User talk:Fnlayson/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Rotary (Minigun)

I only just saw your edit to the Minigun page. Wikipedia doesn't like to send me notifications for some reason. You are correct that it is not a cannon. However, it *is* a rotary. Also, the Rotary page talks about the Gatling gun and Gatling-type weapons. The correct listing for Minigun is as a Rotary weapon. The Gatling designation is definitely not correct. Also, if you don't want it mentioned as a cannon, you should remove the "Modern rotary cannon" menu from the bottom of the page. --Trifler (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, but you're either 2 weeks late here or blaming the wrong editor. Navboxes sometimes use general names and I did not add it. Try using the note above about using the article's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I always notice your edits to Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and other aircraft topics and want you to know that they are appreciated. Thanks! KNHaw (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Privacy

I am exercising my right to privacy, a great weakness of Wikipedia.

I will either edit the generated signatures, or I will press the reset button on my router. Either way I'm not going to be contactable through a generated signature. Also note that I sometimes login and have talk pages written for other contributors, proving that the generated signature is a ridiculous idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 (talk)

(talk page stalker) Per Wikipedia:Signatures#When signatures should and should not be used: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." (Emphasis in original.) There's always a record of an IP's contributions in the page history that cannot be removed, so it's a bit ridiculous to make editors look in it every time just to see who made a post. - BilCat (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It is even more ridiculous to look at the IP at all when it can change on whim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 (talk)

That's one of the primary reasons I'm opposed to Wikipedia's Open Editing Policy. I protect my privacy by not editing from IPs, as it tells people a whole lot more about me, especially where I'm from. - BilCat (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here BilCat! You're left nothing for me to say on this. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

F/A-18 operations with Kuwait

Hey Fnlayson hope you're having a wonderful day.. as for the subject at hand im not 100% familiar with how to add Citation, Maybe you're more experienced with that, so here's some sources http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/kuwait/kuwait-fighter-jets-conducted-3-000-sorties-in-yemen-1.1984318 https://sunnews.com.pk/kuwait-fighter-jets-conducted-3000-sorties-in-yemen/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHardned (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Add sources in the article when making changes or additions to support the text. This allows others to verify the info. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a fan of edit-fests in general?

...or just this one? Either way, I congratulate you for your good judgement. Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm not interested in edit fests now. I have participated in something like that several years ago. Does my participation or non-participation really matter to you? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think edit-fests are, at best, a mixed blessing, and I was curious if you were a fellow agnostic. No more than that. (Unless you wanna organize the A-Festivistic Underground, with kewl t-shirts and stuff. Maybe secret handshakes....) Anmccaff (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• No organizing or secret handshakes for me. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

AW101 Norway undo

Hi there, you recently undid an edit on the AW101 page that I feel was valid. The citation that was already present at the end of the para covered the necessary detail. It is the Ministry of Justice who ran the NAWSARH competition and who are responsible for the acquisition of the aircraft. I felt the edit was an enhancement of the page and would like to see it re-instated. I'd rather have the discussion first and reach a conclusion mrather than a round of undos. Scott belzonitt (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to an edit by IP 213.152.44.157 on March 14. There was no source or explanation for the change. I did change the section label and wording to me(be) more general. If you want to discuss change, please use the article's talk page (Talk:AgustaWestland AW101) as requested at the top of this page. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1

Hello (again?). I created Wikipedia:Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1 regarding the FA status of Firefly (TV series). --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That was quick. I thought you might wait to hear from 2-3 of list first, but whatever. There has not been much interest rewriting/fixing in the episode summaries. --Finlayson (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I just thought one support for review would be enough. Ah well. Feel free to join in, anyways. --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• That's alright. I don't disagree with starting the FAR; it just seemed fast. --Finlayson (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Now the article is a candidate to become a former Featured Article with a broken star icon. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

EngvarB and the Ukrainian crisis article

Hello, Fnlayson. I think you are confusing the use and purpose of EngvarB. Firstly, the article was tagged as being EngvarB from its inception as the original writer of the article did not want to proscribe an absolute English variant because it was known that most of the contributors would be from various parts of the world (in fact, predominantly not even native English speakers), and that MOS:TIES did not apply. Unlike other variants, there is no corresponding template to indicate which national variant of English is used in the article for templating the talk page. Thanks for hearing me out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. There is no documentation on {{EngvarB}} to clarify this. [template format fixed] --Finlayson (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point. I recall seeing some form of brief mention somewhere in the past, but it isn't clearly documented where it ought to be. Neither is it clear as to why such a corresponding template doesn't exist. One would imagine that it's useful for editors to know that the spelling is non-US, but not strictly Oxford spelling, etc. I've noticed that when scripts are written predominantly with bots in mind, there's a tendency to overlook the human component. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the talk page templates are discouraged by the MoS as a form of WP:OWNERSHIP. They are only meant to be used on pages where there has been a dispute over the variety of English used. Templates like EngvarB, on the other hand, are used for maintenance purposes, and are not outwardly visible in a 'flag planting' way. I can confirm that my use of EngvarB is exactly as Iryna says. RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. No corresponding talk page template makes sense. I'm not thinking very laterally this morning. Thanks, RGloucester. Good to hear from you, and hope you're doing well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm well, and I hope you are too. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point, that'd be over-templating to put it on the talk page for every article with Br English. I added a sentence to {{EngvarB}} doc page about usage. This template seems to be a remnant with no corresponding cousins for Amer English, etc. --Finlayson (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have reverted you, but I thought it was odd that the documentation had disappeared. Lo and behold, it seems a drive-by IP blanked the page on the 12th. I've restored the original documentation, which should explain the situation quite well. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm staying off the template pages; I keep getting reverted. --Finlayson (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi (re: DC-9 article)

