde#"Regarded as an aviation icon" from lead section, if you are interested in commenting there. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata

Please explain... Why does a url need listed when it's in the wikidata and automatically goes to the website? I've done everything like the others that deal with this. If it's in wikidata, we don't need to list the url. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It didn't look like it was working in one page I checked. There's no value added in removing the links where they work already, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You may have to purge to get them to work. I had to a couple of times to get them to work. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oshkosh M-ATV sale to Libya - your thoughts please

I've posted this here as it's more a direct "what are your thoughts" than a community thing. I notice you did some reverts etc. to the Libya as a user of M-ATV updates by an IP address. I see those updates are now cited, but from a pretty vague single source. I've done some digging on this subject, suspicious of the US supplying Libya with M-ATVs, as let's be honest, Libya is hardly on the US' Christmas Card list. Neither Oshkosh nor the US government (that I can trace) has made any announcement of a sale to Libya, and there is no record of any EDA transfer of surplus M-ATV to Libya. My thoughts are these are actually M-ATVs that are being EDA transferred to the UAE, via Libya. Now clearly I can't just insert "I think these..." on Wiki as it'd be removed before the ink was dry... But given my well-researched thoughts, what are your thoughts on the viability of adding something like... "Oshkosh Defense has made no announcement regarding any deliveries of M-ATV to Libya, and US EDA records show no transfer (or intended transfer) of M-ATV to Libya." I can link to the EDA database and Oshkosh's press releases if that might be valuable. Your thoughts welcomed and appreciated.Wolpat (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The source used for that says the M-ATVs were 'deployed' there in title and maybe in the text. That sounds more like the M-ATVs are the US's and not Libya's, but I have no source for this. I suggest tagging the source with a {{vs}} tag for now. Adding such a statement about no announcements seems a little weazly to me. Those could be Libya's vehicles and Oshkosh was told not to reveal it yet (speculating here) for political or some security reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance/opinion; much appreciated. I agree with the weazly words comment! I kind of thought that as I typed them! The idea of the {{vs}} tag (which I did not know about) looks like the way forward. I'll add that, and continue researching and see what happens.Wolpat (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I was at AUSA (defence show in Washington) earlier this month and did some digging. I had a quiet word with a contact (and long-time friend at Oshkosh) and while it's not worth much in Wiki terms, it was a categorical "no we have not..." and when I suggested they might be US Army-owned vehicles on the way to Libya, response was a laugh... As I say, not worth not a jot on Wiki, but it still satisfies me these M-ATVs were never destined for Libya. Quite how we remove what is a spurious fact from Wiki without getting somebody somewhere to say something that can be cited, I have no clue... Very frustrating when you know something is BS but can't actually prove it in an acceptable way.Wolpat (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yuri Kondratyuk

He was a pioneer of astronautics. In the early 20th century, developed the first known Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR), a key concept for landing and return spaceflight from Earth to the Moon. The LOR was later used for the plotting of the first actual human spaceflight to the Moon.--Білецький В.С. (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no clear direct connection to the Apollo program and no edit summary with any explanation. [Also, he is linked in article text. So link should not be repeated in See also section.] In the future, use the article's talk page as noted at top of page. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Kenya Airforce use of F-15 ?

some time back, you left a note on my site Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

I would like to bump up the issue again citing external sources source 1:http://intelligencebriefs.com/kenya-airforce-to-use-f-15e-fighter-aircraft/ Source 2:http://intelligencebriefs.com/kenya-air-force-may-have-acquired-8-israeli-f-15-strike-eagles/

My guess is that kenya may be appropriately placed under possible future operators.

Regards: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadychiri (talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounded made up or fake to me before [in 2012] and somewhat reads like a rumor in those sources. Note that WP:Aircraft does not allow possible/potential operators listings in the Operators section. That has to be covered elsewhere in article text instead (see WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS). Take this over to the F-15E article's talk page (Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle) if you want to discuss further. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft occurrence template tweak

Hello, there seems to be agreement on a small tweak of the 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' template (i.e. swapping the 'Fatalities' and 'Injuries (non-fatal)' items, to make the order more logical) – see discussion. Would you mind sorting it out? I would do it myself if the template wasn't locked. Thanks. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It it locked for you and me as well. I have have rollback and other privileges, but I'm not an admin. I looked at the source code for that template and see what needs to be switched but I can not change it with it being locked. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem, thanks anyway. I did look for a list of admins within Project Aviation, but could not find any indication. MilBorneOne is involved in the discussion, so I cannot ask him. I think I've found one: Mjroots. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello Fnlayson,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I notice you are active in activities related to project page and project talk page, so I wonder if I could invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you, Bowen

Hello, Fnlayson. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Hope you and yours had a Merry Christmas and will have a happy New Year! -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Leopard tank revert

Hi Fnlayson - I take your point about the Leopard 2 article comments, in particular the section about their Turkish service in Syria. I've added in some extra references, I agree Twitter is not acceptable, so have removed all the Twitter references. I have blog references and some article references, also not great, but some of them seem quite authoritative, and some more acceptable references. Anyways, still not great, but better. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I was mainly concerned with the vague/confusing wording on the (partial) revert. Thanks for the clean-up work. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fnlayson/Archive_7&oldid=1204693065"