User talk:BilCat/archive4

August 2006

Messerschmitt Me 262

Bill, some IP is claiming I removed his information, I think he has me confused with you- we are both "Bills" but vandals and trolls can't make out the difference. He sounds and writes like an idiot so be careful, poke him first before getting close. Just kidding! |:¬∆ Bzuk 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

I just read his comment on your page. I don't usually remove cited info on cite unless it's patently ridiculous, blatantly false, or a copyvio. I'll check it out, and see what I can find out. - BillCJ 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My confusion, I may have accidently reverted this entry but it came from at least two different IPs and is it right? I don't know, see my comments on the talk page. He states: Hugh Morgan, John Weal German Jet Aces of World War 2 pg. 78 Appendix, clearly states that Me 262 is recognized with 760 including 10 from Me 163" What does that mean? It is in variance with the history of the introduction notes and the source of discussion in the past. IMHO Bzuk 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

The part about the Me-163 is throwing me too. Perhaps that is actually a squadron total. Anyway, I've added a {{vs}} tag, as we definitely need t6o verify that source, and find some corroborating sources for the correct figure. - BillCJ 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre editwar

Thanks for your note on the reverts in the aircraft forum. I recall that I only made one reversion in what I thought was a vandal attack (never thinking it was an admin with an agenda); I copied a whole "last clean edit" and put it back in place but he/she immediately reverted, I would put it back and immediately it was reverted, a few more times of this back and forth and I gave up, put a space into the infoboxes to indicate a change and then placed a request in the edit history for an administrator to look at the article. I had already asked for a stop in the attacks and indicated that the 3R limit had been reached as well as placing a query in the aviation group forum for assistance. I would have never guessed that this campaign to eliminate all pop culture sections was coming from an admin but you seemed to have known. When I called for an administrator, guess who responded? I can only laugh at the silliness of this whole escapade with me frantically trying to head off what I believed was a deliberate troll/vandal attack, having seen so many of them in the past concentrating on the popular culture sections, and meanwhile the other person was calmly reverting everything and quoting all sorts of protocal and guidelines. I should have picked up on that, ordinary vandals don't often cite justification for their actions. I have no idea where things are, but I know that Jeff Finlayson was also involved and I bet both of us thought that a very sophisticated vandal was at work. Oh well, live and learn... |:¬[ 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) .

Help

Our mutual Italian friend requires some help in editing, he is now contributing to the Ki-61 Hien and Ki-100. I can sort out some of the grammar and spelling, but I have corrected this countless times. He continues to make the same mistakes, not capitalizing months, using measures such as "ltrs." and other basic errors. I have written to him by email, posted on his home page and asked for other help from the aviation group forum. There is also another major issue that I haven't fully addressed but that is that most of the submissions are POV and sound like they are copied from magazines as well as being wholly Italian-centred- go figure, but still, much of the stuff is useless but I don't want to just hack and slash. What do you think? FWIW Bzuk.

OK, I've hacked and slashed for ya! Btw, I've never heard of the K1-100 having problems against B-29s over Japan. IIRC, B-29s flew at low-medium altitudes (5000 ft?) during 1945 (mostly for fire-bombings). - BillCJ 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did have a much "gentler" idea in mind but nonetheless, I guess I owe you, first born okay? He's a sports reporter. I could give up the wife, she's a politician (naw, bad idea); I hope she isn't reading over my shoulder. I think you might be right about the dumps, I certainly can't write that fast but who knows; my main concern was that he isn't on a learning curve and continues to add data but not real edits. Check out his history, he seems to latched onto the aviation history articles that revolve around wartime Italian aircraft- again, no Einstein brain waves here. [:¬ø Bzuk 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

I have been biting my tongue each time I edit his work since I don't really want to bite a newbie, in reality, I am one myself and know what it is like to go through the initial period of finding your way around. I have taken to finding my own reference sources on Italian subjects and most of them are written in a very polished, professional way in stark contrast to his very "bold" declarations. I can't tell where his information comes from but since he only quotes magazine articles, I think they may be his primary sources. I write for periodicals myself and although I know that there is a requirement for authority and corroboration, it is much less rigid than what is demanded by book publishers. BTW, he has reverted your whole edit, so I re-edited the Ki-61 because I had put it in a database for a future edit, irregardless, I have put it in for the time being. FWIW Bzuk 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

Bill, I think this guy needs help in editing. It was not my intention to delete his submissions. He may have copyvioed them, I don't know. I didn't want you to get involved in an editwar, reverting to an earlier edit was my decision to placate what I think are very sensitive emotions. He is very clearly watching all my contributions so again, I stand by your change but my first concern is to help someone who obviously is very knowledgable about Italian subjects but requires a team of editors helping him. My main worry was because I was doing the majority of the edits, he thought I was hounding him. Much the contrary, I find him a bit of fresh air, tackling new and interesting topics that I had no background in and forcing me to become more conversant with Italian subjects. FWIW Bzuk 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

Look what we have here

It seems that you guys are trolling against me or i have missed something? I am here by days, not months, and if Bzuk have not patience with my grammar can still wait and do some other things.

As POV statements, well, evidently Bzuk have not idea of waht he says. I am not interested to glorify italian aircrafts, but simply let wikiepians what i learned about. If you have problems with me, as personal, well, you have only to speak clear about. Nobody costrict me to lost my time to write, just to let you delete it just for fun, and babbling against me with your mindless statements.

I await your excuses, still, for the gratuitus deleting and accusations without any EVIDENCE. In faith. --Stefanomencarelli 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, and by the deletion. - BillCJ 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And you have not properly cited your sources in the text, as required - so the obvious assumption is that is is a copyvio of something - BillCJ 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not take a genius to look at your writing style above, and know that you did not write the bulk of the text you added. We CANNOT use copied text unless it is public domain. The text MUST be rewritten so as to contain the same information, but not be a direct copy of it. I have to abide that. YOu have to too, even if English is not your first language. If you have this much trouble with English, you probably should not try to add material to articles. You are welcome to address your concerns on the aritcle talk pages, but please leave the writing of the articles to people with a better command on the language. The more you work in Engilsh, the better your language skills will get, IF you pay attention to how others write, and accept their criticism of your writing. If you can't, then you really ought to find an Italian language site you can contribute too. - BillCJ 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

---

1-SO you are continuing to insulte me with your GRATUITUS ACCUSATIONS? Well, you have only to add me PROOF. With 'presume bad faith' wiki must close as soon as possible.

I challenge you. In the whole universe, FIND WHERE I HAVE COPIED SUCH TEXT. Or give me your excuses. I DON'T fear any proof against me about copyviol. I wrote 2000 articles in wiki.it and NOBODY have felt me guilty of such accusation. And never it will be, 'cause i simply DON'T NEED to copy anyone. I know that i write, plain and simple.

2-Here you posted in Bzuk talk:

I've never heard of the K1-100 having problems against B-29s over Japan. IIRC, B-29s flew at low-medium altitudes (5000 ft?) during 1945 (mostly for fire-bombings). - BillCJ 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviosely don't know A lot of things. Mom hadn't said that Ki-100 wasn't an high altitude fighter? And that B-29s flew at 5000f. ONLY in night missions? And that Ki-100 was rated as 20-22 minuts to climb at 10000m.? As Joe Baugher wrote in his encyclopedia:

---

However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the maneuverability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29. In an attempt to improve the high-altitude performance, the Ki-100-II version was evolved. It was powered by a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II Ru with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection to boost power for short intervals. Because of a lack of space, the turbosupercharger had to be mounted underneath the engine without provision for an intercooler and its associated ducting, with air being ducted directly from the compressor to the carburetor. It first flew in May 1945. The lack of an intercooler limited the high-altitude performance of the Ki-100-II, and the turbosupercharger added 600 pounds to the weight, which reduced maximum speed by 15 mph at 10,000 feet. However, the boosted high-altitude power enabled a maximum speed of 367 mph to be be reached at 32,800 feet (the cruising altitude of the B-29 during daylight operations). It had been planned to begin production of the Ki-100-II in September of 1945, but only three prototypes of this high-altitude interceptor had been produced by the time of the Japanese surrender.

---

So, a bit of examples of what you pretend to know.--Stefanomencarelli 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, "I had never heard" of the K1-100 having problems agianst B-29s, not "the Ki-100 never had problems agaist the B-29. YOu've shown me a source, good. But you still hven't addressed where you got the text from that you posted in the article. Just so you understnad what I mean by copyvio, we are not legally allowed to copy copytighted text word for word, or even with just a few word changes. It MUST be rewritten. ALL of us have to abide by that standard. So when you add text that is better written than anything I've ever seen your write before, I am going to QUESTION it. If I knew for sure you had nmade a copyvio, you would have a warning on your talk page right now. I don't know for sure, but we are allowed to ask questions when something seems wrong. Wikipedia can be sued for violating copyright laws, so this is not something to take lightly. We are told that when we doubt the legality of added material, to remove it until the question is answered correctly. That is what I did. If you have a problem with that, then agian, English WIkipedia is probably not the place for you to write. - BillCJ 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, as I said to Mark, I did think the articles were mainly derived from magazine articles as he had indicated in a note. Since Stephan has created/written approximately 2000 articles previously in the Italian Wikipedia and his concentration was on Italian aviation history, what I think is happening is that he is translating these Italian articles so he has a huge amount of text but since English is a second language, there is the inevitable garbling of words. This is just a supposition but I believe that our friend is mostly concerned with creation of articles not necessarily editing because this is still a very difficult arena for him to master. In translating some of his Italian notes, I found that he is actually trying very hard to learn English but as you can appreciate, it isn't an easy thing to do especially with all the idiosyncrasies in the language. I recall an old English teacher once remarking that English is one of the five most difficult languages to learn for foreigners. And my abject apologies for getting you caught up in this very emotional current. [:¬∆ Bzuk 04:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

I'm OK now, I've been able to calm down - it's not as easy at it used to be before I hit my 30's! Anyway, I think he is wtihdrawing for now, per this notice on his user page

So i am accused of copyvioling. Improving my english has done this result. Excellent. So i am disgusted by the manner found here as well (mainly because the 'patience' of one of the wikipedians, that has an 'Z' in his nickname), that i leave you with happiness. If not to know is best that 'to know disturbating things, well, this ambient is good enough for your desires. I wait excusations by nickanmed involved in this 'bad' story.

I'm sure that as a professional editor, you know how to see potential in the writing of others. But given his hostility towards your constructive criticism all along, I can't say I'm sorry to see him go. Whatever his problems with the Italian Wiki were, I have a feeling we've seen some, if not most, of them. - BillCJ 05:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages

PS. The top 5 toughest languages to learn: English, Chinese, Cockney/Irish/Scots/Canajan English, Southern Fried US English, and Caribbean English~ :) - BillCJ 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Did I copy that accurately? and the easiest languages to learn? Number #1 was Ukrainian? (no kidding), then the romance languages, French, Spanish, Italian. FWIW Bzuk 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Something you said in one of your posts got me to thinking – has anyone checked our friend's past history at It.Wikipedia? Bill, you must be one smart SOB, all of your deductions were exactly bang on. Write me by email and I'll give you the details. You continue to astound me! [:¬) Bzuk 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

F-35 Gallery

Purpose of this gallery was to show pics. I wont tell u reason to put the gallery on that page, but tell me why shouldnt I? zikky

Thanks! Email is coming. It's been my experience that problem people are problems wherever they go, whatever they do. Yes, we've all been judged unfairly before, and suffered for it. But I usually take great care to watch my behavior if I get a second chance, or a new start - most reasonable people do. I've also been online for nine yars now, and spent alot of time in chatrooms, IMs, and emailing people. My gut is pretty trained and reading people by their words, and I've learned to at least pay attention to it, if not follow it. I do over-react at times - you know that from experience! - and sometimes I guess wrong, but I'm usually quick to admit it too, or at least I try to. I take it you read Italian? - BillCJ 07:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC on handling of "In Popular Culture"

Just a quick heads up on an RfC on User:Eyrian's approach to In Popular Culture AfD nominations here, since I know you've been involved with these and one of the purposes of the RfC is to achieve some more general guidelines on how this class of article is handled. FWIW, I'll add that I'm not unsympathetic to his/her goals, but on a procedural basis, these AfDs seem to me to have turned into something of a kangaroo court... --Rlandmann 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Having been one of the kangaroos on trial, I'll certainly agree with that! THnaks for the heads-up, and I'll look at it shortly. Also, thanks for checking out the Italian WIki site for more insight on our problems with Steph. Had I realized you knoew your way around there, I would have approached you earlier on. - BillCJ 04:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I had considered volunteering the information earlier, but I'm always very wary of the mob mentality. Furthermore, the it.wikipedia community has passed its sentence, and he is "doing his time" (3 month ban runs out on 15 August) - I hoped he wouldn't be penalised here for offenses that he was already being punished for elsewhere. But I guess that the benefit of at least my doubt has now run out. --Rlandmann

I understand about the mob mentality. It did give him room to show his true colors, and perhaps the IT.Wiki, or even the Foundation, should be made aware of it. THat's your call as an admin, I won't interfere. - BillCJ 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Concorde

Hello, You pulled my edits on concorde. Im amused and perplexed by this. Did you ever go on her? Well i did. January 2000, 6 months before the crash, new york to london. Most of what i tried to add is based on that personal experience and was in the passenger experience section. Just what "reference" do you expect to get a passenger experience from? The thump of the afterburners, the gforce in your seat, the really noise and hard taxi on the jfk concrete before take off due to the tyres if you sat forward, the terminator flashing past. Plenty of the other information on that page comes obviously comes from personal experience or perception and is unreferenced.

