User talk:Rlandmann/archive10

Template - Engines

Thanks - noted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed AC-130

Just shortly after protection was removed again an IP with the CoD4 BS popped in. Wouldn't it be better to leave the article semi-protected ? --Denniss (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still hapening. Semi-protection please? - BillCJ (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Thanks for fixing that navbox today. Now I have another problem I'd like to ask you to look at. Template:Infobox Missile seems to have the Title field and image caption field combined, and outputs to both. I tried my hand at repairing it, but something just copying the image/caption section from Infobox Aircraft can't fix!. Could you take a look? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was trying to fix. Specifically, some pages had the Caption text in the title line, such as here - Certainly looked odd ont he Infobox! - BillCJ (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd formatting? You mean the "|" being at the end of the line instead of the beginning, or something else? I actually see the end-of-line "|" slash in a lot of templates, but I'm not sure what else you mean. - BillCJ (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Curtiss-Robertson Kingbird

A tag has been placed on Curtiss-Robertson Kingbird requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-draw McGraw there, eh. ;) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - before I could even uncomment the "inuse" tag from the template! :) No harm done... --Rlandmann (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple Questions

Hey, this is Plane nerd. I have a couple questions. First off, am I allowed to take pictures from other Wikipedia articles and paste them in another one?

Also, how do you find out how many edits you have made to Wikipedia? I saw it yesterday, but forgot how I saw it.

It would be great if you could respond on my talk page (User talk:Plane nerd. Thanks. Plane nerd (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian eyes needed

Copyedit from my talk page: "Hi Bzuk - know anything more about the Curtiss-Reid Rambler? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Yes I have quite a substantial chapter on the type in Molson and Taylor's landmark Canadian Aircraft since 1909 (1982). I will take a look at the article tomorrow. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

User talk:70.4.227.155

My stalker(s) is at it again, User talk:70.4.227.155, and a spate of messages left on other people's talk pages purportedly from me. Got any cleanser? - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Just reminding you about this before it gets archived. Gimmetrow 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying that this is what you want? (Corrected to "aviation lists".) I didn't realize this sometimes uses templates within templates—that's a case I haven't fully tested. Are you *sure* there isn't anything else to do on these before it runs through ~3000 edits? Gimmetrow 05:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more quirks. There's a redirect at {{Aviation lists}}, should that be renamed if present? And if an article already has a "See also" section, what to do? Gimmetrow 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is chugging along. I'll have a list of articles with a pre-existing "see also" section, and a list with some other issues. Discovered that some instances of {{aircontent}} have a "sequence" parameter (see Yokosuka E14Y), but there's no code in the template for that. Gimmetrow 01:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot's done. I'll sort through the logs in the next couple days and give you a list of articles to check. A few pages wouldn't take edits but don't seem to be protected. Gimmetrow 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More templates

I have just created Template:USAF transports and added it in to the appropriate articles. Just two questions, I added the C-143 and C144 at the end although they are modern aircraft as they appear to be in the sequence. Welcome to change if you dont think it is not right. I added the template in just before the cats outside of the aircontent template, noticed as I was going past that a few of the company (like Boeing) type templates have been added to the aircontent under see also. We/Us/Them/Somebody might need to make sure they are all in the same place! MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all understood. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAI Ambrosini or Ambrosini SAI ?

Hello and happy new year Rlandmann! In it.wiki sister aviation project we checked and debated the most appropriate way to name Ambrosini company’s airplanes (see Category:Ambrosini aircraft). Our research efforts led to consider, as an example, "SAI Ambrosini 207" more correct than present day en.wikipedia "Ambrosini SAI.207", being the correct company name SAI Ambrosini and not Ambrosini SAI (see http://www.passignanosultrasimeno.org/italiano/storia.html italian site which recalles the SAI Ambrosini plant at the bottom or http://www.bancaero.it/shop/product_info.php?cPath=1129_241&products_id=4192 ). What we can do ? What is the best way to suggest a global renaming action ? Who should be informed, in order to verify consensus on the topic, prior to perform any action? Thank you for your support. --EH101 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are correct at a glance, but looking deeper we would discover that SAI means Società Aeronautica Italiana (Italian Aeronautics Society - or better "company") which is part of the brand like Alfa Romeo. As you probably now (look at the wiki article) Alfa means Anonima Lombarda Fabbrica Automobili and nobody dares to name this car Romeo Alfa Brera, thinking Alfa means the first greek alphabet letter. In "Messerschmitt Bf 109" the "Bf" is alien from Messerschmitt brand at all. --EH101 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my book Aeronautica Militare Museo Storico Catalogo Velivoli (Air Force Museum catalog planes) there is a S.A.I. Ambrosini Super S.7 where S stands for Stefanutti the plane designer. This leave in place the (manufacturer-prefix-number) standard. The S.A.I. Ambrosini 207 had no "Re - Me - Bf - G" prefix in its official name. What we can do ? --EH101 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) bad move the Bf example LOL[reply]

Here there are some sources easily available and verifiable. Please give a look on following photos. You will compare writings on Ambrosini's vertical stabilizer with those written close to other three planes' horizontal stabilizers, where it was official name and military registration markingsis standard place.

[1] AMBROSINI 207

[2] RE.2001

[3] FIAT G.50

[4] M.C.202

You can verify no prefix was used for Ambrosini. Ambrosini 207 "slick" name is both correct and different from other planes ones even if they have their "m.c. G. RE" prefix. What do you think about ? --EH101 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on Google too and I do agree there are several different definitions. I will try to simplify the topic. Let's forget for a moment the specific airplane example e let's focus on the company name, we will come back to planes later.

- The company name -

There is no world wide "consensus" on the company name.
As there are too many sources saying different and opposite things, we must abandon the idea of a simple solution, but we must make a choice.
As we must make a choice, we must rank source reliability (on this specific topic) with no fear.
The reliabilty rank is:

Italian government
Italian air force
Italian books
Non Italian books
Italian magazines
Non Italian magazines
Italian web sites
Non Italian web sites

If these concept passes, Jane's, English language web sites and most of google results are low or very low in the rank.