Considering the McDonnell Douglas DC-9, I accidentally wrote those lines in the wrong model, I was meant to put it in the DC-10's description. Thanks for the reminder. RecentEdits (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017

Fair enough. Try to take your time and add your source in the future. -Finlayson (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Just dropping in to say 'hi'. I'm hardly ever here anymore. Life took over I guess. Maybe one day I'll return. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Founders. Glad to hear from you. Hope you're doing well. And life is more important. Take care. --Finlayson (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

MRAP

Hi

I received a notification that you'd reverted one of my edits but I don't think you have at all... you've just very competently completed what I started. I'm guessing you decided to base your work on an earlier version of the article, and that triggered the automatic notification.

Current version certainly doesn't have the problem that I set out to address, and I confess to knowing little about the topic but so as far as I can tell it's a good result. Andrewa (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I undid your removal of a partial source [partial revert] when restored the text with in an older version of the article. Someone can remove the paragraph or tag the text if they have a good reason(s). --Finlayson (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's roughly but not quite as I suspected, I just didn't notice that this was a previous version unmodified. I'm not familiar with the exact logic of the automatic notification, but I'm guessing that all editors who have made edits since the version now restored received a similar message. Hopefully they will respond positively.

The intent of my edit and that of the further edits foreshadowed in my edit summary has been addressed, and I must leave it to more knowledgeable editors to take it further if they can. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

About your latest edits to the "Aircraft specifications" template...

They moved the "More general" field before the engine data. Trouble is, this contradicts the template's current documentation, which reads "If there is any information that needs to be added after the engine specs, it should be added using the parameter {{{more general}}}. eg |more general=engines coupled through gearbox." It also breaks the specs layout for at least one article, Handley Page Type W, and perhaps for others describing multiengine aircraft with heterogeneous engines (I haven't checked). I'm not sure about the best way to solve this dilemma, though; I just thought I should bring it to your attention --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• I moved the template fields so it actually matches the documentation page under Usage where the template fields are listed. This part was there well before the rest of the documentation was written. Because of that I had missed the details in the text before you mentioned it, sorry. There should be a "more general powerplant" field like the later "more performance" field, huh? --Finlayson (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• I added the "more general powerplant" field and adjusted fields in Handley_Page Type W#Specifications (W.8f) to try and fix the formatting. Does that display as intended? --Finlayson (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, yeah. Thanks for the quick response! --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry (U-2S/TU-2S)

i was a bit confused thanks for fixing it though Muttema (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Muttema: Not a problem. The article probably does not have much info on the trainer variants. --Finlayson (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eivindgh

User:Eivindgh, I get the feeling this account has been compromised, talk page subjects don't seem to support recent editing pattern. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it looked like something along those lines. --Finlayson (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

F-14

Hello Fnlayson, I often have a bit of difficulty because too many wikipedia editors' explanatory comments are too brief or vague. Regarding minor edits to the F-14 page, each TF30 engine had more than 1 pound of thrust, so the plural "lbs" was appropriate, but I won't change your changes. Maybe abbreviations vary in different parts of the world? More importantly, "SLS rating" most certainly is not vague/undefined. Such a comment from someone familiar(?) with aviation is shocking. JTF17A (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with some specific engine terms, but it does really not matter here. Wikipedia is not a technical publication. Acronyms need to be defined in the text for all to understand. lbs is an older abbreviation for pounds. Modern abbreviations do not include an s for plural; see also Wikipedia MOS:ABBR page. --Finlayson (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I got it - titles in service branch articles

I'm fixing them now. - ^theWOLFchild 13:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm helping/helped too. --Finlayson (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI - in the infobox for USMC, the label "Commander-in-Chief" links to Commander-in-Chief#United_States and then the title of "President" preceding Donald Trump links to POTUS.

However, the other 4 branches, USN, US Army, USAF & USCG, the infobox label "CiC" links to POTUS and the title preceding Trumps name is "President" in plain text.

Do the 4 need to be changed? Or just USMC? I have no preference, I'm just looking for consistency and uniformity across all 5. Thats why I was changing some of them in the first place. (that and adding branch-correct abbreviations). - ^theWOLFchild 14:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter much to me, since the Commander-in-Chief title comes with being President. But C in C is more accurate from a military perspective. Does the "C in C" apply to the Coast Guard in peacetime? --Finlayson (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think... so...? Thats a good question. I'm gonna have to look that up. - ^theWOLFchild 15:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Answer to that is that the USCG is always military (and as such the POTUS has the same role with it as any of the other services). I actually started a discussion at Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief on that topic and would like your imput as well Fnlayson. Technically my point is that CINC isn't actually a title used, but more on that on the talk page.Garuda28 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll look into that discussion. --Finlayson (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Fnlayson. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I am looking through the tutorial.. --Finlayson (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Insertcleverphrasehere: I am interested helping in reviewing new pages. Thanks -Finlayson (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

When you are ready you can drop in an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks -Finlayson (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Fnlayson. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Finlayson (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: Thank you for the interest! Alex Shih (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

F-22 stuck canopy issue

Hello, Fnlayson. Thank you for your edit on f-22 accident section! You argued that the stuck canopy and subsequent sawing is a minor incident and thus can't be in the accident section. I agree that the issue had been solved with much less damage in compare with those that on the section.

