User talk:Rlandmann/archive13

Dave's latest tactic[edit]

Have you seen this [1]? This has reached the point of ridiculousness. I closed the AfD early as a bad faith nom, since it was amply settled in the previous AfD. I've also posted a warning on Dave's talk page. However, I also welcome your review of my actions. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you should probably be aware of this [2] and my reply. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - [3] Very naughty. Nimbus (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another new template[edit]

I thought Société des Avions Bernard deserved a template, so I made one, Template:Bernard aircraft. Is this OK? LGF1992UK (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another one, this time Template:Parnall aircraft. As a senior member in WPAVIATION, I rely on you to publicise these templates, hehe. I've already added the template to all Parnall pages and I'm going to try and get the Parnall Scout and the Parnall Pipit done tonight. LGF1992UK (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospecs[edit]

Interesting to see that aerospecs has been replaced in CAC Sabre with the older aircraft specifications template. Seem a bit daft when we have been using aerospecs on new pages and I have changed some the other way round if they needed updating. I know we I mentioned it before but I think we should really stick to one template. Is it worth bringing it up at project so we can settle on just the one or at least not change them for the sake of it. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi Type 92[edit]

You created a redirect of Mitsubishi Type 92 to Mitsubishi Type 92 Reconnaissance Aircraft - unfortuantelty the Type 92 reconnaissance aircraft was also powered by a Mitsubishi Type 92 radial engine - and there is also a Mitsubishi Type 92 Heavy bomber (i.e. the Mitsubishi Ki-20. I think that some sort of DAB page may be in order (and possibly some renaming)?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed using the manufacurer's designation would work in most cases where the aircraft didn't get a short system designation (although the engines could still be awkward)- certainly Mitsubishi 2MR8 would work here. You have to love the Japanese system though, ordering spares must have been fun!Nigel Ish (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've messed up the move of to Mitsubishi 2MR8 - could you fox it please?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the moveNigel Ish (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my Name from Wikipedia is Unfair[edit]

My name is Kam Ruble. I am a recognized, published author of mystery books ("Have No Mercy" series), children's picture book ("Princess Annado Tandy's Versery-Rhymes"), and E-books ("Dawg Eyes" series). One only has to Google my name; check out my books on Amazon.com [4]; or, ask any 'brick and mortar' bookstore to order my book if it is not on the shelves of their favorite bookstore. In fact, I had two books released in November/December 2008.

Furthermore, even though my books are published through the POD (print on demand) method, GAP (Global Authors Publications) is NOT considered a 'Vanity Press'.

It would be nice if facts were checked 'correctly' before votes are taken to delete a person from Wikipedia. I find the deletion of my name from Wikipedia not only unfair, but some of the comments a bit slanderous. I believe my name and my information should be reinstated, and I should receive apologies from all of you who voted to delete me.

Thank you. ShadowsMysteryQueen (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Kam Ruble[reply]

Rlandmann, thank you very much for your immediate and concise response. I thought, at the time, I had understood the Wikipedia guidelines. Guess I didn't. For this, I apologize. I have had excellent reviews from more than just family, friends, and fellow authors. But that is neither here nor there. Perhaps, one day, Kam Ruble will be recognized as notable enough for Wikipedia. Until that day, I will keep writing and selling my books. Thank you. ShadowsMysteryQueen (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Monnett aircraft[edit]

Template:Monnett aircraft 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. Rtphokie (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages[edit]

Further reply. 20:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Mediation: Spitfire, Bof B pages etc[edit]

I've been steering well clear of these pages of late and concentrating on other topics instead! I can't help but agree that the quality of these articles has been compromised (I've had a read of your submission on Vassyana's TP). For my part, as I've indicated before, being mired down in these arguments has blunted my enthusiasm for editing: my "real world" job has an element of dispute settlement and I find it frustrating that a leisure-time activity has ended up becoming a battleground. I also note that other editors have been adversly affected. Finally, I'm weary of becoming too fanatical over events which happened over 60 years ago, when aviation was still in its infancy. Things appear to have settled down over the past few weeks and something approaching sanity has returned. If mediation can help restore these articles to a more readable and logical state I'm all for it. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gladly. As you now, I think there is agenda-driven editing on these pages which favours one historical side over another. I note that there is now a third editor who shares this opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amerika Bomber[edit]

RL, I noticed that an Infobox Aircraft was added to this article per this diff. However, the article is more about a program or group of programs than a sigle type, so Infobox Aviation, or one of your newer boxes, would probably be more appropriate. This is the same editor who has requested the autonaming feature on the same infobox. He usually keeps his own counsel, so I thought I would approach you first, rather than try to change the box to a better one. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation[edit]

I've opened a case page for centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-12 Battle of Britain. I believe your expertise and interest in seeing the dispute resolved would make your participation quite valuable. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking things personally[edit]

Hi,

The number of times you have used the terms "you" and "your" in the conversation ongoing here is beginning to look like you have a personal issue with me. I am not in the habit of "imagining" problems with templates, such that I would spend my weekends arguing in good faith with people over changes if I did not think there was a rational argument for such. Whether my judgement is faulty or not, I do not expect that it is directly questioned in polite conversion over and above discussing the issues I raise, much as I try to avoid questioning the judgement of others.

I'd appreciate it if you addressed this with me directly rather than continuing to make arguments on that thread which are apparently based on me personally. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicookie[edit]

Templates[edit]

Yeah sure, go ahead. You can add templates too, if your so inclined, but I don't expect the page to become a common resource. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to take care of this user[edit]

Sir this user Special:Contributions/24.20.9.212 is always reverting the edits i do. He/She has no specific reasons for reverting.I think so He/She is just playing with the Article. He/She does'nt even have an Account. Kingfisher Airlines sold 3 A340-500s to Arik Air and this is in News too[5],but apparently this fellow is not ready to believe this and keeps on reverting.
Air India does'nt serve Flights to Zurich anymore.These Flights are served through Code Sharing with Swiss International Airlines,but this person is still stuck in the past,whats more irritating is that he/she does'nt even have proof for what he/she is doing.
He/She is trying to Add the Registration of each aircraft by making another column,but it will become too clumsy if all the registarions are added. (eg).Emirates will have 122 Boeing 777s by 2011.Is it possible to put 122 Registrations in one Narrow Column? Plese help this person (Druid.raul (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Thanks for replying back Sir.You see this person Special:Contributions/24.20.9.212 has again reverted my edits.He/She just won't learn. Air India does'nt go to Zurich any more[6].Its done through Code Sharing.I use to put references everytime i did a edit. but this person thinks that he/she owns the article and reverts all my correct edits.so now i don't cite any references because even if i do this person will revert it. (c (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It seems that you have become the de facto arbitrator in this issue. Hence, let me write something in my defense. I have been a rather responsible wikipedian over many years and have made thousands of edits myself and reverted hundreds of edits. No, I don't have an account, never have and never will. Druid.raul has made a lot of changes on some airlines originating in India over the past few months. Some cosmetic, some in the interest of retaining brevity and sometimes (apparently) in ignorance. However, in NONE of his edits (in which he has sometimes inadvertently reverted some of my older edits, where the reason for the edit was already documented!) has he cited ANY references! In that matter what he writes here is a blatant lie and amounts to slander! I have never reverted any edit of any person which cited due references!! Now that said, I do agree that I was incorrect in the reverting of the Kingfisher Airlines edit regarding Arik Air and the Zurich destination. The former I immediately realized my mistake and reverted MY OWN EDIT, adding a reference to boot. The latter, however, was one of many edits that the user had made in that revision, some of which I added after my revision with reference again. Please go through this user's contributions and find me one, JUST ONE, example of him having cited ANY reference EVER in ANY article!! Additionally, have a look at the edit history page relating to Air India and see the kind of threatening language this user is employing!! I have already tried to caution him in that regard and have apparently failed! Finally, to underline something that should have been obvious: I do NOT have a personal vendetta against this user or any other user. The simple fact of the matter is that if you add/edit/revert someone's edit without due cause/explanation/references then I can and probably will change your edit. That is what wikipedia is all about!! Please leave me a reply here itself and I (24.20.9.212) will check back to see your thoughts on this nonsensical non-issue including the use of inappropriate language. Based on your comments, I shall come up with my future course of action. Thanks for your help and apologies for this intrusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.9.212 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both of you need to take a step back and calm down, and focus on the specific points of difference here. The "slow motion" edit war that's developing here is simply not acceptable. 24.20.9.212, you are free to continue to contribute anonymously - however, please realise that doing so severely limits other users' ability to communicate with you. If this were a dispute between two contributors with accounts, you would normally by now have been talking to each other on each other's talk pages. Attempting dialogue via comments in the edit history is a singularly ineffective way of communicating with each other. And both of you have been overstepping the line with the comments you're leaving there as well.

That being said, let's look at the actual dispute, which seems to revolve around three issues:

the Kingfisher A340s - It looks like a third party has now intervened on this topic. Do either of you have anything further to say about this?
whether Air India services Zürich any more. Druid.raul, could you please provide your reference to say that this has changed? (It may very well have, but even if you personally know this to be true, we can't make changes to the article until we have some hard evidence)
whether lists of registrations should be added to fleet articles. This would really be decided by whatever guideline WikiProject airlines has on the subject. 24.20.9.212, are you aware of any other airline articles that include comprehensive registration lists?

Hopefully we can now address these three things and move on. Looking forward to your responses. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

I did not find any definitive reference that the Kingfisher planes have either been bought by Arak via Kingfisher or been reallocated. It that case, the entire statement should be suitably edited or maybe deleted. In this regard, the third party's take is also an assumption.
Some small airlines do have their registration lists provided but not for large airlines (as in this case). It can be removed in the interest of brevity but this needs to be documented as a comment in the edit history section.
The main reason for my changing the initial edits of Druid.raul was his reluctance to accept the current merger status of Air India and the Indian Airlines fleets. This is well documented on the Air India home page (http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/AIHome.aspx) and my already added reference http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/Webpages/Merger-of-Airindia-and-indian.aspx.
If Druid.raul agrees to document/reference future edits, I do not see any reason to prolong this unfortunate episode. However, this still doesn't not solve the issue of his use of irresponsible and threatening language. Is anyone allowed to make such comments? Such an instance has not happened to me in the last 3 odd years that I have been editing entries and hence have never felt the need for an account!

- 24.20.9.212

Thanks for that - it looks like we're moving forward! :)

(A340s) - then, respectfully, I don't think you looked very hard! Druid.raul has been pointing to this reference, which while it leaves much to be desired, is certainly enough "smoke" to suggest there's a "fire". Googling for "Kingfisher Airlines" a340 arik brings up a multitude of hits, including this article from Flightglobal] which is about as definitive and reliable as anyone could hope for. It confirms that three slots were re-allocated. Would you like to add a note to the article to this effect?
(registration lists) There is no requirement that such changes be "documented" (although it's good wikiquette to do so). So if you're happy to leave the registrations out, we can probably close this particular issue.
(AI mergers) Sorry - I wasn't aware of this issue, since it wasn't part of the complaint that Druid.raul brought to my attention. Is there still a dispute over this material? If so, it may better be discussed with WikiProject Airlines, to see what thoughts there are more generally about how/if to list former subsidiaries.
I agree that Druid.raul's language did overstep the mark of civility. However, so did your baseless accusations of vandalism against him. Another editor's genuine attempt to improve or correct content (even if mistaken or in error) is never vandalism. Hopefully, you can both see that the other party was getting frustrated and said things that they shouldn't have. Let's move on.
There are many benefits to creating an account. If you're a long-term contributor, I urge you to consider them. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for doing the discussion over here.Let me clarify some points:-
(Air India-Indian Airlines Merger) - I know that Air India-Indian Airlines have merged.infact i had put Indian Airlines Fleet Information on Air India Article as they have merged.I had proof as the A321s and some A319s have been painted in the Air India Livery and not the Indian Airlines Livery.

SEE THIS VERSION of the Air India Article it dates to May 11,2008 which includes the IC Fleet as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India&oldid=211607520)

May 21,2008 - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India&oldid=213886690) This Edit was done from my old account which i cannot use any more. Everything changes as (User_talk:Jasepl) comes afterwards check out the history of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druid.raul (talk • contribs) 05:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did this 12 Times from the year 2007-2008 but some people just don't agree like (User_talk:Jasepl , User:NcSchu , User:Sorfane) and kept on reverting and in the end i finally gave it up.Infact the Indian Airlines Fleet was already there on the Air India Article as both had merged but this (User_talk:Jasepl) Fellow came from God Knows where and started making the article his own playing ground and separated the IC and AI Fleet.He even made the Jet Airways Article his own playing ground.I kept on changing it back and he kept on reverting it back.He accused me of "Vandalism" and god know what else.(I WAS WONDERING SHOULD I SHOW HIM WHAT VANDALISM ACTUALLY IS,but then i decided to back off)
I was going to put the Indian Airlines Fleet Information again in the Air India Fleet Information when i saw that the Total Fleet has been including Subsidiaries but then again i backed off as i thought it would be a complete waste of time if somebody from the above 3 mentioned reverts it again. In a few months i think so Indian Airlines and Air Indian are going to use the same codes for there flights i.e. AI .I think so we should put the Indian Airlines Fleet in Air India at that time.You see officially Indian Airlines does'nt exist any more.It only exists in the Livery of Old Aircraft and some peoples minds who are still stuck in the past.In a few months of 2009 the IC Code will be gone too. Indian Airlines is a Subsidiary of National Aviation Company of India Limited and not Air India as some people think.Some people don't agree with this too.