Please feel free to rebutt. Personally im getting a bit cheesed with constant deleteion of honest additions to wikipedia by an honest person of information that is just not referencable...

My email is rosswnelson@hotmail.com if your at all interested

Personal experiences are considered Original Reseach, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. It's not me, it's WIkipedia Policy. Sorry. - BillCJ 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats so funny. at least 50% of the page has no references that i can obviously see, and a "passenger experience" section isnt usually going to have many at all! Its doubly funny seeing im a pilot!

Feel free to remove anything you doubt the veracity of, or tag it with a {{fact}} tag to let others know it needs to be sourced. I've always thought the article was too long anyway, so if we cut out 50% of it, that will probably be a good thing. It's alot easier to just watchlist the page, and remove what is added, then to go through the page line by line. I have tried to go though the article, and tag or remove as needed, but there's alot there. Another set of eyes to cull what need's to go would be welcome. - BillCJ 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ki-61 Hien

Despite what you and other edits have done and I do not, for a moment, disregard the fabulous work that has been done, the article still seems to be a very convoluted (I could say uncharitably a "dog's breakfast"), wouldyathink? It may work to have the comparison section as a sub-article, maybe "Ki-61 compararison" or "Rating the Ki-61." Just a thought, late at night...[:º Bzuk 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

Sandbox

Hi, Bill. You had about 7-8 sandbox articles showing in Category:Helicopters and Category:Military helicopters. I edited your Sandbox articles by placing a ":" in between the "[[" and "Category" to make it link to the category instead of including your sandbox articles in the namespace categories. I also used {{tl}} to create links for templates that automatically categorize the article. --Born2flie 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still learning which ones to disable. Aslo, I hand't planned on leaving the sandboxes up that long, so procrastinated doing the ones I knew about. Sorry to give you work, but hopefully it helps burn off steam! Good luck. - BillCJ 17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

SR-71

Bill, Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified. 68.244.13.195 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Hornet talk page

Comparing max speeds and climbs isn't realistic in my book as LordT (who appears to be a Red Ripper) notes, operational perfromance is nowhere near the manufacturer or Navy Fact File specs. Does it mean they're wrong? Not at all, just different configurations, which is why it's hard to compare aircraft if you don't have same altitude, temperature, loadout, fuel, etc. Suppose it's an aviation task force issue to decide what to use and even if you can get a standard reference for aircraft from different eras or countries. Can only guess what it was that prompted the note. I think you have to stick to official sources on max speeds and other specs. My view is that they are like car brochures (your mileage may be different).HJ 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people

Why does it seem like people are naturally uncouth? Do we really learn to be civil, or do they learn to be non-civil? When I look at my granddaughter, and how nice she is, caring, sweet, playful, then I see older people mess with someone, don't care, are mean, and hateful. So I tend to think that humans devolve as they age. Just why is that? What are we doing to ourselves? Thanks for the revert. --Colputt 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ka-50/Ka-52

Bill, I would merge both articles because both helicopters are in fact different versions of the same design. Different designations doesn't mean different helicopter - look at airborne command post version of the Mil Mi-8 designated Mil Mi-9 for export. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Novi avion

Hi Bill, I would be glad to help, but unfortunately it will be imposible for me to search in non-english sources, as I'm not speaking the Serbian language at all. Anyway, I will be looking for some sources and I'll let you know if I find something. Keep in touch! --Eurocopter tigre 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mind reading!

“ Sorry, Born. My mind-reading ability doesn't work with people off the continent :) - BillCJ 00:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC) ”

Had a chuckle at that one, I did! --Born2flie 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad. I should have given you a little more leeway, and assumed you knew what you were doing in not doing the merge the usual way. Sorry! - BillCJ 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I need your opinion here

Bill, a little while back, I reverted a new introduction to the Hughes H-4 Hercules as unproductive because I found an error in each of the sentences that were changed. I didn't particularly care for the intro as written but I felt that no improvement had been made in the rewrite,now I have been subjected to a barrage of "you've reverted a Good faith edit" claims. The editor involved may have taken umberage but he made no substantive edits in the article and only "floated" in to make the one contribution which merely "played around with words" but even eliminated an important element. I wrote back to the editor on his page with a fuller explanation since he thought he was aggrieved. Here it is: [1]. Check out my comments, was I way off base here? I do make mistakes and my tone may have been more appropriate but it was not intended to start an editwar. I have been in enough of these and I do not need another one. Write back with your "take". FWIW Bzuk 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

BillZ, looks like a good, well-reasoned response to me. You might remind them that Wikipeida clearly states that if you don't want your writing eidted, don't make the edits. ALos, there is nothing wrong with reverting good-faith edits, we just don't give out warnings for them =like we would with a bad-faith edit. - BillCJ 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Me 262 "Kills"

Sorry Bill, I checked the five reference sources I have and none of them had details about the victories scored by the Me 262. I will check our local aviation museum library tomorrow. FWIW Bzuk 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

After a bit of "digging" at the Western Canada Aviation Museum library, I found that the following reference source is an authoritative (read massive) inventory of all German Second World War combat aircraft and their operational histories:

• Green, William. Warplanes of the Third Reich. New York: Galahad Books, 1970. ISBN 0-88365-663.

This source provides the victory total as 509 "claims". It was made up of the following:

1. "Kommando Nowotny was to claim 22 kills by the end of the first month (October 1944) ...and was withdrawn from operations, surviving personnel used as the nucleus of the first full Me 262 fighter Gruppe, III/JG7." (p. 636)
2. (Gruppe, III/JG7) "...was to claim no fewer than 427 'kills' including more than 300 four-engined bombers." (p. 636)
3. Ergänzungsgruppe, IV (ERG.)/JG7 "...basically a training unit, flew occasional sorties, as a result, it was to claim 30 'kills'..." (p. 637)
4. I/KG (J)54 "...based at Prague-Ruzyne claimed 10 kills." (p. 637)
5. JV44 "...scored some 50 kills." (p. 638) FWIW, just to let you know I did find a total for Me 262 kills and a reliable source. Bzuk 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

C-5 Galaxy trimmed

I elliminated the uncited accidents and moved them to Talk. Gonna remove the {trim} template unless more trimming is needed. Any objections? Thre is more uncited up in the C-5M subsection that can be removed. LanceBarber 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Butting in here. I never could find anything to back up the C-5 AMP first flight and aircrew when that was added. Looks like I may have one for the first flight part anyway. -Fnlayson

On the specs, it's funny I updated the range specs using Lock-Mart numbers in May cause one user thought the AF numbers were wrong. Today somebody tries to change the range to the AF fact sheet value. Can't win for losing sometimes... -Fnlayson 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Re:The_Really-Free_Library

Bill, I would like to thank you for the parable, User:BillCJ#The_Really-Free_Library. The article clearly expresses the problem with unregistered user contributions. --Dan Dassow 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Team

Now The A-Team article is up to scratch - ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

SR-71

Bill, there is a good bit of discussion on the talk page about the number of destroyed aircraft. concensus seems to put it at 12, all non combat. This might be of interest to those readers that such a sectretive aircraft, with a long history of missions over/near hostile contries, managed to remain unscathed (except for training/accidents). 12.198.79.130 12:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Variable Geometry Wing

Bill, kind of new to editing wikipedia. I put something up for discussion on the variable geometry wing page. I didn't know who else to approach since you seem to watch many of the aviation pages. It basically boils down to the article name is too broad for the content. I put the details in the discussion. I realize there was just a name change, but I believe this is a problem for reasons discussed on the article's talk page. Jbowman90 12:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

wolrd's largest airlines

Thanks for the comment over at World's largest airlines. (1) I'm not aware of having sour grapes with any editor, nor do I know User:Sparrowman980, who appears to be the main editor or World's Largest Airlines. Pdbailey 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I dont think you should have removed the repost. The article was speedy-kept before the nom had a chance to comment, and a repost is proper in the circumstances. I suggest you add it back again, saying you are doing so at the request of the nom and an admin (& you can say its me), Let the discussion run the 5 days--it will produce a more definitive conclusion. DGG (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My apologies - I confused you with another editor, Huaiwei, in my mind. However, I still feel that an AFD is not the way to go on this, but that's just my opinion. THere appears to be some confusion as to whether or not one can renominate after a speedy close. If you chose to renominate it again, I won't revert it, as I was apparently mistaken on that being a hard and fast rule. However, as I feel DRV is the best path of this (you have a good case), I'not going to renominate it myself. - BillCJ 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If banging your head against the wall doesn't make it feel any better ...

Bill, as you know, the saying goes “please don’t feed the trolls”; although I’m not sure he is a troll, the situation sure is beginning to look like a trollfest. The anon on the Typhoon page is as adamant about pushing his POV as you are, and all that comes of it is disruption. Although I agree with the IP that the F-22 is probably sufficiently unique as to be in a class of its own, the WP:AIR/PC is sufficiently vague that either interpretation is equally correct. In the greater scheme of things, this is a trivial issue that you’re letting get your goat (and the anon appears to enjoy bearding you, if just for the sake of debate). You’re a great contributor with much better work to do to waste your time with this. If nothing else, leave it be for a few months and change it after the anon gets bored and moves on. I guarantee, though, that some other editor will come along and in all good faith, change it back. If you really want to go on with it, may I suggest a straw poll? That's probably the closest you'll ever come to "settling it" (assuming anything can ever really be settled on Wikipedia). Cheers –and have a better rest of your day, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

YOu may be right, but I'm going to try a jackhammer for awhile! I'm just sick of being bullied by this guy, and if I don't take a stand here, he'll just keep doing it to other people. Actually, I have followed your advice already, and he was gone for while, but he came back. I just don't want to keep doing this in perpetuity. - BillCJ 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not me dude. Maybe this poll on the EF page will help. At least it'll be something we can point at when reverting ignorants that'll remove it. -Fnlayson 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope it will, but I somehow doubt it. I guess we'll see. - BillCJ 01:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On another matter look at this article: "Stop Calling It an Airplane!".  ;) -Fnlayson 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I read that in the complementary print version of Rotor & WIng that I got last week. I think some of the people he's talking about edit here! ANyway, I'm this close to taking an indefinite wiki-break. If you'd like to stay in touch (I would), we can exchnage e-mails. I think my "email this user" feature is turned on, but it doesnt seem to stay on! We'll see how it goes. My dad is in Jamaica right now, and is supposed to come back tomorrow, but he can't call out as yet. My stress level will probably be real high until we hear from him, so hopefully that will be tomorrow. After that, I hope I settle down, but if the recent trouble I'm having on WIki keeps up (like the IP on the Typhoon page ranting about how "own" wiki, et al), I will go on indefinte break. THanks for your support and encouragement, even when we don't agree. - BillCJ 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall hearing anyone call a helicopter an airplane. Sure, that'd be good. My e-mail option is suppose to be turned on now. If I can figure it out, I'll e-mail about the Harrier II book. -Fnlayson 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some things are worth stressing out over, but wikitrolls are not among them. Let them play out enough rope to hang themselves. Remember, they’re not dedicated to staying here over the long run to build something. We are. Considering the game this guy is playing now on 4th generation jet fighter, he’ll have built his own case against himself for a more enduring block … and remember, as much damage as trolls like to wreak, all it takes for us is one revert to undo their labor. The two things trolls hate most are exposure to the light and boredom. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Message for you on Eurofighter

I've left a message for you on the talk:eurofighter page. I'd be happy to work with you and judging by your contributions that should be easy to do. You're welcome to look at mine; I think I've done some good work. I'll point you to the Cessna 150 page. I added a lot, but when someone pointed out my error I retracted.