At the same time I have to refer here to the Cambridge dictionary which defines: a)'accident' as I quote 'something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone' b)'incident' as 'an event that is either unpleasant or unusual'.

According to the details of the stuck canopy issue it can't be taken as an incident since it's neither unpleasant no unusual but unacceptable and dangerous accident instead. But the pilot was unable to solve the problem by himself and the destructive method had been applied to the aircraft. The life of the pilot was under threat since unusual application of heavy machinery and expensive damage had been given to the aircraft.

This could have been be a minor incident(unpleasant and unusual) if the canopy then suddenly became controllable and no damages were taken to the aircraft.

Hope I managed to make the point. Thank you.

Samvel khachaturians (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

References

This should be discussed on the article's talk page so others will see and can comment on. Trying to apply a basic dictionary definition to a specific case isn't appropriate. The criteria for an aviation accident, such as a class A mishap used to be a $1 million in damage for the US military. That cost has probably gone up in the last decade or so as well. Check out WP:Air/PC for the Aircraft project guidelines. --Finlayson (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

MiG-31 combat radius/Interception range

Interception range in this case means combat operation range were you basicly loiter, Cap , etc Also in other words combat radius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.112.113 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but both sources list range [not radius]. --Finlayson (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

North American XB-70 Valkyrie

Hello, Fnlayson. I'm from Russia. I want to clarify the question of cruise-speed B-70. Your article says that the cruise was 3 mach, and in Russian literature it is written that Valkyrie had a cruise of 1.5-2 Mach, and 3 Mach - maximal speed with afterburner (which increased the thrust from 650 to 830 kN - that is almost 30%). Indeed, if he flies 3 Mach without afterburner then why does he forcing afterburner? Thank you for attention. Georg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.50.30 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've worked on that article a lot, but it is not my article. Its basic cruise speed was near Mach 3. I've never seen anything about Mach 1.5 to 2.0. It had variable geometry inside the intakes to allow for the higher mach speeds. Use the article's talk page for such questions in the future. Good day. --Finlayson (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

EQ-4B (in service now)

Hey, just noticed on the USAF page that you said the EQ-4Bs are out of service. Did a quick search and the most recent article I can find on them is from 2017 and nothing about retirements. (http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1140733/around-the-air-force-april-4/, https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08/23/northrops-fix-for-f-35-and-f-22-communications-problems-involves-global-hawk-uavs/) Just wondering where that peice of info is from. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was the EQ-4 is not yet in operational service, not that it has been retired. Military aircraft generally have to reach initial operational capability to be in service and able to be sent into combat. I understand the EQ-4 has been in testing. I have not seen any news that it has reached operational capability, but maybe I've missed this. --Finlayson (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles above have sources saying that they’ve been used in OIR. My impression was that it was in service back in 2012 (but reguardless it definitely is now).Garuda28 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it has been fielded and used a good bit by 2015.[1] I'll restore the entry in the USAF article. --Finlayson (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Remember that Jesus is the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours!

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Finlayson (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you and yours Bzuk! -Finlayson (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Fnlayson. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,001 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think I'd be overextended with this. But I'll consider signing up as project members. Thanks -Finlayson (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Fnlayson, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A-10 Warthog

You seem to have multiple awards of every aviation related barnstar, ever; so I thought I'd just quickly doff my hat to a very deftly handled compromise over the weighty issue of bold fonts on the above mentioned article. And it is an improvement IMHO: as someone who has encountered the Warthog in the odd video game, youtube video, science/history article and/or podcast, but is not an aviation enthusiast, I had never heard its official name. I think I knew that "Warthog" was a nickname but assumed it would be analogous to the Mitsubishi A6M Zero: in that article, the "Zero", even in the bold-ed first sentence, is scare-marked (the nondescript numbers-and-letters designation was the official name; the "Zero" a code/nickname that stuck, with both sides; and hence by which it's now commonly known. No?). I assumed the A-10 would be similar; I didn't know it also had a scary official name like "Thunderbolt". And when you cited WP:BOLD I had to go re-acquaint myself, and there's this "Principle of least astonishment", which you must know encourages the title and bold-ed terms not to confuse a layman. And when I searched "A-10 Warthog" and got to a "Thunderbolt II" I was indeed thinking "is this the right one? Are there multiple variations? (which of course with so many warplanes there are). Although I only needed to read a couple of sentences to see it Anyway, it's not like I'm coming here congratulating you on an FA; but just saying that was a painless win-win, and hence an uncommon rarity in Wiki IME. Have a nice day. bridies (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The aircraft's official U.S. military designation and name is "A-10 Thunderbolt II" with a letter for each variant. Warthog and other similar names are nicknames. I left Warthog bolded in my last edit as a compromise. Please use article's talk page for further discussion related to the article. That is the talk page's purpose. -Finlayson (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

F-16 Falcon production

G'day Mate {{Lovetravel86}} I have made changes to the F16 Falcon page. Production has ended and I have added references from the many news stories about the production closure. Do not despair its more like a break. In two years production will restart for US allies in SC. I'm doubtful that it will restart but it will. Check my references and you will agree. Let me know if this is the right page to reply on? I never really reply to talk pages. Thankyou Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetravel86 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if this should be listed as an end of production since this is a break. I've listed this as "1973–2017, 2019–" on the F-16 article at least for now. -Finlayson (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Army size

Just to clarify for the US Army page i just moved the comment about it being the largest service down to the part of the intro paragraph that delt with size, so land warfare service branch could come first, like in the other services articles - I made sure all info and commentary was preserved in the intro. Garuda28 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I had missed that in the diff before. Thanks for the note. -Finlayson (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Take care. -Finlayson (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Training~with~Marines

You did a partial revert of an edit to United States Marine Corps article regarding the Seabees. The material you put back was a previous edit of mine so it was a surprise to me to see it go back. Thank you. Another editor moved some other material to the NOTES section that I‎ really think should be in the same paragraph. Would you be so good as to review that. Thank you.