(Air India Zurich) - Air India no longer flies to Zurich.It is done through Code sharing with Swiss International Airlines.This is the proof - (http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/Webpages/Where-we-fly.aspx?mid=26). Code shared destinations are written in Red.

(Kingfisher A340-500s) - You see Kingfisher Airlines ordered 5 A340-500s initially and then they ordered 5 more making a total of 10.
but due to the high Crude Prices and high operating costs of Airbus A340s because of 4 Engines they sold off 3 of their yet to be delivered A340-500s to a Nigerian Carrier Arik Air - Here's the proof (http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/12231925/Kingfisher-puts-on-hold-new-in.html) and decided to take delivery of only 2 A340-500s whose delivery date is yet to be decided.
The remaining 5 A340-500 Order was converted to Medium Range Airbus A330-200s.

(Plane Registation) - Please my friend don't add the Registration of the Aircraft because it will make the article look clumsy and unreadable. ok if there are 4-5 Aircraft its no problem but when there are more then 15-20 Aircraft of the same type adding the Registraions in one narrow column will surely make the article look clumsy.

I agree for not being Civil enough but you see as a editor its very irritating to see somebody reverting your correct edits.you can feel that as a editor youself too.I wish we just move on and be inclined towards editing and not edit wars.

(Druid.raul (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

OK. Enough! I had assumed that this matter had been settled amicably and consigned to my mental dustbin but it seems that (Druid.raul is back to his old ways again! New threatening language, thinly veiled as cautionary notes, has been added on the Air India history page! RL can you settle this thing once and for all? (However, in the interest of fairness I must add that he is now adding comments to his edits!) Thanks - 24.20.9.212

I agree. I'm very disappointed by this turn of events. I have now protected the AI article until the disputes can be worked out. Could you please go to the article's talk page and list the specific points of contention here, as succinctly as possible? I'm going to call for other parties to become involved. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TO Rlandmann:-

First 24.20.9.212 is trying to say that i am separating Air India into Air India and Indian Airlines even if they have merged and when i try to correct it according to his saying ,24.20.9.212 tells me that i am using Threatning Language.

Sir wasn't it 24.20.9.212 who showed you the link (http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/Webpages/Merger-of-Airindia-and-indian.aspx) about the merger between AI and IC. and know he is saying i am using threatning language when i try to correct the article according to his saying.

Sir I am just trying to put what is correct about AI and IC.The fact is that they have merged.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR 24.20.9.212

First off all i did not use any threatning message.

First you say that Air India and Indian Airlines have merged (http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/Webpages/Merger-of-Airindia-and-indian.aspx) and i am trying to separate them into two on Wikipedia and when i try to merge thir Fleets together like the older articles you say that i am using threatning language.Whats wrong with you? Why are you Two Timing?
My so-called "Threatning Language" are not comments.If you are a Wikipedia user you must justify for the edits you have done.Was'nt it you who told me that i should justify my edits by writing down what i have edited in "EDIT SUMMARY" in order to stop reverting it back?.

IF YOU THINK THAT THE DETAILS I PROVIDED TO YOU ARE FALSE THEN FINE GO AHEAD AND BLOCK ME. TODAY IF I GO THEN TOMMOROW SOME OTHER PERSON WILL TRY AND CORRECT THE ARTICLE. TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS AND THE TRUTH IS THAT AIR INDIA AND IC HAVE BECOME ONE ENTITY.

This was said by 24.20.9.212 even before i did. (Druid.raul (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with you Sir,but if in a few months AI and IC will use the same IATA Codes,then that proves that they are same airline. IN ANY CASE I GIVE UP.THE ARTICLE IS ALL YOURS ( i.e. 24.20.9.212).MAYBE I SHOULD TAKE A YEAR LEAVE OFF WIKIPEDIA (I have been visiting and editing on Wikipedia for the last 3years everyday and everynight,really need a change). I will be back in October 2009.
Till then Ciao !! SAYONARA !
(Druid.raul (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just came back from an out of town trip. Looks like a lot has transpired in this interval. Let me clarify a couple of things:

Yes, I do agree that AI and IC have merged and yes, it is a verifiable fact written on the AI homepage (after all, it seems, I dug that one out myself!) QED the fleet size should be 149 (+68 orders) and the destinations: 97 (both numbers include AI, IC and their subsidiaries). That was my initial edit and I did provide the reference while doing so.
The issue was never about providing false/unsubstantiated numbers. It was about 2 things:

a) Issue of verifiability. The edits either reverted old, explained and documented edits and/or added info w/o ref and explanations. Let me reiterate that the burden of proof lies with the person who adds the info! Hence, if you edit something... an info and not a simple typo... then you need to add a reference and/or an explanation.

and, b) Issue of inappropriate language. Language like "If you try to revert my edits,I will revert your edits as well" and "Anyone disagreeing with this fact can revert the article 'n' number of times.I WILL REVERT IT AGAIN TO THE TRUTH" are obvious examples. It doesn't matter whether or not you (Druid.raul) directed them at anyone specific, the fact remains that such language should not be used. Opening a discussion page or talking directly to people in question seems to work the best.

Finally, this (or any other article for that matter) does not belong to anyone. Users and editors alike just need to be responsible, courteous and generally polite : that is the unwritten etiquette code for wiki use! So, Druid.raul I hope your break gives you time to cool off. I, for one, am hopelessly addicted to wiki and will be around.

RL, I will add some comments to the discussion page on AI. Thanks again.

~24.20 9.212.

FYI on Daveg[edit]

RL, have you seen the series of reverts at B-25 Mitchell survivors, of which the last is here? User:Kralizec! is an admin, so I am glad he is backing me. Dave's comments to me in these reverts show no growth on his part at all regarding owenrship, as he still presumes that any changes he does not approve of, especially by me, are vandalism. I just wanted to let you know about it, and perhaps you could touch base with the other admin. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the detail of the material, I'm sure it's citable, my issue is that this is a list (didn't we discuss renaming all these as "List of..."?) and long, detailed background info belongs in the parent article, not here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some dubious claims/OR/synthesis in that deleted section, but yes, it all belongs in the main article. A short summary of the B-25 would be appropriate though, as is in some of the other "survivior series" articles. I'm not good at summarizing, or I would try to add it myself. - BillCJ (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that these clumsy sections were added to the "Survivors" articles to either "prove" that they were encyclopedic, and/or "prove" that they weren't lists... --Rlandmann (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey redirect correction[edit]

Rlandmann, thank you for the correction. Please excuse my clumsy attempts at editing. I will educate myself about the Osprey Osprey II. Perhaps in the future I can, with with proper research, contribute to aircraft articles in a positive way.Eaglebreath (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriesbox Aircraft Categories[edit]

Rl, is there anything that can be done about the length of Template: Seriesbox Aircraft Categories? In the Rotorcraft article, the navbox caused large blank spaces because of the stack of pics that was right after the first heading, per this diff. I am not in any way a fan of the forced small fonts being implemented in some infoboxes such as in Template:Infobox Company. I've tried to protest this, as the font is very small in IE, but was told by the coding wonk who keeps changinh this that I should just use Fireforx, or make my fonts larger, even though the normal fonts are not my problem, and I have to use 800x600 on my laptop, so a larger overall fant would make my workspace even smaller. Nice to know WP is so accomodating to people with visual problems! New WP Slogan: Have poor vision? Screw you! I couldn't find anyone to listen to me, so I gave up arguing with him.

However, perhaps font-size reduction, or double columns, or something else would be a solution here. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk)

Discussion/mediation on Battle of Britain[edit]

I am deeply offended by Kurfürst's attitude; by making wild accusations against me he has placed this whole mediation process in jeopardy. I will not have anything to do with this kind of stupidity.Minorhistorian (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'New' reference material[edit]

Hi RL, I note your request for reference material on the mediation page. I have two books which may be useful:

Budiansky, Stephen. Air Power. London, Penguin Books Ltd., 2003. ISBN 0-670-91251-4.

and

Collier, Basil. The Battle of Britain. London. Fontana books, Collins Clear-Type Press. 1969. (No ISBN)

The first book is a weighty volume and contains a good, apparently unbiased, general account of the battle with some facts, figures and other info with 25 pages on the subject. The second book is a 200 page softback and is much more detailed, the author is not known to me (probably because of the timeframe) but he has written eight other books on WWII subjects, this book also appears neutral to me. Both books were given to me as presents and to be honest I have not read them much until now. They are there if you want me to try and find something specific, as far as I can see they have not been used as reference material in the articles mentioned in this mediation case.

I have expressed concern on the Supermarine Spitfire operational history talk page about the quality of that article in particular, an editor states that the article is 'stable', I would say that it is more a case of no one wanting to get involved in the 'dispute'. I am willing to help, it could be argued that being British and ex-Royal Air Force that I might be biased, I can only assure you and other editors that I am not. I believe one of the problems is that there is so much reference material that differing facts, figures, theories and statements produced by different authors are being used against each other (Fred says this but George says that etc). Hopefully there is a common view that everyone would be happy with. I wondered about posting this on the mediation talk page which is currently unopened. All the best. Nimbus (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have been reading the 'news'! Again, to be be honest my eyes glaze over when I see this stuff and really have not bothered to look into things in great depth, just no point. I might print both articles out and get a highlighter pen on them for a strip out, assuming the remaining editors are happy for this to happen. The BofB article does not look that bad to me but then again I have not looked too deeply. It is a shame that editors like myself feel the need to state that they are unbiased, short of taking an oath there is not much else you can do. In the case of a major edit is it ok to do it in the sandbox then paste it back in, to me it would avoid having to justify every change? Could post an edit summary on the talk page I suppose. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just had a good look through the BofB article and it is not too bad, some weird aircraft numbers stuff in 'aftermath' (but plenty of references for it!), formatting issues, editor's POV in places and some US spellings (in quotes from British authors/people?). I see that it was a former GA, have to look into what happened there. Spitfires will be for a rainy day (oops, it is raining, doh!). Quite a daunting task but I will see what I can do to help. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at Battle of Britain tonight, I think others have too. Still a couple of paragraphs that I'm not entirely happy with, there is a fair bit of 'theorising' at the end, I don't have the references used so have to take them in good faith. A thoughtful and useful review has just been done on Supermarine Spitfire operational history which should help a lot. Aircraft of the Battle of Britain needs a visit I think. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sanity has prevailed at last! Now that Supermarine Spitfire operational history has some fair, unbiased guidelines within which to work it should be possible to bring it up to B-Class standards. Good work by Nimbus on the B of B. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough[edit]

I have had a gutsful of this clown:

(cur) (last) 08:13, 18 October 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (95,066 bytes) (→D-day to VE Day: Tweaking text, moving garbage to where it offends the eye less) (undo)

(cur) (last) 07:58, 18 October 2008 Kurfürst (Talk | contribs) (94,678 bytes) (→Footnotes: Moving this rubbish to where it belongs.) (undo)

Its quite clear that you are ready to reach to any tool to dismiss the view of one of the most decorated and experienced Allied aces of the time, when it does not fit your rosy pink view of Spitfire superiority, which you are so eager to describe as often as possible in your edits. Its quite obvious that your agenda here is to advance a nationalistic POV that does not tolerate any other view, and goes against Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewe. You will not succeed in that agenda, and you will not be allowed to degenerate this article any further with your lengthy edits and amendments that add no information at all, but only seek to argue and push for your rosy pink POV, and dismiss any information that does not fit in your world. If you must spout out your nonsense, 'prove' how irrelevant is the opinion of a veteran fighter ace who took part in those fights against your 'infallible' opinion, then put that garbage where it belongs, to the footnotes. Anybody who bothers with reading that can read it there, and it does not destroy the readability of the article. Kurfürst (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He has gone right back to his usual self, attacking people with total abandon, making threats, deleting properly cited information and not sticking to any facts. Kurfürst has gone too far with his mean-minded, mealy mouthed "contributions". I have had it this time and will take part in no further editing as long as this guy has anything to do with it. "Discussion" on the BofB mediation is over.Minorhistorian (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have had a little time to calm down, my apologies to you and I regret my own role in this - I should not have lost my temper, nor should I have used expressions like "this clown" etc, and I realise that I have been loose with some of my own criticisms. However, there comes a point where being threatened and insulted and having editing contributions called "rubbish", "garbage" etc becomes hard to take. I will try to avoid getting involved in such situations in future. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice[edit]

Glad to hear that what I was doing is reasonably ok. I am tryhing to hold back so I don't rush headlong, but still stumbling a little.Petebutt (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yak-17-RD10[edit]

This was a distinctly separate aircraft. Although it did have its roots in the Yak-Jumo, it only shares a similar shape and layout to anything before it, and it had no relationship with the later Yak-17. Unfortunately the early Yak jets had very confusing designations. This one should go in separately as it wasn't a variant of anything else, and the one line that came out of it (Yak-21T) became stillborn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Yak-17-RD10[edit]

You're the one looking after wp so it's up to you. The advice is appreciated though I may forget the odd bit occasionally, I hope you're patient. My major problem is I am 5,000 miles from my reference collection, I only have 3 books of note with me!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Pitcairn Mailwing[edit]

I saw this on the wanted list and had a look at what was there and thought yuk. I hope this is better. The Mailwings were so similar they don't warrant separate pages. The only problem may be getting everything to rfe-direct to it. Anyway have a gander at it and pass judgement please.