I'm sorry some anonymous person has be undo-ing me so much, but that's not my fault.

What happened?

I know that it can seem like good editors are getting ignored or mistreated on purpose, especially when there is a debate about adding information you know to be inaccurate yet nobody will support your point. I saw the accusations made by the IP in this edit. Just because somebody says it, doesn't make it automatically believed by everyone. I don't know if you followed the thread opened about you on the Wikiquette page but the person who replied supported you. Actually you can have a lot of fun with people who throw meaningless accusations at you by asking for proof.

I'm not saying you should come back if you've truly had your fill of the experience, but consider that you may simply need a break rather than defecting to the vandals. I know we've had our disagreements but I've thought of you as a good editor, I'd of said so sooner but you don't strike me as the type to want reassurance. Anynobody 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill! I really hope you'll change your mind and come back soon. You should note that aircraft articles are at least 30-40% worse without you. It really doesn't worth giving-up for some imbecile users. You should also know that you have my full support in everything! Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 07:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to thank Bill for all his hard work, he has been personally attacked for defending the articles and the aviation projects not out of a sense of ownership but a reflection of the concensus of the group. Interesting to see that the recent attack on you was by an IP user with only one edit despite having a wide knowlegde of the disputes you have been involved in! Your contributions will be missed hope that you can return after a break. MilborneOne 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the kind words and encouragement, y'all. I do need a break for now, but I doubt I can stay away for long. I am considering returning under another name (not a sock - I'll delete this one), as that seems the only way to avoid the WIki-stalker with multiple IPs. I'm only half-joking about becoming a vandal - I would only cause trouble for those who deserve it - sort of a Wiki-vigilante! But I am fully serious about the fact that the IPs are treated better than regular users, and that's not right. I'm going to explore some alternate sites, and see if I can find an environment that actually respects AND protects serious editors from vandalism and harrassment, and that also has a wide range of content. I doubt I'll find one just yet, but I can still hope! THose of you in WP:AIR are a joy to work with, and I hate to go for that reason. If we could split off WP:AIR from the rest of WIkipeida, have mandatory registration, and a few other changes, it would be even better! GIven that ain't likely to happen as long as Jim Wales is in charge, it's either leave, or put up with all the crap that comes with the sacred (Jimbo's own word) concept of "open editing". If I find a new home, I try to let y'all know. THanks again. - BillCJ 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Hi Bill, s-protected this page for 1 week per your request. Also, FWIW, posted a note to the IP at the Typhoon talk page. Take some deep breaths, shake it off, and come back refreshed. The project needs you! AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I hope you will reconsider as well. You’re a major and respected contributor. It may seem like the IPs get “better treated”, but it’s actually more the case that they get more “leeway” as newbies; however, they don’t get the respect that proven, accomplished editors receive – the newbies are just potential future respected editors, once they learn the ropes. One of the things I’ve learned over the years about dealing with trolls is that if they get you mad, they “win” – they have “control” over you; not letting them get what they want is the best revenge. Take a breather, if you like, but I hope it won’t be a long one. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, thanks. If the stalker were the only troubel I had yeaterday, I'd have probably been OK. But I also had trouple with that article on the Taiwanese 737 crash, and people removing my legitimate "notability" tag with "It's on CNN, so it must be notable" as the only evidence of its notability. And of of those was a regular editor I see fairly often! In addition, my stress-level reserve is low because my dad's been in south Jamaica this past week, and is to return today, but we still haven't heard anything from him. I'll more than likely be back on another username, as that's the only way I know of to avoid my stalker. BTW, I think this is the idiot posting the "lost due to navigational error" crap on the SR-71 page, who also has been calling me a vandal on some WP:AIR members' talk pages. - BillCJ 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bill, you are a real benefit to this community and aviation articles specifically; hope to see you under a different nick soon! Lipsticked Pig 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously

Drop me a line if you need someone to talk to.

I hate seeing dedicated editors get driven off... but I do love kicking vandal ass. If you've got a cadre of harassers, feel free to drop me a line about where they may post; I'd be more than happy to take care of them (provided you give me the diffs to see what's what, of course). Extremely long-term and wide-spread harassment like this is admittedly not something that the community at large is set up to deal with, but it's something that a few dedicated admins could help address. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

THanks, EV. I appreciate the personal attention. I'll try to put togerther some of the diffs of the primary harrasser in the next few days, as I really do need a stress-break! THis is the edit that set me off, and its the first edit made by that IP. I beleive this is an IP I've had trouble with from the Talk:SR-71 Blackbird page, but it may well go back further than that. - BillCJ 19:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Take all the time you need, Bill. Not only would the break be good for you, but I'm also insanely busy; not jumping on this immediately is perfectly fine with me. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Want some help?

Hi Bill. If there's anything I can do to help, I'm perfectly happy to offer the same as EV :). Feel free to send me a message on my talk page and I will see what I can do. Also, perhaps consider my suggestion on Jimbo's talk page. Hope I can help! ck lostsword•T•C 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that was not possible (moving the username). I'm game if itis tho! - BillCJ 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not too difficult - you just have to file a request on WP:CHU :). Good luck and message me if you do and still want any help. I'll guess who it is :P. ck lostsword•T•C 21:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and if you choose to leave, you are welcome to. Take all the time you need. I believe, if you choose to stay, you can have your username changed by directly emailing a bureaucrat, informing them why you want to change confidentially. ck lostsword•T•C 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything rises or falls on Leadership. When the leaders at the top turn a blind eye to the desperate pleas of those under them, as Jim Wales has done to me and to others, per his current talk page before my comments, then I see nothing left to do but leave. When the regulars are subjected to lectures while the vandals ahrassing the regulars are ignored, what else can I do but go? I have been a viertual invalis for 5 years. THis last year on WIkipedia has given me contact with the world, and a connection to the knowlege I love. But because of my bad health, I'm not strong enough enmotionally to stand up to the harrassment all the time. As I said below, I would probably have come back after the break, were it not for Mr. Wales' attitude. I understnad I didn't phrase everthing in the best manner possible, but even a simple "I feel your pain, Bill" would have been better than nothing. "A house divided agianst itself cannot stand", and if Jimbo does not take the leadership in getting the WIkipedia house in order, it will not stand as it is. FOr the sake of the many good editors here, I do hope things will change before it gets to that point, but I seriously doubt it. As the new Delta Airlines ads say: "We can refuse to listen and fade away, or we can CHANGE!" - BillCJ 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes

Bill, I'm in and out on my own little excursions away from the wiki.

What happens when you mix all the flavors of ice cream, would you want to eat THAT? That's what open editing is. Anyone can edit, but not everyone should. That's why books are not edited by everyone. Sometimes you have to WP:IAR, especially when it comes to WP:DBAD! --Born2flie 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A true warrior who will be sorely missed

Bill, I have certainly not been on Wikipedia as long as you but the two of us seemed to have some similar interests and those intersected at various times. For one, I always found you a truly principled and steadfast protector of the Wiki world. Your expertise in aviation topics was impressive and your ability to enunciate highly technical issues in a straightforward manner was always appreciated. Your departure should be for recuperation and should you decide to return in this guise or any other, there will be countless editors who will welcome you back. Please feel free to contact me by email, I enjoyed our talks, especially your wry sense of humour. (Whoops my Canadianisms slipped out again...) Take heart, you did a great job and have left behind nothing but fond memories with the friends you have made. [:¬∆ Bzuk 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the kind words. I was ready to give a break a try, but since Jim Wales has totally ignored my desparate pleas for help, leaving his lackeys to berate ME, while ignoring the vandals, I see no need to continue to help him make money. All I ever expected here was enjoyment of a topic I love, but now that the enjoyment is gone, so am I. Not all of us are strong enough emotionally to put up with constant harrassment, and since in the current system here there is nothing they can or will do to stop IP vandalism and harrassment, I have no choice but to take my ragged nerves and leave. As I told Jim, I love the product here! But as long as open editing is sacred, and people aren't sacred, I can't continue here - I'll go crazy if I try! I will email you. Thanks again, and remember, I was raised in Jamaica, so I can read the Queen's English, and most of the Governor Generals' variants too :) - BillCJ 03:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I've done some semiprotections in your user space. If this person continues to bother you, cite a diff of this edit by me when you file additional requests for semiprotection at WP:RFPP. This ought to be fairly simple to address: just ask the admins to semi the articles where you're active for a while until the person who's been bothering you gets tired of the game. And try not to let 'em see you sweat. ;) Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

THanks, I do appreciate that. However, I've already decided to go from this username. I'm still open to another identity here in the future, but only if I see evidence on somethinge effectinve being done to change the climate here. I don't have the emotional strenghth to do anything but sweat right now! I'm sure I'll still come back to Wikipedia for information (even if some of has "poop" :), but I won't be subjecting my self to harassment anymore. Thanks again. - BillCJ 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I have appreciated all you help and teachings you've given me, and have made me a stronger editor. I understand some of your stress. You've been a pillar to all of us. Please come back refreshed and armed with stronger conviction. With highest regards and respect, LanceBarber 08:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A break is always good, and if you decide to return, even under a new name, you'll be welcomed. --MoRsE 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Bill, always keep in mind, "Humor is just another defense against the universe." (Mel Brooks) Askari Mark (Talk) 17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Open editing

I understand your frustration with this aspect of Wikipedia, as necessary as it is to a project like this it can also be the biggest problem. As is usually the way of things, I think the answer is a compromise of sorts and I'm wondering what you think of it.