- this source is an Italian parliament act in which the plant is called SAI Ambrosini (rank 1).

- this source is from Italian Air Force (rank 2) and calls again the company SAI Ambrosini.

fact: company's name is SAI Ambrosini not Ambrosini SAI from rank 1 and 2 sources. SAI is part of the company name and must be written before Ambrosini. Data from lower level reliability source (on this topic) are irrelevant. This sounds strange, but we are scholars and we have no fear to make a choice. This is my best try to present the actual situation. What is your opinion ? --EH101 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No original research ! Never ! My attempt was to simplify the issue in a yes/no style and in a step by step path, as a method to simplfy the issue (I stated it) What I wanted to highlight was there is no world wide sources consensus (point 1) and I suggested to take a position on the name (point 2). I did not think this was an original research in the negative meaning all over the world Wikipedia have. However, to name an article is a research and if there is no consensus among sources, as Wikipedia has only one main article name (but luckly lots of redirects), it is an original research (very little and limitated) and there is no way to take different points in the same name if we do not name the article SAI Ambrosini 207 or following other sources Ambrosini SAI 207. Anyway, differently from other editor's behaviour, I am keeping miles away from ns0 on this topic and I am only trying to understand how a wrong article name could be changed. It is quite obvious for me that part of the ambiuguos definition history will be part of the article, but the article's name is unfortunately only one.

Back to the topic. Good. fact 1: we agree company's name is SAI Ambrosini. Please be patient some words more. Still forget for a while the prefix issue (which, on the contrary, it is irrelevant for me).
Question: do you think all these planes Category:Ambrosini aircraft must add SAI as first part of their name and the category itself must change as Category:SAI Ambrosini aircraft ? --EH101 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged Sir :-). First of all let me thank you for your brief and effective synthesis of the point. Yes. I agree 100 % with you : Verifiability is the real issue. As I care of Wikipedia I agree English sources must raise in the preferred source rankings and, as I wrote today to Red sunset, I am starting to understand that, if most English sources adopt wrong or poor translations, English Wikipedia will reflect this and it is perfectly normal, fair and probably not solvable. I remembered now a very similar talk I had one year ago when I met an old it.wiki editor during a Wikipedia meeting. He was a member of the very first Italian editors group who started activities in the English only era. He engaged in a dispute relevant to a Florence church’s true name. Despite he presented data from the monks living in the church, as the majority of English language History and Art books adopt a different name, there was no way to modify the article’s name. According to him, this was one among reasons for having the multilanguage wiki start. Now I understand better, and I think in the same time, this is perfectly normal due to wikipedia non original work nature which I like and I defend and I strongly defended in other different typologies occasions in the past.

Next step. Well I will check on English language web sites (I have no English book talking about Ambrosini) and I will present a report on what it results relevant to company’s name. We will evaluate results and will accept verdict, but please, off the records, believe me, SAI Ambrosini is another Italian two names company like SIAI Marchetti, ALFA Romeo, Isotta Fraschini, Allocchio Bacchini, result of merging of two separate different pre-existing companies.

Now it is my turn to answer to your question: where did the use of "SAI." as a prefix originate ? If, but only if, you follow me in my “dual name” definition before, you could do a further step: Step2: not all Italian planes adopted a company-prefix-name structure. This is most true, for example, in Aerfer Ariete, Aerfer Sagittario, Aerfer Leone, AUT 18, Saiman 202, Ambrosini Sagittario and others. Step3: Italians usually contract names of two companies’ planes by calling them using only the first of the two. So it is widely diffused: SIAI SF-206 (actual name SIAI-Marchetti SF-260) or Alfa 75[5] (actual name Alfa Romeo 75), so SAI 207 is not a prefix, but an incorrect contraction of the whole name SAI Ambrosini 207, being SAI the first company name and not the prefix.

Ok, forget all I wrote which is useless in Wikipedia and let’s continue. I abandon the idea of changing the articles name. Do you think there is room for these infos somewhere ? Maybe in the article start could be added a foot note recall like “The Ambrosini SAI.207 (1) … according some Italian sources SAI Ambrosini 207 “. Another way could be to leave a warn of this anomaly in article’s talk. What could be the best, being rules compliant? --EH101 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Relevant to SIAI question the answer is yes. I used to work in Vergiate plant which was SIAI Marchetti premises till late ‘70s. There were old employees, now transferred to Agusta, who still call themselves “the SIAI men” using the short form. Relevant to your second question, I passed it to it.wiki aviation project, as my source describes only the SAI S.7 using a company-prefix-number style where SAI is the company, S is the prefix for Stefanutti, the chief designer and 7 is the model. The page declares in its data sheet: manufacturer - SAI Ambrosini .--EH101 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nice website with an historical summary in english language for Ambrosini and then SAI. --EH101 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

Hi, Not sure if it is widespread but I saw the recent edits to F-104 Starfighter with the comment 'split sequence-overdid it there' which I took as something I had done. I could not see the changes referred to and then realised it was the user (Karl Dickman?) commenting to himself. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I just sent you an e-mail. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now what? - BillCJ (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probable aircraft images source