Excuse me for assuming you have an interest in the USMC but I will. I made an edit to another USMC article Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (also concerning the Seabees) which was completely deleted. The Seabees trained at the Camp at New River the attached document is in the Seabee Archives, Port Hueneme, CA. I will request your review of that one too.

And, if you happen to actually be USMC I would recommend that section in the Seabee article as possibly being of interest to you. Thank you againMcb133aco (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mcb133aco: You should discuss this on the article's talk page. I'd probably be like a bull in a china shop getting involved with a new article on an issue I know little about. -Finlayson (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL that was an honest reply. ThanksMcb133aco (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Lockheed C-130 (removal of Australia from Lead)

For some reason Australia is being singled out as a buyer of this aircraft despite the fact the Herc was sold to a vast array of nations right from the outset. When I edit the text to reflect this it is reverted as some kind of npov conflict even though I'm actually making the text more neutral, not less. 221.118.107.207 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. Removing text such as this with no explanation provided appeared to be non-neutral. According a book (ISBN 1-904687-84-9) I have, Australia was the first and only export of the original C-130A variant; all other exports were for later variants. Please use the C-130's talk page for article related discussion in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

fyi: "reporting"

Governments can issue reports, (they do all the time), doesn't mean it has anything to do with "the media". Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 22:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but releasing a report is not quite the same as reporting, at least in common usage from my experience. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

KC-46 Pegasus

I updated the Boeing KC-767 article following suggestion as in your edit summary ( the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus ). In the end I don't think it's the correct arrangement. The KC-767 is full of a supposed Commercial Derivative program which can be found only quite very far over Kansas, it's https://wingsoverkansas.com/features/a894/. I don't see clearly what better coherence there is between the USAF problems and maintenance costs, and a program concerning mainly the Italian and Japanese Air forces anyway. --Askedonty (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You should use the article's talk page for article related discussions. The KC-767 was what the US Air Force was to lease/buy before those plans fell through. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Askedonty: I think the Boeing KC-767 article is pretty clear that it was selected by the USAF for procurement. Try reading through it again. If you have questions or comments on that article use its talk page (Talk:Boeing KC-767) to post them. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Question (archiving)

With Miszabot and User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn both deactivated, isn't a different bot needed for archiving? (eg: Lowercase sigmabot III) Thanks - wolf 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's probably right. I hadn't checked on bot status in a while. I'll try to fix that... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival, lowercase sigmabot III will do MiszaBot's job now. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know. But I might have to keep an eye on that, 'cuz I've seen pages with the Miszabot I template that hadn't been archived in years. Anyhow, thanks. - wolf 21:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Try adjusting the archive settings or switch to the User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis archive template where needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Or point me at it. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do one or the other on any high-traffic talk pages I come across that need it, but for some of the slower pages, the archiving is the first time in 10+ years, so I just do it manually. - wolf 04:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, can you check the bot on Talk:United States Armed Forces? There's some old messages there. If it's just the signatures, I'll check them with the history and correct them with unsigned templates. Just want to know that otherwise its archiving like it should. Thanks - wolf 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• The top 2 posts were not signed properly and the archive settings kept 5 sections (|minthreadsleft=5; I changed to the default, 4). I archived a very old post manually and added an unsigned tag to the other. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Firearms link

Hi Fnlayson, just noticed this edit. FYI, I just posted about this editor's contributions at WikiProject Firearms. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good job SpicyChallenger (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@SpicyChallenger: Thanks, though I've done nothing special for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching this. Apparently I'm not very observant today Sario528 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sario528: That's alright. I just combined those sections. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Remember that Jesus is the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours!

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas to you too Bzuk! -Fnlayson (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your great work on aviation articles. Thanks! Sario528 (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Sario528! Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Help out with a GA nomination (Su-57)

Hey Fnlayson, I recently nominated Sukhoi Su-57 to good article status and I was wondering if you can do step 4 in the good article nomination process. I believe that the Sukhoi Su-57 fit all criteria but I am not a military expert or a jet expert, so I was wondering if you can do this step for me. Thanks. - Josephua (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm no sure how reliable some of the sources in that article are and can't read Russian. I don't think I can help. You probably should have asked for help from others before nominating. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I had asked other users such as BlackFlanker and MilborneOne as they are also active editors in the article. - Josephua (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• You notified others at Talk:Sukhoi Su-57 about a planned nomination for GA a couple of weeks ago. But the request for help and/or discussion of what needs correcting came at the same time as the nomination. I've tried to help fix articles before with a late notification and find it nothing but an uphill battle, especially finding needed citations with little time to work. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry about the inconvenience that I gave to you. I think the article is fine the way it is and does not need anything as of now. All I ask if the reviewer asks questions and things that need fixing, you can be there to provide for that reviewer. Sorry if I did not make this request clear. - Josephua (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• OK, but my comments here are only meant for future reference, i.e. next time. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing Su-57, some broken refs