== re re pitcairn mailwing, Thanks looks a 1000% better. Addressing your nits, (Liquid Paraffin works best), 1. Keep reminding me to sign, just didn't realise it was for talk pages. 2. Good point about the specs, If I'd thought about it I got most of the specs from the website I Referenced. 3. To illustrate your later point the page I'd copied to work from had payload added and the reference bit didn't have first and last in it. 4. I was unaware of the format for dates

On another note I've been blocked for using Onspeed. Unfortunately this little software gizmo is almost indispensible out here as the ISP has a habit of blocking everything including Wikipedia (They blocked the Middlesex University site!!!), apart from that if you don't use it, (even with ADSL), pages take forever to load. i shall switch off the onspeed for page ulaod and save in future. Petebutt (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Requested Articles[edit]

Hi Rlandmann, thanks for the message. Currently I'm away from home for the week, but I'll try to get ahold of Green and Swanborough tonight and get the articles done. I got my first DYK yesterday, sadly it wasn't WPAVIATION, but I'm moving on, haha :D. More than happy to oblige and get those articles done. LGF1992UK (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, nothing in my book about the Kaiserliche Werft thing-amajig. :) LGF1992UK (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything on Marinens or Høver either, but I'll see what I can find. LGF1992UK (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following Nieuport articles via G & S: Nieuport 23, Nieuport-Delage NiD 42. However, I found a nifty little site that seems to catalogue Nieuport aircraft at ["The Nieuport Pages"]. Looks interesting, I'll get the info on the other ones from there. LGF1992UK (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Swallow TP[edit]

Have added this, this morning, but can't get category to work or is it hidden in the article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swallow TP[edit]

Thanks again. I tried to add a page on the Swallow airplane co. and it got deleted in about 10 ms. As it stood the administrator had a point I complained that I had saved it in error. To give him his due he re-instated with the warning that if he was still unsatisfied he would do it again. My point is that it would be nice to get "adopted" by an Administrator. Someone we/I could use to say don't worry I'm looking after this newbie. Anyway his/Her (forgot my PC there) handle is on my talk page (lid), can you have a word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC) forgot to sign Petebutt (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XB-19 and XH-26[edit]

Hi The details I added abouth the tire of the X-19 is from many years of visiting the museum, and reading the card accompanying the tire's display. The XH-26 update was kindly provided to me in an email from Sarah E. Parke, the civilian public relations officer for the museum, answering an inquire I had sent her after writing the original XH-26 article. I'm not certain how best to add or format these references. If you have any suggestions by all means let me know, or go ahead and update them. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your help. I always try to use published source material whenever possible, but as you no doubt know that can only take us so far. Information such as the history of a particular aircraft on display is often undocumented in books, which is precisely why adding it to an article is so valuable. Often information must be obtained from restoration staff and exhibit managers, and is always subject to a certain amount of error, but when detailing the history of a particular display they are also the folks that the museum relies on to write the accompanying display information, so often it's them or nothing at all. I always appreciate your help. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took Sarah almost a month to come up with the history of the XH-26 on display at the museum, so know she does her homework. I'm grateful that they have staff who are willing to take the time to search out the answers to my odd questions. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the entry on the Douglas O-38 using information contained in a film that plays below the aircraft at the museum. The film was made by the museum staff in the 1970's during the plane's restoration. Please feel free to add a reference for this information as you see fit. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The B-18 turret information is on the display card next to the aircraft. The staff added the information in hopes that a visitor may know where one is located. They have essentially given up trying to find one. A simlar request was on the card for the P-61 before the restoration staff gave up and fabricated one from scratch. They did the same for the P-61's tail cone, though with poor results, and the aircraft has to be displayed with the tail facing away from visitors to keep it out of view. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the tablet on display at the bridge, and a much longer description that used to be on the Knox County Park System's website a few years ago. This information can still be found at http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM30WY The authors were on the committee that planned the bridge's construction. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about adding a website as a reference, or were you referring to the two authors? Also, what is the proper way to reference a display card? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have several good photos, but no way to scan them. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the article Berlin, Ohio. I've listed the web site that was used as a reference to the town's history, but not sure I did it right. Also, the Columbus Dispatch reference is for the Amish population information. Not sure how to connect that. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some material taken from today's "Columbus Dispatch" (10 November, 2008) to the article Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa. Since this information is very timely I believe it will be necessiary to reference it properly and quickly. The article in the Columbus Dispatch that I referenced is titled "False fire alarm blaimed in Russian sub deaths", and was written by Sergei L. Loiko for the Los Angeles Times. Could you please see that it is referenced properly and in the proper section? I will check to see how you have done it, though I still feel rather overwhelmed in the of proper codes for this sort of thing. Thanks again - Ken keisel (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the reference on K-152!! I agree that quoted commentary from an expert isn't the best way to provide the information this article needed. Unfortunately, until the Russian Navy comes out with the same information it will have to do. I don't think there's any real dispute with his conclusions. Regarding the adds to the plane articles you listed. Sarah E. Parke of the National Museum of the United States Air Force was kind enough to send me a document with almost all the s/n's for all their aircraft. That was the source for the #'s. The two longer edits used information taken from the museum's web site. - Ken keisel (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the F-82 Twin Mustang article to include information on p. 18 of the December, 2008 issue of "Air & Space" magazine. Our old friend BillCJ has already deleted all my additions once, and I'd be very much obliged if you would make the proper reference citations to my additions before he deletes it all again. Thanks so much - Ken keisel (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you had me double check it. I got the page and month wrong. It's the January, 2009 issue of "Air & Space" page 12. The article is titled "Tug of Warbird" by Phil Scott. Thanks so much - Ken keisel (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just one full page by Phil Scott. On the bottom he has a rather interesting article on the first civilian owned Hawker Harrier. Some chap in the U.K. got one for 1.5M from the RAF and is flying it at airshows. I'll update that article later. Don't see a volume or edition, just January, 2009. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article with similiar information. If you get the chance please update my reference in the correct manner there also. Thanks again - Ken keisel (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Scott doesn't reference his sources on the F-82 court battle, though I've followed comments on the matter in Air Classics magazine as well, which also mentioned the court siding with the USAF a year or so ago. Apparently the USAF is content to allow the CAF to keep the aircraft so long as they don't trade or sell it, but the CAF doesn't have the resources to restore it back to flying condition. I've updated the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article to reference the recent Air & Space article titled "Update" by Phil Scott which reports on the only privately owned Harrier now flying the airshow circuit. Despite my reference someone already has deleted it once. Could you please make sure my reference is done properly? Thanks again. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the same information to the BAE Sea Harrier article as well. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marinens Flyvebatfabrikk MF.12 and other Norwegian aircraft.[edit]

Hi Rlandmann.

I'll see what I can do. I definitively have good sources for this aircraft, I just have to look them up. If it's OK then I could have a look at the article this weekend. Also, I do realise that we're missing articles on a number of Norwegian aircraft types, they're on my to-do list. The important thing is that the articles are good and well-researched. Manxruler (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't considered nominating Marinens Flyvebatfabrikk MF.12 for a DYK, have you? I think it could be a nice one. Manxruler (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and find some time later today to look this aircraft up in a book I have on the Royal Norwegian Navy Air Service. We will surely be able to find a nice hook if I build some more on the article, let's make it a co-nom. As to the spelling error, it is not at all surprising that Jane's and other English language sources have got it wrong, after all we're talking about the very Norway-specific ways of spelling. Aa was the predecessor to Å, a letter non-existent outside of Scandinavia. Seeing as the modern letter Å looks quite a lot like an A it's quite common to confuse the two. Before 1917 the letter Å had not yet been introduced into standard Norwegian, making Aa the standard choice for the factory in question. Manxruler (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the above comment: The word -baat- in Flyvebaatfabrikk is the pre-1917 spelling of the modern Norwegian word båt, meaning boat. Bat doesn't mean anything in Norwegian, not before 1917 and not after the 1917 spelling reform. The direct translation of Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk is The Navy's flying boat factory. Manxruler (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now much-expanded. I'm co-noming it. Manxruler (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Script not loading[edit]

I've started having problems editing the Supermarine Spitfire operational history article; every time the editing page comes up I get the message (Mozilla Firefox 3): A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-wikEd.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:7666

This only happens for an entire page edit - for section editing no problems. I haven't changed settings for my browser and the problem only seems to occur with this page. Is anyone else experiencing this? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, no problems your end with Firefox. I'll re-check my system setting. Internet services are slow and pathetic in NZ compared with much of the developed world, so there may well be a problem via my ISP or the main Telecom network. I'll just use section editing - it won't hurt my elbow as much...

The quote comes from Scots man of letters Andrew Lang. It was written as part of an assessment on the bottom of one of my first varsity assignments, which was about the Battle of Chancellorsville. I thought my extensive use of statistics showed how thorough my research was; my tutor didn't agree! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here (England, developed world?!) I only use IE7, the WP site had problems about a month ago but seems ok now. We have a wiki at work and only Firefox works for editing without crashing. Beats me all this 'computery stuff'! Nimbus (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Mobility Command Museum - request for opinion[edit]

Hello, Found a new article on Air Mobility Command Museum had a bit of a tidy up but it has a long list of aircraft on display including an image of each one. All the images credited to the AMC Museum are on commons and are public domain as the work of the US Air Force. Do you know if the Museum is considered a government operation, it appears to be run as a foundation. Either way the number of images needs to be reduced. Any advice appreciated. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks not than familiar with Commons can they be tagged somehow as suspect? MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Downloads[edit]

Hi Rlandmann

Re comments on my talk page - OK, its a fair cop. The whole copyright thing is obviously a lot more complex than I'd thought - I should, of course, have been a lot more diligent than I was in checking WP policy, so I'm sorry that you've had to take time on this. Therefore, all the uploaded images should go, no problem. Is there any easy way of doing that all at once?

Some time ago, I had an exchange on my talk page; the response from the other editor is reproduced below. I've obviously taken things way too far, with regard to all the images available on theaerodrome.com, but German Copyright apparently being what it is (according to 'Panth') do you think that allows for upload of German 'Ace' images from the site? (I think I know the answer to that already, because WP extends beyond German Copyright jurisdiction, but let's see what you think) Scoop100 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scoop. German Copyright protects Photos until 70 years after the death of the author. This makes it easier in our case. When we use photos of 1914-1918 we can be almost sure that author in most of the cases is passed away. Since of many photos we will not know who was the Author or when he died. Nevertheless there was a case in Germany in 2004 where a woman was sued because she wanted to use a photo of a submarine photo taken in WWII and the lawcourt decided it is still under protection although the regular copyright duration was expired but it was still under copyright under Italian law. And since a new European Union law act it was still protected. But im pretty sure if we ask the webmaster or an admin at aerodrome they will allow us to use or tell us where to ask. Best Regards --Panth 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)'

Re: Adopt a Newbie[edit]

Let's go ahead,. How does it work?, the page wasn't very forthcoming on what actually happens.Petebutt (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New M.F. articles[edit]

Hi again. Thanks, and you're welcome. I'll get right to work on the articles. I'll follow what the Norwegian book I've got says, after all it's the official book on the Royal Norwegian Navy Air Service. Wow, this is going to make for a potential rush of Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk DYKs, hope the DYK guys can spread them over a couple of days at least. Notice the alternative nom I just added for the M.F.12 article. Manxruler (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked it up in Hafsten's book, yes, you're right. It is only the M.F.9 that was called the Høverjageren. Manxruler (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10 has been expanded and DYK co-nomed. Manxruler (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you. Our cooperative efforts have created what are easily the best English-language sources in the world for several Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk aircraft. And more are to come, I'll expand M.F.8 and M.F.9 in around 10 hours time, just in need of a nap first. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Image Problems[edit]

Hi Rlandmann, Just to say, thanks very much for taking the time to explain all the issues relating to Copyright to me. I appreciate your help. Scoop100 (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9 done[edit]

Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9 expanded and DYK nomed, and quite a nom if I must say so myself. Manxruler (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8 also done.[edit]

Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8 expanded and nom-ed. Manxruler (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gliders[edit]

Sorry, I have nothing but brief passing mentions of both the P-S2 (aka "UPAR") and the Sh-5. This may be helpful for the Antonov: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/glider/a1.html, http://www.airwar.ru/enc/glider/a2.html. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re recent russian[edit]