I've been working with a flickr contributor who has agreed to license his very complete collection of drag racing photographs using Creative Commons ShareAlike Attribution so that Wikipedia can use them. I have just been marking those particular images that are helpful to Wikipedia. He then uploaded a series of Formula One images, which he agreed to license too. I had a Formula One expert mark and upload those images. Now he has uploaded a series of airplanes, so I am contacting you to see if you or someone at WP:AIRCRAFT would be interested in this reviewing this group of photographs (the set). I need to start a dialog with him first. He has been very good to work with and is extremely happy that Wikipedia finds these images useful and good enough for a large well-known project. Are you interested in being that person to work with him to accomplish these uploads? Royalbroil 06:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you recommend someone else (or several people) at WP:AIRCRAFT since you appear to be busy? I'd rather not post this request there since I'd prefer the contact to be someone who has been around a while. Someone who understands image policy and what images are desirable to Wikipedia. I'll contact the flickr contributor with the name of the Wikipedian that you suggest. Royalbroil 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(On Royalbroil's talk page you said): Hi Royalbroil, and many apologies for not responding sooner. I'd love to help out with this, but as you might have noticed, WikiProject Aircraft is extremely busy at the moment implementing some broad re-organisation of articles. Would there be any problem with asking the contributor to wait a week? I'd be happy to work with him then. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it can wait. I just asked User:Archtransit, so he/she may take me up on the offer. Another long-time contributor caught my request to Archtransit, and he/she also appears to be interested. If one of them does the uploading, you might still want to look through the pictures after you're done with that large project to see any were missed. Thanks for responding! Royalbroil 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft sequences

I see that you have begun to remove the sequences from aircraft articles. Has there been some change in policy regarding this? I ask because I have gone to some effort in the past to find the correct articles to link to; and if they are all going to be removed I will stop going to the trouble in future, and will help to remove them when I come across them. YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, what can I do to help out? It would make a nice change from reverting a certain drongo's edits that seems to have taken up much of my time around here in the last eight weeks or so. YSSYguy (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CF aircraft

I intended to get this done in short order, but it's taken longer than I had planned. I'd gotten over half of of it done today, but then lost it when my newly-activated (but now de-activated!) pop-ups feature decided to change pages. I'll be up at least 5 hours from post time of this comment, and intend to get the template done by then. After that, I'll start work on the individual pages, either today or tomorrow my time (US EST/East Coast/ -5 GMT). I've been hampered by the fact that so many of the sequences on articles were never finished (I did a bunch of them myself), and so have larege gaps in the numbers, and because most of the articles are not at the CF designations. I did put some of them there in the past, but apparently Canadians don't consider the official CF designations/names to be official enough to abide by the naming conventions, and prefer to use company designation/names, so I gave up fighting that battle! Nevertheless, I'm impressed you're turning them out so fast! I won't object if anyone wishes to help out on these, but I'm not trying to avoid hard work either! Should be finished by this time tomorrow tho - I hope! - BillCJ (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your break. Btw, I was actually thinking of proposing that we move from in-text sequences to navboxes when the whole O-affair started, and you beat me to it! - BillCJ (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADF Templates

Noticed you are creating templates for the Australia Defence Force, not sure they are appropriate as they are not really designations just serial prefixes. Nobody calls the Hercules The Lockheed A97 Hercules not even the Australians. A lot of air forces use some kind serial prefix based on type (spanish, german, belgium, netherlands etc.). Just checking what the thinking is behind this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a big problem as long as it is clear they are serial prefixes and not designations, perhaps we should consider some of the other prefix-type related sequences in time. I presume there is no limit to the number of template footers!! Perhaps we should ask at project for opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

Request for help - a new user has just moved Boeing Chinook (UK variants) to RAF Boeing Chinook ugh!! not sure if a simple revert will take the article and talk page back. Any help appreciated thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

RL, do you have time to look at this. Or should I try AIN? This user has been edit-warring with another user, and I've given him his 3RR warning, yet he reverted again! Thant's 2 reverts for me, and I'm out. - BillCJ (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on for far too long. Time for another block on this person, who was previously blocked as 200.95.202.12 for exactly what s/he is doing now. S/he knows that what s/he is doing is wrong, has been warned numerous times, yet persists in making these edits. YSSYguy (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logs from template run

AGM-65 Maverick had see also, airbox renamed
AIM-54 Phoenix had see also, airbox renamed
Arado Ar 234 had see also
Atlas Cheetah had see also
Boeing 727 had see also
Boeing 747 had see also
RM-81 Agena had see also
Shenyang J-5 had see also
Short Stirling had see also
X-20 Dyna-Soar had see also
Aero A.42 had see also
Boeing X-45 had see also
Bristol F.2 Fighter had see also
De Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter had see also
Ford Trimotor had see also
Handley Page Hastings had see also
OH-6 Cayuse had see also
SB2U Vindicator had see also
Westland Lysander had see also
X-47 Pegasus had see also
Yakovlev Yak-52 had see also
A2J Super Savage had see also
Bede BD-5 had see also
Fairey Delta 2 had see also
List of World War I flying aces by nationality had see also
Shanghai Y-10 had see also
Xian MA60 had see also

Aerion SBJ had see also
Alpha 2000 had see also
Avro 730 had see also
Boeing KB-29 had see also
Gyrodyne had see also
Handley Page Manx had see also
Hawker P.1081 had see also
Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology had see also
LIM-49A Spartan had see also
Learjet 25 had see also
MGM-52 Lance had see also
PZL-130 Orlik had see also
UB.109T had see also
Vickers Vernon had see also
Autorotation (helicopter) had see also
Bristol Biplane Type 'T' had see also
Erickson Air-Crane had see also
Høver M.F. 11 had see also
J-13 had see also
Learjet 24 had see also
Columbia Helicopters had see also
Wittman Tailwind had see also
Ansaldo SVA had see also
Fokker D.V had see also
IMAM Ro.43 had see also
Shahbal had see also

These items from the logs had some sort of issue. The first two columns had an existing see also. The third column might be anything. Gimmetrow 07:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask me to move any templates nested in the see also parameter, so that's another issue. This list is from the original run. Gimmetrow 13:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this list has nothing to do with {{aircontent}} templates which contain other templates like {{Embraer}}. It involves other issues. The page may have been protected, or there might have been an edit conflict, or some other template on the page may be messed up making it difficult to parse for aircontent. Things like that. Gimmetrow 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorts template

No need to apologise - it looks really good and is a BIG improvement. I found that I was still looking for various types in 'my' navbox, whereas it is now so much easier! Thanks for your help on this one! --TraceyR (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Blériot aircraft

I see that you have contributed many Blériot aircraft articles and have also expanded the recently-created Louis Blériot template. I wonder would it be more appropriate for the current template to renamed "Blériot Aéronautique aircraft", since this was the name of the manufacturing company. What do you think would be best? --TraceyR (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Yeliseyev.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Yeliseyev.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New English language Junkers J1 article

Dear RLandmann:

This is Wikipedia user The PIPE, the creator of the English language Wikipedia article on the WW I British Bristol Scout aircraft at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bristol_Scout ...and now I've started on a small series of English laguage World War I era Junkers metal aircraft pages for that era's Junkers aircraft projects.