Hey, I'm reviewing the nom for GA on Sukhoi Su-57 and I think it's pretty good except for some broken refs to janes.com and ruaviation.com. I'm no expert on the aircraft and you seem to be the most interested in it so thought I'd check if you had any input. Thanks! WelpThatWorked (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• @WelpThatWorked: I try to keep a watch on that article along with many others. I did not support nominating the Su-57 article for GA. So I'm not going out of my way to help there. Ask the nominator instead. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Caliber 5.56mm"

Hello. I noticed your edit summary on M16 rifle, so I thought I'd point out that .223" (which refers to the bullet diameter, and, in theory at least, to the diameter of the bore measured between the grooves, the way calibers are measured in the US) equals 5.664 mm, while 5.56 mm refers to the diameter of the bore measured between the lands, the way calibers are measured in Europe. Which means that the US military uses the European caliber name, and European way of measuring calibers (just like they do with the 9x19mm), not the US name for it, probably as a side effect of deciding to go metric many years ago. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh OK. I had thought one measure is for the bullet diameter and the other is for the bore. I had not read about the two ways to measure bore before. Thanks for the info! I mentioned the US equiv in the edit summary to provide some size context. The approx. equal symbol (≈) would be more appropriate. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the same with the "7.62x51mm", also known as the ".308 Winchester", .308" equals 7.823 mm (.308*25.4mm) and refers to the bullet diameter (and diameter of the bore between the grooves), while 7.62 mm (which equals .3" exactly) refers to the diameter of the bore between the lands (i.e. the diameter of the bore before the rifling grooves are cut). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Collaborative editing of Dire Straits

Hi Fnlayson. I wanted to reach out to you to thank you for your contributions the to Dire Straits article: 148 edits, 2875 characters, and ongoing monitoring of others edits is impressive. I publicly "thanked" you for your reversions and modifications of my edits to signal to you that I agreed with your edit of my edit. Also, thank you for your full explanations of your edits and you civil tone.

I am reading between the lines here that you have reviewed each of my 29 edits as I did them, modified or reverted those you disagreed with, and left alone those you had no objection to. Recently CodyLewis17 reverted all my edits, with justification "too many edits to clean up". I personally stick to reverting one edit at a time anything I disagree with, with a full explanation. I plan to add back most of my edits one at a time, with ample time between them for discussion on the Talk page if CodyLewis17 objects: if they are reverted again by CodyLewis17, I would appreciate your participating in any discussion that may ensue.

L or R margin is not a big issue: if you disagree with my personal guidelines as stated in my most recent edit, I will defer to you. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If you having issues with an article use the article's talk page to discuss it. That's what article talk pages are for and editors involved with the page might see it. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, as I indicated, that's what I plan to do. Just wanted to send a personal note thanking you for looking over my shoulder at my edits...IiKkEe (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings section

Hi, just happen to be passing through this morning, and thought I'd say Hi. It's been a long time since I edited anything. Life seems full. Take care. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Founders. Thanks for stopping by. I hope you are doing well. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Rush discography

Could you take a look at the last few edits by 212.187.46.221 on Rush_discography? Just seems odd. Seems like a lot of effort to determine whether a song was released in each country; but, maybe he/she did. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I'll add that to my watchlist abd look at that a little later. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• @BigJoeRockHead: The changes by the IPer there mainly affected the Singles table [and seemed minor]. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Airliners: Design Spec Weights

Keeping in mind that I've seen your Tag on a wide range of edits on aerospace pages : I've noticed that for some types the MZFW ( Max Zero Fuel Weight ) has been dropped and/or some value for "Payload" added in. Any special reason? ( while keeping in mind that MZFW is a hard Design point from the manufacturer just like MTOW and OEW being a layout and thus airline dependent value. Payload accordingly is rather variable ( diff OEW to MZFW ))ZwergAlw (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall removing those spec values myself, but it was probably done because those are seen as manual type values and out of scope for Wikipedia per WP:NOTMANUAL. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Just asking for your insight. There is no manufacturer value for "payload" around. ( Only what is handed out in PR pamphlets. ) i.e. there is no source.ZwergAlw (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You could cite to the pamphlet if needed (temporally at least). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZwergAlw: Do you need some help with this on particular articles? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Tranche

FWIW, tranche is used a fair amount in US financial media, usually in the same context as the VC-25 article – for a piece of a multi-round financing plan. Ngrams shows even somewhat higher usage in American English (2009) vs. British English (2009). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Good info, thanks. I just have not seen the word used much at all in US media articles or elsewhere, for whatever that's worth. The wording in the VC-25 article did need some clarifying. The text was referring to a new contract which is more accurate and clear. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Walter Banks

Hey, I don't know if you're interested, but I just created Draft:Walter Banks. I hope to have it ready by July 5, perhaps with a DYK, on his bobblehead day. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've heard of him from Braves ads. I'll try to help with that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Tomcats and AMRAAM

The same ip editor that has been adding AMRAAM to the Tomcat article has also been adding the Tomcat to the AMRAAM article. Sario528 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sario528: Thanks, I had not checked the AMRAAM article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

about my edit on northrop grumman B-2 spirit

Spirit of Mississippi was shot down and fall in to Croatia during the '99. NATO bombing of Srebia. It was shot down with same battery that shot down F-111 . I can track and find you more info about this. US and NATO didn't recognise this loos ,not even today . PakleniVuk (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering that was a few years before it was deemed operational, that will be hard to prove.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• No cite, no proof. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editions in Rainbow articles