Thanks again. I,m happy to accept constuctive criticism. You're mention of connected prose hit home. I am finding it a bit difficult sometimes to get it to flow, will try harder and take longer I'm finding that despite previewing diligently I still find gaff's after I have saved, I will try harder there too.85.154.202.29 (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a new question in it.wiki[edit]

Hi, sorry for my "spam" but I want to signal a question for you here. See you ;-)--Threecharlie (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sukhoi/HAL FGFA[edit]

hi first of all thank you. you are right. as it was my first article here by wikipedia, i was sure that there will be some mistakes/errors that i have made. I will need a few days to correct them as we have week days now. i would like to request you to see the article, lets say in 4 days or so. if you find further information on FGFA please list them on article/discussion. (Samar60 (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Mea Culpa[edit]

Having looked back I can see where I have allowed my sometimes short fuse and stubborn streak to dominate my better judgement. I have apologised to Kurfürst‎, hopefully it will help stop the pointless antagonism and prevent more in future. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.12[edit]

On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.12, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8[edit]

On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.8, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petebutt[edit]

I notice that you have adopted this new user. A number of his recent edits have consisted principally of trying to force the pre-existing article into the format given by the Aviation Creator template - including swapping between the two infobox styles and converting to aerospecs specification template and forcing NOTOC etc - and also adding dummy references. An example is [7] on Ilyushin Il-10 - such edits do nothing to improve the individual articles and can damage the articles quite seriously - can you have a word with him?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the proposed merger of Il-1 with Il-10 on the talkpage. It needs some discussion (and hopefully some sources) on just how closely they are related and whether they should be merged or not.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P&W R-2800[edit]

Hi RL, I can't quite work out your last edit to the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 article, the infobox has gone? Did you intend that? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have rolled back to an earlier version by mistake. I have just seen your conversation with a user who has been following me through the engine articles and doing the same thing. I always copy the conversions exactly as written in the ref, if they are not there and I convert them myself then they get rounded to the nearest significant figure. Adding precise conversions different to the figures in the reference is WP:OR is it not? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was confused at first. Will go in there and fix it if you are busy. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added my thoughts on the subject per your request, hope it is not too long. Well done on the DYK BTW, nice to see aviation topics creeping in to the front page now and then. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was 'comprehensive'! I try not to lecture but sometimes you have to (I think this was my first 'lengthy explanation' come to think of it). The other book was this:

Gunston, Bill. World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines. Cambridge, England. Patrick Stephens Limited, 1989. ISBN 1-85260-163-9

It's used quite a lot in the engine articles and I was curious to see if the facts matched the book. You might have it already. It's a good overview but not much in the way of specs. The Lumsden book would hurt your foot if you dropped it! My only niggle is that his index is hard to use and even contains entries that are not included! It has an enormous amount of information. Should start a book pile photo competition (like yours), I am very unpopular with Mrs Nimbus for cluttering the breakfast bar!! Is it me or has it got hard going in here lately? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Gunston's book in your pile just now, it was a letdown when I got it but hey, ho! The FAA TDCS sheets are all there online and a very good specs reference. Bill G was probably short of US reference material (like I am) and wrote what he knew about I suppose, can't complain for £5 off FeeBay. It can be hard going and I have had short breaks due to frustration but my will is always there in the background to improve things in the av project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10[edit]

On 31 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Il-1 et al[edit]

Major OOPS their . sorry. I think nI might be trawling around trying to find something to do so I will slow down and think about what I am doing more, in future. I'm getting used to talk pageds now so will start discussion rather than leap in with both feet.forgot to sign 85.154.202.43 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC), wasn't logged in Petebutt (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petebutt (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)== DYK for Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9 ==[reply]

On 1 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.9, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons pikkies public domain[edit]

In frustration I am looking for pics that are stated to be in Public Domain. I am sure you have the same problem. Is this site true to their word i.e. "All material is in the poublic Domain" :-http://www.vectorsite.net Petebutt (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rePublic domain images[edit]

Nothing in particular, but there were a couple on that site I could use straightaway. I may put some of my pics on commons, unfortunately I always suffered from poor equipment and their quality is not terribly good, by digicam standards. I shall try and filter out the interesting ones. I posted a photo I took of the An-225 here at Thumrait the other day, The pan wasn't big enough to get far away enough to get it all in!!, - bad english never mind. Petebutt (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine infobox[edit]

Hi RL, It dawned on me tonight that there are two versions of the aircraft engine infobox in use, there is a short version and a longer (newer?) version with cost and number built etc. included. Compare J79 with RR Merlin. I don't suppose there is any way to automatically update the bottom half of this template? I note and support your recent conversation with another engine enthusiast. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that they are actually two different infoboxes, I guess we are sticking with the shorter modular one? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a poor comparison (editing too fast), how about this? It does not have the extra options. No sweat, I can update them manually when I see them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coding options are different in the first two articles aren't they?!! Need to watch TV for a bit, eyestrain. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now looking at the Merlin edit history that the parameter options after 'Major applications' were missing where they were already there in the J79. Adding them to the bottom makes it easier to update now I can see what has been added. Yep, the parameters are there to be filled just like redlinks. Seems daft removing something that you can't see until it's completed. I'm having a trip to a big aircraft museum this weekend, hope to fill some of the 'empty' infoboxes with images. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Feedback: Il-46[edit]

Thanks for that, I wasnm't 100% happy with the article but I couldn't put my finger on it, that is a lot better. The spec table in the book states AL-5 but that doesn't mean that the performance figures are not with AL-5F fitted. I shall start a discussion and see if anything comes up. Petebutt (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Hungarian fighter aircraft[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Hungarian fighter aircraft, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Hungarian fighter aircraft has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Hungarian fighter aircraft, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Images for your pages[edit]

Hi, if you want go to it:Hansa-Brandenburg B.I page and look my work. Do you like? And link & images uploaded in Commons? :-) See you and good fly.--Threecharlie (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

images[edit]

I wasn't sure where to get this info; Greg Goebel says the info is with each image, but I couldn't recognise anything as such. What I did was provide a link to his home page which says the images are Public Domain unless otherwise atated. Maybe this is a good thing, we can figure out what is required for his images, and wherer to find it. There is no problem deleting them they can be uploaded once we figure out where to get this info. forgot to sign Petebutt (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: images[edit]

I've had another look, the answer is in the images, each one has GVG/PD/1.1 somewhere on it. This is the liscence to use as public domain material. Is anything else required? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

images further[edit]

Thanks, that could be quite good, as he has quite a few that aren't covered by photos.Petebutt (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another image query for you![edit]

Hi RL, hope you are having a quiet time. I very much doubt that this image, Image:Tutor.jpg, is self-made by the author as is claimed. A quick Google search of 'Grob Tutor' shows this image many times, usually associated with Air Training Corps websites. It is most likely an official RAF photo but I can't track it down. Starting to get annoyed with this kind of stuff as I make an effort to take my own photos for WP (and none as good as this one). Camera or scanner metadata is usually included but I can't see it here. If you point me in the direction of the 'tagging process' I can start questioning them myself. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt it is an official RAF publicity image (crown copyright) http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/tutor/tutor_01_0800.jpg I have tagged the image as a copyright violation and removed it from the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hist merge[edit]

RL, I goofed! I just now found the abysmal North American YF-95 page. Had I known it existed (no links on the main F-86 page at all), I would have moved it to F-86D Sabre Dog before adding my new content. I don't see any reason to keep the current North American YF-95 page as anything but a redirect. Is it possible to do a hist merge at this point? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slingsby T.21 Sedburgh[edit]

Thanks for the edits of "Slingsby T.21 Sedburgh". I feel obliged to point out that "Sedbergh" is not spelt with a "u", and this name only applied to the RAF version, hence the original article name of Slingsby T.21. I haven't yet learnt how to rename and redirect articles, can you do anything with it ? Rcawsey (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the Slingsby Aviation page with preferred versions of the various glider type names. Most are now dead-end links, but some have articles with names that don't match. I may get around to writing articles for some of the types, though probably some are not significant enough to deserve an article by themselves, eg. Falcon II, Gull II.

Later aircraft from around type 53 should strictly speaking not have a full stop after the "T", eg.T67; with earlier aircraft there was wide variation even from Slingsby sources, eg. T43, T.43, Type 43, T-43. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference question[edit]

Me again! Hopefully an easy one, I see this inline cite often in the engine articles ^[1],

^ Tsygulev (1939). Aviacionnye motory voennykh vozdushnykh sil inostrannykh gosudarstv ([[Russian language|Russian]]: Авиационные моторы военных воздушных сил иностранных государств). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe voennoe izdatelstvo Narkomata Oborony Soyuza SSR. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

I don't understand any of it as it is in Russian, the website does not appear to have any clickable links to information and it is a 'cite book' template (minor detail). I would like to replace it with my English language references (amending the facts if they differ), just checking that this is Ok. I guess there is a guideline on 'foreign' language refs somewhere. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the reflist template to show it, sorry if it clogs your page, please delete at your leisure! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found WP:NONENG which appears to support replacement but I always like to check first.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, will get on to it soon, thanks.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re bold[edit]

I came across an article which all instances were bolded and thought that might be the convention, got it wrong again dad. On another note some articles don't show notes / references in the template, probably some kind soul ,like I used to be, deleted them but how do I get them back without upsetting the whole article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 14:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BOTREQ[edit]

Hello, Rlandmann. You have new messages at WP:BOTREQ.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion request[edit]

Ruediger, I am in the process of splitting the pre-Honeywell history of Garrett Systems to Garrett AiResearch. However, there is dubious content in the history, per this diff. I don't see any reason to keep it, since it's non-encyclopedic to begin with. I'd like to have that junk deleted if possible, especially since in contains names and an e-mail address. Thanks as always. - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! I've re-added the redirect, and will try to add the new article this week, if I can. - BillCJ (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab check-in[edit]

Is assistance still needed regarding the Battle of Britain? It appears as though the dispute/case has grown stale. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Camaro image[edit]

Please see User_talk:B4Ctom1#Image_permission_problem_with_Image:B4Cca.jpg on why the tag was put on. The issue of copyright is applicable given that it is unclear of whether or not the image was sourced from here and transferred to that site linked, or vice-versa, or from another source. If you can prove otherwise, then please, be my guest. Otherwise, do not remove boilerplate tag until the issue is resolved. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you bother to check the users talkpage to see if I even bothered in following the directions to inform the user of the tag, and perhaps see that I added the "little" note on the bottom of the message? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were checking to see if I did something wrong, why not make sure the message I put onto that users page was right as well, given it's part of the instructions of the tag to inform the user of the tagging? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AP-3C Orion[edit]

RL, just to let you know that I've been discussing the AP-3C article at User talk:Nick-D#AP-3C Orion. I'll bring it up on the P-3 talk page if it needs further discussion, perhaps copying from Nick's page, if he OKs that, as I think Nick would rather not have a long discussion on his page. I'm mostly playing mediator on this one, as I can see both views (keep or merge) have merits. - BillCJ (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You could not have known it was under discussion except by accident anyway, and I wasn't expecting you to know either, as we hadn't posted anything on either talk page! - BillCJ (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope that you don't mind, but I've restored the AP-3C article as a stand-alone (though I haven't reverted your changes to the P-3 article). I think that this will provide the best basis for a discussion of whether an article is warranted for this variant - I think that it is, but am more than happy to be outvoted! regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bell UH-13J Sioux[edit]