Once an article becomes either WP:GA or WP:FA it ought to be sealed so that we don't have to monitor it for vandalism or other quality eroding edits. Anynobody 05:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not that IPers can edit. It's the fact vandals are allowed to vandalize articles repeatedly. Block them for a day or week, something. I don't think any article is ever completely done. But protecting against IP edits would help a lot. -Fnlayson 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that no article is ever really finished, and vandals create accounts too but vandalism isn't the only problem and the constant maintenance to keep a good article "good" is bad for two reasons. 1) It's boring and repetitve to fix articles degraded by vandalism o r good faith edits that are nonetheless wrong. More important though is 2) The lack of quality on a consistent basis makes Wikipedia seem unreliable. Granted my idea won't stop the "It's on CNN so it must be notable..." issues with new articles, but it would free up a bit more time to deal with those arguments. Anynobody 05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Enjoy. Durova^Charge! 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile and whats going on with LARGEST AIRLINES

Sparrowman980 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also whats going on with largest airlines?Sparrowman980 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. World's largest airlines has been nominated for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest airlines (2nd nomination), and currently looks like it's going to be kept. Be sure to check it out, as a number of editors have made some good suggestions for improvements. - BillCJ 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Back at it some today, huh? Either way take it easy.. :) -Fnlayson 00:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was a little kid, one of my favorite little songs (I think there was a book, too) was "And the Cat Came Back" (and I never even thought to check and see that there was a wiki article on it till writing this comment!). Face it, Bill, ya got it in yer blood! AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me

Thanks for defending me on the largest airlines all i am trying to do is keep it there and one of the problems was it was to confusing.So I obviously made it a lot easier but now i got 3 admins on my case trying to delete the sub pages for the world part of it but thanks! Sparrowman980 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, you may wish to check a little on Sparrowman980's editing history, and the notices posted in his talkpage. Disruptive editing is hardly something worth "defending" (in his definition, that is), especially when it involved editwarring for months, creation of an entire slew of forked dublicates, and the trading of insults between editors.--Huaiwei 07:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'll talk to him after my next sleep period. I agree his latest redacting has gone too far. - BillCJ 07:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and why would I not be surprised that a revert occurs within 6 minutes after my last edit[2]. A timely demonstration of his editing nature indeed, especially when he insists on removing the version I reinstated, the very version which has actually been endorsed according to opinions in the talkpage, but which he insists on removing with no reasoning given. I plead for external intervention in dealing with renagades who refuse to adopt some common sense and acknowledge concensus.--Huaiwei 07:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You might try User talk:Akradecki, an admin who often mediates disputes in Aviation-related matters, and has had some success. I'm headed to bed now, and will see what i can do tomorrow, though I'm really not trying to do much during my Wiki-break. THere are other admins who might be able to help, so if AKR can't help out (he is often busy in the real world), I'll contact a few others to look into this. - BillCJ 07:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

World'd largest airlines

Making major changes without any discussion to an article that has been voted "keep" in a given form twice in quick succession is vandalism, especially when one is on record as disagreeing with the consensus. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not vandalism - its is disruptive tho. - BillCJ 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were on a break: And disruption can amount to vandalism, and it does in this case, because the user is trying to push his view of the article against the consensus, and his edits are disruptive to the improvement of the article (sneaky vandalism) and have been over a period of time. However I did refrain from warning the user and instead opened a discussion to that he can explain his reasons for the changes (which he should have done before hand if he wanted to avoid the perception of vandalism or at least bad faith). Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's vandalism, then warn him, and file at WP:AIV. However, they will probably tell you it's an edit conflict, not vandalism. I thought I was on a break too, hence my new note at the top of the page. So please don't post here on this topic anymore while the notice is up. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a word with him? He seems to be leaving the Largest Airlines page alone for now, and has moved on to vandalising other pages, including your talk page. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TOPGUN Page edits

Hey Bill, an aviation writer/photographer has literally dumped his own photo gallery onto the TOPGUN article [3] subverting the Wikiarticle guidelines. Take a look. May be an act of omission, but certainly not the way it is supposed to be! HJ 09:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, please look at another issue on the F-14 page. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.187.250 (talk) 10:39, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Note that this ip has been spamming user talk pages with a seemingly random rant (about airlines or something) and signing your name. El_C 11:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Top Gun gallery thing has been fixed. Moved it to the bottom of the article for now. Somebody else can remove it if they want. I don't see a problem with the F-14 article now. -Fnlayson 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Bill...

...I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but it appears User:Opuscalgary has returned, using a public access terminal of some sort, User:67.79.187.250. He used his time constructively, going to various random editor's talk pages and posting insult-filled messages pretending they were posted by you.

If you get some odd messages here, that's why. Another admin has already blocked. I'm trying to clear up the damage.

There is one amusing bit to the story though. Opus didn't seem to bother to check the block log, and assumed it was me who blocked him. I know this because my spam folder contained a threatening letter ordering me to unblock or he would get Jimbo to kick me off the wiki. Awww, feel the love. :-)

Maury 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

El C beat me to it, all of the edits have been removed. Maury 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you think this is Opus? I've been having trouble with another multiple IP user for a few weeks now, and the post he's attributing to me is something he's was doing before I took my wiki-break (and WHY I took it). It's related to some silliness on the SR-71 page about aircraft being "lost due to navigational error". I don't think Opus ever had a problem with me, just you and BillZ (BZuk). I did almost leave Wiki because of this "lost" guy, and may still have to if this crap doesn't stop. Btw, I did find this edit in my talk page history this morning. Don't know if it's the same guy, but harassment is an odd way to recruit someone! - BillCJ 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I did get an e-mail from Opus immediately after the account in question was blocked (by the other admin). Coincidence perhaps? Maury 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

F-14

Are you acted as vandal, or i missed something? NExt time you delete some stuff assure you that it's not simply crap, but perhaps article could need it. At least i try to do so, you not. Act as professionist, not hooligan.--Stefanomencarelli 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the F-14 material I removed (It's hard to tell since your English is so much rubbish), I removed it because I DID read it. It's already in the article in other places, and it's not a probable copyvio. - BillCJ 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Per your 'comment'

IRT the comment on [4]:

If that is you, I ask what you're talking about, and simultaneously warn you to regard WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and advise you that you've likely been autoblocked.

If that isn't you, please do tell, so I can block the IP for even longer. --ST47Talk·Desk 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not stupid enough to use an IP to leave messages like that, and then sign my name. I have a wiki-stalker, and this is its idea of getting back at me for reverting its vandalism. It has used multiple, unrelated IPs thus far, and never the same one twice, so blocking that IP would be useless. Sorry, but there's nothing anyone can do about my stalker short of blocking all IPs, and that AIN'T gonna happen as long as Jimbo Wales runs Wiki. Sorry you got caught in this, but there's nothing I can do to stop it. - BillCJ 00:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just blocked another impersonator: 1.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - BillCJ 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Supercarrier

Hi. Thanks for the comments. You're entitled to remove the PROD template. I wouldn't assume you were trying to be disruptive.

My question is where do we go from here? Fair criticism about my "tabloid" point - but as fair handed as I try to be, surely you can see my point? As is the article is not a sophisticated analysis of large aircraft carriers. It is an entirely unreferenced, subjective article. Yes, it contains one reference, but that is a cut and paste of my reference from Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, which further demonstrates my superfluous argument.

You said "I agree there are no definitive sources in the article, but it does describe the acepted definition of the term." -- Sorry but that is not acceptable. A subject is either verifiable or it isn't. "the acepted definition" is bordering on weasel words. Mark83 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2006

POV Pic-Pusher on Mikoyan MiG-31

We've got a guy with the handle "IRGCAF" replacing a legit pic with one he claims is an Iranian MiG-31. What we have here is a bunch of Russian aircraft at an airshow in Tehran. The image is face-on (making it less appealing than the extant image) and there's nothing to indicate that any of the planes have Iranian markings on them. In fact, there is no evidence that Iran ever received the MiG-31 and Russia denies ever selling it to them. I've used two reverts, which is the most I will ever do in 24 hours, so you might want to keep an eye on it as well. (BTW, the images aren't going to last long. As I write, the first one has already been marked with a speedy tag.) Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

500C

The references I can find say 4 passengers, i.e. 4 people sitting in the passenger compartment. Perhaps that is what the editor meant? Having seen the aircraft type up close, I'm amazed you can fit 4 people in those things period, much less in addition to the pilot(s). --Born2flie 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox articles

Bill, if you want any of your sandboxes back that I moved, just let me know. Take care.. -Fnlayson 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Modular Airborne FireFighting System copy edit needed

I just wrote this, and it's in the DYK queue, but knowing my typing and blindness to my own mistakes, it could probably use a copy edit, if you have time. Also, a short paragraph oughta be added to the C-130 page, but I won't have time this afternoon. If you want, have at it! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the MAFFS page, and see what I can do. Writing short summaries is not quite my thing, but I might try anyway (or maybe I'll try to talk Jeff into doing it - hint hint Jeff ;) ). - BillCJ 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, looking at it. It looks pretty good so far.. -Fnlayson 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom

Bill, you know anything about the F-4? Check out the page now. FWIW Bzuk 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC). BTW, we also need to change all the formats of aviation articles to a new standard, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. I knew we had it all wrong! [:¬∆ Bzuk 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

That guy just does half-something data dumps. Doesn't matter if the text already there covers most of what is added. Argg.. -Fnlayson 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

B-58 Hustler

Hi. I noticed we and another user were all editing the B-58 Hustler article. I'm happy to wait until you're done, just let me know when. Thank you. Conrad T. Pino 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I only made one edit! Anyway, edit conflicts are normal on Wikipedia, and not anything to be too concerned about. If you intend to make a series of edits in a short period of time (20-30 mins), you might find the {{inuse}} template to be helpful, as used by another editor here. - BillCJ 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

F-16 infobox

I replied on Talk there. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stefo

In regards to the squabble over at CF-104, you might want to be cognizant of the comment I left over on his talk page. If he comes back to the CF-104 page, let one of us handle it, as I don't want you to cross the 3RR line. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had removed the page from my watchlist to make sure I didn't cross the line, never mind that Stefo lives on the other side of the 3RR line! I'll keep an eye out though and let you know. - BillCJ 17:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

C-53

Most links fixed? I've searched it & gotten "no page exists". Shouldn't it (re?)direct to C-47? Trekphiler 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant the full name C-53 Skytrooper, which does redirect to C-47 Skytrain. I'll fix C-53 and Douglas C-53, and let me know if you find any other major possibilities. - BillCJ 05:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters in Pop Cult

Hey Bill can you help me get the article back on. I saw your comment in deletion discussion, & I could'nt agree with you more, if this list is gonna happen it needs to be more concise & acurate. This may need to be incorporated in to the helicopter article like Harrier Jump Jet#Popular culture. I have no problem doing the writing, but I need you help to grease the wheels, with the top editorsANigg 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. I'd recomend trying a prose style rather than a list, though it may be dificult. ALos, you'll need as many sources as you can find on each item's notability (not just saying that the aircraft appeared in the film, but why the appearence is worth noting.) AIrwolf and Blue THunder are the "star" vehicles in their productions, so are already notable for that reason. Set up a sandbox to work on the article, and I'll watchlist it, and occasionlly help, and try to give advice. Once we get something I think we can support, I'll talk to some other editors, probably those at the Rotorcraft taks force, and some editors noted for being deletionists, and get their advice and opinion. Once we get past that stage, we can apply at Deletion Review to have the page reinstated. - BillCJ 01:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much, I sincerely appreciate it, also can you point me in the direction setting up a sand box? Thanx again : ) ANigg 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bill's not feeling well, so I'll try to handle this. Hope you feel better tomorrow Bill. Start with a subpage on your user space, such as [[User:ANigg/something]] or [[User:ANigg/sandbox/article name]]. Add that link to your user page or maybe talk page. That'll be a red link since nothing is there. Click on it and start editing. It'll be a blank edit box when you start. -Fnlayson 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for you help Bill I hope you feel better. Also if so if you have any contribs, please feel free ( And no I'm not trying to pass the work on to you LOL)ANigg 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft King Air

Yes I see it clearly now Bill; I've just looked at the article on a different computer and I realise the error of my ways. To compound the error, I made several changes to the text at the same time and these have now been undone as well, so I'm going to undo your undo, and manually remove the sizing from the image. My bad, I'm still a relative neophyte at all this stuff. YSSYguy 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. We all were new at one time, and there's plenty that I am still learning. Sorry about the stomped edits, I guess I wasn't paying close attantion to what was done in that edit. - BillCJ 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I am fighting one of the "vandals" right now. Some guy wants me to duplicate what is stated in detail in the rest of the article in the LEAD. I woudl appreciate a third party opinion on the discussion page. Perhaps we can get this to stop while it is on the main page? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just had in mind reverting the normal vandlaism. I'm "under the weather" right now, so I really am not up to edit fights, but I'll keep an eye on it, and see if I can help in some way. - BillCJ 05:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Get well

hope you get better! Also could you point me into the direction of a Admin,that i could trust unless you are one but would you happen to now anyone?Sparrowman980 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks. No, I'm not an admin, but User talk:Akradecki is an admin. I trust him a lot - he will do the right thing. You can try him first. If he can't help (he's pretty busy in real life), he knows other admins he could point you to. - BillCJ 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Try User:Akradecki or maybe User:Maury Markowitz. -Fnlayson 05:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

THanks Jeff. Maury seems good too, though I haven't worked with him much, I know Alan (AKRadecki) has. - BillCJ 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!Sparrowman980 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Patwah

I think Creole should be redirected to Patois. Creole is only really a term used by academics. But, an encyclopaedia isn't really a source for academics, it is a way of condensing academic knowlege for mass consumption. Most Jamaicans refer to their language as Patois (or Patwah). It seems sensible to use that reference point as both they and the non-Jamaican masses who refer to the article will find that to be a more friendly and familiar place.