The Air International annual book, in my aviation library, that covered "The Junkers D I Story" (partially authored by the very well-educated, and now very recently deceased, Peter M Grosz) way back in the early-to-mid 1980s covered the Junkers J 1 "Blechesel" story quite well enough for a Wikipedia article on it, and where it is a pioneering aircraft in the sense that it was the very first practical all-metal aircraft ever built in aviation history, and represents the first substantial change in the general materials used to construct an aircraft with after the Wrights in 1903, I felt that it should have an English language article on it, of about the same quality as the Bristol Scout received.

As the Junkers D I IS my favorite World War I aircraft, and will be made in miniature (in quarter scale size) for Radio Control flying someday, from my own CAD drawn plan set, I'd also plan on doing a page on it as well...but before the D I page gets done, I'd thought it was best to first create a page for the Junkers J 1 "Blechesel", which already, understandably enough, a German language page at http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Junkers_J_1 , I felt it was time to bring online an English language page of the very first Junkers aviation project.

Hoping to hear back from you at my own user talk page...

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The PIPE (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spex template

I've been seeing {{aircraft specifications}}) in use, & I notice it doesn't allow for fuel capacity. I'd suggest it's a good idea, & I posted to the Aviation project about same. Any comment or support there would be appreciated. Trekphiler (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Trekphiler (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with Trekphilers questions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. I'm gonna stick to the old template. It's not so terrible, & at least I can see it... Trekphiler (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another look. I'm leery about changing out a working template, tho, & my sources at hand might not support articles on those other red links. I'll see. If it's working for somebody, more power to 'em. Trekphiler (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be pleased (I hope) to know, the template works. I lifted it from Curtiss XP-31 Swift entire & pasted into Curtiss Twin JN without a hitch. Trekphiler (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify mine, I think the bug, if any, is on this end. (BCAK?) Trekphiler (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify "complicated": take a look at how much wordage it took to get to a working result. That's "complicated". Cut & paste a working model is something even I can do. Trekphiler (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't hurt. =D I've got it beat, tho: goto Curtiss XP-31 Swift, cut & paste as needed. =p Thanks anyhow! Trekphiler (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC) (Hmm, now that I think of it, I should save it into my sandbox now...)[reply]

Guns, guns, guns

Thanks for the catch. I'd probably have noticed it eventually (in about a month...) :( And it's pretty cool to be able to pull 1 source off my shelf & fill a red link! I love this place! Trekphiler (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of spex

Your del of the revs on the Curtiss Twin JN raises another ish: the template doesn't allow mention of where the power figures are generated, & every (reputable) source will mention it, just like you'd expect for an automotive review article. (No need to answer, just thought I'd bring it up.) Trekphiler (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On (more/less) sober second thought, I can see putting it in the a/c article's a bit overkill for most (& if you're inclined to delete, no beefs here), but I'm 1 who loves all the detail I can get. Have you seen the drawings with all the measurements on them? I'd love to make that a standard entry on every page (right down to the height of the center of the prop hub!). Given the ability to link out from the aircraft to engine spex, it can easily go there. Which leaves me thinking the engine spex pages are pretty bare... Trekphiler (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the level of detail might be adequate, but I wonder who we're aiming at: the average user, or the specialist? Even Britannica (the usual bugaboo) offers extra detail. Here, it's as EZ as a link out. I don't just mean the aviation (or engine, or whatever) specialist, I mean, for instance, scale modellers who've got a kit of a P-39 & want to build the 2-seat trainer they've read about. WP can be the place to come, if not for the width of the canopy frames, then for an XT link to where you can find it. Or maybe a good drawing that'll let you figure it out, based on the other numbers.

On engine spex, my ideal is Wright Whirlwind. And that level of detail isn't too hard to come by, if what I've seen in some editions of Jane's is any clue. Not that we'll settle this now...but as I think of it, maybe raise it on the project page(s) & see what everybody thinks? Trekphiler (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On engine spex, evidently I wasn't clear (again...). I meant "extra detail" compared to the EB usual (I've seen "quick pass" & "in-depth" coverage there); I see WP main articles as "quick passes" & linked articles as "in depth". We disagree about the Whirlwind page; I hold that as the standard, 'cause it has whatever somebody really interested would want to know. For more detail (materials used, tolerances), use XT links. About "what WP's not", we disagree again; some of the stub articles I've seen fall in the "random junk" cat, while the Whirlwind page has comprehensive coverage. I guess it's about what you want from WP.

On cat "pipes", I've only seen them rarely, & I'm perfectly happy not to use them at all. As for "subcats", ditto; some of those I've never seen elsewhere, & (per my usual reaction) included them all. A bit more discretion in future... Trekphiler (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space missions WikiProject

Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Space missions WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAF

Thanks for updating the template - C.E could be Curtiss Experimental and T.E could be Trench-fitting Experimental but cant find any proof yet. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me butting in here, but I have just come across a reference to "T.E." in the Flight PDF archive here, which gives "T.E". as referring to "Tatin Experimental" (monoplane with pusher propeller at tail). Unfortunately it doesn't mention "C.E.", but from what I have read "Curtiss Experimental" seems feasible, even though the C.E.1 had a Linton Hope hull. Hope the T.E. helps! --TraceyR (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No expertise on my part, I'm afraid, but the "T.E." had stuck in my mind and I just happened to see it when looking for something else altogether. Unfortunately it's hard to search on T.E., B.E. etc and come up with sensible results! --TraceyR (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year of the cat

I'm tending to "overcategorize", pulling every cat I can find, figuring it's possible to delete, & I'm not (yet) familiar enough to discriminate. Better too many cats? Trekphiler (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The one thing to avoid is placing articles into a category and into the parent category of that category." Noted. I think I ask this somewhere, but, is there a "master list" of categories? It'd simplify things. And, for those even less aware than me, when the WP assessments go on the talk page(s), maybe a link to that? (I'm thinking, make it as EZ as possible for noobs; I haven't found this, & I've been here awhile.)