Hi-Thanks for the compliments!! I'm very happy with the way that article turned out. It took me about three hours to get it formated correctly, but once it was done it looks pretty good. Since the aircraft has only 24% parts in common with the Bell Type 47 (according to my restoration source at the Air Force Museum) I think it really does need to stay as it's own article. Only two were built, and they were purpose-specific for presidential use only, so thay also have nothing in common with the Type 47's duties. The source of information was "United States Air Force Museum" book for 1975. I have not posted the source yet since I'm still waiting to hear back from the Museum historian with the ISBN # for that edition (until the eighties they didn't list ISBN #'s in the guides). She wrote back saying she will have it shortly. Please do restore the article to it's own page aagin, and I will have the ISBN # up just as soon as she gets back to me with it. Thanks again - Ken keisel (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that I added on the 26th all comes from the book "United States Air Force Museum" (1975 edition). If you feel that this description alone is sufficent for reference I will go back and add it to all the articles that I updated. I was told by an editor that a title alone is NOT sufficent for a reference, as it does not describe the book's edition or publisher, and that the ISBN # was manditory for any modern referenced books. If this is not the case who am I to believe? Please do restore my article onto the Bell 47 page, and I will modify it to fit the story and specifications of that unique type. I'm sure you wouldn't do anything to delete all that work without saving a copy, though I have appreciated it if you had sent me a copy as well before you removed it. There was a good deal of work involved. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the Bell 47 article again I'm afraid I must totlaay disagree with you on incorporating the UH-13J into the article. The Bell Type 201 has its own article, and this aircraft has much more components in common with the Type 47 than the UH-13J does. In fact, if you were to look casually at the Type 201 you would not easily distinguish it from the Typw 47, while the UH-47J looks nothing like any Type 47 other model, and would never be taken for a Type 47 unless someown were told that was it's ancestory. I'm afraid I must ask you to please restore the article to its own page until we can get this worked out through Wikipedia. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works!! I've got the article. What you really need at this point is to see a photo of one of these birds. They have no resembelence to a Type 47 at all. They actually look much more like a small UH-1, with sliding doors on both sides. Note too the weight - 2,800 lbs!! Also, $65,000 would have bought you three Type 47's in 1957. These are entirely unique aircraft with very important presidential histories. That's why one went to the National Air & Space Museum and the other to the Air Force Museum as soon as they were retired. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I did some research on my own as well, and while the production numbers I got were different from yours, I do agree that the H-47J Ranger was a production model, of which the two UH-47J were essentially VC versions of the H-47J Ranger. This raises an obvious question as to how different an aircraft must be from other version to warrant its own article. Wikipedia should not be constrained by manufacturers who are simply conservative in changing Model codes when they develop new models. If this were the case than the Tu-22 and Tu 22M would be incorporated into the same article, even though they have no relation to each other except the reuse of the model number. On the other hand, the Mig 23 and Mig 27 have so much in common that they are really just versions of the same model. One has to disregard model codes at some point and let common sense take over when deciding if two different models warrant their own articles. I noted that not only do the VC-137's have their own article separate from the 707, but that each of the two VC-137's have their own individual pages as well. This is not only warranted, as each aircraft has an important history, but should be the standard on aircraft who's duties are historically significant. The same goes for planes such as "Memphis Belle" and "Flak Bait", even though there was nothing unique about them from a construction standpoint. I guess I'm taking the position that the more articles the better, as long as there is a good reason to separate a model or individual aircraft from the rest of it's ancestry. With regard to the UH-13J, I believe that the same holds true for them as the VC-137 and VC-25, that they have an important place in history as Presidential aircraft. I do also believe that there should be a separate article on the H-47J Ranger series, as this aircraft is so substantially different from the earlier Type 47 that it warrants its own article. I'm also not opposed to Bill's article on the Type 201 so long as it stresses the unique differences of that type. I find I'm more likely to click on a linked article, and learn something new, when someone has taken the time to write an article explaining why an aircraft like the Type 201 is different. Otherwise the Type 201 would just be lost in an overly long list of Model 47 variants, and that does more to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia than too many article would. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the book that I am using is not the one with the P-47 on the cover. I have that edition too, as well as over a half dozen others going back to the late 1960's. The 1975 edition has the B-70 on the cover. It's unique, as the text of the other editions contain largely just edited versions of the aircraft's display plaque at the time of publication (which is likely why no author is ever indicated). They list details about the type, but nothing about the aircraft on display. Whoever put together the 1975 edition went out of his way to add whatever information they had on the history of the aircraft on display, and how it arrived at the Museum. Sometimes this includes information that wasn't even on the display plaque at that time (I've been visiting the Museum regularly since 1971 and constantly watch for changes on the plaques). If you want to learn the publication year for one of these guides it was usually (but not always) printed in small type on the bottom left corner of the table of contents page. You also need to keep in mind that each edition was sold on average for three years before being updated (the 1970 edition was sold until 1972, I believe), though I believe the 1975 edition was updated again in 1976 for the bicentennial. The only publishing information contained in the 1975 edition is found on the last page, which reads "This booklet is published and distributed by the Air Force Museum Foundation, Inc., P.O. Box 33572, AMC Branch, Wright-patterson AFB, Ohio 45433." As you might have seen, I'm already gettting requests from other "editors" for the ISBN # of this book (which may not even exist). Feel free to contact the other person and update them on our discussion. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I will try to get around to updating the other articles with page #'s tomorrow. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke Delta[edit]

I loaned the magazine out to a friend last night. I'll be getting it back in a couple of days, and will fill in the rest of the information as soon as I have it (if someone doesn't beat me to it). - Ken keisel (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sikorsky-CH-148-Cyclone-1108a.jpg[edit]

RL, User:Skydog1531 has been trying to add images of the CH-148's first flight. His latest attempt Image:Sikorsky-CH-148-Cyclone-1108a.jpg claims he has permission from Sikorsky. Can you help him find out how to add proof of this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN[edit]

Hi and thanks for your remarks. One of the reasons I slipped ISBN (or other ref number in there) is that because of the links it generates in Wikipedia it makes it easy to check and see if the book actually exists or not and thus prevents "made-up" refs being added. I agree that it is nice to have, but not mandatory. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadair DC-4M Argonaught[edit]

Another editor just found the Canadair DC-4M Argonaught, and was proposing a merge to Douglas DC-4. However, since the Canadair North Star article already covers the same content, so I've converted it to a redirect. The problem is that the article's creator chose a non-existant title, rather than the correct DC-4M North Star or C-4 Argonaut (not Argonaught!) Since the uncited stub's history is at an unlikely search title for a redirect, should it be moved to a likely name, or can this be deleted outright? - BillCJ (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back![edit]

Dave is at it again. While I pesonally dislike the use of tables beyond a very few specific cases, the other editors seem OK with them here. Yet more ownership, and still no response to the RFC (AFAIK). This is getting old. - BillCJ (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too. FWIW, in the spirit of bold>revert>discuss, I've started a new section on the subject on the talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source of news[edit]

All the information on the restoration of aircraft that I listed comes from the Museum's restoration page at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/restoration/index.asp . As for Wikipedia not being a source of news, that is completely in conflict with the purpose of Wikipedia as it was stated when I joined in 2004. Wikipedia is intended to be an constantly updated source of information on any topic. As such, it serves a vital function by remaining timely while other forms of encyclopedia become outdated. Whenever you log onto Wikipedia the first thing you are presented with is the most important articles concerning currently unfoldind world events. If what you say were true then Wikipedia would bar users from writing about unfolding events until the event is fully resolved. Keeping articles on surviving aircraft updated on a daily basis is one the strong points that Wikipedia offers over a static encyclopedia. If you have any information from Wikipedia stating that unfolding events should not be covered please send them to me, otherwise please let me know how to reference the Museum web site in the article and I will restore the information to its location. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you're saying, and on common aircraft I would tend to agree with you. There's no reason to update everything that happens to a single DC-3 in one museum. I do think though that for very rare aircraft, like the F-107 or the XC-99, that updates on important work on them is a valuable inclusion for the "Survivors" section. Not only does it give those few folks interested in these rare planes a constant source of information on their preservation, but it also gives Wikipedia another valuable resource which other "paper" encyclopedia lack, and that is the ability to go back in time and trace the history of the subject through the changes to the article. In the future it may turn out to be very vauable to a researcher to be able to go back in time and see the updates that have occured to a rare aircraft, and be able to track them by incident and date. Do you see what I mean? - Ken keisel (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat AS.1 question[edit]

Hi, I've a question for you since you created this article...but since article-related questions are best discussed on the article's talk pages, would you mind taking a look there? Many thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touching base[edit]

Hello! I'm just touching base about the Battle of Britain mediation. What's the current state of things? Is there anything that requires my assistance at the moment? Do you think there's a need to keep the case open? Vassyana (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoH aircraft[edit]

Thanks for the help on the reference section!! I hope you like the article. I'll be working on linking it over the next few days. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just don't understand[edit]

What exactly is your problem with this template? Most people do draw a distinction between different sorts of gliders, and between aircraft designed to predominately glide and those designed to be predominately powered. Why on earth are you reverting this change?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's ?[edit]

Hi Rlandmann. I am carefully following the Infobox Aircraft reform and I think now is a good moment to ask a question. I am translating dozens of aeroplane articles into it.wiki. I noticed very very few of en.wiki articles have data from Jane's books clearly cited as reference book in the proper manner. I am the owner of several copies of ATW aircraft, Radar systems, Defence industry and so, purchased from the international surplus market and, if necessary, I can easily check in my company's private technical library where there are up to date copies of these books. Is there any reason why there are so few voices citing Jane's ? Do you have any guideline that discourages citing explicitly these sources ? Let me know as I could easily start a massive technical data check in order to add appropriate source citation, using my books and starting from my favourites: soviet planes and helicopters of '80s and '90s. Ciao --EH101 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ups! I did it again! This time 2 "articles" vs. 1 "voice" in previous passage. Lol, next time better ! Anyway, thank you for your advice on Jane's, I will slowly start my work on it and now I feel more comfortable. Bye --EH101 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The books by Jane's being costly is one good reason for that. ;) Good references are always appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine 'taskforce'[edit]

Hi RL, sorry to bother you. Could you tell me where your suggested engine page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines, would appear in the project please? I am quite keen to get this going. I would like to see an 'engines' tab added to the main aircraft project page, if you could create this with an 'under construction tag' I could add the initial page content advice/guidelines/tips etc using the format that Born2 suggested or similar, don't worry I would keep it simple!

I'm watching the glider/sailplane discussion, as an ex-professional gliding instructor I have some thoughts but am reluctant to get involved at this time. Can 'step in' if you want me to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect question[edit]

Following the Junkers Jumo 205 discussion on WT:AIRENG is it ok to replace the redirect code on the Junkers Jumo 204 page with article text? I have not done this before, have read WP:REDIRECT but it was not entirely clear to me. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed on sorting out glider and glider (aircraft)[edit]

I have now created an article called Unpowered aircraft to deal with the general case. I would now like to revert Glider (aircraft) back to the version at 22:47, 8 December 2008 by 71.202.65.243 when the article was called 'glider'. However since then a new article called glider has been created. I would therefore like to immediately delete this new article rather than using a 'subst:prod', because otherwise I guess that will not be able to revert the original article back to glider. I know I could just copy the contents of sailplane into the new glider article, but I guess that would be frowned on because this would lose the history and discussion. I have made a note of the changes made by people to glider (aircraft) and to sailplane (other than by wolfkeeper) and will be able to restore these to the old glider article after the reversion. JMcC (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. Unpowered aircraft supersedes Glider (aircraft) which is now redundant. I have copied the latter's talk page to Glider and checked to see what still links to it. There are some talk and user pages, but I do not want to amend those retrospectively. I can't find the links in Fixed wing aircraft, balloon (aircraft), Helicopter and Ornithopter, so these have not been adjusted. After a short interval, I will turn Glider (aircraft) into a redirect page to glider. JMcC (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Okay just clear up. One, I'm Australian not American Two, here we don't spell it like that but I didn't know the article was suppose to be in British English Three, had I known I wouldn't have edited it. Okay that's all. Nohomers48 (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Vostok1.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Vostok1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vostok1.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vostok1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot work[edit]

[8] I don't know if I ever replied to this. Obviously I didn't have time then, and I don't think I will anytime soon, either. Sorry. Gimmetrow 06:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/APG-80[edit]

RL, AN/APG-80 is currently a redirect to F-16 Fighting Falcon#F-16E and F-16F, a section which no longer exists under that name or format. In addition, there are some links to the APG-80 page here and in the F-16 variants page, obvioulsy circular. Is this a good candidate for conversion back to a redlink? I actually did click on it expecting to see an article! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this has been on my to-do list for a while, so I've replaced the redirect with a stub. If you look in Category:Aircraft radars, there are quite a few articles on radar systems, so it's in good company (don't worry, I'm not falling into the wp:othercrapexists mode!). AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alan! - BillCJ (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great new year[edit]

Thanks for your efforts, especially over the sometimes heated conflicts over editing the Spitfire articles. I see things are far more peaceful and civilised - long may it continue. In the meantime I hope you have a great 2009. Cheers, Regards! Minorhistorian (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and have a great 2009![edit]

Thank you for the corrections you have made on the article about the B-Monitor! it's great now! I'm looking forward to create more articles about the aircraft development history in Brazil, there were many attempts to establish a company like Embraer in the 30's 40's and 50's.Whatever i can do to help the wikiproject i will!

I'd like to ask you a question: how must i proceed to create a new category in the airplanes directory? for instance: Category:Brazilian sailplanes Category:Brazilian civil aircraft 1950-1959??

Wish you the best!