Ackees 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's pretty much the way I see it. - BillCJ 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Chipper Jones

The Chipper Jones article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

Hello, BilCat. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DC-8

Great, got a registered user this time adding Scientology look-a-like OR stuff on Douglas DC-8 again. He seems to think a reference makes it OK, even if it is not a real DC-8. If you could help a little I'd appreciate it. -Fnlayson 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• MilborneOne helped. Thanks! -Fnlayson 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to here it, because I always assumed they were A380s, given the way the Airbus fanboys worship that plane! - BillCJ 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe or a 787. ;) -Fnlayson 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Qantas

As you know i have gone on a rampage well I am trying to make peace now but recently Russiava has changed stuff but i checked up and there is Qantas group.Now i check Qantas group and all it is is the name that Qantas uses for it company.But it all named under the airline.Just wondering before i do anything if you could (if you werent sick still)that you could double check me please. Many Thanks. Sparrowman980 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello?Sparrowman980 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• What are you asking? That Qantas' subsidiaries should count with Qantas or something else? -Fnlayson 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

yes they should count. Sparrowman980 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Colin McRae

Hi Bill. I've added my two cents at Talk:Colin McRae. Things seem calm at the minute. I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it for a while. Be in touch if you have further concerns. Mark83 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I don't normally watch race driver pages (even American ones), but have been on this one because it was aircraft-related. - BillCJ 21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

oriented/orientated

I won't revert again because oriented is the more common in the USA (and this in an article about a US TV show) but ...

The OED says it's simply an alternative, Fowler’s Modern English Usage says use either

The Free Online Dictionary is Wrong ....! it means exactly the same as oriented

This is simply another USA/UK divide - US uses mostly oriented, and almost never orientated In the UK both are used fairly indiscriminately ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it me be something like that. People do use "orientated" in the US, but it's considered informal or non-standard. The Wikipedia Manual of Style stipulates that we use US spelling in US subjects, so that is the way to go here. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For being fair and reasonable lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 07:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AF1

Bill, I recently reverted a pop culture addition to the AF1 article, and the adding editor just protested on my talk page, and I replied on his...I'm just one voice, and since you were so key in developing that article, maybe you might want to put your 2 cents in, regardless of which way you lean on this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CH-53

Bill, I was trying to add some background to your former sandbox Sikorsky CH-53K and copy some info from the CH-53 Sea Stallion and realized it had little on its development. I thought you might have sources that cover the CH-53 better than me. If you can, please help with the CH-53 article. Take it easy. - Fnlayson 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the health issues, Bill. Hope feel better soon man. I can get started on this with what I can find. -Fnlayson 03:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you tried Vectorsite? He has a page on the CH-53 and -54. While I'm not certain, I think he has a good description of how the S-65 was developed from the S-64. - BillCJ 05:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. I copied some text from there and the russian.ee site to the CH-53K sandbox earlier. Take it easy... -Fnlayson 05:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured you had already checked both, but wanted to be certain. The K page looks like it's coming along. I'll try to do some wok on it in the next week, if I can. I already have a promo image from Sikorsky picked out to go on the page when it goes live, but can't upload it to the sandbox, as fair-use images have to be in articles. Also, there is some good info around (like ROtor & WIng online) on Eurocopter possibly building a version as of the K for the French and German armies. The new Heavy Transport Helicopter page has some brief info on it, but there aren't any sources as such there. I was planning on covering that some on the 53K page, but even with a dedicated article now, it's still worth a short paragraph with a "main" link. If the HTH is a version of the K, it's likely to have a bigger fuselage, as the K is restricted to the 53E's footprint for going on ships. - BillCJ 06:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm going to work on the CH-53 & CH-53E articles then use what I can there for background in the CH-53K sandbox article. I should know the ins and outs of it better too. Seems like the HTH will be a totally new heli or K variant. -Fnlayson 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Get well soon

Mmm, delicious chicken soup...

Here's hoping you get well soon. In the mean time, enjoy the soup. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I awarded you a barnstar for all your great work. Overdue. Get well soon. --John 06:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's hopin' you're not too bad & feeling better soon! Mark83 18:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Take two aspirin and mail me the $50! Get well soon! Askari Mark (Talk) 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes do get well.Sparrowman980 01:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

C'mon Bill no lying around on the Job, Get Well BuddyANigg 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling question

Copyedit from my talk page: "BillZ, per this diff, is it "centred" or "centered" up there in in the Great North? I can't keep the differences straight in my head right now! - BillCJ 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"

Hi BillCJ, Canada uses the British convention, which would make it "centred." FWIW Bzuk 00:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC).

P-51 Mustang

I am curious why you reverted my edits to P-51 Mustang, stating it is "unnecessary". The last sentence of the first paragraph is a claim to notability that is unreferenced. Who says "The P-51 became one of the conflict's most successful and recognizable aircraft."? I added a notability statement with a valid reference; it was my intent to indirectly support the unreferenced statement and demonstrate how important the Mustang was. I thought I was improving the article; the revert says otherwise. So that I might avoid doing the wrong thing in the future, would you please explain the rationale for deleting this; why is it unnecessary to state the importance of the aircraft with a valid reference? Thanks. Truthanado 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Bill is under the weather, I'll take a stab at answering your question. The fact that one organization decided it was "#1" is simply their opinion and a trivial note. The intro is a summary of the main points of the article as a whole, so that really isn't the place for it. There might be a place for it elsewhere in the article, but I don't see anything obviously apropos without it sounding like spam for The Military Channel. You'll also find a reluctance on the part of many WP:AIR editors to have opinions about "the best" aircraft to appear in our articles because it tends to lead to edit wars and long, pointless debates on the talk pages. Thanks for making the effort to learn rather than revert-spar – and your attempt to make a constructive addition is much appreciated! Askari Mark (Talk) 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope Bill feels better soon. Thanks for the response. Just out of curiosity, what if the added phrase were "The P-51D Mustang is considered one of the top fighter aircraft of all time." with the Military Channel reference? I am not going to do that ... just wondering. Truthanado 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not within our purvue here to render such judgements. At best, you could say "...is considered by some as one of the...", and then cite the non-trivial refs that do render that judgement. We just report what others say, we don't come to conclusions ourselves. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If I were to add a statement like "The P-51D Mustang is considered [by many] one of the top fighter aircraft of all time", I’d probably want to cite several (ca. 3) reliable sources to that effect and preferably I’d want sources that surveyed many people, not simply internal editorial staff voting. I’d also probably want to limit it to “one of the top fighter aircraft of World War II” or else say it’s “one of the most popular fighter aircraft of all time.” These are easier to find citations for. However, for the reasons I mentioned earlier and because of my preference for avoiding the use of weasel words, I generally don’t add such things to articles. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be a sober encyclopedia, not an aviation enthusiast website. Best regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes, guys. Mark stated exactly why I removed the item, so I won't repeat it. - BillCJ 01:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you up and about ... um, you did mail in the $50 for my medical advice, right? ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale picture

Hello, well it turns out that you were right, it is in fact the deck of the John C. Stennis. I should have clicked on the image to check the description before making the change. When I saw the text of the Rafale being on the deck of a carrier, I immediately thought it was about the tests done a few weeks ago on board the Enterprise when 2 airplanes actually landed and not simply did touch-and-goes. Here is a picture of that event [5]. I didn't realize it was some previous event. Anyway, I corrected my mistake on the article and changed the text to performing a touch and go to avoid any confusion. Thanks for checking. --McSly 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a prob. Since the French had to but US-made catapults and arresting gear (since they were the only ones making them anymore), their aircraft are fully compatible with US carriers now, esp the E-2s (I'm not sure about the Super Etendards though). It is making for some good stories and pics of cross-deck activity. So thanks for the link to the enterprise pics. - BillCJ 04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome pic link...too bad there's not a pic of the cat shot off the bow... AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you like it. There is a youtube video here [6]. Not sure we can use it on WP though. --McSly 05:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Back when I was a "squid" (I was a green-shirt) in the "NAV" ('79-'85), we (USS JFK) operated in the Med and off the west east coast of France with their carriers. We took a couple of their aircraft aboard for various reasons. As I recall we had to use the bridle to launch them instead of the shuttle. I'm pretty sure at least one was an Etendard and I know for a fact I saw an F-8 Crusader, I got an up-close look at it before it left. One of my cherished memories. The only other F-8 I ever saw was through the window of a cargo plane waiting to take off at Cecil Field, which was also really cool. In the video, I saw a number of 'gawkers' during the trap, we would have never allowed that, especially after we had that cross-deck pendant part and kill 5 guys during our ORE in 1982. (Welcome back, good to see you didn't let "them" win.) --Colputt 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Colputt! I just needed some down-time to recoup! From what I have read, you're right thatt the SuE and F-8s used the bridle to launch. As far as I know, the later Nimitz class ships aren't equipped for bridles at all, as were the firt three (or maybe two, not sure) Nimitzes. I doubut the early ones even have the equipment to launch with bridles anywmore, but have not heard for certain either way. THat's where the new FN planes using the hold-back/shuttle comes in to make the FN planes cross-deck compatible agin is a great thing. Btw, does anyone know of an article somewhere detailing some of the recent cross-deck activity? That would be a GREAT read, I'm sure! - BillCJ 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was the next ship built after the Ike that left off the single bridle retreval horn that the Nimitz class carriers had. If I remember correctly, my wife's uncle said the horn had been removed from the Ike before his last cruise. The JFK had three horns when I was aboard. --Colputt 19:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thirteen Colonies

Given your past history I'm assuming your edit of Thirteen Colonies was some kind of mistake? --NeilN 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What mistake? I reverted vandalism. I assume you saw my edit summary, but didn't read what I reverted very carefully. You'll see my edit summary was a play on the vandalism. I do that to amuse myself so I don't go crazy reverting IP vandalism, which need not occor in the first place, but is allowed to by sacred oath. - BillCJ 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. You are completely right. --NeilN 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

JCA Gunship

You might find this interesting Bill. The Air Force is considering a gunship version of JCA (from Air Force magazine's Daily Report). They want make a mini-gunship out of it by adding a 30 mm cannon. The gunship will be used for Special Operations Command. Sounds like the set-up with the AC-130. Take care. -Fnlayson 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've claimed (somewhat tongue-in-cheek), the C-27J is the modern incarnation of the C-123 Provider. It seems the AF is making my statement even more true now, as their were 2 AC-123 gunship variants. The more things change, the more they stay the same! - BillCJ 05:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly the same, though. The AC-123K just dropped scads of bomblets. The JCA gunship is supposedly to carry a single 30mm cannon. It would seem to me that an A-10 could do the same thing and more survivably. I'd expect a load-out more like the AC-47's would be better suited to SOF needs. Also, one of the reasons the four-engine AC-130 was preferred over two-engined gunships was the fact that they attract quite a bit of ground fire and four engines have roughly twice the survivability of two. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm guessing they want some extra capability. Like being able to carry a little cargo or troops. If is like the 30 mm cannon on the AC-130, it's lighter, and fires slower than the Hog's. -Fnlayson 04:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Harrier variants

I've changed the box to use the full-width style, but I'm not sure if the separation of the contents into multiple blocks still violates some guideline from WP:AIR. If you could check the template and let me know if there's some particular form the innards need to have, that'd be great. Thanks! Kirill 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that for me. All I know how to do is copy existing boxes, and change the text - formmatting is beyond my skills at this point. As to the multiple boxes, even {{Aviation lists}} has the multiple blocks now, and no one in WP:AIR has objected to this point. I prefer the other style, but some other project somewhere has decided the multiple-blocks should be used Wiki-wide, so I guess we're stuck with it! Again, thanks for fixing it to full-width! - BillCJ 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Hi Bill, hope you're feeling better. If time and health permit, a copyedit of my latest project, 2002 airtanker crashes would be much appreciated! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fishy