User 190.5.32.179 is removing the sourced genre "power metal" in the articles Long Live Rock 'n' Roll and Rising. The only argument he used was "In that year power metal did not exist, power metal is stratovarius, galneryus, skywings, balflare, heavenly etc", I replied him but he still insists in removing the genre without another argument. He doesn't even write an edit summary to reply me. You already warned him in his talk page. --Marcos FTO (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for update and good work. I've only been watching the main Rainbow article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

He still insists in removing the genre without any argument in these two articles... Please, somebody need to do something. --Marcos FTO (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I've added those album articles to my watchlist to help. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, it's me again... the reported user is still insinsting in removing sourced genres, now in Stratovarius: take a look on the history. --Marcos FTO (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Marcos FTO: You are getting out what I'm familiar with here. i suggest you ask for help with the WP:Metal at WT:METAL (or another related music project that could help) instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

717 edit

The FAA type certificate actually lists the 717-200 as a DC-9 variant, so it is a DC-9.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/c1817d49c964876886256b1400759d25/$FILE/A6WE.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wake me up before you buy some Pabst Blue Ribbon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, plenty of variants and derivatives are done that way on the type certificates. It is part of the DC-9 family. So what? Use the article's talk page in the future as the notes at top of this talk page request. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hawker Siddeley Harrier...

In your version of the infobox, the model name (Harrier) appears twice.

Also, spaces around slashes/strokes/obliques (i.e. "G.R.1 / G.R.4" and "Harrier / Matador") are totally unnecessary, archaic and, to me at least, ugly.

So I don't agree with your reversion of the infobox. But whatever.

Grant | Talk 15:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not my version. The manufacturer(s) is listed in a separate field in the Infobox. The name has been largely unchanged for several years and the article reached Good Article status. But this should be discussed on the article's talk page as requested at the top of this talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, but what about the other two other issues I just mentioned? Grant | Talk 15:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Use Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier for discussing this any more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ I agree with you not a place for that ~ but no matter how much we fight it ~ there will always be some yahoo ~ thinking it's the most important thing with the MAX ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: Thanks, but I really did next to nothing to your text. Do take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

NASA#Facilities edit

Thanks for cleaning this up for me; I had to quit in a hurry before I was really done. Do you think bulleted list format is better than prose format (when the edit is done with text paragraphs for each facility)? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't like lists that much, but a lot of the entries are short enough for a list. If the short items were expended some, then it could be switched to paragraph entries, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance templates (moved, not removed)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from articles, as you did at Boeing MQ-25 Stingray, while the issues they describe remain unaddressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I never removed the tag from that article, only moved it and changed to the section one. It would have help if you listed more specifics on issues in the tag or the talk page. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox (more than 4 users)

Sir, Today I made an edit on dassult rafale's primary users and I added Indian air force and now its removed. Though it is clear from the aircrafts users map the blue one is depecting its current users and light blue one are those who are going to use it. Now the map shows the light coloured one to Qatar as well as India but in the info box the Qatar air force is mentioned but the Indian air force is removed though Indian air force is also its operator can you please add Indian air force in info box? Ritvik0 (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ritvik0: Evidently you did not read or fully understand my edit summary about that. Per Template:Infobox aircraft type, WP:Aircraft practice and in the hidden notes, only 3 'more users' and 4 total are listed in the Infobox. There is an Operators section later in the article that list all users. Please use the relevant article's talk page for questions like this in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Line breaks in wikitext

Hi, I often use line breaks in the wikitext when *adding* content. They don't show in the resulting article: a paragraph is distinguished by 2 line breaks, not 1. This is the wikimedia parser emulating the html < p > tags. I do not add line breaks gratuitously, only for new additions. I find it more useful to rearrange easily sentences from 1 paragraph to another one, and to keep refs at the end of each sentence. It's a personal taste, but I don't try to impose it on others. Other editors do the same, while some don't use them. Whatever your taste is, it would be nice to avoid removing them for cosmetic reasons, to have your preferred wikitext style: it masks the diff between versions, for no difference in the final output, like this or this. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding extra line breaks does mess up the diff between the versions and my main reason for removing them. It can the difficult enough to compare changes already. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As stated, I put line breaks only in new parts, not in already existing, so it's the opposite: removing those confuses the diffs. Can you point me to an obfuscating diff due to my recent edits adding too many line breaks? Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not really. I try to clean up the formatting in a section or more of an article at one time. Starting a new sentence on a separate line can look somewhat like full paragraph break was meant. I'll try to be more tolerate with line breaks and such. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, what obfuscation? (I'm especially curious about my work on Hubble.) Brogo13 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Brogo13, if you mean me, I have only removed some extra blank lines after images in the Hubble article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• After images – mains, see alsos, lists, ad nauseam – and before paragraphs. (Between is almost as vague^{shut up, Beavis} as "extra".) Brogo13 (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to U-2 article

   On 12-2-19 I added the following to "line 184" of the Lockheed U-2 article in the "Cuba" section:  "For a period between 1990 and 1995 U-2 flights originated or terminated on a nearly daily basis at Albrook USAF base in the Panama Canal Zone."   (I realize now that I got the years wrong here.  I should have said “For a period between 1960 and 1965….”   I would like to correct this error of mine.  I am not sure how to correct both of the errors I describe here.)

  Apparently you changed my wording later the same day to "From 1990 to 1995 U-2 flights originated or terminated on a nearly daily basis at Albrook USAF base in the Panama Canal Zone."