I do notice "mfr" categories come up red, at times; I'm leaving them out. Not? Trekphiler (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Foo" will be a big help. (I don't specialize that much.) And "cut & paste" categorization is what's gotten me in trouble... I'm taking them where I find them, thinking, "Hmm, that'd be apt." EZr if I can paste from the same mfr page, yeah, but then, watch out for "twin engine" v single... Or one you corrected, the wrong-year template. (The bird flew '23, from what my source said, but the template list starts in '24...) I do like the "single", "twin", "prop"/"jet", myself; not really sure how much it helps, 'cause that's a bit above my pay grade. Ah, well. I rely on the kindness of admins. Maggie Greymalkin 06:43 & 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message about Convair redirects

Ahh, so much to learn about this wonderful place. Thanks, I'll keep the policy in mind from now on. Incidentally, I removed a refeerence to the Convair 660 that was there. There are plenty of hits on Google about it, but none actually describing what it is, other than a few stating it has Allison 501s. I suspect that it might be a marketing name as I have never heard of it until today ( and I have several dozen shelf-feet of aviation books, and boxes and boxes of magazines). While I have your attention, User 200.95.202.17 emerged from a week-long block yesterday and immediately went back to his/her old tricks. Someone else reverted his/her edits this time, but I am keeping an eye on him/her to see if s/he pops up again. S/he apparently thinks I am "punishing" him/her (I should stop being gender neutral, it's probably a guy sitting at the keyboard). YSSYguy (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Sock attack

A particularly vicious vandal known as Wikzilla has surfaced again in the form of socks: User:68.244.171.75 and User:68.245.43.252. See:[6] and [7]. Can you do your new admin' 'thin? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

CANT Aircraft

Just completed a new template for {{CANT aircraft}}, two of the entries use lower case Cant all the others use CANT. Could you move these over the redirects if you think thats the right thing to do - CANT Z.506 and CANT Z.1007. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USAF helicopters

Sorry to bother again! - User:A75 has decided to mangle the {{USAF helicopters}} template I have reverted it once but he reverted again and is going for a wholesale rewrite!! MilborneOne (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the stir- I was trying to clean up the errors on the existing tables. Check out my comment on the template talk page please. Thanks you. A75 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the template talk about modified mission prefixes and why I think it is confusing to the user. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker F.XIV / F.14

Created an article at Fokker F.XIV but before I create a redirect from Fokker F.14 which is on the the list as F.14 just thought I would check with you if you think it should be at F.14 if that was a more popular description as it was an US-built Fokker. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saab 36

Nice work with the Saab 36 article Walle83 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Experimental aircraft by nationality

A tag has been placed on Template:Experimental aircraft by nationality requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help with a user

I keep trying to clean the article Fourth_generation_jet_fighter up but several users (mostly anon. IPs) keep reverting. The problem is that most links they are using either do not exist or state something entirely different than what is being written. Further I believe that the user who is causing the most problems is resorting to sock puppetry. Please see User:HDP. Then See:[8], See:[9], See:[10], See:Darth_gotica. I would normally continue to deal with it myself but this user is becoming particularly disruptive, trollish and uncivil with his edit summaries. Thanks in advance. --Downtrip (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to know that the above editor himself has beem shown by checkuser to be a sock of a indef blocked user. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla Regards Freepsbane (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RL, Downtrip has shown himself to be a ~~productive user to this point. While he may be Wikzilla or a close associate, he seems to have reformed. I'm not sure bringing the checkuser up now will accomplish anything worthwhile.~~ Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck do I know? This is the exact same type of behavior - incessant edit-warring and talk page bantering - that got Wikzilla his first block. Just ignore me! - BillCJ (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You where right the first time. The only socks I have are on my feet. Take a look at the IPs from the first accusation Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla. Do a who is on the IPs and you will see that they came from Verizon and they had two unique 16 bit subnets that give you a possibility of 2 to the 16th (over 65,000) hosts for each subnet. I admitted in the past and it was confirmed that those IPs where me as well. It was when I first started editing and did not know about how wiki caches pages. As for Dmcdevit's "conclusion" that it is likely that I am a sock of Wickzilla I seriously doubt that he or she knows what she is doing. Inferring by what is being said my block of IPs match the ones Wickzilla uses. Big deal. Verizon covers most of the country and they have not two but literally dozens of 16 bit subnets (65,000 hosts each) to use. I chose not to argue the point and figured it would all go away but obviously I was wrong. It appears there are people here that go about making slanderous remarks about others with some pretty flimsy evidence. It really is a shame that the abuse I have endured by Freepsbane is allowed to continue. I think in the end it drives good editors away. You see due to Dmcdevit's mistake he was emboldened to take the issue further when I attempted to clarify some of the remarks in the 4 gen fighter entry. Take a look again at his latest witch hunt Downtrip. Do a whois on the IPs. It's not me. When it comes back as negative or is declined I hope the admins make the right decision and discipline him for hounding me as he has. --Downtrip (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "incessant edit-warring and talk page bantering". I asked an administrator for help days ago. Nothing happened. As for bantering, if you mean edit summary comments I would say to you that it is something HDP, Freepsbane and others as well as yourself BILLCJ take liberal part in.--Downtrip (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean by "incessant" the fact that you, HDP, and various IPs belonging to whoever have been bickering about this subject since November! And the argumant goes back to August with Wikzilla. Don't you think this has gone on long enough? It's time you agree to disagree, and either accept a compromise, or bow out gracefully. Otherwise, someone else will help you both to bow out. As I was trying to say, and you've missed or ignored my point, this is the type of behavior that got Wikzilla blocked, and you're headed that way if you don't figure out how to live with an imperfect article. I don't really care if you are Wikzilla or not - I'm comparing your behavior, and it's very similar to how Wikzilla first acted here, on the same issues! As I also said, you have tried to be a productive editor, and that's a good thing. But this type of edit warring is not going to accomplish anything. Isn't 3 months long enough? Come on, it's time to accept a reasonable solution, or just leave the page alone. You're not infalible, I'm not infallibe, and HDP is not infallible. We will always disagree on some point. The argument here is is more about interpretation of facts than the straight facts. You need to recognize the interpretational differences, and and try to leave those out and settle on the facts you can agree on. If that means certain things aren't mentioned at all, then so be it! I have a lot of experience with confrontational editing, enough to know not much is ever accomplished by standing your ground on every point and being inflexible. Contributing to Wikipedia is all about compromise, and often the solution is imperfect. It's means eating some humble pise sometimes - but it's a lot better than crap pie! - believe me, I've had plenty of the crap pie, and the humble pie is better in the long run. Practicing that might have saved me alot of trouble from the vandal group who think their life's mission is to try make my Wikipedia experience miserable (they only succeed if I let them). Even though what they were doing originally was pure vandalism, and needed to be stopped, I could have gone about it another way, and saved myself some grief in the process. My point now is that you have choices - please start making the right ones, even if you don't like them. In the end, you'll become a better editor for it, and hopefully Wikipedia will become a better place because of it too. The choice is yours to make. And don't worry about HDP's choices - if you stop, and he doesn't, he'll have to live with that choice too. - BillCJ (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill your points are well taken and in retrospect I guess I can understand how someone could interpret my behavior as being nonconstructive. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Other than suggesting the article for deletion I am done with it. The entry is badly written, full of opinion and at times contradictory. Anyone who even remotely understands the subject will read it and just pass it off as another poorly written, factually incorrect entry written by a bunch of fan boys. I at least tried to fix it.--Downtrip (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth generation jet fighter has now degenerated into an edit war seemingly fought by IPs as well as others. Now is the time to go into semi-protect. Check the edit history and the talk page for confirmation of the problems. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