Lousadajr (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add to 'Aviation lists' template[edit]

Hi RL, myself and Adam have compiled a worldwide list of aerospace museums with the intention of adding it to the {{aviation lists}} template at the end of the 'general' line but then I noticed that it is protected from editing. If you think this is a good idea could you add it for us please? We have created some national museum navboxes as well. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of articles[edit]

I notice that you would like an update on the state of the discussions on the glider debate. In Wolfkeeper's favour there is no doubt academically that any heavier-than-air aircraft designed to fly without an engine is a glider. This has already been recognised in the article. However, if categorisation was the main basis for naming articles, the current glider article would have to be re-named 'non-foot-launched gliders'. Unfortunately for Wolfkeeper that is not what people call them. 'Sailplane' is occasionally used in the sport but has much less recognition by the general public. Wolfkeeper still has also not recognised that vast majority of the world's unpowered aircraft are defined by the world governing body, the FAI, as gliders, paragliders, hang gliders and balloons. (That sentence would get a 'fact' tag from him/her incidentally.) The vehemence of his opinion is curious because his/her idea of an article called 'glider' would have very little in it. The common features of an ASH25 and a man hanging from a parachute are few. So, as you can see, no consensus has been reached. Your heroic battling in the naming guidelines has not gone unnoticed and is much appreciated. Having said that he may quietly withdraw and devote his undoubted energies to more productive activities. I am beginning to think that sleeping dogs may best be left to lie. The scope of the current glider article is acceptable. JMcC (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC) & JMcC (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkeeper is now proposing to include gliding mammals in the glider article in the Talk page on Unpowered aircraft. He is quoting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There have been three attempts to change these guidelines by an anonymous user, 196.205.143.209, in a way which might support Wolfkeeper's case. These have been reversed by other editors. I suppose it would be most uncharitable to suggest that Wolfkeeper is trying to move the goalposts again. JMcC (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was getting paranoid. (If Wolfkeeper reads this, please accept my apologies) The change was actually by another user called Thingg who reverting the anonymous editor. (I recall that we only had one brief disagreement about tabulating data when the aircraft project subsumed the glider project. I suppose the layout is now consistent with other aircraft. I am beginning to reconise the advantages of collaboration. It is taking me a while but Wikipedia really is educating me about how to negotiate. Perhaps locking some Israelis and Palestinians in a room with instructions to write a Wikipedia article might do wonders. As far as I know the articles that have been affected are: glider and unpowered aircraft. Personally I do not mind if 'unpowered aircraft' disappears, provided that the history section is saved. It is just a categorisation of some fairly disparate aircraft, which was added mainly to please Wolfkeeper. I believe the 'glider' and gliding articles now roughly have their original scope. The 'glider' article refers to other possible meanings at the start but then concentrates on the common meaning. I guess that Wolfkeeper will suggest that this goes to arbitration. It will hinge on whether a name based on categorisation should predominate over a popular name. One of the things I did therefore was to search on the word 'glider' in Google.com. The word is used to as part of the name for many different products such as rocking chairs and several different computer program modules also use it. There is also a mammal called a 'sugar glider'. This crops up fairly frequently but only when the word sugar and glider are used together. To summarise, easily the most frequent use of the word 'glider' on a single subject in the first 50 entries is about rigid winged unpowered aircraft - some military but most recreational. About sixteen entries in total. No other single use comes close. The word is first used to describe hang gliders in article number 51 and only then with the prefix 'hang'. There are something like 1000 links in Wikipedia to 'glider'. A sample of these also shows that few are about unpowered aircraft in general, even excluding the large number of articles about specific types of glider. Add in the evidence of the terminology used by the FAA and the FAI and I think we have a strong case for the status quo. JMcC (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aeroneering[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aeroneering, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroneering. Thank you. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tools which can help you in the deletion debate[edit]

The article you created: Aeroneering may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroneering .

Hi Rlandmann, you seem like a very established editor, but these tools may help you.

Finding sources {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Aeroneering : google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For creating a truly amazing number of new aircraft type articles in December 2008 and January 2009 - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - no problem! You have been doing an amazing amount of work - it is noticed! - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glider debate[edit]

As you may have noticed the debate about the scope of the glider article has continued. Before any sort of consensus had been reached and without giving any sort of warning, Wolfkeeper has yet again made major changes to long established scope of the article. I know I must not start an edit war, but I dislike being given a fait d'accompli and feel justified in returning the article to the status quo while a resolution can be achieved. I have explained to Wolfkeeper the reasons for my actions. Your suggestions would be appreciated. Finally I unwittingly supported the deletion of an article that you created. Not the cleverest thing to do, though it still seems justified unless more material was imminent. Congratulations on the barnstar. JMcC (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard[edit]

Hi. You're the subject of a post on AN here. FYI. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Feedback[edit]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I've replied to them on my page, with queries (ncluding one asking if I should have responded here!).TSRL (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks again for the fast response and thoughtful comments. I think I'll continue in mild amiable disagreement about the relative reliability of the two sources - one cannot reassemble a register from a single source or even a few, I'd argue by definition - but the bottom line is to avoid both where possible. I will contact the GY guys when I've thought up a form of words hat will not injure their pride! Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett TFE109 deletion[edit]

RL, I'm preparing to create the Garrett F109 article, and I took a look at Garrett TFE109, which was the proposed civil variant. I saw that you deleted the page last month. Was there any usable content on that page? If so, could you restore it, and perhaps move it to Garrett F109? While I doubt the page will ever be more than stub, I do believe it needs to be covered. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No content it was just a redirect to Williams FJ44 and it was deleted very quickly after creation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Milb1, that's all I needed to know. The FJ44?? Are they related at all? That would be importnat to know, though I've found no evidence of that so far. I'll work of the F109 page tonight or tomorrow, and make the TFE109 page a redirect when it's finished. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No not related at all. The redirect was the result of my ham fingers; an article had a link to the TFE109 and another link to the FJ44 under a slightly different (redlinked) name. I went to redirect the FJ44 link and accidentally redirected the TFE109 link instead. Fortunately, I realised what I'd done just as I hit "Save" and immediately deleted it. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But since it had been deleted, I had to ask to find out, and also to see it there might be problem creating the F109 page, and linking the TFE109 to it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop XFT[edit]

Northrop XFT is currently a redirect to Northrop A-17 (despite the XFT and A-17 being completely different aircraft). Can you move the article I've drafted at User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox NorthropXFT to Northrop XFT while keeping correct history? Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksNigel Ish (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is still trying[edit]

I noticed some further edits from Wolfkeeper, which suggests he has not given up. He made a suggestion on the talk page for Gliding that an article about a sport should have a section on animal flight. I hope the illogicality of this was understood by him, when it was pointed out. However, changes were also made to Wikipedia:Disambiguation in which he tried to amend its importance with respect to NPOV, and to Wikipedia:Naming conflict with a similar intention. I reversed these. Another change to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was reversed by another user who felt it was overly prescriptive. I do not know what made him back off on Glider. If a decision was privately communicated to him, then perhaps this should be done again in the best interests of Wikipedia. His volume of editing is prodigious and I am concerned he could do great damage. JMcC (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that you're more or less stalking my edits, assuming bad faith, and arbitrarily reverting them purely on that basis. I find only about 1 in 10 edits to guidelines actually stick at the best of times (I can't recall off-hand a policy I've modified but I may have done), and the reasons for reverting them practically never seem to make any sense; are often along the lines of 'you edited it, no fair' and in some cases are what can only be described as (present company excluded) outright, bald faced lies (including and particularly certain infamous admins and an associated cartel).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I can only laugh at the idea that, what are intended to be well meaning edits that are as close to 100% compatible with wikipolicy as I know how to make them, and that by and large are incomprehensibly and comprehensively reverted by people with obscure motives while typically expressing vague theories about how the wikipedia 'should work', I could do 'great damage'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me RL, strike this if you like. We are watching your contributions because many of them are harming the project and need to be reverted. Would it be so hard to be a little more friendly and recognise the opinions of other educated and civil Wikipedians? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RL, can you check this diff for me [9], looks undiscussed and we don't use words like 'must not' on WP to my knowledge. This change is contrary to what has been happening in the Glider article recently. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I honestly don't think there's any relationship at all, not in the slightest. Please explain how that could possibly be. It talked about articles that encompass radically different definitions. The problem with glider is that it's been historically too restrictive; exactly the opposite problem. I suppose it might apply to unpowered aircraft, but we just had a keep on that and consensus overrides all the other policies anyway, and I had absolutely no plans in that regard either. I don't have a problem with you watching my edits, I have a problem with you undoing all my edits with weird paranoiac fantasies that they all apply to you and the glider articles. They just seriously don't!!!!! ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're also claiming that we don't use words like 'must not' in an article called "Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not"???? Ummmmmmm. Okkkkkk. ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What with you lot and Greg_L going around and inserting bizarre OR into the g-force article and ranting about meat puppets everywhere, and you claiming that I'm going to cause 'serious damage' to the wikipedia, or that 4 word change can somehow magically apply to an article that it couldn't ever apply to. Don't you think you might be all slightly over-reacting just a teensy bit sometimes, possibly maybe? ;-)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zlin 22[edit]

Just created Zlin 22 from the wanted list but not sure if it should be Zlín 22 or Zlín Junak or a something else!, the navbox has Zlín Z-22 but I cant find any reference that the early Zlins had Z prefixes. Help appreciated. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PWS[edit]

I have created PWS-12 which includes information on the PWS-14, the 12 was the prototype and the 14 was the production variant. Not sure if you want to move it to PWS-14? PWS-16 created as requested. Regards MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles with no content[edit]

It's usually a good idea not to create articles with no content. A better alternative would be to first create the article in your namespace, such as Rlandmann's Sandbox. This will ensure nobody deletes your article before you can add your information.-- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for the Photographer's Barnstar! Actually the photos are easy, compared to writing articles. I have something like 10,000 digital aircraft photos, I just shoot aircraft where ever I go. Some times I luck out and get an interesting one and then someone writes an article about it and I find a home for that photo. It is easy work! - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliders etc[edit]

I have stayed out of the debate on the Talk:Glider page because the vote seemed clear. Further discussion seems to muddy the waters again - hence this posting, rather than to the talk page. I have maintained that hang gliders and paragliders are technically gliders. The article reflects this technical definition in the intro at the suggestion of Wolfkeeper. Wolfkeeper is emphasising this technical definition should dictate the content of the article, whereas I understand that the rest of us think the common name is how the article should be named and should determine its content. Our debate should concentrate on the weight that we give to each basis for naming an article. Wolfkeeper's approach would produce one of two articles: a giant article covering gliders, hang gliders and paragliders; or a disambiguation page since there are fairly limited common features. Your latest comment seems to me to moving to an article that is based on a technical definition, even though it may be different from Wolfkeeper's. I believe that any technical definition is less important than what people look up, and Wikipedia's guidelines reflect this. I think that the article should refer to all types in the intro (military gliders, hang gliders, paragliders and even the Space Shuttle) but since the popular meaning is gliders, the rest of the article should describe them. If an universal definition is to be used instead of the popular name, I would prefer the classification of the worldwide body for air-sports, the FAI. This organisation ultimately defines the sport of hundreds of thousands of pilots, 99.9999% of the users of these aircraft. Look up the records section and you will see their classification of aircraft, ie gliders, hang gliders and paragliders. (It is also how we voted, bar one.) Obviously I favour this definition because it supports my point of view. However as far as I can see it is the only official body that attempts to classify all types of aircraft in a coherent way, rather than lumping all unpowered aircraft as gliders. Please bear in mind, if we always use the technical name for articles, we may have to rename Statue of Liberty among others. JMcC (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, not even the class D FAI definition agrees with your point of view. We went through that already. And I'm not emphasising any particular technical definition, I'm emphasising reliable sources. You know, due weight, NPOV, verifiability? You're the one emphasising glider=sailplane Jmcc150, and you don't have anything to back it up.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Jmcc150, you're acting like the fact that hang gliders and paragliders are gliders is a tiny point of view that you somehow feel at liberty to completely exclude from the body of an article. You have found no evidence that that is the case at all; and I genuinely found it really trivial to give references to the opposite, and I found none saying anything else. And it's not even like I'm trying to make these types of gliders take over the body of the article; I was pretty happy with the article of the 18 January[10], with subarticles to hang glide and paraglider, actually it needs expanding with more about 'sailplanes'. There's a substantial usage of the term for a wide range of other aircraft (as we've seen in the discussion certainly not just hang glider or paragliders), and the wikipedia needs to reflect that. I mean we've already agreed on about a dozen others. And it's not like hang gliders are going to take over- they've got their own subarticle anyway, that can never happen.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not like the sailplane-only article is high quality. The traffic on Rocket for example seems to be up about 25% since last year, which I can only assume is indicative of quality, whereas glider is flat; it's just not attracting new links and visits. I just don't think the users think that this article is really covering the topic well; when you have a general term like glider and it's only on a restricted part of the topic, it's not something people are going to respect; it's not encyclopedic in the covering-everything-sense. I just don't think it's what people really want.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that makes them go: never thought of that, interesting, yeah I suppose that SpaceShipOne is a type of glider. Gliding is a good article. This isn't. It's too specific and not general enough, and it doesn't even cover sailplanes properly, and it's deliberately scoped in such a way that the wikipedia has nowhere else to put the bits that it doesn't cover either; a deliberate exclusion. All in all, the article as of 1 December is a self-harming and wikipedia harming mess. Sorry, but it's true. And this is traceable back to Jmcc150's persistent attempt to define the article too narrowly, it removes all the colour, the real essence of what a glider is; it's not simply a sports plane.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit strike me as being disruptive to make a point. Or are we now to add Category:Glider aircraft to every aircraft article, with the possible exception of the F-105 Thunderchief? Even I know the difference between a powered glider, and an aeroplane that is able to glide enough to land safely without power by design. Surely an accomplished aerospace engineer such Wolf does too! - BillCJ (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Perhaps if I had added hundreds of aircraft, that would be disruptive. Adding an article about an aircraft flown by a glider pilot to a gliding landing, when the aircraft was designed to do that... not so much.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect page[edit]