  While your version might read more smoothly than mine, your version is NOT true regardless of the years quoted.  I am confident that the flights in question did NOT take place for the entire 4 years from 1960 to 1965.  My basis for my version is that I was an eye witness (and I would be willing to swear an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of my report).  I attended Balboa High School from 1960 to 1965, and I remember very well U-2’s taking off and landing VERY close to our school (so close that lectures had to be stopped while they passed within a few feet of the building).  This happened on a nearly daily basis for a period that lasted at least several weeks, but not four years.  Unfortunately, I am not able to establish the dates when these landings and take-offs occurred beyond the fact that they occurred while I was a student there.  It was for this reason that I used the awkward wording, “For a period between…”
      Thousands of residents of the Canal Zone were aware of these take-offs and landings, and we were familiar with the unique shape and landing technique of U-2s from magazine photographs and newsreel video.   A reliable informant also reported to me conversations with pilots of such planes who confirmed that their planes were U-2s.

     I am also surprised that you will not accept another Wikipedia article as an adequate citation for my report in the next sentence of the 1966 atmospheric testing conducted from Albrook.

     I did not try to post this on the article's talk page because I am not interested in giving the widest possible distribution to these comments.

     I am obviously not familiar with how to do this, and if you would like to get in touch with me, my email address is nkennington@juno.com.

Nkennington (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC) --Nkennington (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Another wiki page is not a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. You need to provide a valid source to support such addtions. I removed the wiki reference, moved the new text to be in chronological order, and cleaned up the wording & formatting slightly (see diff [here). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Nkennington: Was the period 1990 to 1995 or 1960 to 1965? Your text listed the former and I left the years unchanged. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Fnlayson: I don't know how to respond to your comments. The Wikipedia pages on how to do this make no sense. The period was 1960

to 1965. You did NOT merely "clean up the wording", you changed the meaning of my edit so that it was wrong. You should read my original comment above. Nkennington (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)--Nkennington (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am not going to argue about my short descriptions here any more. Please use the article's talk page at Talk:Lockheed U-2 for further discussion. Or make the corrections to the article text yourself with sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Bzuk. Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Remember that Jesus is the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours!

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you and yours also. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Bill! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Hi Fnlayson, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at aircraft-related articles. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Zaereth! Yes, Christmas is appropriate for me, see holiday message above. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Fnlayson!

Happy New Year!

Hello Fnlayson:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks so much User:Donner60! Have a great one yourself! -Fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737

I have made a proposal to restructure the B737 page at Talk:Boeing_737#Restructure_of_article. Your input is invited. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ex nihil: Thanks, I'll see if there's anything to add there... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment about references, we have some editors that keep changing figures but cant be bothered to update the references. The website on the date quoted does not support the figures that have been changed. I appreciate it is not difficult to update the website date and the access date but it really needs to be done, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I just did those updates here. Give an editor some time to do it... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, problem is that others dont ever update the dates. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• True mostly -Fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

M4 carbine

The M4 war list is from 2016. It was removed by RAF910 and created this page: List of conflicts and wars fought with M16 rifles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/719286310 ColorfulSmoke (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And you removed valid references with no explanation and no source provided for the additions. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

M4 use in Burundi is dubious. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but article issues should be discussed on the article's talk page (Talk:M4 carbine). Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for removing Burundi, it's because i never seen M4s used in African conflicts, also rebels are not military or police users. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not really that big of a deal to me. And your reason makes sense. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, should i remove it or just leave it alone? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need to cite sources on the M4 war list? Like the Colombian conflict, 2006 Lebanon War, Mexican Drug War and Russo-Georgian War. These wars are valid because Colombia, Israel, Lebanon, Mexico and Georgia uses the M4. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@ColorfulSmoke: In general because it is Wikipedia policy per WP:Verify. And I have not tagged any of that in weeks. Please use the article's talk page (Talk:M4 carbine) as requested before. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What the heck?? (Trash Pandas)

Rocket City Trash Pandas??? Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You must mean the name, trash pandas. That came from local fan polls. I've gotten use to the name. Also, the minor league team in Montgomery is named the Biscuits. The team's stadium is actually in Madison, adjacent to Huntsville, for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Trash Pandas was just a bit jarring, like the new name for SunTrust Park. They pay executives millions of dollars, and no one could figure out that the new name's initials could be taken to mean toilet paper??!! Mets fans are going to have a field day with that one! (I understood Madison was a suburb of Huntsville, hence not wanting to use that name.) - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I had not thought of the initials, LOL! Oh well. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of people have. Photos of the stadium with a roll of toilet paper sitting above the new name have already been made. That and TeePee/TiPi. - BilCat (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Concorde fleet [total]

Hi, Fnlayson. About this edit [2], were builted 20 Concorde (including 2 prototypes - 001/002 and two pre-production - 101/102), not 26. The Concorde fleet.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I matched what is cited in the Infobox. I don't have access to the main source (Towey, Jet Airliners of the World, ISBN 978-0-85130-348-2) to verify the 26 total. I will have to check other sources I have at home after work. Please move further discussion to the article's talk page (Talk:Concorde), thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

removing line breaks

Please avoid removing line breaks for the sake of it, it makes it difficult to see differences between versions. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to remember. But adding line breaks when they weren't there before in other articles does that also. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I avoid adding gratuitous line breaks, I use the "show changes" button to see the diff most of the time, but if one slips by, please do remind me! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyphens (Ships format)

Hey, I was somewhat surprised to see that the Ships guideline still recommended hyphens. However, given the campaign to turn all hyphens into n-dashes, I fully expect the guideline to be challenged before too long. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not run across the ship guideline before. Thanks BC, -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

L-1011 (in service)

Hello, sorry about that. I was in a hurry when I did the edit, and then when I noticed that someone had reverted it back to the original, I edited it again. I'm kinda new at this, but now I have a few moments to explain. I saw on Facebook yesterday that someone in a group I belong to which follows this plane, that it flew from Edwards Air Force Base to San Bernadino. And they provided a link on Flight Aware where you could trace the plane's route. That's where I got it from. It flew yesterday for sure. This plane is still active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxcarphilly (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sure it probably [is]. Details such as this should be sourced so others can check and verify things, especially controversial claims. I'll stop there before going off on a tangent. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Skylab

Ask Dianna for {{PD-notice}}, it's the user who wrote me to do this after each ref.