UL260i image

Hello Rlandmann,

Sorry for the mistakes I've been making. I'm new to Wikipedia. However, I would like to point out that the picture was taken by me (I made up the ULPower website), and it would be nice to have it on the ULPower UL260i page (as also other engine manufacturers have on their page). Eventually it then could be used on other pages when talking about a horizontal opposed aircraft piston engine for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatsthat (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J-XX

Thank you for complete article rewrite. It is way better now! Umm, it actually make me feel like correcting spelling of "programme", but I can live with that:) TestPilot 09:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:He 176 V2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:He 176 V2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KawanishiH8K.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KawanishiH8K.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Junkers.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Junkers.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Gunstonman

A tag has been placed on Template:Gunstonman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name swap: Bölkow Bo 209

I dont know the master plan behind the english aviation article name conventions- but the articles Bölkow Bo 209 and MBB Bo 209 should should be swapped. Reason: This aircraft was entirely developed and brought to first flight by Bölkow GmbH; later after fusion into MBB company it was renamed as MBB Bo 209.

You swapped them some time ago- so consider yourself.--de:wiki/user/Galak76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.199.166 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ul260i image

Site did already mension to feel free to use this image on websites or press articles when talking about the engine. I have now also added "free of copyright". I hope the image can now permanently stay on wikipedia! Regards, Whatsthat (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Heinkel.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Heinkel.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gotha.png

I have tagged Image:Gotha.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FieselerLogo.png

I have tagged Image:FieselerLogo.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:USAF fighters

Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton-Wright FP.2

Guess what I found after some digging at the local aviation museum? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

R, can you check on this page and the campaign by various anons (the latest: 76.212.146.249) to insinuate a POV statement that the number "666" originated with this film. The various IPs are basically sock/meat puppets that have engaged in this effort. Bots and others including myself have reverted but now it has led to personal attacks on my talk page. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Image question

Can you help me please with an image question, Image:Liege-airport-fromthesky.jpg is used on two articles including Liège Airport it still has an embedded airliners.net copyright statement which I didnt think was allowed. The Image page gives permission from the author to use on wikipedia. I undertand that it has to be released under GFDL or otherwise to be used on wikipedia not just a yes you can use it reply. Do you now what the procedure is to question embedded copyright notices and/or only on wikipedia permission or point me in the right direction as the image help pages are a bit confusing. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers template

Thanks for helping, I should have asked you first. I copied from the Piper one, perhaps that needs reformatting as well. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French invasion of Russia

Could you - as a non-involved admin -have a look at this article - things are getting rather heated there and it might benefit from some admin attention.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Aircraft

RL, someone added centering to the Template:Infobox Aircraft caption line again. There were also alot of coding changes, and I can't tell now what handles the centering anymore. Can you take a look? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musketeer

When I created the Marksman article the other day I redirected from the Executive and Marketeer as they are both dealt with in the article. I also linked On Mark Musketeer from the 5 list - now realise that it was probably in error as I cant find any reference to On Mark Musketeer can you just check the JAE to see if it was really the Marketeer or a different type, Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed it when I did the redirect. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout

After thinking we moved the order of aircraft sections to conform and our efforts to make pages agree with the project layout and aerostart, User:Fnlayson has been moving refs to above see also. It has also been discussed at Talk:De Havilland Vampire saying it does not conform to the FA layout. Perhaps it should be brought up at project level again but I must admit to be to confused by the conflicting moves. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarity on this I was sure we did align everything. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Mia

It isn't really close but as it happens, by coincidence, I won't be far from there early next week. If I get a chance I will get a photo. Good articles, by the way. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 10:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force - Iranian built planes

Regarding the Saeqeh: I don't have any citiation for it, but I got a picture of 3 Saeqeh's here, and than you've got the old Saeqeh [11], so that means there were at least 4 built... I say at least 4 because there could verry well be more but there is no proof of that.