RL, could you delete Charles Kaman, which is a redirect to Kaman Aircraft. Some "idiot" created the redirect, but once I saw who the idiot was, I decided not to warn him ;) Thanks! PS, what's the appropriate CDS tag for this type of deletion? I can't find one that's appropriate. - BillCJ (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was a bit odd! But at least we have something to work with and expand. - BillCJ (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox question[edit]

RL, regarding the old Template:Infobox Aircraft: Can this be restored? When checking the history of many aircraft articles, the box obviously does not work, which makes it difficult to check for old info or images without going into the edit screen, but one still can't view the image without taking several steps. Is there a way to restore the infobox with a message that it is deprecated or archived, but that would still allow it to work on old diffs? This is not a big deal, but it would be more convinient for checking history, especially since the new format has not been around even a year yet. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious hassle? No, but certainly a big nuisance. Would you mind If I asked about in on WT:AIR, and see if anyone else would like to see it turned back on? If I'm the only one who is bothered by it, then it's fine the way it is. I'd be willing to help out on patroling the "what links here", but I don't know what all that involves. Is there a way to use a deprecated tag to flag something when it's used in normal mainspace? Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation[edit]

Aircraft are categorised by means of propulsion in Category:Aircraft by propulsion. Would it be more logical if there were an additional category called Category:Unpowered aircraft? Within this category could exist rotor kites, and all the other types we have been discussing. If rotor kites are not gliders, then they should not be in any glider category. JMcC (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of gliding articles[edit]

User:Wolfkeeper up to his usual activities again and I would like some advice. Reason does not work with him and he will not accept a consensus. Merely reversing his (I assume he is male) destructive edits results in him re-instating them. Warring is just time-consuming and so we need to dissuade him by Wikipedia's rules, if he hasn't already changed them. Once more he has resorted to bad language and has deleted comments by other users who do not agree with his solitary views. The latest ploy has been to rename and expand an article that was called Lift (soaring) and is now called Gliding (flight). Despite telling him that gliding as a form of flight is only a descent, Wolfkeeper cannot see that this is the wrong name for an article about a branch of meteorology. He has also now finally decided that Unpowered aircraft need have very little in it, as I predicted, and so has moved the history of hang gliding and paragliding to the glider article, despite these histories already being in the hang gliding and paragliding articles. I have made concessions, eg the intro to both the 'gliding' article and 'glider' article to recognise the technical meaning of these words, rather than the everyday meanings that Wikipedia uses. ~~However I am reminded of Sudetenland and how unreasoning pressure should be resisted.~~ Your ideas would be appreciated. JMcC (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. So it's WWII and I'm German am I? That's not derogatory at all? And he WP:OWNs Poland does he? Could his bad faith be any clearer?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply Jmcc150 abusing his editing privileges to try to enforce a position that glider == sailplane (only) and that gliding is a sport done by sailplanes (only). It's as simple as that. This doesn't fly in the wikipedia; that's what disambiguation pages are for. We have multiple articles on single topic names. If Jmcc150 wants to try to define a word like 'gliding' as simply a sport, he simply can't do that. At best gliding as a sport may or may not the article that pops up first when you type in gliding. The definition of gliding as one form of unpowered flight is not a definition that he can remove from the wikipedia via some sort of stupid claim that anyone that disagrees with him are neo-nazis.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have written out the case but I am looking for the appropriate body to which I can submit. Suggestions gratefully received about it content before I do. Wolfkeeper has read greater meaning into my Czech reference than was intended. I am happy to withdraw this as a result.

Draft submission[edit]

There is currently a dispute about some titles of articles in the field of Air sports. I would appreciate opinions, but first I should give some background, but please bear with me.

Gliders were used in the development of aviation, such as by the Wright Brothers. However an activity developed in Germany in the 1920s that at first involved gliding as far as possible but then gliding quickly developed into sport that exploited rising air allowing flights over hundreds of kilometres and eventually thousands . In the 1930s achievements in competitions and records came under the umbrella of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). This is the wordwide governing body for all air sports. Gliding was a demonstration sport at the 1936 Olympic Games and was scheduled as a full sport for the 1940 Games.

In the 1960s and 1970s hang gliders and paragliders were developed. People still called the original gliders 'gliders'. In much the same way, records are still objects made of vinyl, while CDs were given the new name, even though technically CDs are records. Similarly hang gliders and paragliders are technically gliders, but in common parlance, they were, and still are, given distinct names. (Americans also use the word 'sailplane' but less often.) Consequently the FAI still calls the sport of flying gliders: 'gliding'. It refers to foot-launched craft as 'hang gliders' and paragliders' and their respective sports as 'hang gliding' and 'paragliding'. Competitions are also named in this way. The names of the sports are therefore clear.

You can make a case that technically any machine that is heavier than air and flies without power is a glider. This would include airliners with engine failure and model paper aeroplanes. However in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the name that is used is what people would expect to see when they look up a word. Thus if people want to see hang gliders that is what they type. Although it is not the major source of evidence, a search engine produces far more hits relating to conventional gliders than any other uses of the word, including hang glider.

Similarly the verb 'to glide' involves many activities such as dancing. It most commonly means the descent through the air, often smoothly and so could even include flying squirrels. However the present participle has a very specific meaning, namely the sport of using rising air in a glider, as defined by the FAI. In much the same way, climbing is an article on sport in Wikipedia, even though plants and animals also climb. The FAI still regard gliding as a separate sport from hang gliding and paragliding. The national authorities are inconsistent in their groupings, though the FAA for example when it has to distinguish types as in its instruction manuals, refers to gliders as gliders. It is accepted that some words have multiple meaning, but it would be contrary to Wikipedia's policy if articles with a principal meaning, such as London, were always reduced to disambiguation pages.

However one user insists that 'glider' includes stricken airliners, even though they are not certified for this, and that gliding includes the activities of squirrels. He, I assume he is male, is persistent, often forceful in his language and in a minority of one among the people who edit articles on aviation. He has appeared more than once on the Administrators pages for tendentious behaviour and edit warring. We have held votes to reach a consensus but he persists in going against it. Attempts at compromise have been made by recognising the strict technical definitions in the opening paragraphs, but this does not satisfy him. Currently he is constructing a duplicate article with which, I guess, he hopes to replace Gliding. Gliding was featured article in 2005 and will disappear as a result, if he succeeds. Some suggestions about the right way to proceed would be appreciated. JMcC (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The right way to behave is not to assume bad faith, to not accuse people of being Nazis, to not attempt to force a sporting bodies definition onto the wikipedia when a general definition is used in most other places including the FAA, CAA, the Encyclopedia Britannica, NASA and various other places, including most reliable sources that are in the form of general books on aviation.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allusion that I made was you can make concessions to some people and in the hope that they will appreciate an open-minded act, but sometimes they just keep asking for more. I have made further changes to the draft above and copied it to the glider talk page to avoid cluttering Rlandmann's page. JMcC (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin housekeeping help[edit]

RL, could you take a look at File:CFMI Logo.jpg, and see if it is useable? If it can be restored, I'll add a proper Fair-use rationale. I think that will be easier than trying to upload a new logo file. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the FUR a couple of hours ago. Hopefully I crossed all the "T"s! - BillCJ (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ADF Aircraft[edit]

RL, I just edited the Template:ADF Aircraft to update a link, and all theose non-breaking spaces make it incredibly difficult to read the edit screen easily. The non-breaking spaces aren't used in the Series Two group, but they are all on the same lines, rather than vertical as in most of the other aircraft templates, but that section especially would be incredibly long if listed vertically. Also, having Group two list the designations only, while the other groups also list names, is inconsistant, though I am sure Group 2 does not hav ethe names because of space. I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular for these, just commenting that the edit screen is harder to read. I assume they are used in the sections to try and make them line up in columns, but I use an older laptop with 800x600 resolution, so it does not line up on my screen. I'm bringing it up here first since you know a fair amount about these templates, and to avoid causing a row unnecessarily. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Milb1 either had the same idea, or saw my post here. It looks much better now. Thanks, Milb1! - BillCJ (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your post here and had noted before it needed attention. Sorry RL for using your talk page! MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance again requested[edit]

Wolfkeeper has set up a parallel article called Gliding (flight). It must be contrary to Wikipedia's policies to have parallel articles reflecting the separate views of editors. There should be an article about the glide as mode of flight. This could cover the physics of the forces, and the glide ratio. However Wolfkeeper has included material on rising air and launching in the new article. These are nothing to do with the mode of flight of aircraft, birds and mammals. Rising air is a meteorological phenomenon that is only exploited in the three air sports: gliding, hang gliding and paragliding. (References to three separate world championships could be added here). The glides of the Space Shuttle, flying squirrels and stricken airliners do not use rising air. The new article is therefore can only duplicate the sports articles. This article is trying to cover three sports at the same times and so risks confusion. There was an article about rising air called 'lift (soaring)' which covered this subject, but this has been merged into this new article. The restoration of a separate article on rising air could be useful in articles on raptors, which would otherwise be linked to an article that included winch launching. An article purely about the glide as a mode of flight would also be useful in other articles on animal locomotion. On one occasion I attemted to remove the duplicating aspects of gliding (flight) but I have been told that I am abusing my editing privileges. Your analysis and your advice would be gratefully appreciated. JMcC (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) & JMcC (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding and soaring is employed by a very wide variety of creatures including, but not limited to, birds (sea birds, raptors, carrion feeders), flying fish, gliding mammals, bats and possibly some insects as well. Come to think of it, even some spiders do a form of soaring. I therefore find Jmcc150's comments completely inaccurate on every major point. His complete desperation to include information on sports gliding of only sailplanes to the detriment of the wikipedia, and to systematically minimise and remove every other form of glider in case it affects his glorious articles in any way at all, is a clear violation of NPOV and is not defensible.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right place to continue the debate. The last two paragraphs copied to Talk:Gliding (flight) JMcC (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Gimli Glider should be categorized as a glider because it was designed to glide, does that mean the A320 of US Airways Flight 1549 should be categorized as a flying boat because it was designed to be able to float? - BillCJ (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find one or more solid non trivial references to it being described as such, then, under the rules of the wikipedia that you are currently editing, yes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian turtles[edit]

RL, I've belatedly responsed to your e-mail about Australian turtles. Sorry. - BillCJ (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ryan M-1[edit]

On February 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ryan M-1, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 10:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

An outside opinion please[edit]

I recently noticed National Rural Letter Carriers' Association and am concerned that the images used concerns personality rights of these living people in all the images used. There is no statement about the permission to use this photos by the people depicted. Perhaps of more concern is the apparent soapbox quality that are being used to promote the views of the NRLCA mainly by User:Johnny Spasm. Is there any concern here or am I just over-reacting? Cheers TIA ww2censor (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have answered me here to keep the discussion together, but thanks for your opinion. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on glider article[edit]

I have a proposal to end the glider debate with a new name and then I will explain how and why it should be done. I have not put it on the Glider talk Page, because I wanted your reaction before the debate ensued. My edits are watched so it will not remain a secret for long! I cannot make a decision on behalf of all other interested parties and this proposal may not be greeted with universal approval, so your input would be appreciated. Part of my reason is exhaustion. Although this should not be the way things are decided, I have to think about life outside Wikipedia. If someone else would like to argue for the status quo, they have my best wishes.

I propose that the term used to denote rigid wing aircraft used for recreational purposes is 'glider (sailplane)'. I have contended that the word 'glider' be used for the most common type of these aircraft. I maintain it to be a position that is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. However it does give rise to difficulties. In particular there is no doubt that many other unpowered aircraft are technically gliders, even if they do not have this as a common name. The intro to glider has to become complicated (at least it had before Wolfkeeper edited it recently) to explain which aircraft are being described. There are also a few occasions when all unpowered winged aircraft need a name. 'Glider (sailplane)' preserves both worldwide and US terminology. The existing Aircraft Category box does not now need amendment either. It also allows the continued use of the word 'glider' in all the hundreds of existing articles. It isn't what the knowledgeable majority wanted, but I have to make a practical decision based on how Wikipedia operates.

As I understand it, a simple move will leave the word 'glider' as a redirect. The vast majority of articles link to 'glider' as sailplanes (I have checked them all). If the word glider is re-used for an article with a more generic definition, all these links will be misdirected. If possible a bot should be used to rename everywhere there is [[glider]] to [[glider (sailplane)]]. There will be a few places where this is not appropriate eg 'primary glider' but it would be easier to change a few rather than many. If a bot is not possible, then we will have to leave 'glider' as a redirect and think of a generic name for for all types of glider. I dislike 'glider aircraft' as tautologous. 'Glider types' I suppose is a possibility. Whatever it is called, I hope it does not become another 'cut and paste' duplicate.