Please give me some good faith assumptions. Note where the editor applies for unblock and promises not to do it again. Also, note where I have notified Penwhale, the blocking administrator. There is a note on my talk page regarding this and I have replied. So I don't think the term "Fishy admin behavior" applies. Best regards, Navou ^banter 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the "won't do it again" part on his page, as hid it for some reason that I don't understand. From what was visible on the page, it looked suspicious to me, and that is all I meant by "fishy" - suspicious. Anyway, he was obviously lying, and unblocking him early did him absolutely no good. Hopefully he'll be banned soon, and I will push to see that it happens. one reason I contacted Alan is because he is more thorough, patient, and assumes good faith better than I, and can usually figure things out pretty good. I'm sorry you were offended, but I didn't realize I needed to go to edit mode to read things like block requests. I did check everything else on the page that was visible, and then I went to an admin I trusted to look into the matter. Hopefully you can understand how it might seem odd to someone not familar with your edit style, and realize that had I not been giving you some benefit of the doubt, I would have used a much stronger word than "fishy". - BillCJ 04:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the way with text based mediums that intentions are not well known. I'll be thinking of another way to handle block requests without disabling the template so folks don't have to go into edit mode, so in a way, this is a good thing. I'll be keeping a close eye on the editor if the unblock does expire. Best regards, Navou ^banter 04:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Supersonic transports and grammatical gender

Hi Bill. I wondered if you had seen this discussion. I thought you might have a useful opinion on it either way. Take care, --John 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

222U images

Bill, since we have the 222U spare at our base, I grabbed some tech images and dropped them onto the article page...feel free to move them around or remove them if you think them unhelpful. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They look good. However, because of the specs table, the immages stack up above the table at 800x600. Not a BIG deal, but maybe we can put one of them elsewhere on the page. - BillCJ 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...sorry about that. In my browser (I'm a Netscape rebel), the laid nicely alongside the right of it. Oh well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Sikorsky H-53

Could you look at Sikorsky H-53? I think it was supposed to be a disambiguation page, but it has a stub tag. I don't know how to correct it. Thanks. --Colputt 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a DAB footer in place of the Stub tag. There is supposed to be some sort of "NA" assesment rating that can be added on the talk page within the WP:AVIATION/MILHIST tags. I've also expanded the links to cover the Super Jollies and the Super Stallion variants. - BillCJ 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bell 214ST

Dear Bill: No problem on the 214ST photo! When I found the article I knew I had some photos. That photo is one I took two years ago. I find the best way to get photos for Wikipedia is to take them myself. I have about 10,000 aircraft photos that I have shot since 2004, so I put them into articles when they look like they will be of use. I have more photos of that 214ST, but that is the best one. Ahunt 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey

Please, give your opinion on the discussion page. I believe that it would be relevant to add information about:

- The V-22's lack of autorotation (information not present on the text)

- The V-22's light armament (information not present on the text) EconomistBR 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bill, if you have a reference or can point me to one about its armaments, that'd be great. I really doubt they would bother to put a .50 cal gun on it, more likely a 20 mm one. Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on that. I would think the 50 cl would be prefferable as it would weigh much less than the 20mm system would, and be less expensive, and easir to retrofit. But as they say, necessity is the mother of inventions, and I don't doubt the ones flying into combat might come up with a jury-rigged solution to the whole problem that works well. - BillCJ 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, don't want to add too much weight. I did find a presentation by Bell and GD mainly on the .50 cal turret. Looks like it weigh under 500 lb. -Fnlayson 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Thought you'd want to see this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Want to...?

...split an article? Take a look at the Hughes H-6 Talk page. --Born2flie 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done! If we never get it to A/MH-6 Little Bird, that will be okay. You and Jeff do good work. --Born2flie 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A Bridge Too Far

Thanks for linking that for me... Didja read the copy? I just barely skimmed the cream off of the letter, which runs 3/4 of a page, at least! He talks about the airborne units that participated in the jump, and all kinds of marking and code details. I thought I would just began to add SOME of the data that The Battle of Britain (film) has been accorded for a LONG time... For some, reason, a Bridge has received considerably less input.

Mark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Another copy edit request

Bill, I'm finally done with an article that became a lot longer than I originally anticipated, U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal. It could use a good copyedit, if/when you have time. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I was wondering if you are up too it if you could take a look at this and if you can please leave a comment.Sparrowman980 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [[7]]

Air Dominance

Good compromise.141.155.128.109 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and airship stuff

Thanks for watching my back on the vandalism overnight! And thanks for adding your comments in. I've left a message for the editor that got a bit carried away with the del noms. Also, I left a note and offer of help on the uploader, User:Airshipman, probably wouldn't hurt for others to do the same. Hopefully he hasn't been too discouraged...be nice if he checked in and at least saw that someone around here cared. Well, off to work. We're flying a bunch of reporters around this morning, so I have to go clean the grease off the rotor head and make things look pretty! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CH-124 Sea King photo

Sikorsky CH-124A Sea King with blades folded for storage.

Thanks for thinking of me on this issue! I have only one Canadian Sea King digital photo and, while it is a nicely exposed and detailed photo, it was shot at an airshow of a static display aircraft and so has general public in the forground of it. I am currently going through my old (1975-1994) 35 mm photo albums and will see if I can find something better there. Ahunt 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked the S-61L photo! That one turned out well when I shot it back then. I am still looking for a reasonable CH-124 photo for you! Ahunt 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I found one that isn't too bad and posted it to the article (and here). I will keep an eye out for more as I work through my books of 35 mm photos. Nothing better to do today - the rain is coming down here in Ottawa! - Ahunt 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Braves

Sorry, I got a little impatient when twice in two days someone (different ones) questioned this well-covered story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about being well-covered or not, at least for me. Per WP:ATTR, we need to have sources for just about everything, esp things like this. But I understand the frustration - there's plenty of things that get to me, like new info not being cited! Anyway, you should see what I took out when I added the tag! - BillCJ 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why isn't every line in the article cited? Meanwhile, you were right to remove that editorial about the "dominate" Mets, posted by someone who apparently missed the news flash that the Mets failed to make the playoffs after one of the biggest September flops in history. But it was funny stuff to read. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My Our stalker

this was an interesting edit...especially since that's a really old address. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! I wonder if your stalker realizes we turned over his complete address to the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security on that first day he became a problem? Last I heard from CIA on my old stalker was his cell number (And I don't mean a mobile phone!) at Gitmo, but I don't think he survived there long ;) - BillCJ 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's time to stalk back. Do you have Google Earth? The vast majority of the IPs associated with Wikzilla show the location of use at 1880 Campus Commons Drive, Reston VA, 20191. So I called it up on GE...or friend is at N38.943262, W77.333439, which appears to be a dorm or other college building. Remember how you supposed that he was about 12, and I guessed 14-15? Looks like we're both wrong...a very immature college kid. Probably a freshman, because his comments clearly show that he hasn't taken any higher critical thinking classes. Interestingly, though, the OR comment on your user page that you just reverted comes from a different part of the campus, located at 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive, same zip, which can be seen at N38.950032, W77.377746. Not sure what this building is, though it looks like a medical facility (mental ward would fit the "Reston Stalker's" profile. It would be interesting to find out what Virginia's laws on stalking and internet abuse is. It would be further interesting to find out what this college's policies are, since the Reston Stalker is clearly using campus internet services, and I'll bet that students have to sign the standard form agreeing not to misuse the system, and I'll bet that students who do misuse internet services are subject to disciplinary action and possibly even prosecution. If so, a formal report to campus security, with exact times that the Stalker made his edits from the different locations might help identify his real identity, and might result in some real-world consequences for his choice to be obnoxious. My initial reaction to this guy was ho-hum, boring. But, this could prove to be quite interesting. If the Reston Stalker demonstrates such behavior online, I wonder if he's like that in real life, and I'll bet Campus Security would be quite interested in the fact that they have a stalker on campus, especially with how security at all Virginia campuses is heightened.... Thoughts? AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting. Doesn't Air Methods operate in DC? Maybe someone there knows an agent in the VA State Police or Investigations that can give an answer on the legal part, and even do some follow-up. Might mention the stalker appears to spend alot of time with video games, possibly ones featuring the F-22 and/or Typhoon. - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta airport article

Check out my comment on that article's talk page. Also, check out Ahunt's gallery on my talk page! AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Autiger did some work on it, including adding in the references. Sorry he took away the fun for you ;) - BillCJ 03:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great (big) Book

I managed to get a copy of this book by Spick too. I started looking for books by David Donald and modern aircraft books and ended up finding that one. It's almost too large to read in bed and stuff. I expected in to have short entries on many aircraft, but it's several smaller books put together. Take care. -Fnlayson 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

elix / helix

Just so you know, I had actually done all the background research myself, and was going to go along with helikoeides, even though we have not established it as the actual word used, when Appleyard made another change and only sourced it with the lexicon. He has that problem. He made the first change without the "h" three weeks ago and then he makes the other change stating he "knows" Greek. He knows it so well, that he allowed his own mistake to exist for three weeks. I can easily find references to elikoeides that are Greek references, so I didn't have a problem with the first edit. It also came up in the web translators.

Almost every other historical reference that I've found besides these two (Leishman, Century of Flight) do not mention d'Amecourt by name. If they do, they appear to have used the dictionaries' etymology of heliko + pteron, and one reference even claimed that the word was formed as helic + o + ptere (helik + pteron, needing a "connector": o). Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.

Judy Rumerman (Early Helicopter Technology essay on Century of Flight) used Leishman as a reference for the essay, so that can only mean that the source of the word, misspelled or whatever, comes from one of Leishman's sources:

• Liberatore, E. K. 1998. Helicopters Before Helicopters, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL.
• Wolf, A. L. 1974. "The Vision of D'Amecourt," Vertiflite, 20 (5), pp. 2--6.

However, if you want to argue WP:RS look at Leishman's reference list. Most of his references are primary sources. Here is a guy who is thorough in his research and in sourcing his statements, I mean, he has a PhD and is a professor after all. I, for one, would like to get a hold of the paper by Wolf.

How long have you edited with me, and you don't recognize that I only want the article to be as accurate and of as high a quality as possible? It doesn't matter what I know or what I suspect, I source everything I can. I actually do not like disputes but I won't be walked all over, either. Some people push my buttons, and Appleyard's philosophy of editing on Wikipedia is one of those things that irritates me. I mean, take a look at the history section, it is atrocious; but he thinks it looks better than it did. It is an eyesore on this article that should be one of the crown jewels of WP:Air, as should any general article about aircraft. That is my goal. That is always where my edits and comments are aimed, towards meeting the standard of WP:WIAGA and attempting to reach WP:TPA. --Born2flie 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Born, I know you just want to make the most accurate article - I've never faulted you intentions. It's obvious to anyone who has studied Classical or Koine Greek at any level that you have no formal experience with those languages, just as it would be obvious to you I don't have a clue about how to fly a helicopter if I tried to edit/correct the Helicopter article's specifics about flying. That doesn't make either of us stupid, nor does it mean we can't learn about the subjects. My concern is that both of the internet sources you have provided are identical in wording, which tells me that they most likely have a source in common, or that one copied text from the other. I have suggested that we contact Leishman though his e-mail address to confirm what is in his book, since no one has access to the printed editions. Dictionaries and lexicons are reliable sources - we can't just pick which sources we want because someone else provided them, and they disagree with our preferred sources. If there is an obvious contradiction, then further research is required, and i've never opposed that.

One thing about your statements above: your wrote:

Leishman is the only one that I've seen that names one word as an adjective and one word as a noun for a phrase meaning spiraling wing, which actually sounds accurate to a description of the helicopter rotor in action.