@CRS-20:Yes, and again each footnote points to a citation that has such a notice. [And] Why should heroicrelics.org be listed as public domain? It is just someone's web personal page from all the about and contact info listed there. Be sure to sign your posts on talk pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Firefly

Yeah, the IP was correct. Not sure how that stood in the article for so long in all fairness (and the battle isn't named on screen but heavily named in scripts etc), but once I noticed it it stood out like a sore thumb. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes and thanks for catching that. I'm rusty on Firefly and had forgotten the details of that episodes (and others too). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Time for that rewatch :) Canterbury Tail talk 15:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

@Donner60: Thanks so much! You have reminded me to put up my annual Christmas & New Year's message. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Earthrise, taken on December 24, 1968, by Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Remember that Jesus is the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours!

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks. That's why they put DELETE buttons on computers. 23:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen, You're welcome but that was a very minor edit. It's always good to double checks one's work... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for this edit on North American XB-70 Valkyrie. I made a clumsy mistake using the visual editor & sorry you had to tidy it up. Mark83 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome Mark. I've seen the 'no wiki' code added like that accidentally, probably something spurious from the visual editor. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying semicolons in lists vs. pseudoheaders

Hello! I noticed you reverted my edit to change the list structure for Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet operators, with the argument that the bold text was part of the list. As I understand MOS:PSUEDOHEAD and MOS:DEFLIST, the semi-colon bolding would be used if it was a list of terms, followed by a value for that term. As I interpret the list of operators, these are pseudo headers, as they state a country that operates that Super Hornet, and then under each country there is a list of Super Hornet units; the countries themselves are headers for lists of the units. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but could you clarify how the countries are part of the list and should use semi-colon notation, as it doesn't make sense to me. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been fairly standard format om WP:Air aircraft articles in the Operators sections for several years now. These lists follow the same structure as what is shown at Help:List, unless I'm missing some small detail. These are not section header-like things, imo. So I don't think MOS:PSEUDOHEAD applies. You're welcome to bring this up at WT:Air or WT:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) if you like. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

My thought is the list in question are the lists of units for a given country, and the country names are pseudoheaders for each of the respective lists. However, I don't mean to come to a new project and try to change convention for the sake of changing convention, and will leave the issue alone. Thanks for the reply! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I see your point. The examples at Help:List indicates that the semicolon entries are part of a long list. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Airbus A380

EntVenturing admitted on his talk page he is adding his own papers to Wikipedia. That is why I labeled it self promotion. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, it first appeared you were referring to the article text, and removed the source with it. I see get your point now. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I should have used a clearer edit summary. I apologize for the lack of clarity. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, that OK. I assumed the usual case of non-neutral/biased text. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky

Hi, I've filed a request for indefinite semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Hopefully that will be applied soon, or a longer temporary protection this time. BilCat (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: OK, thanks for requesting protection there. This article greatly needs some protection. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A-10 Thunderbolt 57 mm cannon shell survivability

I've posted two other sources stating that the a-10 thunderbolt is only able to survive indirect hits from 57 mm cannon shells.

I want to note also that during firing testing for a certain period of time, the US military recorded both shrapnel hits and direct hits as hits, this was notable during the M247/T249 Vigilante competition. Perhaps this is the source of confusion over A-10 being able to survive 57 mm hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Flammedice: Alright, but try to use the article's talk page for article specific issues so more users will see your post. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Predator Lawsuit

Look I don’t know how to properly add new things to pages. Hasn’t anyone noticed that there’s a current lawsuit against Disney for the rights to Predator? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@0Detail-Attention215: Why are you posting this on my user page and not some related article? I'll delete this if there's not a good reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@0Detail-Attention215: I saw your email about this lawsuit stuff but I'm not interested. Use the talk page for the Predator (franchise) article (or other related Predator article). Good day. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discuss further on relevant article's talk page, if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Title says "Saab JAS 39 Gripen" is its name and lead also has name "Saab JAS 39 Gripen" and it is manufactured by Saab AB, not Saab. Eurohunter (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Read the instructions for the Infobox template at Template:Infobox aircraft type and try to follow them instead of making up your own rules. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What it has to that you choose and create OR names? Aircraft has its own name - you use its name if so you have to add the same name in article title, lead and infobox otherwise it doesn't makes sense. If something has own name what is the point to change it only in infobox and why just there? Eurohunter (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I did not do anything except defend the consensus (no reason to 'blame' me here). Bring it up on the article's talk page if needed. The name has surely been discussed there before. I'll be closing this discussion here a little later. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smelling errors

"Revert out of oder change, that also removed the reference for no clear reason". I hate having to Czech my smelling in edit summaries. :) BilCat (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my typing skills are merely adequate except when rushing they are extra poor. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Same here, but I contribute to Wikipedia using a touch tablet, so it's even more atrocious. Worse is my tendency to hit the.period.instead.of.the.spacebar, especially in edit.summaries. BilCat (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)