I hope that the other articles in this field are non-controversial. If an overarching summary is needed of gliding, hang gliding and paragliding, then Air sports is the obvious article to pull them all together. I feel that others should scrutinise 'gliding (flight)' more closely. I still think the current scope of this article is unnecessarily wide. It is easy to create yet another article with cut and paste. If you came across it first you would think it wonderful. However in my experience, redundant articles are not well maintained. The more overlapping articles there are the less chance that someone with any knowledge of the subject will be able to update, even just to preserve it from vandals. With a limited scope of descending flight 'gliding flight' has a better chance.

Lastly, so much energy was devoted to combatting Wolfkeeper's unrelenting tactics and imperfect knowledge, that little time was available to think about the issue. I hope Wolfkeeper reflects on his behaviour. A different philosophy would have saved him a great deal of time. JMcC (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding now queried as a title[edit]

Wolfkeeper has now suggested that Gliding becomes a disambiguation page. I can see no need for this. JMcC (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glider[edit]

Hi Rlandmann, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji/Rockwell Commander 700[edit]

RL, there is a photo of the Fuji/Rockwell Commander 700 on ja:FA-300. It's not on COmmons, but it appears to be usable. COuld you check this out? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft categories[edit]

Now the dust is settling, the aircraft category box may have to be looked at again. The problem is that the FAI's dividing line between gliders and hang gliders/paragliders is not the wing but the undercarriage. Some hang gliders have rigid wings^[1]. I therefore suggest removing the sub-headings "Unpowered fixed-wing" and "Powered fixed-wing" and "Unpowered flexible-wing" and "Powered flexible-wing". I suppose you could add groups called foot-launched and non-foot-launched but putting an F22 in the non-foot-launched category seems odd! In fact, I had always though that fixed-wing aircraft were those which were not helicopters. The category called glider can be linked to glider aircraft. JMcC (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question on policy[edit]

Hi Rlandmann, Very recently I received an interesting email from Mike Williams, one of the site owners of http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ and http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html in part it reads:

I am familiar with the work you’ve done on Wiki and an article you did for “The Spitfire Site”. I first became aware of the Wiki articles when our site starting receiving referrals from Wiki. Then it came to my attention that some your work was being attacked and that links to our pages were being systematically removed from a whole host of Wiki articles. I attempted to contact you back in September last year, via the editor of the Spitfire site, without any apparent success. I had hoped to share certain information, documents and book references to help you support your narrative. I gather that primary source documents obtained through our research efforts are off limits at Wiki and that I and my site have been rather badly smeared and consequently a liability for folks such as yourself wishing to draw on the documents which we’ve made available. That’s unfortunate. As a consequence, however, and not to be deterred in presenting a reasonably accurate understanding of WWII era aircraft, I’ve been adding book references in various articles and aircraft pages at our site that other researchers, such as your self, can draw upon.

A days ago I contacted Mike, for the first time ever, to ask about being involved in a site forum. I said nothing about what had happened last year, apart from mentioning that I edit Wikipedia articles. Other people drew Mike and Neill's attention to what was being said about their websites. This just goes to show that what happens on Wikipedia can have an effect on other websites and on other people. It is obvious that both Mike Williams and Neil Stirling put a lot of time and work into their sites, and to have someone else undermining their efforts by casting doubts on their objectivity and integrity, using a popular site such as Wikipedia as a means of doing so, must be very disappointing.

Fortunately that is all in the past and I hope will never raise its ugly head again. My question is; because the site owners are going to great trouble to incorporate published sources as the basis of information being presented (partly in response to what was happening on Wikipedia), would it be possible to cite this information in Wikipedia articles in conjunction with reliable published references? TIA Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying; I will find out if Mr Williams has published any of the information he has presented. I've already explained to him that I removed the links, which I had mostly incorporated in the first place, and that his sites are listed under external links, where appropriate. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article hist merge[edit]

RL, I recently reated the Continental Motors Company as a split from the Teledyne Continental Motors in an effort to move the automobile and car engine info out of the aircraft engine article, which I am preparing to expand to cover TCM and Teledyne CAE in more detail. After I created the article, I found the Continental automobile page, which I have now merged into the new article. Would it be possible to merge the article history of Continental automobile to Continental Motors Company? I've aready moved the talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Type B[edit]

Afternoon RL, I've been doing some Blackburn stuff of late and in the process came up with some nice Flight pics of what they called the Blackburn School Monoplane. I put the link on the Mercury page that you set going. I looked in Jackson (Blackburn) to get an i/d and found one of Flight's triplet called the Type B. There is a clash here, in that the photo shows a single seater but our page says twin. According to Jackson, the history of Mercury racing no.27, which seems to be what this is, is messy: starts as single in 7/11, converted to twin in 8/11, crashed 3/12, rebuilt as single by 4/12 when it becomes known as the Type B. It also got a new racing no. as well (33). Mind, Jackson says the photo is 1913 but it appears in Flight 16/11/12 so like the rest of us he can be wrong! Do you have anything that makes you doubt his narrative?TSRL (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of ShinShin.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of Defence Aviation (defenceaviation.com). The image Shinshin is free to be published and distributed. Dailylark (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shinshin image[edit]

Actually one of my employees took the image. So the rights of the image belong to me. Which I made it public. Please try to retain the image, the article really needs that image. --Dailylark (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake, whatever happened to assuming good faith on the part of image uploaders? I've been pounding the table for over a year now that Wikipedia is going to legislate itself out of existence as a useful resource if this copyright hysteria continues, and this is a fine example thereof. MalikCarr (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we're doing is "revolutionary"? Surely you jest. What we have accomplished over the last two years is to make Wikipedia infinitely more draconian and unfriendly to use, with hardline Wikipedians crushing anything that doesn't fit the straight and narrow line (mold?) with utmost zeal. Our system assumes fault with the contributor if there is the slightest inkling that a policy or guideline might be being infringed, and a mentality exists that it is better to have no content than content that might not be 100% within the few of the most zealous of Wikipedians.

Because of this new extremist slant, I don't even contribute much anymore - when I rewrite an article to be more informative and helpful to the end user, a few policy fascists and an admin with a chip on his shoulder proceed to revert tag-team anything I do for months on end because of "flowery language" or "inadequate third-party sourcing", it reduces the incentive to contribute to near-nil. Why bother? The system does not reward contribution, only rigid adherence to policy. The vast majority of my edits now consist of trying to prevent things from being deleted that are obviously encyclopedic in nature, and simply have run afoul of a policy the original contributor likely wasn't aware of, or didn't explicitly understand, or has a less extreme interpretation than the deletion-minded clique that runs the show today.

I find your analogy to using someone's car or house to be particularly discouraging towards the nature of the modern Wikipedian. Intellectual property, unlike physical property, is not a finite resource. Using someone else's car by taking it out of their garage and going for a ride at their expense is theft - they now can't use their car, and who knows what you'll do with it, not to mention the mechanical wear you've incurred on the vehicle, which is all a loss of the owner. Using someone else's image by taking it off their publicy-viewable website is not theft - they still have the image, they can still sell books or documentaries or whatever with that image in it, and the value of the image has not been reduced by your usage of it. This premise can be found in much greater detail and eloquence in the following essay - Fixing Copyright - though, I might be violating a policy by linking to a Creative Commons Noncommercial licensed-work... who knows.

But, why bother with discussions of philosophy about copyright and intellectual property and such? Let's be pragmatists here, you've already offered a completely functional and reasonable course of action in the form of WP:OFFICE takedowns and such - if someone can't stand seeing their content on Wikipedia, fair use or free use or whatever, the administration is more than happy to have it expunged from our servers immediately. Problem solved.

So, what is it we've accomplished again? On the presumption of guilt, a Wikipedia user now has no visual aid for the ATD-X prototype, and we all pat each other on the back for a job well done. This is dense. MalikCarr (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, I do believe we've arrived at an impasse. However, as a political scientist, I will continue to debate on principle. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't the obscure little resource it once was - if you put "Mitsubishi ATD-X" into a Google Search, we're the first hit that shows up. "Catching" us "pirating" someone else's content is a matter of a single click, and submitting an OFFICE request for people who can't stand the idea of us using their material is a few more. Nevermind the fact that that image, as a digital resource, is an infinite good whose value is not decreased by appearing on Wikipedia - if FNN objects to us using their image (which I note remains contested by dailylark (talk · contribs), who says one of his employees took it), let them do what any other entity would and politely say so, and our system fixes the problem.

Of course, the image simply could have been relisted as fair use while we determined its copyright status, thus preserving the maximum usefulness of the article, but that would be detrimental to the pie-in-the-sky idea of having only free content on Wikipedia. It's a pipe dream, nothing more - Wikipedia needs to decide if it will be the sum of all human knowledge, or a collection of free information that can be commercially used by anyone, and I fear the latter is trumping the former as of late. Wikipedia can't even be an advocate for the creation of truly free content anymore, since Creative Commons Noncommercial licenses can't be used - saying "this is free content and you aren't allowed to restrict is usage" is bad for free content, you know. This smells flatly like a Ministry of Truth statement. MalikCarr (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Yonder EZ King Cobra‎ & Blue Yonder EZ Harvard‎[edit]

Thanks for adding the Category Replica Aircraft to these two new articles - I had forgotten that we have that cat! - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviator[edit]

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Can you Unblock my account[edit]

Hi ,well i was blocked for gross incivility on 21st September,2008. I promise i won't be uncivilised again. Actually i miss my old account very much. Thats why i want it back again. This is my Account (User talk:Rhp 26). I SWEAR I WON'T MAKE SARCASTIC COMMENTS.
(203.115.93.214 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Infobox problems[edit]

RL, I've added {{Infobox Career}} to the VC-137C SAM 26000 and VC-137C SAM 27000 article. However, there is a problem, as the "Career" banner is truncated on the right. I tried several things, and finally removed the entry from the "variants with their own articles" field from the {{Infobox Aircraft Type}} template, and this solved the problem. Evidently, there is some problem in that field when it is filled. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - It looks like it needs a new line command in the variants with their own articles bit but I dont know the syntax !! If you add anything into the Type field in the Career template the Career banner dissapears! MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - it's a bug in "Infobox Aircraft Type" – I'll hunt it down. :) --Rlandmann (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the time issue is not a problem, especially since, as you noted, I removed the type infobox from the VC-137C pages. Both Type and Career are on the VC-25 page, as I think is correct, but there is no entry in the "variants with their own articles" field there, so its not an issue now either. - BillCJ (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R23X class airship[edit]

Just thought I'd pass this by you before inflicting it on the unsuspecting general public! I know that you previously AfD'd similar attempts at this subject on the grounds of copyvio, and I'm acutely aware that having significantly relied on one main source I might have fallen into the same trap, so if you can spare the time I'd be grateful if you could give it the once-over and let me know what you think. Cheers. --Red Sunset 23:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks RL; just wanted to be sure! :-) --Red Sunset 08:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ken keisel[edit]

Per User talk:Ken keisel#Survivors Section, Ken is having trouble on the F-82 Twin Mustang page with a certian user and his IP deleting text with useful info to add his odd formatting. Can you help Ken? The moment I make comment on this, I will become the issue! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Mig270.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Mig270.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm back[edit]

Been doing other things, I now have access to more books, so will contribute more. I notice that you aren't very active at the moment is all OK?? Petebutt (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avro 502[edit]

Morning Rlandmann. I've just been browsing early Avros and note you have the 502 as a single seat 500. Jackson's "Avro aircraft since 1908" has the 500 as both single and two seaters (the g/a diagram on p.40 shows a single seater labelled 500). In his short article on the Burga monoplane, he suggests that may have been the Type 502 "of which no details survive except that it was a single seat monoplane." [My italics]. My copy is the 1965 ed, so it is possible that more info turned up later. Any thoughts?

I'm also unable to find anything on the "Avro Mercury" which appears red linked an the Avro page. Unlike Jackson to miss it, unless it's tucked away somewhere. Nothing in his index.TSRL (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Vostok1.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Vostok1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:HMVS_Cerberus.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:HMVS_Cerberus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Oskar Ursinus.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Oskar Ursinus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Go229.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Go229.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Opel RAK1 plane.jpg[edit]

~~File Copyright problem~~
Thanks for uploading File:Opel RAK1 plane.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed sourcing - needs further disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Yuri Kondratyuk.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Yuri Kondratyuk.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to get involved![edit]

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:MiG-3.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:MiG-3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas[edit]

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Rlandmann! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 10 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Valery Bykovsky - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Vladimir Shatalov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Aleksei Yeliseyev - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Valeri Kubasov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Anatoli Filipchenko - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Viktor Gorbatko - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Vitali Sevastyanov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Pyotr Klimuk - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Aleksei Gubarev - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Vitali Zholobov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Keystone aircraft[edit]

^ Swift

[tsygulev-1] Tsygulev (1939). Aviacionnye motory voennykh vozdushnykh sil inostrannykh gosudarstv ([[Russian language|Russian]]: Авиационные моторы военных воздушных сил иностранных государств). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe voennoe izdatelstvo Narkomata Oborony Soyuza SSR. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

[2] Swift

[1]

[1]