However, all the illustrations of helicopter-type devices I've seen from the 1800s show an actual spiral-type structure, not modern long, thin, articulated blades attached to a rotor mast. Thus, it's not describing a modern rotor in action, though the despcription is apt. That's not Original research on my part, but merely an interpretation of the data available. I shouldn't - and won't - ever try to put such analysis into an article, as that truly is original research. However, I would be foolish to ignore something that doesn't seem right to my understanding of a topic, or that contradicts both my personal knowledge/experiance and other reliable sources. That is the case with the Helix/elix issue. - BillCJ 07:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not thinking clearly here. d'Amecourt is the point of origin, not ancient Greek language. Prior to d'Amecourt, this word helicopter did not exist. His invention does not look like da Vinci's screw, so it would not imply that he meant a helical shape, but rather a helical motion through the air as the aircraft moved, i.e. spiraling. Some clarification, I did not originally put the Greek word in there, I simply found a reference for it. It met my requirements, it had the date, it had the individual, and it had the Greek words that were currently in the article. Now, if one or both Greek words are wrong, this author attributes the wrong words being used to the individual who coined the phrase. Simply saying that it is the wrong words and then changing the words because you know better, is OR. The lexicon doesn't help because the source claims that d'Amecourt used those words. I can also find sources that don't have the year he coined it and claim that he used words you would be totally comfortable with.

So, the issue becomes, which words did d'Amecourt actually use? Did he use an incorrect transliteration because he was unlearned in Greek? You can't say that "this" word is the correct one according to the lexicon and pronounce it so. You have to document that d'Amecourt used that word. As far as references, when you have one that you like and one that is more descriptive but appears wrong, it bears some more investigation rather than to pronounce the one correct and the one you dislike because of error as wrong. I've seen nothing but speculation from Appleyard and yourself about d'Amecourt, and I'd just like some proof. A source, a reference that says he used the wrong word, or that he used the correct word.

I prefer Prof. Leishman as a reference because he lists his two sources that he got his information from, and I can use that to track it down. Or, we can email him as you suggest, but until this issue is resolved, I have removed the reference to the Greek language and attributed it solely to d'Amecourt, which almost any reference will support. --Born2flie 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually seen a reference to d'Amecourt's words in print form, not on the internet? As far as I can tell, the answer to that is No. Maybe you found a print edition before leaving on you assignment, but if you did, and said that, I missed it. What I am saying is that you cannot trust an internet copy of a printed work for diacritical markings - both Appleyard and I had red flags go up on the word, because it doesn't look right with everything we've seen before ont he word, or our knowledge of the Greek language. I assume Apple changed it in the article without checking the source because he assumed it was a simple typing error. I probably would have done the same thing had I noticed it first. It just din't fit our understanding of Greek spelling or noun/adjective declension. Once I realized the source had that spelling, I speculated on why I thought it could be a copyist error, but I also have asked for further research on the original sources, including contacting the professor. If the printed copy shows a spelling/marking that is different from the internet copy, including using the "h" or rough breathing mark, then the issue should be settled. If it contains the exact spelling, then I'd prefer seeing the sources for that source, but at least that source will have been verified, and acceptable for the article. If that's not clear thinking, then it must be 5am EDT! - BillCJ 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the German article has "helikos", and French "helix", but without sources. I'll keep checking the other interwikis in the latin alphabet, and see if one has some different sources we can check. - BillCJ 09:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be the Holy Grail: La Conqûete de l'air par l'hélice. Exposé d'un nouveau système d'aviation, the 40-page work by d'Amecourt where he coined the word. - BillCJ 09:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The web document is on Professor Leishman's website area (www.glue.umd.edu/~leishman) for the university at which he instructs. If that isn't accurate to anything else he's written, I don't know what would be. That webpage mentions that the essay/article includes extracts from his printed text, whether that includes that portion of the history discussion or not, again, we'll have to contact the Professor. Once again, I'll point out that he directly references where he acquired his information from in that essay, "...see Wolf (19681974) and Liberatore (1998)." I've not seen any other reference online (or in print) do that for where they received their information.

I agree that the document by d'Amecourt would settle all. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online reference of it and a library search would do me little good. --Born2flie 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to translate the French for you? :D --Born2flie 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the Professor. I will let you know his response. I also emailed the Staff at AHS' publication Vertiflite to ask them if Wolf referred to the Greek words in his publication. In the introduction to his essay, Professor Leishman describes Liberatore as one of the most authoritative sources on early helicopter developments, including, apparently, the period during which d'Amecourt coined the term. --Born2flie 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No response yet, but, in these days of Spam filters, my emails might've been trashed for the sake of sanity. --Born2flie 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you helping Appleyard with his patience. I resent the email using a more official email and received a response back almost immediately. He is going to try to track down the original d'Amecourt article, saying that it may be in the Liberatore collection, which is now at the NASM. If he finds it, he'll let me know. He also says that Liberatore has the same word in his book (p.224) that was originally included in the Helicopter article (elikoieoas). Thus, the need to get closer to the actual source in order to resolve the issue. --Born2flie 05:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The d'Amecourt paper is in the Library of Congress. I obviously don't have access, but am contemplating paying for a photocopy or digital reproduction. No feedback on the Wolf paper in Vertiflight Vol. 20 ed. 5. Prof. Leishman also says that he spoke with a colleague who is a native Greek speaker. The colleague spoke with his friends back home and came up with:

It is true that this word cannot be found in any of the modern or ancient Greek lexicon. For this reason we had to dissect the word. After a lengthy discussion over the phone with colleagues in Greece we came to the following conclusion. "Elikoeioas" is probably an old epithet that describes an object in which its main devise has a helical shape. When it is joined with the Greek word “pteron” (wing) then it produces the composite word “elikopteron” (helicopter), which describes the entire object that incorporates wings of a helical (or spiral) shape. The word “elikoeides” or “helicoeides” is more popular but it only describes the shape of an object, period.

I'm not sure if that will meet with your criteria, but it sure does explain why the professor included it as is. --Born2flie 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Including that once it's confirmed is fine with me. Anthony's pushing his view a bit much even for me. In the end, I think including boht sources, with the dictionary version in a footnote, may be workable. After all, anyone who picks up a dictionary and compares what we have may be confuded as to the differences. Including both sources is usually the way Wikipedia handles competing reliable sources, and the dictionaries are generally considered reliable. I'm not gonna make a bigger issue of it if you don't think that's the way to go though. - BillCJ 07:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's being worked right now, apparently. Although, I will warn up front that any attempts to link the Greek etymological references to d'Amecourt will be edited until a verifiable historical source is provided. And the minute I have any proof that Anthony and Where the Sun Doesn't Shine were incorrect, I will not only happily point it out to them, over and over again, I will forward the information to Dr. Leishman so that it can be propogated to the point of no contestation.

I understand your point of view, however dictionary etymologies are sometimes developed by looking at the word and guessing, albeit an educated guess, what the origins are. I admit I was wrong on the transliteration versus transcription issue, the "h" would be present in an English transliteration of the word today, but I also believe that the issue is more than that, it is also what d'Amecourt intended. Considering that the A.L. Wolf article in the 1974 Vertiflite magazine was his translation of the pamphlet by d'Amecourt (I have a reprint of Part 1, courtesy of AHS), d'Amecourt was a reader of Classical Greek, familiar with a Greek scientist/philosopher that he refers to as Theophile.

The French word for propeller (or screw, as in the screw that propels a ship) is "hélice", which Wolf translates directly as "helix". As near as I can tell, where Wolf has translated the article as d'Amecourt describing what helicopter means ("hélices comme des ailes"), it is essentially, "propellers as wings", since he envisioned more than one main rotor in his description. It is possible that d'Amecourt's use of hélice is what brought about the etymological description of helix being the basis of the word. However, even if we assume the direct correlation, it is possible that elikoeioas isn't a single word, but two or more words, as Classical Greek didn't use spaces, punctuation, or diacritics.

The English phrase "helix as wings" looks like this, "ελικα, οπως φτερα" in modern Greek (a la Google Translate). Certainly looks like a lot of extra characters if you saw it all close together (ελικαοπωςφτερα). Granted, the Classical Greek would not be the same exact words, based on the current discussion. Essentially, what I'm saying is that it looked something like "ελικοειοωςπτερων" ("elikoeioaspteron" or something similar), and instead of separating it into a phrase of more than two words, the uninitiated simply separated the one word he could recognize (pteron) and assumed that the rest was as Dr. Leishman's colleague and friends did, a form of helix to describe pteron.

I'm going to suggest the same to Dr. Leishman and see what his Greek friend thinks of it. --Born2flie 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The paper by d'Amecourt was published in 1863, yet Liberatore credits d'Amecourt with coining the word some two years earlier. I am no longer thinking that La Conqûete de l'air par l'hélice. Exposé d'un nouveau système d'aviation is the holy grail and that the source is some other correspondence of d'Amecourt's, perhaps with one of his contemporaries or some other worthy. I still feel that the paper has served as a clue of sorts (through Wolf's translation) to getting closer to the truth. --Born2flie 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

hehehe, the reputation of Wikipedia strikes again. Mentioned the dispute in Wikipedia and the Professor stated that we had come to an end in our correspondence. Can't blame him. He has his academic reputation to maintain and Wikipedia is not held in high regard by universities and other organizations that require research. Oh, well, anything that resulted would've been OR, anyways. Guess I'll have to wait until I have physical access to a library once again. Lesson learned. --Born2flie 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

XF-104 AFD

Thanks for sticking up for me and I was shocked to see that tag to be honest, not sure what the process is but hopefully if there is enough support it will stay. Unfortunately if that article goes then so do I, I have tried my best to wade through the editing minefield. Thanks Nimbus227 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the editor who proposed the Afd is apparently coming back from an indefinite block as a sockpuppet and has a very ? history. FWIW, the action to go directly to an Afd is very questionable. I do not think that there was either much research done other than a cursory look at the Lockheed XF-104 article. What I also see is a pretext to do something "splashy" but I fear that it is also outwardly provocative for no reason. Bzuk 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Experienced Editors

Thats smacks of elitism if you ask me12.43.60.50 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it smacks of maturity. How long has this battle been going on on the Typhoon page? Several weeks at least. THat is called edit-warring, and it's not the recommended way to solve problems. Several editors, including you, have not exhibited the maturity to discuss the issue, and wait for a consensus to be agreed upon. Instead, you all throw out quotes and arguments to back up your claim, then you unilaterally make changes with no regard for others. Each side claims to have ALL the facts right, and that the others are wrong. Problem is, you can't all be right. Because this edit waring has shown known signs of ending, we've had to protect the page to prevent editing by unregistered users, who are the ones causing most of the problems. But as soon as the block comes off, you and others go right back to the same methods.

If you truly believe that your version of the facts is the correct one, then make your arguments and state your facts on the talk page. Try to convince the others editors that you are right - that is what building a consensus is. However, there are ususally at least 2 points of view in every argument, and often neither side is totally correct. When this is the case, it's best to present both views, with sources, and let the readers decide. THat is what mature editors do, otr at least try to do. We are still human, and we still make mistakes, but at lest we try to get along. THat is all we ask here: It's your choice. Make the right one. - BillCJ 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ping

Bill, check your email...article on the Bell 429 which might have good info for the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pete Carpenter

RE: Pete Carpenter

From http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0139432/ :

"The Sopranos" (1 episode, 1999)

   - Pilot (1999) TV Episode ("Theme from 'The Rockford Files'")

David Chase did the Sopranos, he met Carpenter and Post with Cannell on Rockford. Then Chase used the theme on the Sopranos pilot.