Regarding the Azaraksh, were I said "at least 3 built": In this Youtube video you see Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inspecting Iranian Saeqeh and Azaraksh fighters, the row of planes there is made out of 3 Saeqehs (the 3 in this picture), a Simorgh trainer and 3 Azarakhsh fighters. Global security estimates there are 6 Azarakhsh in service with IRIAF as of 2005 and 30 as of 2010 [12]. But considering they also claim Iran had Shafaq fighters in service in 2000 and they retired them before 2005 I doubt their relyability...

The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but that's why I put at the side "at least ..." and didn't ad this figures to the list. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tsybin RSR

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tsybin RSR, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsybin RSR. Thank you. BillCJ (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mail

You have one. - BillCJ (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairtravel Linnet

No problem with merger into Piel Emeraude. Rgds MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nav Boxes

You may interested that User:Woohookitty has re-cated all the aviation navboxes - some of the new cats are nonsense - I have left a message on his/her talk page to find out if this was discussed anywhere! MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I will revert them. I'll let you make sense of that mess. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-consensual moves

RL, in the last few days, KC-X has been moved to KC-45, KC45, and KC- 45. , "KC-X" is the name of the program, and per discussions on the talk page, we intended to keep the article there even after the winner was announced (and protested by EADS) and named the "KC-45". Today, the KC-30 has been announced the winner, and I expect EADS to protest the KC-767AT coming in second in the next few days ;) Could you please move KC- 45 back to KC-X, and protect the page from being moved again? Many thanks in advance. - BillCJ (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation navboxes

I'm not fed up really. It's more a matter of...I tend to do that stuff on my own because others won't. :) So when people step forward and say this should be done this and this way, I tend to leave it to those people to hammer it out. I appreciate the gesture though. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More style wars?

RL, we might want to keep an eye out on user:Malyctenar and edits like [this]. I don't even understand what exactly his edit summary is supposed to mean! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Goes Mad?

User:72.146.44.249 who has revised a lot of wording in the Lockheed L-1011 article and has now gone on to correct other peoples entries in the Lockheed L-1011 talk page page !! Tried my best without having the rollback thingy - anything you can do to help please. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - although he/she had edited again!! MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template results

I was wondering what happened after the template work a couple months ago. Any major problems? Anything else on the horizon? Gimmetrow 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to know about WT:GTL#Order of 'See_Also', References (using bot), since WP:AIR and WP:AVIATION were mentioned. Gimmetrow 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specification template

I have been using {{aerospecs}} or more exactly {{aerostart}} but the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content still tells users to use {{Aircraft specifications}}. Have had a least one example of aerospecs format being replaced by the older aircraft specifications in an article, and I have seen discussion related to another page to change as well. Did we ever clear this up at project level to get the page content guidance changed? MilborneOne (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand your reasoning not a major problem at the moment but one that will have to be sorted at some time. I still think that a smaller template like aerospec would be more complete as it contains facts more likely to come by. I will just keep going to raise the 20% count with more new articles! MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KuKLFT D-class designations

Where aircraft were used by both Germany and Austro-Hungary (like the Albatros D.III), should they be in this template as well as the German one?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Aerotag

A tag has been placed on Template:Aerotag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French navboxes

Thanks for the explanation I will have to check a bit deeper on these. I understand that if they are variants of 190 like 192, 193 then we should not list them but if they are part of the three-digit sequence they are OK. Your help and guidance appreciated. Are you happy with the number/sequence/civil names/military names breakdown which seemed logical to me but roles have been used on other navboxes! MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will have another go at at the Dassault template when I have time - its late in this part of the world now!! It does lead to another problem some of the contents in the Dassault bizjet articles are in serious need of a seeing to!!. MilborneOne (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airntd

User User:Malyctenar appears to have broken Template:Airntd. It is used in all the aircraft category structure and is corrupted - far to difficult for me. Any chance of a look please. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States military transport aircraft 1950-1959 in the Military transport aircraft of the 1950s by nation the soviet union and cis link is displayed wrong and provides a 1990s link. Appears in others like Category:British airliners 1940-1949. MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to User:Malyctenar it is difficult to tell with these complicated templates. MilborneOne (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article

Hello Rlandmann, can you move the article Irkut Multirole Transport Aircraft to Irkut/HAL Multirole Transport Aircraft or to Irkut/HAL Tactical Transport Aircraft. The Irkut website contains this name that's Tactical Transport Aircraft. [13] The reason for the request to change is because from Irkut website it's The international project on joint development, production and sales of twin-turbofan Tactical Transport Aircraft envisions solidary cooperation of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (India), the IRKUT Corporation and the Ilyushin Aviation Complex (Russia), with their design teams to be merged into a virtual enterprise.

Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requirement for another change. Irkut withdrew from the project. [14]. So it is supposed to be a Ilyushin/HAL aircraft. I think it's better to wait till the deal is signed. I am informing you about the change.Chanakyathegreat 04:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Help W/ Vandal

I don't know what exactly you can do to help with this problem, but from what I have seen, you are a very fair Admin. User:217.36.220.46 is repeatedly vandalizing the article: Glock. If I could get your (or another good admin that you know) assistance, it would be greatly appreciated. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAC Wirraway/eBay

RL, could you look at Talk:CAC Wirraway#, and see if you have any insights on the issue? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairchild aircraft

R, check out the FC-2, Model 71, Model 82 and Super 71 articles for changes I have made. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As for the F-11 Husky, check Fairchild Husky, an article I wrote quite a while ago, it may have to be moved to a more appropriate title. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Check out the Fairchild 45-80 Sekani article, I did some "tweaking." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Probable unfree image

RL, could you look at this diff, and see what you think about this image? The user already had a KC-45 image deleted for incorrect copyright status. I'm not sure where to go with this, but I am putting a {{PUI}} tag on the image file. Hopefuly he won't revert me there too. I certainly want an image of the KC-45 in the article, but not this way. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually might've had the edit look occur when I did the google search and saved it versus saving it right off of the page itself. If you look at User:BillCJ's page you'll see the link concerning it. I'll do whatever needs to be done tomorrow because i'm extremely tired and i'm in all of this because i'm not reall thinking straight to begin with. Actually the link our referring too was only meant to be a link to a site pertaining to it but I didn't mean for the other site to not be shown. Kevin Rutherford 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither of those at this moment. Other sites would include various other things so I decided to get as close to the "source" as possible. Kevin Rutherford 03:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)

So what should we do now? Kevin Rutherford 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

RL, sending email within 10 minutes. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help Transponder (aviation)

Hi there. I have never had to ask an admin for help in the past, but I thought I would ask to you review this edit [15] and see what you think. This IP address has been edit warring over inserting this doubtful and unreferenced statement for a while. As you will see in my remarks on the article talk page this text has been tagged as unreferenced for five months. This IP address (in several different versions) has now taken up leaving edit summaries that I think are uncivil and seem to be to be attempts to bully. Please see what you think and what might be the appropriate response, beyond what I have said on the talk page. Please let me know if I am off-base here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I hadn't found anything good enough to use as a ref in my search. I was more concerned about the attack than the refs. I usually ignore this sort of thing, but I thought this one was over the top with his "no one elected you sherrif, move along". I understood that to mean essentially "get off my article". - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I thought a comment from an admin would have a better chance of having an effect than a comment from me in this sort of matter. - Ahunt (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Aircraft pic border

RL, I think the Lead pic border was removed in this diff. I'd really like to see this reinstated, but the editor made other changes in the same eidt which I am reluctant to revert. The border is helpful with images such as the one that I added on the (restored) C-26 Metroliner page, were the sky is so light. Also, is there anything that can be done about these non-WP:AIR editors playing around with the infoboxes that we use? The removal of the border was made by one of these drive-by editors. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BillCJ (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the border! - BillCJ (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war

RL, there's a revert war going on at HAL HJT-36 over the origins of the aircraft's name, Sitara. All the discussion so far has gone occured only in edit summaries, and the key "combatants" are both registered users. One has reeverted about 5 times, and the other at least 3 in just over 24 hours. I'm about ready to submit it to the "Lamest revert wars" list! Do what you think is best in this case. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RL, the other users have been discussing peacefully on the talk page, but this diff shows the main contestant reverting again. He also added a nationalistic diatribe on the talk page to justify his position, but without any sources, of course. Help please! - BillCJ (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's back?

I won't give it away but check out Kawasaki Ki-61. Write me if you guess who it is. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ask for help with respect to Giles G-202

The article Giles G-202 that I created has been proposed for deletion. This article is by far not perfect as there a lot of information missing. However, I do not see any reason why it should not remain in wikipedia. May I simply delete the deletion-tag? I will be very pleased if you help me keeping the article.--Vierzehn (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I should have read the instructions first ... I am simply removing the tag.--Vierzehn (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specs

Thanks for the info - very useful particularly as the aircraft are getting more and more obscure - nearly at the 200 this month! MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point - gives us something to do when your missing aircraft list is finished! - seriously I will make an effort to revisit some of the articles and add conversions etc with the new sources your detailed. I agree if nobody comes along after a couple of weeks they will probably never be done. It is anoying that even some authoritive sources skimp on the details of the more obscure types. MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One to add to your useful bits and pieces list? [16] MilborneOne (talk)

Spreadsheet arrived OK - thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:NASA-text

Template:NASA-text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Hi. I've had a crisis on writing on naval ships on the Polish wiki (which was my main Wiki-activity) ...so I'll probably add some obscure aircraft here. I have one question: why did anybody remove "sequence" from aircontent template?? It makes navigation difficult! Pibwl ←« 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I could make some templates - if only I could decide if all obscure prototypes (or even worse, projects), that haven't own articles, should be listed in designations' order :-) ..However, since these templates can be changed, I think I'll just omit most obscure ones, until somebody describes them. I've been planning to write on Romanian civil planes, but the info is surprisigly scarse (one book from the 70s, that don't even give such basic thing, as production figures!), and almost nothing in the web. On the other hand maybe it's better to have stubs? Pibwl ←« 22:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain me, if stall speed is lowest speed, at which a plane can fly, or a speed, at which an aircraft just fells down? In most sources I see "minimal speed", what suggests, that it still can fly, and I'm not sure, if it is "stall speed". Pibwl ←« 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, half of the aircraft, that I'm writing about, are STOL designs ;-) In some cases I wrote for example: "stall speed <57" to indicate, that this is a minimal speed that aircraft can fly, but I'm afraid it don't look good. On the other hand: what do you think about a category "Three-engine aircraft"? Category:Multiple engine aircraft is very crowded and maybe it's a good idea to be more detailed? Pibwl ←« 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't find them specially useful. The only ones, that would make some sense to me, would be 3-engine, 4-engine and 5-or-more-engine (how to call it?..), because they are relatively rare. Single and twin engine make no sense at all. Pibwl ←« 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find subst:aerotag useful... but if I remember, I might be adding it. As for new articles list - I'll supplement it once for a few days. Yes, you can send the spreadshit (pibwl@poczta.onet.pl) - though it might make easier life of people wanting to read Imperial measures, not mine... ;-) Pibwl ←« 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently discovered articles

All those articles had unopened talkpages and were unassessed which I understood as the 'discovery' point. I also assumed/understood that if the talk page was not opened then the article was not included in the project count. I can carry on opening the talk pages and assessing and not post them as 'new' articles if you like. Nimbus (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]