Thanks,

WikiDon 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what my research showed, and why I removed Cannell as creator of the show. I think somewhere along the line someone mixed up Cannell with Chase, as they did work together on other projects, just not the Sopranos. - BillCJ 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Now it's the time. I call ARBCOM to decide this amusing staff. It involve you and Bzuk. When it's enough, it's enough. See EH101.--Stefanomencarelli 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Skycrane crash PD images

Bill, this link has several public domain pics of the Skycrane crash on the day fire. I'm not gonna have time till at least tomorrow to harvest them and get them uploaded and used. Feel free to do so yourself if you need something to distract you from the Stefo fun! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Schweizer 330/333

I only have a 300C in digital format, but let me check and see if I have any 35 mm ones. Still looking for a better CH-124 photo too! - Ahunt 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CH-53K

Found some more specs on the K model on Sikorsky's page. It's supposed to have a MTOW of 84,700 lb with 3 x 6,000 hp engines. Payload peaks out at 36,000 lb on their chart. The H-53's capabilities have come a long way from the A model in the early 1960s. I'll keep working on it. -Fnlayson 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. ANd thanks for shepherding that and the other sandboxes for me. My health has been such that I just have'nt had the energy to work on them, and I'm thankful you are working on those that you can. Today, I've had to work on Stefo's ARBCOM against me and BZuk. Major fun that, but perhaps we will be able to rein him in at last. We'll see. - BillCJ 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, I'm using that sandbox for older CH-53 dev work too. Dang, that Arbitration thing looks rough. His text dumps mainly in F-14 and to a lessor degree in F-4 are the only ones I've had to deal with thankfully. Hang in there. -Fnlayson 00:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The CH-53K sandbox article is coming along. I'm working on some E model upgrade stuff now. In a few days I should be able to move that over to the CH-53E article. The K article should be ready for main space in a couple weeks. Although it'd be better to wait for preliminary specs out of Sikorsky, I think. -Fnlayson 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's looking great, Jeff! Concur on waiting for specs, or perhaps for some big announcement that gets some attention. THere's a user who does some work for Sikorsky who might be able to help with Specs, if they've been released publically. And though he works primarily on the S-92 and X2, I'll also see if he can find out if the K has an S-model number. - BillCJ 15:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• That'd be good. I like the K's new stub wings. -Fnlayson 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

EH101

I wish to support your decision to revert this unreferenced and grave NNPOV contribution on EH101, in which some confusion seems made on maybe hostile press rumours (written as rumours) relevant to Canadian structural problems with facts (thousands of flying hours so far). Moreover, in the same contribution it seems it was reported as a fact some Canadian EH101 project opponents complains sometimes used as a pretext in order to show too high maintenance figures. I think everything can be written on wikipedia, but when grave accuses are made to present day projects, I think clear and point by point references should be cited in order to lessen Wikipedia responsibility. I am following all the story since the beginning and the recent days spin-ups. I strongly agree with your choices. Feel free to contact me at will for what I can help. Regards --EH101 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, BillCJ. I saw you revert vandalism a few seconds ago, and I would like you to suggest you warn vandals using the following templates:

{{Subst:uw-v1}} {{Subst:uw-v2}} {{Subst:uw-v3}} {{Subst:uw-v4}}

Thanks, and happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I do warn occassionally, esp. registered users who are becoming problems that need to be dealt with by an admin. However, I generally do not warn for the following reasons:

1. I find the process to be tedious.
2. I find that too many admins are reluctant to block to IP vandals promptly enough to be effective, if they block at all.
3. I have not found a script or help program that is easy to use that also works well with my OS (WinXP) and browser (IE6)
4. I find a reluctance by admins to punitively block consistant vandals, yet they use punitive blocking measures agaisnt regular editors for offenses such as 3RR.
5. After having a multitude of problems related to IP vandalsim and harrassment, my attempts to approach Jim Wales to ask for help fell and deaf ears, and I was threatend with punitive action if I continued to object to to Open IP editing.

• As such, I refuse to waste my time cleaning up the Foundations messes in regards to most vandalism, when I know from experience that the Foundation does not back its editors if an IP gets vindictive. If a given user's vandalism becomes annoying, I have a couple of admins who are willing to help me out directly in blocking or in page protection. I'm sorry if my refusal to warn causes trouble for you, but I assure you it's far less trouble than the Foundation is causing both of us by their refusal to contemplate policy and other changes that might make it easier to fight vandalism and vindictive IPs. - BillCJ 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New words to live by

Aircrafts, planes, aerodromes, datas, fanatism, Irak, pullute, omosexualiy, unjustice, couvered, proposte, machted, outrageus, shxt, cleary! FWIW Bzuk 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

I think those are the "best", tho no doubt we'll see some new ones in the next few days. So I'll have to give some local attempts on some "native" words: Baloney, feducheeny, lazawnya, rigertony, regerleto, Petesa, and of course, their greatest export to America in the last 40 years, Gee-adda deLoreantess - BillCJ 01:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we got Nigella Lawson (yummy!); but howzabout this then:

In the local-speak, "Hoots mon, Ah dinnae ken jes whit ye're bletherin' aboot."

Or as my late Geordie father-in-law would say, "Waye-aye man, tha's gannen lost tha liggies doon woor nettie."

To which my late "black-country" grandmother might reply "Yowm b'aint wrong there ahr khid."

But my son would probably comment "Is it that yu is dissin' owr langwij? No respec' innit!"

(Sigh) Where did we go wrong? --Red Sunset 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (Translations available on request.)

Ah, you are all such full of herrors! <g> AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a few modifics are needed! --Red Sunset 19:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Typhoon

I think you're an admin. As I wrote on the Typhoon page, I think we need an admin to settle the issue. I understand you're on wiki-break and I respect that, but if you have time and are interested, that would be great. If not could you drop me a quick note and I'll seek another admin.

-Much Thanks Kitplane01 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SOrry, I'm not an admin, I just act like on on occasion :) Seriously, I'm just a concerned Wikipedia. However, User:Akradecki is an admin, and he's the one who's been protectiong the page. Let him know the problem, and I know he'll try to help in anyway he can. - BillCJ

Hello

Can you please help me sourcing of the Lavi pic?--Gilisa 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not tonight, heading to bed for my 8 hours of sleep. I will look into it tommorrow tho. YOu might post a note for help at WT:AIR, as we have editors around the world, and someone may be mor familarwith the copyright restrictions of the site the pic is from. That is a good pic, and I would certainly like to keep it in the article if the problems are worked out. Also, when adding a new pic, especially to the lead infobox, it's best to try to keep the existing pics in the aritcle by moving them down into the text. I was actually in the process of doing that when I realized your new pic had problems, so I just reverted it instead. Don't worry if your new at this; it took me several months beofre I was comfortable adding images on my own. - BillCJ 08:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but it seems that I will have to look for another picture which have easier license...cheers--Gilisa 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Concordeism

I've been playing around in your essays sandbox and added a couple of pics; I hope you like 'em. --Red Sunset 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Robset)

I've removed the poor-taste photo; it was an on the spur of the moment addition when I first saw the photo, but not worth any amount of humour at the expense of those lost in the accident or affected by it, and I dearly wish I'd never posted it. My apologies to all who may have been offended by it, and I trust that no-one will assume it was your own work. --Red Sunset 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Easier way

Hello, BillCJ. I noticed this. If you want immediate administrator action, here is a better place for that. Thanks! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, AIV is worthless. I prefer to go to admins who I know will actually do something about the vandal, not lecture me for not following preceedure correctly, and then ignoring the vandal. I appreciate your advice and all, and I know it's in good faith. However, I've been on Wikipedia long enough (over a year) to know what actually works around here, and what is a waste of time. Please don't offer me any more suggetions of this nature. Thanks, and I do appreciate the thought. - BillCJ 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on F-22 Raptor

BillBC, follow the edit history of the editor involved in reverts and comments on the talk page and it will take you to the ARBCOM? It seems the actions are malicious and unprovoked. I have asked an admin to look into it. Bzuk 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bill, sorry to hear you aren't feeling well. Hope things look up soon. As to the bizarre series of attacks, they seem to be related to the discussions revolving around the F-22 article and related discussion pages. I posted the following to Picaroon: "I don't know who the editor is either, someone else had tried to trace him down. He seems to be operating under the following IP addresses: 68.244.198.204, 162.84.187.178, 141.155.140.142, 70.107.171.151, Stoptheabuse, 70.107.173.5, 162.83.226.72, 162.83.226.119, 141.155.128.109, 76.102.190.6, 162.84.182.189, 162.83.254.13, 162.84.184.78 and 162.83.254.139. FWIW Bzuk 06:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)." What is the procedure with a widespread attack, can all submissions be removed at once? does it have to be by an admin? can pages be protected from anons? FWIW Bzuk 07:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Riddle: When is a sock not a sock?

[8] Hey, at least they guy has a bit of imagination. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've asked EH101 for a translation. It's creative, as is this, but at a college freshman or high school level. Reminds me of when young kids cover there eyes, and really thing you can't still see them! - BillCJ 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Xlation, thanks to babelfish, is "I cannot believe that all the group of this people in on on you, but does not allow that completely you explain your case. Excuses I pray the ignorance of all that one slanders you. They do not understand. Like the sheep, they are lost without they shepard". He's already asked for an unblock. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Having a word or two of encouragement is always useful. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

NotASockPuppetOfWikzilla

I saw the weird message in mencarelli's talk. It's a very poor grammar Italian message (maybe from a babelfish) titled "I declare". It continues with a very very poor grammar with something like: "I barely believe that all those people are against you and don't let you explain your case. Pardon them with their ignorance and all those calumnies against you. They do not understand. As sheeps they are lost without a shepard." It seems a taunt made from a non Italian troll aimed to raise the flame. Nothing everybody really needs. Next move ? Bye --EH101 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparable or non-comparable aircraft

Hi, Bill. I've noticed that you have deleted entries from the 'comparable aircraft' section of the article on the Gripen on several occasions. Maybe you could be a little more explanatory, I suggest on the talk page, on why certain aircraft are or are not comparable. I'm not an expert on the subject, in my world you could compare the Gripen with the new Airbus A380. The Airbus is bigger! That's a comparison, isn't it? ;-) LarRan 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's not what it means. per WP:AIR/PC: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. - BillCJ 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cobra pics

Bill, since you asked awhile ago about the USFS AH-1/209 Cobras, I thought I'd let you know that I got to get up-close-and-personal with one of them at Fox a couple of days ago, and have posted a pic to the AH-1 article. I've uploaded several more to Commons, you can see them on my gallery page, in the helo section. I didn't want to overwhelm the AH-1 article with these, but if you think one of the others is better than the one I posted, feel free to switch them out. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Beechcraft Super King Air

Copyedit form my talk page: "G'day Bzuk, I've been working over in Beechcraft land for a while and have seen a couple of references to the Canadian Forces "CT-145 Super Kingair". Other than on Wikipedia I can find no evidence of the CT-145 in CAF service. Could you please confirm so I can make the necessary changes (of course you could do it yourself if you want to, there are a few different articles where the reference appears). YSSYguy 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the site's reliability, but you might look at http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/trainers/kingair/index.php . - BillCJ 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Now this is just off the top of my head (and you know how much that can hurt) but the Raytheon/Beechcraft (Beech) C-90B King Air (replacing earlier C-90As) used in training at Southport Aerospace (Portage la Prairie, Manitoba) by the No. 3 Canadian Forces Flying Training School (3 CFFTS) is probably the only use of the King Air in the Canadian military. I'll check to see what their designation is but I always thought it went by "Beech C-90 King Air." FWIW Bzuk 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)."

BTW, thought you might need this:

Seen this?

Per this, what happens now? Having never been through an ARBCOM, I have no idea what to expect now. It doesn't seem like he is leavibng en.Wiki, just the ARBCOM. I get the feeling he had no clue what really happens in the ARBCOM, but expected a quick censure of us. He's demanded apologies at least twice, and seems put out we haven't responded, or been made to apologize. - BillCJ 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Bzuk 03

10, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

This is a very disturbing development. I don't know what to think of the whole mess. This arbitration hearing cost everyone involved a lot of time and effort for what? FWIW, I reread some of the edit history that was accumulated and it just made no sense as some of the angry responses were what Redset called "feigned indignation." Other times, there were even attempts at mollifying other editor's concerns but when very little support was forthcoming, a reversion to unseemly and ill-tempered comments. Bzuk 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Re. user:GB-UK-BI

user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, --noclador 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)